Zazzie
|
posted on May 22, 2001 11:44:07 AM new
Marijuana is used for religious purposes, other drugs too, animal sacrifices---I'm sure I could come up with a huge list of things that are done for religious reasons but for one reason or the other is against the law in the USA. There is a group in Florida I believe (that is in the courts) that adamantly believe in beating their children as their religious right. From what I have read it is the Minister that beats them--and it is done in church (I've only read the very sketchiset of details--so if there is any correction to be done--please do so)
When and where do the law makers and law enforcers draw the line???
|
oddish4
|
posted on May 22, 2001 12:06:12 PM new
I believe they should draw the line when your beliefs infringe on the rights of other people ie beating your children, wife, female mutilation etc.
Oddish~ The Odd One
|
Zazzie
|
posted on May 22, 2001 12:10:34 PM new
So drug use should be allowed for religious reasons???
|
oddish4
|
posted on May 22, 2001 12:15:01 PM new
Well my first reaction is yes..sortof. Someone earlier brought up Native Americans and the use of Peyote(sp?). This is something they were doing for centeries and as much as I disagree with drug use I just find it hard to tell someone else they can't practice their religion or only the parts of their religion I feel comfortable with.
Oddish~ The Odd One
|
jtland
|
posted on May 22, 2001 12:16:30 PM new
I agree, Oddish. The rights of one person can not supercede others. Other than that, I don't feel its my place to tell others how to live their lives.
I'm certainly not a polygamist, but I've watched this story unfold and saw the Dateline stories on this family. Honestly, the lifestyle, while foreign to me, looked pretty darned appealing! The kids always had other kids around to play with, and a loving adult was always nearby. There was no need to find a stranger to watch the kids all day, there was always a 'mom' around. Instead of having less time to spend with the kids, there was a lot more time.
The women seemed supportive of one another. They shared tasks so that one person wasn't always responsible for the cooking, cleaning, etc. Emotionally, there was always someone to talk to. I'm sure there are frictions at times, but there is in any family.
But...I've always thought communal living seemed like a great idea, too. 
I don't think children should be married or promised at a young age--whether into polygamy or a 'regular' marriage. That IS infringing on another's rights.
Lisa
|
oddish4
|
posted on May 22, 2001 12:19:33 PM new
Hey jtland
I don't think children should be married or promised at a young age--whether into polygamy or a 'regular' marriage. That IS infringing on another's rights.
100% agreement here.
Oddish~ The Odd One
|
Zazzie
|
posted on May 22, 2001 12:24:41 PM new
Your answer is too simple....if you allow it for one religious group than all should have the same freedoms. The Rastafarian religion dates back to the the 1930's and the use of marijuana is an important part of that religion.
It is not only 'ancient' religions that have drug use as part of their religion. What if a new religion started this year---should they get the same rights as far as drug use??
What about religions that have suicide for 'consenting adults' as part of their creed?
The slope is one heck of a slippery mess
|
Zazzie
|
posted on May 22, 2001 12:49:59 PM new
Interesting article about tolerance
http://www.splcenter.org/cgi-bin/goframe.pl?refname=/teachingtolerance/tt-59.html
support group/website for those leaving a pologamist family--many articles
http://www.polygamy.org/tap.pl?bid=about
Interesting article about a book written in support of polygamy by wives and children from many families
http://www.avenews.com/editorial/no/cw/feat/feat_010111.cfm
|
jtland
|
posted on May 22, 2001 01:40:43 PM new
I looked at the Tapestry against Polygamy site. There was some interesting stuff there. But that 'danger signs' page caught my attention. Most of those danger signs apply to monogamous marriages too, not just polygamy.
http://www.polygamy.org/tap.pl?bid=danger
Somebody once gave me a book about how to have a great marriage. It recommended always allowing the husband to be the spiritual and household leader, to be submissive, etc. *snort* Heh. Not for me!
Anyway, I found this quote to be interesting from the Utah ACLU director, "If, indeed, it were a challenge to anyone wanting to live a polygamous lifestyle, the ACLU would certainly consider involving ourselves, but that has not been the case so far. Green is trying to defend himself criminally for acts that are outside what we believe to be consenting adults practicing polygamy.”
That pretty well sums it up for me. I don't have a problem w/ polygamy, so long as you don't include child abuse in that definition.
