In order to qualify for tax-exempt status, an organization must show that its purpose serves the public good, as opposed to a private interest. Organizations that are exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) are those whose purposes are religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational. They may also foster national or international amateur sports competition, prevent cruelty to children or animals, or test for public safety
From what I got from the article it looks like being religious isn't the reason why they get tax exempted, but that they serve a public good.
Anyway, in regards to the OP, unless taking some peyote is going to make my local priest start pulling loaves and fishes out his buttock, either legalize for all, or for none.
But whether a church qualifies as serving the public good would be determined by a government official, wouldn't it?
I'm trying to see some rationale behind why peyote is banned but other churches are allowed to serve alcohol to minors beyond "Fuck dem Injuns."
BubbaT on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
If it's only a side effect, then it's not clearly discriminatory, but still worrisome.
Why?
I mean, I feel the same way, basically, about laws being intended to discriminate against specific religions, but I don't see how laws treading on religions as side effects are necessarily worrisome.
Well, when the law doesn't really serve any legitimate state interest (aka, drug laws, not traffic laws) and it messes with religious rituals, it seems problematic. I agree with banning animal sacrifice and all that, but for some triviality like peyote, it seems entirely wise to take into account the first nations' rituals when considering the law.
I assume that the people following said religion would consider gaining many false believers interested only in drug consumption to be a cheapening of their religion, and not at all desirable...I wasn't suggesting that anyone else hold the religion in reverence. If the religious who use drugs in their ceremonies want those drugs to be legalised, they should consider that the consequences might not be 100% positive for them. That was my purpose in mentioning cheapening.
If it's only a side effect, then it's not clearly discriminatory, but still worrisome.
Why?
I mean, I feel the same way, basically, about laws being intended to discriminate against specific religions, but I don't see how laws treading on religions as side effects are necessarily worrisome.
Well, when the law doesn't really serve any legitimate state interest (aka, drug laws, not traffic laws) and it messes with religious rituals, it seems problematic. I agree with banning animal sacrifice and all that, but for some triviality like peyote, it seems entirely wise to take into account the first nations' rituals when considering the law.
I don't see why, and perhaps I'm just being me, the bolded part matters. If the law doesn't serve a legitimate state interest, fuck that law, absolutely. That at least partially figures into my abhorrence of anti-drug laws. But I fail to see why, even in the context of vestigial or relatively unjust laws, people who subscribe to one arbitrary breed of thought but not others should necessarily get a pass.
If you're going to issue a pass to a certain group for no better reason than "tradition", it seems only prudent to issue a pass to everyone else.
If you're implying that because a religion says it's okay to use a drug, it should be acceptable, then you're implying that the intent behind the drug-use is relevant. Which then means that we really should be examining the intent behind all drug-use and defining which intentions are acceptable and which are not. And that's just silly.
I assume that the people following said religion would consider gaining many false believers interested only in drug consumption to be a cheapening of their religion, and not at all desirable...I wasn't suggesting that anyone else hold the religion in reverence. If the religious who use drugs in their ceremonies want those drugs to be legalised, they should consider that the consequences might not be 100% positive for them. That was my purpose in mentioning cheapening.
When the Volstead Act created Prohibition, it left an exception for "sacramental and medicinal wine." Almost overnight an assload of people suddenly became Catholic. San Antonio Winery in Los Angeles was producing 2,000 cases of wine annually at the start of Prohibition. By the time it was repealed, the Winery was producing 25,000 cases a year. Catholics didn't seem to mind the new "converts." If anything, I'd think they'd have welcomed them, seeing as how Prohibition was Protestant-driven.
Which then means that we really should be examining the intent behind all drug-use and defining which intentions are acceptable and which are not. And that's just silly.
We already do that, though.
Drug use intended to treat a medical problem = okay.
Drug use not intended to treat a medical problem = not okay (with some exceptions).
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't think people deserve special exceptions to the law "because their religion says it's okay". That includes hate speech.
Wait, real quick, is "hate speech" protected by the constitution in the States as free speech?
Short answer:
If the speech primarily communicates an idea, then yes.
If the speech primarily intimidates, threatens, or incites violence, then no.
The line separating these two is not always clear for any single example.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
"The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."
I see no need for the government to prosecute people for using substances privately (for whatever reason) that some people dislike or find abhorrent. Excepting, of course, those that endanger the public health or that undermine the general good order of society.
ex) Wine consumed by minors during communion is acceptable, while crystal meth consumed by minors (in the privacy of their own residences) is not. One endangers the public health and serves to undermine the foundation of peace and order.
