Replying to a message of Ross Cassell to Ross Sauer:

 RC> Ross Sauer -> Ross Cassell wrote:

 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?

Great question.  There's a sect down in your general neck of the woods
(south of you, I think) that believes in ritual animal sacrifice.  I don't think
they're allowed to perform those sacrifices (at least publicly, they probably
do it secretly).

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

 RC> So you advocate the thought police?

Only when it changes from belief to action(s) based on that belief.

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

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

 >> 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, instead
 RS>> of proper medical care.

 RC> That is still a hairy line...

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

Adults can.  I'm ambivalent on the Christian Scientists (and others) who refuse
to allow medical treatment for their children when such treatment becomes
necessary or even life-saving.  One part of me says they have the right to do
exactly what they're doing and the other part says that the children have a right
to the necessary or life-saving treatment regardless of the parents' wishes.

 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?

As I just noted, adults can do that.  I do know that sometimes the courts
will intervene and order the person to submit to treatment and/or order that
the treatment be forcibly administered to the unwilling patient, IMO that is
wrong.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+