MARK 16;,17-18, guess what?

I have a problem with banning snake handling as then why do we not ban all other manners of handling dangerous animals?

Lions, tigers, killer whales and even elephants can and have kill humans when being handle so why ban snake handling and not all those others?

Is it due to a safety issue or the fact than most of us look down on the religious motivations that is behind snake handling instead of the pure entertainment that is behind the handling of those others animals?

Darwinism at it's finest.

I say let them handle whatever god tells 'em to...

It really has nothing only to do with handling deadly animals.Its because the practice represents a "taught belief" and the reverend MAc had gathered up all sorts of potential disciples to watch the "worship service" and become indoctrinated by his silly snake handling.He was endangering others by trying to get them to do the same. He was expert at handling snakes and apparently it did him no good. According to the radio I liastened to, the rev was squirming all over the floor in proximity to the snake. It recoiled and nailed him on the cheek. He lived about a day.

A libertarian atitude on this would sorta be as dumb as condoning running down the medial strip of an interstate hiway because the Bible preaches to us to "follow the straight and narrow".

If reverend mac were just by himself, then Id sort of agree(Because his religious beliefs do not include medical intervention-like Christian SCientists, the reverends Charismatic religion requires that, should the believer get bitten or stung or poisoned from ingesting some "Deadly thing" then he toughs it out. If this were done in the prvacy of his own home, yeah, I dont think we can stop him from acting the fool. However, when he attempts to proselytize his belief to all his acolytes who arent yet fully convinced. In my mind he is guilty at least of depraved indifference should others get bitten. He would be purposely doing potential harm to others because of his beliefs. SInce he is protected under the Constitution, the states that banned snake handling have done the bans based on public health and safety regs

I think we have a responsibility to protect those that the preachers try to indoctrinate.

So, umm, did it kill him?

OH YEH. He was in agony. Apparently there was areporter from the Washington Post who was doing an investigative piece on the religious practice in QWest Virginia.

I suppose these gys feel that they also should have thwe right to not wear a brain bucket while biking.

I was down there in the west- by- god -country researching some stuff on the guy who most is responsioble for the theory of plate tectonics.

Just looked it up. His daddy died the same way, at the ripe ol age of 39. He was 44.
It's not just the handling of snakes, these idiots think the lord will save 'em once they've been bitten. Right, it ain't enough that god made snakes poisonous, now s/he's got to save them from their stupidity. And they bring their kids in tow..

My problem with this sort of thing is as farmerman suggests -- not that people insist on being fools and handling dangerous animals without proper protection, but that they insist on putting a ridiculous religious veneer over the whole bizarre exercise. I'm not sufficiently fascinated to go look it up in Wikipedia or elsewhere, but I'm sure there's a mountain of literature available on this stupid practice.

O, really??? "WE" do??????

HOW did I acquire this responsibility??????

I wanna hear this; do tell!





David

societally speaking Dave. I undertsand your libertarian views, I dont thik much of them though.
As a stated, handling snakes in the privacy of your home and alone, you are certainly free to act the idiot. Doing this in public as part of an institution is something else, especially since many young people (Who didnt ask for the "training") could be endangered in the services.I dont see tis as any more intrusive than say, making it illegal to walk on railroad tracks.

Wait . . . i can't walk down the tracks? What about running in traffic?

Once more we had have cases of people including children being given elephant rides when the elephant in question had gone out of control.

Sorry Farmerman I had the same contempt you do for any such believes but I can not see banning such until all other inactions with dangerous animals are also ban.

As long as the people are adults they should be entitle to interact with snakes if they care to under the color of religious or otherwise.

only if you carry scissors. Thats all spelled out in the rule book. Did you lose yours young man? This will go on your permanent record

Ill have to look up the speciific wording that other states have used to make the "handling of snakes in public religious ceremonies" illegal.

West Virginia still allows the use of reptiles as "props" in religious ceremonies. Perhaps they will re-evaluate the practice as a result of Rev Mac's death.
I dont think that irresponsible activities as this should be protected( and thereby condoned) by law.

Most states still allow a religion to dictate how little medical attention one of their flock can recieve, although several states have filed suits against parents who allowed their children to die because they were ADventists or Christian SCientists.

I have no problem with the state trying to protect children from their parents silliness I do have a problem with doing the same for adults.

In this example, the results are quickly realized and there appears to be no long term dependency on insurance . The rev MAc firmly believed that, should he be bitten, his religion will save him from any ill effects. Apparently there was some subclause in the rule book cause he croaked from the snake bite.

He was supposedly a very charismatic religious leader who got a lot of converts by his "Tent show revival style of preaching". SO, his adult acolytes were , in effect, just like children

It's a religified pissing contest.

I am the first to say I believe in God. I believe he gave us a brain for a reason too. I would like to see a few more folks using it. Whether you believe it evolved or was created. Just use it for pete's sake.

Wait . . . who's Pete? Religion is so confusing for me . . .

Sorry I brought pete into it.

Sorry I do not buy into the idea that the state had any business taking adults rights away because most people look down on a religion belief that involve snakes handling.

As an atheist in good standing I could make a case for not allowing anyone who is so out of touch with the real universe as to be a Christian of any type should not have a right to vote and only atheists are sane enough to be trusted with that power and control over the state.

In short in my eyes all believers in the supernatural are in the same boat and therefore we should not go down the road you seems to approve of in the case of the snake handlers as there is no good end point.