if alcohol was part of a religion, should they have to stop if alcohol was banned?
444629
i don't think that they should, only because it is part of their religion... how would you feel if you did something every once in awhile because it was tradition (like christmas or your birthday) and then all of a sudden it was banned? you would still want to do it right? i don't think that they would have to stop
127508
alcohol that you should not drink
162484
Of course not!! In the United States to do so would make our country run by religion.  That in itself is wrong from any perspective.  Those countries which have such laws are going down a slippery slope that is detrimental to individual freedoms.
984960
Depends what exactly you mean by separation of church and state.  The First Amendment is desgined to keep the government out of the religion business; there is no prohibition on people of religious faith participating in politics.
207790
Some religions shun the use of all liquor, while others are more tolerant.  One of the religions which shuns drinking alcohol is the Baptist Church.
1140358
IMHO, governments should keep away from all matters religious in the same way that religious figures and organizations should keep their hands off politics.\nThis kind of interference with the public's right to learn someone's point of view is an ugly violation of freedom of speech.
867946
Its ok to drink just dont drive. It should be MAD mothers against drinking.
579757
I think if that's true, then Bush should submit to some drug testing. We don't need church-nutz ruining the country for the people that actually have to end up living in it.\nFreedom OF religion also means freedom FROM it, and from the 'end times' types that forgot to take their medz etc.
1088137
You have a good point there, in fact lets get rid of anything which maybe deemed as religious and that would stop all fighting as well as crulty in the world. Only trouble then, we would all have to live together happily. Good question, it would be great if the so called leaders of the churches and the worlds countrys take few minutes to think over this one.
789241
I'm so glad that someone asked this question!  I have been wondering it myself.  I am a christian and I drink.  I don't all the time, and I have gotten drunk, very few times, but I have (and I know thats wrong, and can understand people having problems with that) However, my family and I have serious disagreements on this subject.  I don't think that there is anything wrong biblically speeking with having a social drink, some of my family disagrees but can't back it up.  I'm 21, legal and responsible with it.  I think its ok considering wine was pretty much the beverage of choise back in biblical times.  As far as marijuana, I think its wrong becuase the whole purpose of it is to get high and alter the mind and I don;t think thats godly.
112702
quit atheism or quit religion? be more specific
1057491
It's a main part in the usual supporting activities. \nI've to point it out the country you are coming from is not deserved as alcohol-free!
1128887
YES, any coercion to attend AA, or to profess belief in 12-step ideology, by any government entity, is an Establishment Clause violation.\n   12-step ideology is a religious belief system.\n   The best way to understand the problem is from the opposite way around -- suppose a person is ordered by a government agency to "get help to stop drinking" after an incident, and the agency specifies AA.  The person finds they do not cotton to the 12-step ideology - that the idea of a "higher power" removing "character defects" and stopping them from drinking if they pray hard enough just makes no sense.  But the person decides to stop drinking though personal empowerment ideology (the antithesis of AA's "I am powerless, only God can save me" ideology), and repeated breath and urine tests prove the person is indeed abstaining.  Now the agency that ordered AA involvement finds out they are not "working the steps" and threatens the person with jail (or job loss, or loss of children, etc.) if they do not demonstrate a "sincere commitment" to AA and the 12 steps.\n     Is this fair? - Should someone be punished for being sober the "wrong" way? \n    This is not a far-fetched scenario, by the way. I experienced it myself. I was told by the government agency in my situation that "being sober is not enough", that they "need to see that I am working the 12 steps or else I will face severe consequences."\n   This is indeed government-coerced religious involvement. I successfully sued over this.\n   The government can order sobriety in certain circumstances.  But HOW someone achieves it is no one's business.
895115
They must if they've been able to get their way when it came to pushing some of their ridiculous agendas. \n\nI don't think that the separation of church and state should be abolished though.
357244
okay, i'm by no means an expert, but i wanna try anyway.\n\nbuddhism's got somethin' called The Four Noble Truths, which basically outline the nature of suffering, and The Eightfold Path, which tells ye how to deal with and hopefully eliminate suffering.  maybe i got that backwards, but i don't think so.\n\npart of ending suffering is right thinking (compassion is another).  since some pornography is exploitive (not all), then i think that the support of such would be frowned upon by buddhists.\n\non the other hand, you have different levels of involvement.  y'got y'lay buddhists--your everyday people.  and y'got y'monks--those who devote the entirety of their lives to buddhism.  for the latter, i'm pretty sure they must remain celibate (and dry--that means no booze), so either that one thang (ach, censorship!) or pornography i'm guessing would not be allowed.  even with lay-buddhists in general, i think drinking is still frowned upon somewhat...\n\nokay, not all monks can't drink and such...  so i've heard, the shaolin monks are exempt from the drinking rule (don't know about taking a wife) because long, long ago, they saved the emperor.  in thanks, he allowed them some leniency in their practices...  it's not like they can just go to a bar and drink whene'er they want though!!  their life is still quite involved with the temple, and that's putting it mildly!\n\ni hope that helps.  if not, i'm sure you can find some good resources on e-sangha.  it's a free buddhist newsgroup.\nhttp://www.lioncity.net/buddhism
516953
Why not? Is God a property of non-users alone?\n\nBut, I'd suggest you give up drugs and drinks, if you do indulge in these vices.
897884
The answer is they should be allowed to talk about their faith.\nThe word of caution is that the speech should be about personal experiences and how faith has helped the person talking.\nThe reason religion is sometimes banned from speeches is that it inevitably leads to some sort of weird comparisons to people with other faiths (or no religious affiliation) in a negative connotation. \nI have no problem when someone says something like: "I am so happy to be here, and I thank God for helping me through the tough times and guiding me."\nBut not something that sounds: "I am a better person because I have my God on my side, and you don't"