Psychedelic Drugs and Religion

[Elind]

If a religion wanted to use a human sacrifice and the sacrifice wanted to be sacrificed shouldn’t that be allowed?

Perhaps the question should be whether it is a religion, followed by the question; what is a religion; followed by the question; why make such exceptions if most would consider them exceptions?

 

[pmurray]

If a religion wanted to use a human sacrifice and the sacrifice wanted to be sacrificed shouldn’t that be allowed?

I recall a story about some witches during some war in england or somewhere doing a skyclad ritual in winter where some of the pariticipants voluntarily forwent the usual goosefat coating, in order to human-sacrifice themselves.

 

[Tony]

From the article:

The law was a response to a 1990 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom does not require the government to tolerate the peyote rituals of the Native American Church. While the First Amendment bars the government from deliberately targeting a specific religion, the Court said, it does not require exemptions from "neutral laws of general applicability" that happen to interfere with religious practices.

Does anyone else have a problem when the SCOTUS splits hairs like this?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by TonyDoes anyone else have a problem when the SCOTUS splits hairs like this?

I do not consider this splitting hairs. The supreme court says laws apply to churches in the same way they apply to the Shriners or you and me. This seems appropriate unlike laws that give religions special status e.g. tax exemptions and alcohol during prohibition.

If we establish the precedent of religions being able to break laws under the guise of religious rituals you are opening a can of worms that logically leads to the acceptance of human sacrifice.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Database error caused duplicate post.

 

[Tony]

I do not consider this splitting hairs. The supreme court says laws apply to churches in the same way they apply to the Shriners or you and me.

That's true, banning the bible would apply equally to churches and to the public at large, but that doesn't really address the heart of the matter.

If we establish the precedent of religions being able to break laws under the guise of religious rituals you are opening a can of worms that logically leads to the acceptance of human sacrifice.

Isn't the inverse also true? Wouldn't a precedent of ignoring the first amendment protection of religious freedom logically lead to the outright ban of any religious practice or belief the government doesn't like?

 

[CBL4]

That's true, banning the bible would apply equally to churches and to the public at large

Please re-read what you bolded - "neutral laws of general applicability." In other words, if the law is not directed at churches or religion it is OK.

Isn't the inverse also true? Wouldn't a precedent of ignoring the first amendment protection of religious freedom logically lead to the outright ban of any religious practice or belief the government doesn't like?

The neutrality rule makes it so it would ban any religious practice, if and only if, the practice would be banned even if were not a religious practice.

This means we treat any religion the same as any other organization.

CBL

 

[Elind]

Isn't the inverse also true? Wouldn't a precedent of ignoring the first amendment protection of religious freedom logically lead to the outright ban of any religious practice or belief the government doesn't like?

This is splitting hairs, or relying on the same sort of literal interpretations that give us a 6000 year old universe.

Religious organizations operate within society, not outside of it or independent of any contact with it.

To keep it simple, common sense rules, not literalism. If a practice is considered dangerous, or obscene, it is not allowed whether religious or not. We don't allow many "religious" beliefs, like preventing women from voting or driving, or polygamy, or killing in the name of God, or human sacrifice, or voting for non religious leaders.

I could go on, but I think this is all self evident, and I don't know why you would argue different just because in this case we are talking of drugs that are otherwise not allowed (whether they should be allowed or not may be another valid debate, but not in this context).

 

[Tony]

Please re-read what you bolded - "neutral laws of general applicability." In other words, if the law is not directed at churches or religion it is OK.

You're not seeing the bigger picture. Banning the Bible isn't directed at a church or religion. It's not just christians that would be banned from reading/owning Bibles, but people of all faiths.

The neutrality rule makes it so it would ban any religious practice, if and only if, the practice would be banned even if were not a religious practice.

There is nothing fundamentally religious with reading/owning a Bible, just as there is nothing fundamentally religious with (drinking this tea (or smoking marijuana). They are essentially the same thing.

 

[Tony]

This is splitting hairs, or relying on the same sort of literal interpretations that give us a 6000 year old universe.

No it's not.

To keep it simple, common sense rules, not literalism.

Common sense doesn't rule, in fact, common sense rarely rules.

If a practice is considered dangerous, or obscene, it is not allowed whether religious or not.

Yes it is. Circumcision for example.

We don't allow many "religious" beliefs, like preventing women from voting or driving, or polygamy, or killing in the name of God, or human sacrifice, or voting for non religious leaders.

This is irrelevant.

 

[Elind]

No it's not.



Common sense doesn't rule, in fact, common sense rarely rules.



Yes it is. Circumcision for example.



This is irrelevant.

Rubbish.