“Freedom of religion is an inalienable right, and until this right is extended to the oldest form of spiritual practice, our ability to explore who we truly are will be severely limited.”
The words are those of Alexander Beiner, author of the novel Beyond the Basin, which draws on his studies of shamanism and the use of sacred plants in South America.
His plea – and it’s in the standfirst in a Guardian “Comment is Free” feature – is that this “oldest form of spiritual practice”, the use of mind-changing drugs, should be allowed in law. That standfirst: “Freedom of religion should be extended to the use of drugs in spiritual practice”.
No, no, no.
Allow the use of the drug, yes, but why just because for some people it’s a religious practice?
Beiner makes the perfectly logical point that our society allows ciggies and booze to be consumed in whatever quantities we wish, so why not plant-based drugs?
Well, one reason could be that when these plant-based drugs are refined, they become more dangerous and have to be controlled. In their raw state, though, yes, why not let us use them if we wish? That doesn’t, of course, excuse the fact that tobacco and alcohol are capable of harm when misused – and harm to people other than the user, too – but it’s a point worth pondering.
But leave religion out of it, Alexander. Freedom of religion is not, as you say, an inalienable right, in that it extends only as far as it doesn’t tread on the rights of others. Often, it does.
I agree that to have a religion is an inalienable right. It’s in the how of practising it that things can get tricky. So let us not complicate matters further by having more special privileges – just because something is classed as a religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.