Reply #33: So much depends on the moral frame

[sweetheart]

you use to make this statement:
"regardless how offensive to reason and how dangerous to human life their beliefs are."

American indians have for centuries taken peyote in religious
ceremony. There is a probability that such practices could be
dangerous to human life., and this is where the nanny state
can go too far.

Methinks it must be shown that it is dangerous to a life not in the
religious group to qualify for such thinking. Many religions deal
with facing death in the many ways... some meditate in the snow and
use breathing to increase the body temperature... another thing that
can be deemed to be "dangerous to human life."

My own life is very intuitive, and i can rationalize anything like
any good debater.... that said, the rational must respect the edges
of its domain. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness it says.
Methinks that freedom to be a nutcase religious loony is part of
that, and maybe even those people grow up over time.

The human right is:
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and
in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

My religious view on this is "to each his own, keep to your own
business and leave others alone." I would hope that behind the
rationality, that those who would legislate against "dangerous
practices" be wary of our human rights. You could have been a
snake wielding pentacostal a year ago, and today, a buddhist. That
is our freedom. Tolerance becomes that.