Indigenous Religions Poll+Discussion

[eagerSnake]

Two cases below in which secular laws supersede religious practices:

A. Eagle feathers are a key element of ceremonies for the Northern Arapaho and many other tribes. In 2008, a case was dismissed against a Northern Arapaho Indian who acknowledged shooting a bald eagle in March 2005 for its feathers. Laws in the U.S. protect eagles.

B. Although the U.S. has continued to allow the use of Peyote in the Native American Church and the hoasca tea of the Brazil-based O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal (which is a blend of Christian beliefs and South American traditions), there is still controversy over the use of illegal drugs in religious ceremonies. The tea, which contains an illegal drug known as DMT, is considered sacred. Members believe they can understand God only by drinking the tea, which is consumed twice a month at four-hour ceremonies.

Should these practices be allowed under religious freedom laws, or banned under the general laws prohibiting their use? At what point (if any) should these practices be banned?

[Randomnamechange]

A) should be banned if it is happening to the extent that it is endangering the existence of the species
B) shouldn't be banned. The issues with drugs that (should) cause them to be illegal are not caused by this usage

[Vi]

These are bad dichotomies.
1) Allow a sustainable, regulated way to get the feathers.
2) Review to see if this drug should be illegal. If so, allow a sustainable, regulated way to get it in these circumstances.

seems easy enough
esp. since both of these can be done in a way that's minimally harmful to all parties

[PeregrineV]

Both Vi and Random have the right of it.

[Davsto]

tl;dr the law has nuance

[eagerSnake]

1) Allow a sustainable, regulated way to get the feathers.

There were 100,000 bald eagles in the U.S. in 1782; forty years ago, there were only 487. I can not argue that they are becoming extinct because their population has increased over the past years and is now around 10,000 in the contiguous U.S., but I can argue that because it is a protected bird it should stay protected regardless of religious ceremonies. If they need eagle feathers, they should get it from the fish and wildlife services. Most eagles that are killed from power lines or other causes are kept so their remains can be used for these reasons. The government has provided a repository so tribes may use the parts of deceased birds but tribes argue this process of obtaining needed material has failed. The feathers are made available for use by the government. Instead of outright defying federal laws, tribes should fight to make the process of obtaining materials easier if they disagree.

[Davsto]

If they need eagle feathers, they should get it from the fish and wildlife services. Most eagles that are killed from power lines or other causes are kept so their remains can be used for these reasons. The government has provided a repository so tribes may use the parts of deceased birds but tribes argue this process of obtaining needed material has failed.

What, you mean a sustainable, regulated way to get the feathers?

[eagerSnake]

I'm saying they already have that, but the tribes decide it's not good enough and kill the eagles anyway, and we allow it.

[Randomnamechange]

1) Allow a sustainable, regulated way to get the feathers.

There were 100,000 bald eagles in the U.S. in 1782; forty years ago, there were only 487. I can not argue that they are becoming extinct because their population has increased over the past years and is now around 10,000 in the contiguous U.S., but I can argue that because it is a protected bird it should stay protected regardless of religious ceremonies. If they need eagle feathers, they should get it from the fish and wildlife services. Most eagles that are killed from power lines or other causes are kept so their remains can be used for these reasons. The government has provided a repository so tribes may use the parts of deceased birds but tribes argue this process of obtaining needed material has failed. The feathers are made available for use by the government. Instead of outright defying federal laws, tribes should fight to make the process of obtaining materials easier if they disagree.

it clearly isn't the native american's fault then. they were already doing this in a a sustainable manner, then a bunch of immigrants come over and kill off loads of the eagles, is it fair to demand that they cease their customs to assist in sorting out the fuck up of another group?

[Korts]

Reductive polling options present a false dichotomy: either disallow any religious exemption from federal law regardless of sensibility, or override federal law across the board without any case-by-case consideration of consequences. As I don't think many people support killing eagles, this suggests that OP's opinion is that indigenous religious practices should be banned altogether.

To answer the question, it must be noted that the two cases have wildly different impacts on the environment. Voluntary consumption of psychedelic substances in a safe place with no possibility of societal harm cannot be compared to systematic endangerment of a species. To suggest that these practices either both have to stop, or they both have to be allowed just because of their religious nature is, at best, monochromatic thinking, and at worst intellectually dishonest.

[Psyche]

should be allowed

[Accountant]

Laws are more important than beliefs

Unless there's a law specifically overturning the first law in the case of religion, then theres' no issue

[Annadog40]

The Church has minors drink alcohol, should that also be regulated?

[Accountant]

The Church has minors drink alcohol, should that also be regulated?

yep

[Accountant]

I don't support alcohol age laws anyway - either ban it completely or let everyone drink it - but if they exist then the Church shouldn't get a free pass. They can replace the communion with sparkling grape juice or whatever.