3 edits
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737994.stm
US court backs hallucinogenic tea.
A small US congregation can use hallucinogenic tea as part of its rituals to connect with God, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The group blends Christian beliefs and South American traditions
In its ruling, the court said the government must allow the use of the tea under religious freedom laws.
Members of the group believe they can understand God only by drinking the tea, which is consumed twice a month at four-hour ceremonies.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I guess it is about time to found a "Mary Jane Holiness Church", an "XTC Brotherhood", a "Cocaine Country Club Church" and a "Rudolf the Rednosed Reindeer Reformed Assembly".
Cheers ! 😉
Originally posted by ivanhoeA rec for Rudolph.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737994.stm
US court backs hallucinogenic tea.
A small US congregation can use hallucinogenic tea as part of its rituals to connect with God, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The group blends Christian beliefs and South American traditions
In its ruling, the court said the government must allow the use of the ...[text shortened]... aine Country Church" and a "Rudolf the Rednosed Reindeer Reformed Assembly".
Cheers !
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat happens if someone believes that they can only truly "connect with god" if they rape little girls? Do they get off with that too?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737994.stm
US court backs hallucinogenic tea.
A small US congregation can use hallucinogenic tea as part of its rituals to connect with God, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The group blends Christian beliefs and South American traditions
In its ruling, the court said the government must allow the use of the ...[text shortened]... ntry Club Church" and a "Rudolf the Rednosed Reindeer Reformed Assembly".
Cheers ! 😉
Originally posted by bbarrNope, I don't. On one hand I see one group breaking the law using drugs, and on the other (hypothetical) hand I see another group breaking the law raping children.
You don't see the difference? Bizarre.
And to Ivanhoe; you're comment about the devil assumes that (a) the devil exists, which has not been unequivocally proven, and (b) that even were that the case it would make any difference in a court of law, which is supposed to be a-religious.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt seems to me that a relevant difference between the cases is that in the latter an innocent in substantially harmed, whereas in the former no innocent is harmed in the slightest. Further, even if the drug user was harmed by virtue of the tea, such harm would have resulted from an act undertaken with consent. These are both relevant moral differences.
Nope, I don't. On one hand I see one group breaking the law using drugs, and on the other (hypothetical) hand I see another group breaking the law raping children.
And to Ivanhoe; you're comment about the devil assumes that (a) the devil exists, which has not been unequivocally proven, and (b) that even were that the case it would make any difference in a court of law, which is supposed to be a-religious.
Originally posted by bbarrHow are you to know that no-one is being harmed in the former. Or is it just okay because no-one is directly being harmed? Anyhoo, my point is why is it supposedly okay to break some laws for religion, but not others?
It seems to me that a relevant difference between the cases is that in the latter an innocent in substantially harmed, whereas in the former no innocent is harmed in the slightest. Further, even if the drug user was harmed by virtue of the tea, such harm would have resulted from an act undertaken with consent. These are both relevant moral differences.
Originally posted by scottishinnzLook at the details of the case if you want to determine whether anybody is being harmed. I can't find any evidence that anybody is being harmed, and even if some minor harm did result to the church members by taking the tea, it is a harm to which they willingly consent. In the rape case, not only is it an obvious and severe harm, but it is one that is inflicted upon an unwilling other. Anyhoo, the question here isn't whether it is O.K. to break some laws. The question is whether the former prohibition against taking hallucinogenic sacrements ought to have been a law in the first place. I'm more interested in figuring out why it is O.K. for these church members to take drugs, but it is illegal for me to take the same drug for secular purposes.
How are you to know that no-one is being harmed in the former. Or is it just okay because no-one is directly being harmed? Anyhoo, my point is why is it supposedly okay to break some laws for religion, but not others?