Tea, anyone?

The Supreme Court has just granted permission to an obscure, small Christian sect called O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal to drink hallucinogenic tea for their rituals.

The Accuser, as you may or may not know, holds a fairly libertarian point of view as far as drugs go. Adults are free to make their own choices. However, as you may have already guessed, we have a very strong opinion on the subject of religion.

It seems that here we have a two types of citizens, one religious, the other not. In a purely democratic society, shouldn't all people be treated the same? Why is it acceptable for one person, who believes certain fairy-tales to break the law, but another, who does NOT believe them, to be prosecuted?

It seem mighty unfair to treat one group any differently from another. Especially when your criteria (the Sherbert Test, recently upheld by this very SCOTUS decision) for allowing religious practices to break the law become so hypocritical that it's bad for society for some people to do drugs, but good for society if others do them.

Maybe instead of getting a prescription for medical marijuana from your doctor, you could visit your parish priest. He could fix you up.

The example of some tiny religion drinking happy tea is ultimately trivial. There are more grievous possibilities of this kind of decision. It's not hard to imagine one religion wanted to kill off another. Wouldn't they then have the legal backing to do so, all because we can't infringe on their precious religious rights?

Certainly, this is an extreme example. However, the idea that any group of people has special treatment is wrong. Categorically wrong. All people are to be treated exactly the same way. That is the nature of democracy. Of course, this assumes that our laws are just, which sometimes is not the case.