Please respond to the following prompt:
Do
you believe the government should regulate certain religious practices?
Use the following example, snake-handling, as a springboard for
explaining your opinion. This practice is one of several cases where the
government has placed restrictions on a faith-based practice in some
way. Use the YouTube video and NPR segment to support your opinion. Be sure to cite specific examples from the links in giving your opinion.
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/04/226838383/snake-handling-preachers-open-up-about-takin-up-serpents
18 comments:
In my personal opinion, I do not think that government should be able to restrict religious practices. I believe that people should be able to practice their religion how ever they would like as long as they are not disrupting or harming others. Snake-handling is a personal choice made my certain churches and individuals and should not be infringed upon. It is crucial to establish the line between church and state. By restricting what churches can do, the line is not separated and that is a problem. Regulations should only be in place if the religious practice is negatively affecting others. In this case especially, that is not the case.
Governmental and religious practice should run tangential to one another unless the state of a religious union is one in which non consenting individuals are harmed. In the specific case of snake handling, it seems as though a secular population is engaging in a practice solely of their own accord. Though the argument could be made that snake handling practices lead to unsafe conditions, no individual is forced to take part in the more burlesque ritual. Therefor, the practice of consuming toxins born from the snakes is a venture taken at the risk of the individual affiliate. When practitioners of the church take on certain rights of expression, they enter a social and spiritual contract which stipulates that intervening parties must not encroach on the sanctity of practice. Conversely, religious tenements must then be constructed purely from covenants promoting the general betterment of society.
The easy answer to this question is obvious; no, the government should not be allowed to regulate religious practices. One of the most important freedoms granted by the amendments is Freedom of Religion, so this means that one can practice religion without legal repercussions. Although the First Amendment protects religion legally, it can be openly criticized by anyone who deems it fit, and THEY are protected by the First Amendment as well. For something like snake-handling Christian practice, which is so obscure and thinly spread, it is easy to overlook the laws that prevent people from practicing their religious beliefs. In Tennessee, where this practice is illegal, it is still practiced, and rightly so, because if they were persecuted by the state, they would surely win in court. Religious practice simply cannot be limited by legislation. As different or strange as it may seem to the general public, the law that protects people like snake-handlers is 200 years old, and will hardly bend, and definitely not break. Personally I find the snake handling frightening and dangerous, and somewhat cult-like, HOWEVER, it is a sacred practice to these people and it should be protected as such under US law.
Personally, I think religious practices that have anything to do with poison, vicious animals and self-injuring items should be the eliminated. Yet, the government shouldn't really take full control of what churches do. They are two different topics and should be kept separately. The whole snake practicing is scary and life-risking. There were children there, what if the snake were to get to them? It was hard for me to put my arms around that they can just take a bunch of snakes and use them for their rituals. Couldn't they just do that with stuffed-animal snakes? It's going to be a major controversy when someone gets seriously hurt, and they will HAVE to start changing the regulations for churches. For now, I believe that it should have some control and it's best that the government should withdraw from what the church does. Safety is the most important tact for any private or public area.
The government should not be allowed to regulate certain religious practices unless it causes danger to others or they try to impose their practices on others. The first amendment states freedom of religion and going against this would be a violation of the constitution. People with different religious practices are simply doing what they believe shows their devotion. People that get involved with snake-handling know what risks they are taking, so it's their right to practice what they wish. Poisonous snakes are outside everywhere in the world and could bite people anytime, their captivity and handling isn't going change that.
Personally, I do not believe that the government should be allowed to regulate religious practices. Freedom of Religion protects all individuals from practicing their beliefs in any way that they deem appropriate without legal repercussions. I believe that the government should only be permitted to intervene when a religious practice or custom is harming and negatively affecting those who are outside of the religious group because then the group is violating the rights of others. However, it is a little frightening to see that individuals, especially young children, are being exposed to poisonous creatures and poison due to the religious practice of snake handling in Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas, Appalachia, and West Virginia. I do not believe that the children should be exposed to an environment that is dangerous and potentially deadly. For example, there is one case of a woman dying from a snake bite and refusing medical assistance. But, the adults of this religious practice are aware of the dangers and consequences and thus they should be allowed to perform in these sermons with the snakes. Although the practice of snake handling is dangerous and strange, it is a tradition for those who practice it such as Jamie Coots who is a third generation snake handler. The practice is sacred and meaningful to those who partake in it and it would be unjust and illegal to intervene.
I believe that unless your religious practices harm unto others. It's a basic human right to be able to practice what you believe and the Constitution allows individuals the freedom to do so. I also agree with the Constitution, however, when it says that you can only participate in religious practices if you're not violating the rights of others by doing so. I also believe that freedom of practicing religion should be restricted when it comes to harming children. It's not okay to let your child die because you think that medical attention can't save them, only God can. Only when the child gets old enough can they decide for themselves to be put in danger for the sake of religion.
I believe that the government should definitely have the right to regulate certain religious practices, especially ones that can stop over zealous snake-handling christians from getting fatally bitten by rattlesnakes. It is ridiculous for these churches to be holding public services involving the shaking of dangerous snakes. I believe that there should at least be a required waiver signed that they are risking their lives for anyone who passes through the churches door to the snake-pit that awaits them. There are still some crazy practices that are involved in some types of religion, and to help keep this country a safer place, regulation should be required even if it is violating our first amendment rights.
