Originally posted by bbarrWell, w.r.t. your first point I see where you are coming from, but you also have to think about where those hallucinogenic substances are actually comng from and how they are being produced. Can't imagine it's all that great. Likewise, what happens when one of these guys takes themselves off for a drive and knocks down our hitherto-unmolested little girl? The federal drug authority says this drug is "not safe for use, even under medical supervision" which makes you wonder whether, even with the whole religion thing, if it's a terribly good idea. Personal freedoms are great, except of course when they impact on others, as you rightly mention. Is this the first step on a slippery slope of increasing legalisation of harder and harder drugs, and the social ills that they tend to cause?
Look 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 infli ...[text shortened]... h members to take drugs, but it is illegal for me to take the same drug for secular purposes.
Originally posted by scottishinnzScot: "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."
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.
I see.
Originally posted by ivanhoeCome on Ivanhoe! That was very terse - I know there's more going on behind your monitor than that! Let me know what you think - I'm honestly, truly, interested.
Scot: "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."
I see.