"Ross Cassell -> Ross Sauer"  wrote in
news:7423$HOLYSMOKE{at}JamNNTPd:

 RC>>> Are people allowed to possess religious beliefs?

 RS>> No reason why not, within limits.

 RC> Within limits???

 RC> Should limits be placed onto your beliefs?

Yes, if I believe that (fill in the blank minority group) only deserves
death, like that church shooter in TN, I should not be allowed to act on
those beliefs.

 RS>> If a person has a religious belief that flagrantly breaks the
 RC>   law, this is RS> not allowed.

 RC> So you advocate the thought police?

Not thought. Action.

 RS>> There is a case going through the courts right now, that deals
 RC>   with this. RS> A religious sect uses a type of tea they make from
 RC>   tree bark that is RS> hallucenigenic, and possibly addictive.

 RC> and where do the native American Indians fall into this schema, those
 RC> whom still practice the ancient rituals?

I'm not sure.

 >> There has been a number of cases including right here in WI of
 >> parents
 RS>> resorting to prayer, after their children get sick or hurt,
 RC>   instead of RS> proper medical care.

 RC> That is still a hairy line...

I know.

 RC> If people can legally shun meat among other things, why cant they shun
 RC> the medical community?

Because it can endangers more than just the believer.

 RC> As it is, liberal whackos are pursuing the legalization of physician
 RC> assisted suicide, why cant people pursue the non-assistance from a
 RC> physician, even if to their detriment?

If that suicide doesn't harm anyone else, fine.
But if refusing medical treatment can harm others, like in spreading
disease, it should be looked seriously at.

--- Xnews/5.04.25