I personally believe that the government does not have the right to limit what churches can and cannot do. Just as we ask the churches to stay out of our government and our schools, we should respect their wishes and stay out of their churches. Personally, I think the idea of deliberately agitating venomous animals is a terrible idea and should not be something that is practiced. However if I did enjoy engaging in such practices I would not want my rights to be restricted. If a person shows up to a snake-handling church they are assuming responsibility for any injury that might occur. If you enter a room where you know people are going to be shaking snakes, it is your own fault if you get bitten. The one exception to this case would be children. I am conflicted on how I feel about children in the church, who may be forced by their parents to attend the church and then may be harmed at the service. I believe a warning should be posted outside on these buildings but I still maintain that the government has no right to control these things.
Personally, I don't believe it is okay for the government to be allowed to regulate religious practices. It is not fair to have someone that isn't a part of your religion/ understand what you practice, not allow you to do whatever you want. The church and government are two completely different things that should be kept separately.The government literally has no right to TRY and be in other peoples business so they can just stop. There are other issues in our country that they should try and stop instead of trying to control what the church does.
I believe that the government should not be allowed to regulate religious practices. Freedom of religion is a right guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause within the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
As the excerpt above describes, separation of church and state is a two-way street. Just as religious ideology should not dictate law, the law should not dictate religious practice. That means people are allowed to practice religion however they choose, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The snake handlers should be able to continue incorporating venomous snakes in their religious practice without government regulation. They do it as a way of “showin' that God has power over something that he created that does have the potential of injuring you or takin' your life” and as a test of their own faith in God. As long as they are not endangering anyone else with the snakes, snake-handling or any other form of religious expression they choose cannot be interfered with by the government.
The government should not be allowed to regulate religious practices that are part of the faith and traditions of that specific religion. In the npr report, it is evident that snake handling goes back hundreds of years and is a huge part of life for these people. So would it be fair for the government to take that away from them? I don't think so, these people have the right to practice their faith and it does no harm to those outside of the religion. If it put people in danger that do not practice snake handling that would be a situation where the government could intervene. But for now, I think that we should all allow these people practice their faith. One pastor explained to npr, that these people are willing to die for their faith and view it as an expression of their faith. In America we have the right to freedom of religion and religious expression. If the snake handling was banned, the rights of the people practicing snake handling would be taken away.
This is a complicated issue, because the government should not have the ability to regulate certain religious practices, but, if people's safety is being put at risk, then it is okay. The snake handlers engage in quite a risky activity, but to them, it's a way to express their faith, and it truly is a testament to their strong faith in God. The government should not interfere with the group's snake handling practices, but in order to keep others' safety a priority (such as those who are not Christian and those who do not practice snake handling), these practices should only be done in places such as a church or home-places where the people in attendance have given their full consent and are comfortable with the situation.
Burhan Bustillos
I don't believe the government needs to be in charge of regulating religions per se, however, the government or law enforcement agencies should continue regulating people within those religions. So for example, if a religion has kids going through traumatic experiences or dangerous situations the Department of Social Services should interfere and proceed like in any other non religious situation.
Julian Wilson
I do believe that the government should regulate certain religious practices. Although I genuinely believe in religious freedom, if someone's religion in some way hurts someone else or affects their life negatively, I think it is the responsibility of the government to step in. I'm not sure how I feel about adults in snake-handling churches choosing to do that, but I think it definitely crosses a line when children grow up in that environment. As the sources said, it is mostly families who attend, which would suggest that their children are being raised to think it is safe to handle poisonous snakes and drink poisonous and toxic liquids. I don't think this is okay because it means their are children who say that they will "never go to a doctor" as Coots stated his son said.
Another example of a time when I think it is acceptable for the government to regulate religious practices is polygamy. I think the government was correct in outlawing this practice in the Mormon Church, causing the church to move away from it. As in the case of snake-handling, I think that polygamy can be detrimental to the development of children, which is not okay.
I do not believe that the government should have the ability to regulate certain religious practices. It is one of the government's jobs to keep the citizens of America as safe as possible but you must keep in mind that the government should also try not to invade Americans' freedoms. The first amendment of the US Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. The government should respect this amendment enough to allow American adults the right to make their own decisions when it comes to worship. If people are willing to risk their safety in the act of prayer, then they should be held responsible for their mistake of leaving themselves vulnerable. Also, if people want to refuse to use common sense such as handling venomous snakes then the government can just say "I told you so" when they get hurt.
-Jeremy
I think it is important to allow people to have religious freedom both in beliefs and in practice. As long as the snake handlers and the people going to the church are above the age of 18 I don't see anything wrong with it, they are choosing to put themselves in danger. However, in the video you can see very young children at the church service, which I don't think should be allowed. They are not old enough to make the decision to go or not, therefore they should not be put in such a dangerous situation. -Carly Pittman
Due to the hazards that come with serpents in churches, this practice is against the law throughout US states except West Virginia. The argument towards continuing the practice of snake-handling in church is that they are putting their trust into God’s hands and God would not allow the serpent to hurt them. Snake-handler, Hamblin says "The feeling to take up serpents is unexplainable," he says. "It's better felt than told. It's a peace that surpasseth all understanding to know that you're standing there with death in your hand, and the anointment of God has protected you to let you do that.” I disagree with this belief and I think the government should be allowed to restrict religious practices if they pose harm to others. Snake-handlers may be experienced with snakes and have strategies to keep themselves safer, but I don’t believe that poisonous serpents can truly be tamed. Also having snakes in churches could lead to accidental injuries by children or other worshippers who don’t know how to properly handle the dangerous snakes.
Post a Comment