Rights of Religion?

[ranmaonehalf]

IM sure many of you have heard of the rights of religions to have rights outside of others.

For instance its common for many religions to have the right to use certain illegal drugs.

Is this right?

If something is illegal why does a religion get to ignore the law?

If say it is deemed not harmful so the religion can use it then why is the drug or whatever illegal in the first place?
Pardon the ramble of this posts but please post your opinions and thoughts.

Why is it ok for religions to get special treatment?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Why should patients who have glaucoma or a life threatining disease be allowed to smoke and get marijuanna legally, when it's illegal for everyone else? The double standard is not limited to relgion.

 

[OllieFranz]

IM sure many of you have heard of the rights of religions to have rights outside of others.

For instance its common for many religions to have the right to use certain illegal drugs.

Is this right?

If something is illegal why does a religion get to ignore the law?

If say it is deemed not harmful so the religion can use it then why is the drug or whatever illegal in the first place?
Pardon the ramble of this posts but please post your opinions and thoughts.

Why is it ok for religions to get special treatment?

I have not looked at the history of the legal rulings, but at a guess, I would sat that it relates to the "free exercise" clause of the freedom of religion part of the First Amendment. And I assume it was first used during Prohibition to allow the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations to continue to use wine for Communion. Non-Christian religions, such as native-American practices that use peyote for meditation, pointed out that the government could not favor one religion over another.

As for your main question: "if say it is deemed not harmful so the religion can use it then why is the drug or whatever illegal in the first place," look at my next reply.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

IM sure many of you have heard of the rights of religions to have rights outside of others.

For instance its common for many religions to have the right to use certain illegal drugs.

Is this right?

If something is illegal why does a religion get to ignore the law?

If say it is deemed not harmful so the religion can use it then why is the drug or whatever illegal in the first place?
Pardon the ramble of this posts but please post your opinions and thoughts.

Why is it ok for religions to get special treatment?

The First Amendment was comtemplated and put into action because the framers knew from a sourcing of history, that silencing religion is the first step to a society that ends being dog eat dog.

And in the end, the Christians are left standing in a wholesome society/community because they reject to choose from that menu.

And even the Deists knew that this would be of benefit to them.

 

[OllieFranz]

Why should patients who have glaucoma or a life threatining disease be allowed to smoke and get marijuanna legally, when it's illegal for everyone else? The double standard is not limited to relgion.

There are a lot of drugs that are beneficial for people with specific illnesses or even specific symptoms, but are harmful to healthy people or in high dosages. So they are regulated, and should only be administered under a physician's care. If they are freely obtainable, they can too easily be abused. Even with that safeguard, "controlled dangerous substances" are still too easily obtained.

Limiting certain drugs to only approved medical use and/or religious use is the only way to even attempt to cut down on the abuse of these drugs and the prevalence of their often tragic side-effects.

There are those that say that after an initial overload in celebration at the repeal of drug laws, that overdoses and other consequences of abuse will settle down at a rate no higher than, and possibly lower than the current rate, and that the incidence of side effects from contaminants will drop dramatically. They point to the repeal of Prohibition as proof.

I can't support their call for repeal, but neither can I say that I know their statistics to be flawed.

In the specific case of marijuana, the evidence seems to indicate that tobacco is much more dangerous. On that basis, either both should probably be legal, or both should probably be controlled.

 

[b&wpac4]

And in the end, the Christians are left standing in a wholesome society/community because they reject to choose from that menu.

Must you always make the absurd claim that ONLY Christians are moral and choose moral actions?

Many religions contain VERY similar morals, some even contain more of a requirement to follow them.

 

[jayem]

If something is illegal why does a religion get to ignore the law?

Legally, I'd think free exercise would have priority, since it is an explicit Constitutional right. But it can be limited if such free exercise causes significant harm. It comes down to questions of degree. Whether the potential harm is enough to override one's religious freedom. An example going the other way are parents who refuse conventional medical treatment for their children for religious reasons. In these cases, religious freedom is usually not an exemption from laws on child welfare. I don't think there is any hard and fast rule. The courts just have to decide these issues on a case-by-case basis.

If say it is deemed not harmful so the religion can use it then why is the drug or whatever illegal in the first place?

I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding where courts have allowed drug use, it's as part of an established religious ritual, and is only legal in that specific context. Such an exception is not inconsistent with drug control laws. Federal law allows heroin, marijuana, and LSD use in the context of authorized medical research. But again, these are case-by-case and context-specific exceptions.

 

[Isambard]

I'd be more concerned with how things like genital mutilation can be okay'd under the banner of religion.

 

[jayem]

I'd be more concerned with how things like genital mutilation can be okay'd under the banner of religion.

I can see the thread getting derailed here, but it's a good point. And why the sexual disparity: OK for baby boys, but absolutely not OK for girls?

Religion aside--could part of the reason be aesthetic? To the Western eye, is the "mutilated" male actually more pleasing than the natural?

 

[b&wpac4]

I can see the thread getting derailed here, but it's a good point. And why the sexual disparity: OK for baby boys, but absolutely not OK for girls?

Religion aside--could part of the reason be aesthetic? To the Western eye, is the "mutilated" male actually more pleasing than the natural?