Religion is simply a window dressing when it comes to stuff like this.
Which then means that we really should be examining the intent behind all drug-use and defining which intentions are acceptable and which are not. And that's just silly.
We already do that, though.
Drug use intended to treat a medical problem = okay.
Drug use not intended to treat a medical problem = not okay (with some exceptions).
Okay, sorry, I wasn't very specific I realize. My use of "drug-use" just encompassed illegal drugs. I wasn't taking into consideration prescription drugs because I would think since those are already acceptable, a religion saying "Yes! Use them!" wouldn't affect it.
Unless this implies that because you're a member of religion A and religion A says you must take prescription drug X, you can take X without a prescription?
Which then means that we really should be examining the intent behind all drug-use and defining which intentions are acceptable and which are not. And that's just silly.
We already do that, though.
Drug use intended to treat a medical problem = okay.
Drug use not intended to treat a medical problem = not okay (with some exceptions).
Okay, sorry, I wasn't very specific I realize. My use of "drug-use" just encompassed illegal drugs.
That doesn't make sense. Many prescription drugs are illegal except when dispensed to treat a disease. Cocaine and amphetamine are two very good examples of drugs commonly understood to be illegal "narcotics" (god I hate that word) but are perfectly legal to prescribe and possess for certain medical conditions. So intent does factor into the legality of "illegal" drugs as well.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
But whether a church qualifies as serving the public good would be determined by a government official, wouldn't it?
I'm trying to see some rationale behind why peyote is banned but other churches are allowed to serve alcohol to minors beyond "Fuck dem Injuns."
Well, when the law doesn't really serve any legitimate state interest (aka, drug laws, not traffic laws) and it messes with religious rituals, it seems problematic. I agree with banning animal sacrifice and all that, but for some triviality like peyote, it seems entirely wise to take into account the first nations' rituals when considering the law.
http://thornsbook.com online novel
I don't see why, and perhaps I'm just being me, the bolded part matters. If the law doesn't serve a legitimate state interest, fuck that law, absolutely. That at least partially figures into my abhorrence of anti-drug laws. But I fail to see why, even in the context of vestigial or relatively unjust laws, people who subscribe to one arbitrary breed of thought but not others should necessarily get a pass.
If you're going to issue a pass to a certain group for no better reason than "tradition", it seems only prudent to issue a pass to everyone else.
When the Volstead Act created Prohibition, it left an exception for "sacramental and medicinal wine." Almost overnight an assload of people suddenly became Catholic. San Antonio Winery in Los Angeles was producing 2,000 cases of wine annually at the start of Prohibition. By the time it was repealed, the Winery was producing 25,000 cases a year. Catholics didn't seem to mind the new "converts." If anything, I'd think they'd have welcomed them, seeing as how Prohibition was Protestant-driven.
We already do that, though.
Drug use intended to treat a medical problem = okay.
Drug use not intended to treat a medical problem = not okay (with some exceptions).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Wait, real quick, is "hate speech" protected by the constitution in the States as free speech?
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
Short answer:
If the speech primarily communicates an idea, then yes.
If the speech primarily intimidates, threatens, or incites violence, then no.
The line separating these two is not always clear for any single example.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I see no need for the government to prosecute people for using substances privately (for whatever reason) that some people dislike or find abhorrent. Excepting, of course, those that endanger the public health or that undermine the general good order of society.
ex) Wine consumed by minors during communion is acceptable, while crystal meth consumed by minors (in the privacy of their own residences) is not. One endangers the public health and serves to undermine the foundation of peace and order.
Religion is simply a window dressing when it comes to stuff like this.
Okay, sorry, I wasn't very specific I realize. My use of "drug-use" just encompassed illegal drugs. I wasn't taking into consideration prescription drugs because I would think since those are already acceptable, a religion saying "Yes! Use them!" wouldn't affect it.
Unless this implies that because you're a member of religion A and religion A says you must take prescription drug X, you can take X without a prescription?
That doesn't make sense. Many prescription drugs are illegal except when dispensed to treat a disease. Cocaine and amphetamine are two very good examples of drugs commonly understood to be illegal "narcotics" (god I hate that word) but are perfectly legal to prescribe and possess for certain medical conditions. So intent does factor into the legality of "illegal" drugs as well.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.