Lisa
|
oddish4
|
posted on May 22, 2001 01:54:15 PM new
Zazzie
I admit there are potential problems however there are on either side of that fence. Once you start restricting what religions or part of religions people can practice you end up with another slippery slope....one which we have seen throughout history. One religion becoming dominant and then people being forced into that religion, the jews being exterminated for their religion and on and on. We can't save people from themselves. There are many practices which I find offensive or harmful but I can't go around butting my nose into everyone elses lives trying to "save" then from that which I deem improper. People have to take responsibility for themselves and their own beliefs. Unless they are infringing on the rights of someone else I still must believe they should be left alone free from government interferance or persecution.
Oddish~ The Odd One
|
Zazzie
|
posted on May 22, 2001 02:57:54 PM new
--so if it came up for a vote --- would you vote yes for legalizing anything in a religion --such as marijuana, polygamy--as long as adults were consenting??---and no one was physically harmed or forced to do something against their will??
|
oddish4
|
posted on May 22, 2001 03:09:04 PM new
My personal preference would be decriminalizing.
For instance I don't know that the government needs to make plural marriage legal in terms of recognizing each marriage as a legal agreement. That would cause many problems as far as insurance benefits go and I'm sure a range of other things. But if they so choose to have a "religious" ceremony and live that way I don't think it should be prosecuted.
I know I'm not explaining this very well but in essence the government doesn't need to take an active role in sanctioning these things but also not an active role in preventing them either. Stay out of it either way.
Did that make any sense at all? It does in my head but sounds confusing when I say it outloud.
Oddish~ The Odd One
|
jtland
|
posted on May 22, 2001 03:37:16 PM new
I don't even see that religion has anything to do with it from my point of view. It's more a matter of government interfering in private lives. There were laws, and many are still on the books, that prohibit homosexuality or that prohibit unmarried adults of the opposite sex from living together. Why were these laws done away with or ignored? Is it really the government's business to tell people how to live, so long as they aren't hurting others?
Insurance laws and taxes could be a mess, though.
Legalize marijuana? Sure...it's much safer than alcohol. Never heard of anyone dying of an overdose of marijuana.
Animal sacrifice as religious ritual? As distasteful and wrong-minded as I personally find it, I don't see how we can be so hypocritical to allow slaughter of animals for food or even sport (hunting), but not for religion.
Lisa
edited for clarity
[ edited by jtland on May 22, 2001 03:39 PM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on May 22, 2001 04:44:10 PM new
What did the government do about wine for communion during prohibition when it was illegal?
If you take Church doctrine literally it is even worse - it is, as the Jews objected, ritual cannibalism.
Next to that a few mushrooms or a little marijuana seems minor for ceremony.
Jewish law in the old testament called for the ritual sacrifice of animals all the time. I am not sure how they get around not following that just because they don't have a central temple anymore. I would be interested in hearing how though.
I read about some Navaho who moved into town bought a sheep and took it home to eat. When they killed it and were cleaning it in the back yard the neighbors had them ARRESTED because the neighborhood saw it and both the kids and some of the parents were disgusted and crying. Unlike the indian kids they had no idea where hamburgers came from. The people were as upset as if they had told the kids the truth about sex or santa claus.
Sorry but what a bunch of hypocrites.
[ edited by gravid on May 22, 2001 04:46 PM ]
|
WataruMurofushi
|
posted on May 22, 2001 05:11:53 PM new
This humble poster puts forth his humble opinion that not only Mormon, but ALL sects of Christianity, are Cults.
Further reading on Christianity, The Cult:
http://members.nbci.com/VexenUK/religion/rr.html
http://www.exmormon.org/
http://members.nbci.com/VexenUK/religion/b.txt
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
http://www.humanist.net/social/religion.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/6944/
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray/exchristian/
http://home.talkcity.com/librarydr/eztoamuse/
http://www.theshop.net/gjess/upddl.htm
http://home.talkcity.com/librarydr/eztoamuse/FASQFC.htm
|
toke
|
posted on May 22, 2001 05:16:38 PM new
Borillar has been repeatedly attempting to reproduce. Stop him now...the future of humankind is at stake...
|
gravid
|
posted on May 22, 2001 05:34:03 PM new
WataruMurofushi - I have always defined a cult as fixated on one person so I suppose you could say Christianity is the cult of Jesus. But if he really is the Son of God then is that cult a BAD thing? I can see a cult based on the personality of Charles Manson for example is a bad thing for sure guy.
|
