Religious Freedom vs Social Mores
 

I'm not sure I can go to this event, so I'd thought that I would open up the discussion here.

How far should the First Amendment go in protecting all religious practices? Consider cannibalism, human sacrifice, 'illegal drugs', polygamy, underage sex/marriage, pacifism, etc.

Much as religious zealots have begun to infringe on individual rights (banning sex toys, discriminating against homosexuals), history has provided examples of the US demanding that religions conform to social norms.

Where is the line drawn between religious practice and 'normal' behaviour?

I think everyone should be held to the same laws governing our behavior. They're the rules we live by and put everyone on an equal footing for base behavior.

The feds have said it's OK for some southwestern religious groups to use peyote which is against federal statutes for everyone else.
I'm fine with them making exceptions for religious customs but not with people taking liberties on their own. If some law is onerous to your beliefs, change it. :2cents:

Well, the issue is still how far the government should go to make those exceptions.

In theory, I don't see why there should be laws against polygamy. If its between consenting adults and if they can support their offspring, it shouldn't be a big deal. Of course, in Utah, it usually doesn't work that way. Young girls are forced into it by parental and community pressure in little Mormon backwater towns.

This country seems to have a lot of problems with "victimless" crimes. Wanna visit or be a prostitute? Fine. Again, as long as its between consenting adults. In fact, I think the government should licence prostitutes and check them for STDS and hand out condoms. Save everyone a lot of grief. The same with drugs. Just don't use them and drive or operate dangerous machinery. If you feel like sitting around in the privacy of your own home and having a few hallucinations, I couldn't care less. Gay marriage? Whatever. At least you're less likely to be trying to pick up dates in the men's room and spreading AID's.

People run into problems when they hold the laws of their religion above the civil laws of the nation. Civil law should, in theory, anyhow, be pretty straight forward. You don't get to harm any one else by your actions - whatever the excuse you give. It doesn't matter if Allah told you to do it or if the fillings in your teeth were picking up commands from space aliens. You harm a child or an innocent adult and you pay the price. Otherwise, follow your bliss. I know that's hopelessly utopian of me, but that's what the voices in my head told me to type. :cool:

What'a amazing is that there is one county in the entire US that can do that. I do find it astounding that the US government hasn't found a way to put them out of business. As we can see in the minimum drinking age laws forced onto states by the threat of pulling highway funds, there are extra-legal ways of forcing compliance.

Of course as a parting gesture, the brothels could just take out a large ad in the New York Times and publish their client lists.:eek:

I try to apply the end of my nose rule to as many of these issues as I can.

Meet The Press was very interesting to me this morning.It made me especially interested in the book ,'The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right' by Michael Lerner

I've always thought and this show seems to make me think that most americans are feeling this way too? Except for the percentage of people that go to church every week of course because they did vote for an autocratic . theocratic administration spured on by the religious right who's lust for power
borders or perhaps even surpasses the Pharisee since they were under Roman rule and not a governing body that mirrored their own theologys.



I think people need to decide in their mind what kind of society we want first.
States first. Government second and ones own personal faith should be kept inside their own houses and churches.


Lerners perspective is complicated and he didn't get to speak much but I liked the thought of mutual respect and value for all human life.

You have a major logical flaw, here. "Most" Americans feel the way you do, except of course for the ones who don't, who already proved themselves to be a majority of the population in an election?

Technically, neither candidate won with a 'majority of the population' or even a majority of people who voted. The both got under %50. This was why Bush's 'mandate' comments were so ironic.

I'd be curious to see what the totals would be if they held the election today with the same candidates.

But it really does come down to a degree of separation of an individuals specific practices from his or her job a servant of the public.

Nixon was a Quaker but he did not disband the Army.

If a Jewish president were elected, would he have the right to tell the USDA to no longer inspect pork products?

If a Jehovah's witness were elected, would he have the right to tell the CDC and FDA to discontinue support for blood services and products made from human blood?

The problem is that if the president and a significant number of members of Congress feel that they need a certain amount of support from a vocal minority, and can give them that support without alienating an equal number of people who would otherwise support them, than they will do so.

"Everyone knows" the politicians are a bunch of smarmy crooks and all they give you is sound bites of general ideas, with no specifics, during the campaigns. That makes it hard to even find differences, except perceptions of attitude, but even those are usually of the party and not the candidate.

Because of the sameness, a lot of voters will seize of a single point like abortion, gun control, crime rates, etc, and vote for the one that they think agrees with their position on that issue.

Of course the perception may be wrong on that issue plus big surprises on things they haven't even considered. But, they'll keep backing their choice rather than admit making a mistake, saying the other guy would have been worse.

One of the reasons I hated Nixon with a zeal akin to TW's regard for Bush, is that I voted for him the first time and be betrayed me. :mad:

I should has specified what feeling agree. with mine.

According to every newspaper that runs a poll on Bush's job preformance at least 60 % of those polled agree with my feeling that Bush really does suck.


ma·jor·i·ty
The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.

I think more than half of america thinks Bush sucks. I could be wrong. They could all be praying in thier closets waiting for the nuke.