And, in other What The Fuck news:
Mar. 8th, 2006 09:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
featherynscaleYesterday, the president signed an executive order mandating the creation of a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within the Department of Homeland Security, whose job will be to identify rules, regulations, and other issues which restrict faith-based agencies from operation, and eliminate those rules, etc.
Seriously, kids. Whiskey Tango.
I think this is what was tweaking me about the hallucinogens for religious groups thing the other day. I'm in favor of hallucinogens for religious purposes, but I'm not necessarily in favor of setting precedents which suggest that in general, the laws of a particular religious group supercede the laws of general society. Does it hurt me if some religious sect uses hallucinogens to talk to god because that's their religion? No, probably not. Does it hurt me if santeros are allowed to sacrifice animals to the orisha because that's what their religion says to do? No, probably not. But does it hurt me if pharmacists are allowed to decide that I can't have say, contraceptives, or antibiotics to treat an STD, because their religion says I'm not supposed to be having sex? That'd be a yes, Bob. And does it hurt me if the folks that the government sends in to help after a disaster are church groups that are not inclined to give assistance to homosexuals? Um, yes again, I think. And so on.
Obviously, there's a difference between my first two examples and my last two, and that is that the first two are about things that people do to themselves, or inside their group, based on religious dictates. The second two are things that people do to people who are outside of their religious group. They apply the laws of that group to everyone they encounter, regardless of what laws the person they're impacting follows or doesn't follow. I'm just concerned that our current overlords don't or can't or don't care to make that distinction.
Seriously, kids. Whiskey Tango.
I think this is what was tweaking me about the hallucinogens for religious groups thing the other day. I'm in favor of hallucinogens for religious purposes, but I'm not necessarily in favor of setting precedents which suggest that in general, the laws of a particular religious group supercede the laws of general society. Does it hurt me if some religious sect uses hallucinogens to talk to god because that's their religion? No, probably not. Does it hurt me if santeros are allowed to sacrifice animals to the orisha because that's what their religion says to do? No, probably not. But does it hurt me if pharmacists are allowed to decide that I can't have say, contraceptives, or antibiotics to treat an STD, because their religion says I'm not supposed to be having sex? That'd be a yes, Bob. And does it hurt me if the folks that the government sends in to help after a disaster are church groups that are not inclined to give assistance to homosexuals? Um, yes again, I think. And so on.
Obviously, there's a difference between my first two examples and my last two, and that is that the first two are about things that people do to themselves, or inside their group, based on religious dictates. The second two are things that people do to people who are outside of their religious group. They apply the laws of that group to everyone they encounter, regardless of what laws the person they're impacting follows or doesn't follow. I'm just concerned that our current overlords don't or can't or don't care to make that distinction.