Marc2b
Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
OK Marc. Let's see court cases where the courts turned not to the laws, but to cultural heritage.
And what will those laws be based upon? You are missing the point entirely. I will attempt to explain it to you (and others).
Let us suppose that science discovers a means of traveling faster than light and in a few short years humanity is building spaceships than can travel between the stars quickly. Let us further suppose that in short order humanity discovers numerous Earth like planets (The right amount of gravity, plenty of water and air, mountains, forests, animals, etc. – but with no other intelligent species living on them), dozens of new worlds ripe for colonization. It is not long before many humans begin to leave earth for these greener pastures – for all the varied reasons people emigrate. One such reason of course is to live in a society that reflects the values you hold. Let us now look at two such groups of colonists:
A group of Rastafarians.
A group of Atheists.
Both of these groups colonize a separate planet – a whole world to call there own. Both groups, after arriving, sets up a government based upon democratic principles. There is a legislature made up of elected representatives. There is an executive, also elected, and a court system appointed by the executive and confirmed by the legislature. There is also a bill of rights guaranteeing freedom of speech, religion (would the Atheists even bother? – lets suppose that they do so anyway, just to cover all the bases), etc.
Now let us consider some legislation that will come before these legislators.
Should marijuana be legal? The Atheists conclude that Marijuana clearly has harmful effects upon people. Since nobody amongst them is religious it is clearly not a religious issue. They vote to make Marijuana illegal. What about the Rastafarians? Yes, they know that marijuana has harmful effects upon people but clearly it is also part of their religion, so they make it legal.
Five hundred years go by. The population of both worlds has expanded from both the natural birthrate and new immigration. With so many more people come new ideas – and new religions.
On the Rastafarian world legislation is introduced to make Marijuana illegal since its obvious detrimental effect on people are clearly a matter of concern for the government – or so some think it should be. What will be the precedents they look back upon to make their decision be? Since marijuana is part of the religious ceremonies of most Rastafarians (and there is a long history of marijuana use in respect to religion) they will likely argue that it is obviously a matter of religious freedom and therefore any legislation banning marijuana is unconstitutional.
On Atheist world legislation is introduced to legalize marijuana. Not everyone on Atheist world is an atheist anymore and some believe smoking marijuana is a matter of personal choice based upon religious freedom. When their court meets to decide whether or not the new legislation is Constitutional what will be the precedents be? Clearly it is not a religious issue – no religion they know of (except this small cult that has recently sprung up on their world) considers marijuana to be a part of their religion. The very idea is laughable. Also, it is obvious to them that Marijuana has negative effects on the users and the government certainly has the duty to protect people from harmful substances. Yes, it is obvious that it is not unconstitutional to ban marijuana.
_____________________________
Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!
|
RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress - 
Profile
There went the ice water! 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread