ok but if the use of peyote is innocuous for some people (members of the native american church) why is it not innocuous for other people (not members of the native american church) and just what makes polygamy harmfull other than a "christian" bias against it?
Because the U.S. constitution guarantees the people free exercise of religion. The Native American peoples are the only religious group using peyote and the law was set aside for their benefit. Too bad you seem to feel so resentful of that, Dys. You could move to the reservation and join in their services of course. It's a pretty far commute from here.
As for the issue of polygamy, that one deserves its own thread. Again, if you dislike the law the way it is, there are plenty of countries where you can have more than one wife if you want it.
For now let's say the ban can be justified based on equal protection under the law. If a guy can have many wives, why not a woman many husbands? And the muddying of the genetic pool in a case like that is simply too much of a hassle to tolerate.
ok I find your segues interesting but non-responsive, I have zero personall interest in either peyote or polygamy. I only find the ideas of equality of rule of law to be an interesting topic of discussion.
Quote:Too bad you seem to feel so resentful of that, Dys
Excuse me?????
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intent. You seemed to resent the fact that the Indians can use peyote and others can't. And your implication was that you think polygamy is okay and it is only those "awful" (my word) Christians who are against it. If that was not your meaning, then I apologize.
prej·u·dice (prĕj'ə-dĭs)
n.
An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
Exegesis (ex -ee -gee- sis): determining intent from a statement or text.
dyslexia wrote:. I only find the ideas of equality of rule of law to be an interesting topic of discussion.
Just as an aside:
Quote:Polygamy is a time-honored traditional family structure that is an integral part of the Judeo-Christian heritage represented in the Bible. Some of the most honored figures of that heritage, including Abraham, Jacob, Moses and David, were polygamous.
source:
Patriarchal Christian Movement
[Many Christian, Jewish, Muslim, American Indian, Mormon, and other American citizens belief in polygamy as a holy tenant of their religion - the "time-honored polygamous traditional family structure" according to that paper.]
However, polygamy was practiced in all these faiths with one man, many wives. Never was it allowed for a woman to have many husbands. And again it is the gene pool/record of heredity at issue.
And now I gotta get to work. Appointments to keep. Miles to go before I sleep and all that.
dyslexia wrote:foxfyre said
Quote:Religious practice may not break the civil law. For instance, a church may not practice human sacrifice or use illegal drugs in its worship service as such is illegal for everybody
.
Since I guess you are interested in accuracy I thought you might like to know that Peyote,(called Green Whisky by the early whites) while illegal to most US citizens since the era of 1907 was found to be legal for members of the Native American Church in 1960. That legality has been upheld by many and various courts since then. Thought you would like to know.
Dys
And Christian Scientists are allowed to deny medical care to their children, even to the point where the children die.
Foxfyre wrote:If a guy can have many wives, why not a woman many husbands? And the muddying of the genetic pool in a case like that is simply too much of a hassle to tolerate.
I'm guessing that's it for premarital sex then.
Not always Ros. There have been ocasions where a court overruled the parents' wishes in that regard. The Jehovah Witnesses won't allow even a life-saving blood transfusion either and the court has had to step in to overrule that in the case of a minor.
And all this pertains to the separation of church and State how?
ummmm....the state is not separate when they are protecting individuals(minors) FROM the religion. right? ohhhhhh yeeeaaaahhhh, new angle
Well its pretty hard to classify Christian Scientists as the religious right. They are about as liberal as they come. And Jehovah Witnesses don't assocviate themselves with anything political so they aren't left or right.
But it does go back to the concept that even the Church is not above the law, and child endangerment is illegal in every state I do believe. It does put a judge in a pickle though balancing law against the first amendment--if the state and/or doctor cannot make a sufficient case for child endangerment, then the wishes of the parent almost always prevail.
Foxfyre wrote:Not always Ros. There have been ocasions where a court overruled the parents' wishes in that regard.
And times when it didn't. In the case of the Twitchels.
Foxfyre wrote:And all this pertains to the separation of church and State how?
It doesn't. I was just adding to what Dyslexia said.
Foxfyre wrote:
But it does go back to the concept that even the Church is not above the law, and child endangerment is illegal in every state I do believe. It does put a judge in a pickle though balancing law against the first amendment--if the state and/or doctor cannot make a sufficient case for child endangerment, then the wishes of the parent almost always prevail.
Even though it could be tough to decide between first amendment and law, think of this. Isn't saving human life above both law and religion? I mean, people, seriously, what is religion or law if people aren't there to abide by or follow it?
wolfofheaven wrote:
Even though it could be tough to decide between first amendment and law, think of this. Isn't saving human life above both law and religion? I mean, people, seriously, what is religion or law if people aren't there to abide by or follow it?
Wolf, I like you, you have really started to contribute good, useful ideas to this post...thanks
hey, are you in high school, or an old fart like these other guys?
no offense meant...ya'll probably wouldn't even guess my age, although it is not that unusuall (no I am not a baby) anywayz, this post is great because of the new angle i discovered. thanks
True, W of H, but in the interest of separation of Church and State, the Constitution guarantees us the free exercise of our religion. The State has no say in what we should or should not believe.
So you have Christian Scientists who believe it goes against their religion to avail themselves of modern medical science and look to God for healing, so at what point can the state step in and override that religious belief?
And the Jehovah Witnesses, as a matter of religious law, adhere to the ancient Jewish law of 'not eating the blood'--Kosher law required that all the blood be drained from the animal prior to its consumption--and they have concluded that a blood transfusion is the same as 'eating blood'. Therefore they consider a transfusion as defiling the body and a sin against God. If the doctor says a transfusion is necessary, at what point then can the state step in a demand that the Jehovah Witness have it?
These are not easy questions. Can the judge use his/her own belief to say that God would not have healed the child? The C.S. group can point to what they believe are many miraculous healings. Can the judge decide the child will suffer irreparable harm if he does not have a transfusion or that a transfusion will absolutely correct a problem while the parents fear for the child's immortal soul?
The debates rock on re whether the state had the right to storm (and as it turned out, burn down) the Branch Davidian religious compound at Waco TX with 60+ people inside including the children. The post-event excuse was to 'save the children', while the pre-attack justification was a box of unloaded grenade shells. Did the state violate the Davidian's constiutional rights to their exercise of religion? The survivors of the attack certainly think so.
I think if I was given the choice, my first concern would be the well being of the child and any religious concerns would be secondary. I'm not sure that the government can keep it that simple, however.
(edited to correct awkward syntax)
Foxfyre wrote:
So you have Christian Scientists who believe it goes against their religion to avail themselves of modern medical science and look to God for healing, so at what point can the state step in and override that religious belief?
It seems that these decisions are made by judges in whatever court has jurisdiction. Judges are often asked to balance conflicting rights and decide which right has more weight depending on the specifics of the case.
