News-Record.com

It's an admirable idea, Joe. Only it would only work for the zealots that use the Bible. So far as I know, the Qur'an doesn't include holy guarantees of immunity from snake bites as the Bible does. Apparently, the writer of the Qur'an at least had THAT much sense. :)

Really dangerous religious zealots are never terribly bothered by incorporating things outside the source work into their narrative.

This happens even with pretty moderate zealots. The last time that the Southern Baptist convention was in town I had an argument with an actual missionary over whether Lucifer falling from Heaven was in the canonical Christian Bible. He was sure it was.

If they're willing to strap explosives to their chests, I feel confident disturbed but religiously committed people of all faiths can be convinced they've gotta take a vein full of Venom for the creator.

I believe that this practice; taking up serpent, is protected under the first amendment. That being said, does not mean that I care to practice that particular faith tradition!

Shalom

These raids are like the prosecutions of gangsters in the 30s. Instead of taking them down through racketeering charges, they got many on tax evasion charges. Similarly, rather than attack the practice on shaky grounds that evoke first amendment rights, they are getting them on easier ground -- possession of dangerous animals, perhaps animal cruelty.

I say it's long past time they took this tack. How many people might be alive today had they not had poisonous snakes to play with?

To my knowledge the states and communities that have outlawed the practice haven't had their regulations struck down on First Amendment grounds yet, Darryl -- but as namtac says -- you don't really need to go after the PRACTICE so much if you make the logical legal argument that it's incredibly dangerous for people who aren't trained and licensed to keep these poisonous snakes.

Of course, you could argue that people wanting to do so anyway should be allowed -- for the good of the gene pool.

The people who keep these snakes do not have them as "pets." Rather, they are kept as an aspect of their religious practice.

Please understand, I am not an advocate of the practice of "handling snakes" as a part of my worship of God. The Christian God whom I worship need not have me "test" my faith in that God. Remember, faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. So, from that perspective, this act of "worship" is not of faith.

As far as trying to prosecute these people for having poisonous "pets," I do not believe that will hold up under First Amendment practice of one's religion of choice. While I do not believe in this particular faith tradition, I will speak loudly that these people have the right to practice their faith. When the court begins intervening into the realm of faith traditions, an unalterable slippery slope is begun. So, let these people practice their faith as they see fit. If my memory serves me, there are not many in this tradition. So, time will be the ultimate determining factor.

Shalom

Darryl, it shouldn't make any difference to the law how these animals are viewed by the people who keep them. They pose a danger to the people in the neighborhoods where they are kept and the government has a valid interest in making sure they are handled and kept in a safe manner.

The religious use argument is invalid in this instance, because of the proven harm that comes from the practice. You could just as well argue that religions that require the sacrifice of human enemies should be protected, but you would have a hard time convincing most folks on that. I bring this up because in both religious practices, PEOPLE DIE.

Just as with all "inalienable rights" that we enjoy, some regulation is inevitable. You don't have a right to completely free speech, for instance. I see no reason why you should also have a right to completely free religious expression. Some religions will kill you, and that needs to be fought against, using any tools that are available.

namtac, I must politely disagree with you on this.

Shalom

OK, Darryl, I understand that we disagree. But I hope you won't consider it an imposition on our friendship if I ask you for some details. Recognizing that neither of us are legal experts, I'm curious where you would draw the line in prohibiting or limiting "free expression" of religious beliefs.

We've discussed in this forum the deaths of children via the faith practices of their parents. I'm not sure if we've discussed the ritual killing of animals. I expect you are well aware of some other extremes of human behavior that come about through the exercise of religious beliefs. Is there any of it that you think should be limited by law... and could you explain your reasoning for your judgment?

I dare say that far fewer snake handler zealots have met their death than precious innocent babies in the womb, slaughtered by humanist/atheist zealots out to make free sex more convenient for women who are victims of atheistic Hollywood zealots who produce the moral filth that incites sexual promiscuity. You would think by the arrogant and condescending contributors to this subject line that there were only religious (Christian) zealots and eccentrics. Actually they come in ALL shapes, sizes and belief systems! Stop the Christian-bashing and anti-Christianism (like anti-Semitism, etc.). The shoddy attempts to link ALL Scriptural conservatives with snake handlers and Islamo-fascists is obvious prejudice, blatant ignorance, and cheap one-up-man-ship!

I'm not sure that the question is: "Which is worse -- abortion or snake handling deaths?"

This post is about the authorities cracking down on snake handling and the people illegally procuring snakes for the purpose.

The end of the post is not exclusively about Christians -- it's about religious zealotry of all types that hurts and kills people. Whether that's people who bomb clinics, lynch or shoot other people because they disagree with their religious ideas, I think we can all agree the society's better off without them.