It could be more of the idea behind the practices. Female circumcision, from what I can gather, is used to prevent sexual pleasure whereas male circumcision is not practiced for that purpose.

 

[LittleNipper]

IM sure many of you have heard of the rights of religions to have rights outside of others.

For instance its common for many religions to have the right to use certain illegal drugs.

Is this right?

If something is illegal why does a religion get to ignore the law?

If say it is deemed not harmful so the religion can use it then why is the drug or whatever illegal in the first place?
Pardon the ramble of this posts but please post your opinions and thoughts.

Why is it ok for religions to get special treatment?

One has to question, who really benifits from such a relationship with a god who would insist HIS adherents ruin their health doing various things which are suppose to honor that deity.

If the diety in question has never requested such behavior, then you have your answer... They shouldn't be doing it. If they have been requested to do it by the diety they worship, then one needs to publically expose that diety for what it is --------------- false. However, one can only do that where open discussions are open for all. And offended individuals must be willing to allow their diety to defend himself and imagine a powerful god needs not the use of said worshiper's wrath in any way. He should possess wrath all his own.

See the same logic used in Judges Chapter 6, verses 25 through 32.

 

[sidhe]

I work a path where various illegal activities are considered legitimate religious pursuits. In my case, they didn't become spontaneously legal because they're religiously oriented. It's all up to the government what qualifies as "religious freedom".

 

[Isambard]

It could be more of the idea behind the practices. Female circumcision, from what I can gather, is used to prevent sexual pleasure whereas male circumcision is not practiced for that purpose.

But it does have the effect of lessening the sensation. I personally find the practice disgusting as the baby is being mutilated just because someone's god says so.

 

[b&wpac4]

But it does have the effect of lessening the sensation. I personally find the practice disgusting as the baby is being mutilated just because someone's god says so.

Yes, but what if they are right? Just because you find a practice personally disgusting does not mean it is required to be banned.

 

[Isambard]

Yes, but what if they are right? Just because you find a practice personally disgusting does not mean it is required to be banned.

What if they are right about what? Their god wanting it? So what? This is the same god who wants homosexuals and disobediant children stoned. Since when was "well, my god says so" any sort of excuse for mutilation?

 

[b&wpac4]

What if they are right about what? Their god wanting it? So what? This is the same god who wants homosexuals and disobediant children stoned. Since when was "well, my god says so" any sort of excuse for mutilation?

Because saying "I say so" is not a good enough reason to ban things that you find objectionable? You know, the same problem you probably have with Christians protesting homosexual rights?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

IM sure many of you have heard of the rights of religions to have rights outside of others.

For instance its common for many religions to have the right to use certain illegal drugs.

Is this right?

If something is illegal why does a religion get to ignore the law?

If say it is deemed not harmful so the religion can use it then why is the drug or whatever illegal in the first place?
Pardon the ramble of this posts but please post your opinions and thoughts.

Why is it ok for religions to get special treatment?

Well, I ought to point out first that I think those drugs shouldn't be illegal to begin with. (Not because I'm using them, by the way, but because I think that it's hypocritical to ban them while a "hard" drug like alcohol is not only legal but universally accepted by society.)

Aside from that, though, I think there is a difference between people consuming hallucinogenes in a highly controlled, ritualized context, and for a very specific, religious purpose - and just buzzing yourself up as a form of consumerist entertainment.

Let's face it: many of these substances have been known for MILLENNIA, yet addiction has only become a large-scale problem since the rise of capitalism and the consumerist attitude that goes along with it. Not only because of the increased availability of such substances (after all, hemp was grown virtually everywhere in the past), but because of the very attitude people hold with regards to mind-altering substances.
In a way, our whole relationship towards products and their consumption is way out of line.

Substance abuse differs considerably from partaking mind-altering substances in the context of a religious ceremony. Thus, I think the legal distinction is indeed valid.

 

[Isambard]

Because saying "I say so" is not a good enough reason to ban things that you find objectionable? You know, the same problem you probably have with Christians protesting homosexual rights?

Er no. As I mentioned in my two previous posts. It lessens physical sensation, and it is by definition mutilation of the body. This is also ignoring possible misshaps in the unnecessary "surgery".

 

[b&wpac4]

Er no. As I mentioned in my two previous posts. It lessens physical sensation, and it is by definition mutilation of the body. This is also ignoring possible misshaps in the unnecessary "surgery".

Well, good luck to you in your quest to uproot the religious traditions of a people that date back thousands of years, whom also have their own specific trained people to perform the procedure and who will, quite obviously, head underground to continue the practice if you pass laws against it.

Perhaps there's a better fight you could be having, no?

 

[Isambard]

Well, good luck to you in your quest to uproot the religious traditions of a people that date back thousands of years, whom also have their own specific trained people to perform the procedure and who will, quite obviously, head underground to continue the practice if you pass laws against it.

Perhaps there's a better fight you could be having, no?

Yep. Seeking to stop people from mutilating children is fruitless and pointless *rolls eyes*. If only more people could've had your attitude, fundies could've continued to enjoy the joys of white only establishments, and keeping those pesky gays from marriage.