Respect is the ultimate enabler of freedom, which is particularly important in the contemporary environment. It is present in many forms and aspects, but the acceptance of others’ religious remains the cornerstone of a democratic society. Indeed, the right to exercise one’s beliefs, customs, and traditions is a fundamental one. Moreover, it is protected by the United States Constitution, confirming the essential status of freedom for the entire nation. However, the threshold between the infringement of freedom and the necessary aspects of modern civilization. While some of them may be driven by good intentions, they continue to contradict the centuries-old traditions of certain groups. Such situations pose dilemmas for the legal system, as it is necessary to strike a balance between respect for freedom and the common well-being of the nation. Vaccination is one of such acute questions, as the Christian worldview often interprets it as the equivalent of trusting humankind over God. The purpose of this paper is to review the dilemma in the context of the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion. Historically, American society aimed at ensuring all forms of liberty within the country. The United States Constitution has been reinforcing this idea, and its First Amendment is one of the key instruments in this regard. According to the U.S. Courts, the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion while securing citizens’ right to exercise the religion of their preference. 1 At the same time, all states require children to undergo mandatory vaccination before being enrolled in schools. However, the current legislative framework provides a range of exemptions based on medical, religious, and philosophical factors. 2 . The clash between these requirements and anti-vaccination movements became more evident in 2015, following the measles outbreak in Disneyland in California. Pierik writes that the situation prompted individuals and organizations to re-evaluate their perception of non-medical exemptions. 3 Nevertheless, their very existence is conditioned by the United States Constitution, meaning that the matter continues to pose dilemmas for society. From one perspective, if personal religious views do not align with vaccinations, they are to be respected. This is exactly the case of the Yoder family, who believe that vaccinating their children would imply that they rely on people instead of the Lord. If this notion is embedded in Yoders’ religious worldview, it is the Court’s constitutional obligation to respect it. Evidently, the recent outbreaks contributed to the pro-vaccination movements, but, as of now, the legislative aspect is on Yoders’ side. Pennsylvania recognizes not only the religious basis for non-medical exemption but also the philosophical one. 4 . Accordingly, the state law guarantees Yoders an opportunity to prevent their children from being vaccinated until new bills are introduced to cause a shift in the current paradigm. In conclusion, the freedom to exercise one’s preferred religion is ensured by the United States Constitution and its First Amendment. Beliefs are necessary for one’s inner peace and spiritual development, and the government is expected to recognize the delicate nature of religious views. De