Doug,

I've been wondering what your opinion has been on an issue, and this is the opportunity to raise it...

The two American women, said to be "aid workers" who were 'detained' until recently in Afghanistan were accused of "preaching Christianity" and the law of that land forbade this.

There was always some doubt expressed by the media reports that they were actually doing this.

However, within hours of their release being made public a Reverend in Buffalo was all over the television expressing his relief (one of the ladies is a member of his group or congregation) and stating outright that they were there to preach the Lord's word and that to his knowledge his member intended to continue doing so wherever that may take her. I understand that the ladies have admitted to preaching God's word there too.

So the question is: were they wrong to have done what they did where they did it?

Jim

FYI, my opinion is that they knew that what they were doing was against the law and they should have been ready to face the consequences of their actions. It may even be arguable that they should have revelled in their situation if doing the preaching was so dear to them.


>Hi Mike,
>
>>>Personally, I think people just like the 'buzz' and are rationalizing their desires into political movements.
>>
>>The point is, why shoudl the government decide? And since they decided yes on alcohol, which is far more dangerous than Pot, why are they inconsistant? Why did they wage war on their citizens?
>
>Well, good question. I suppose the answer to this lies in what people think the role of government should be?
>
>Why is it somehow 'right' for governmental bodies to force people to stop smoking in, say, private restaurants (or even their homes!) whereas it isn't ok for that same government to force folks to stop smoking pot?
>
>IMO there is a huge double standard at work here..
>
>So, which way should it be? Total Libertarianism is inother words anarchy and we are a nation of laws, whether or not you or I agree with them. We live in a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. If you don't know the differences I'll not waste your time but I presuume you do. A Republic only works when people have operational internal moral 'gyroscopes' and that 'gyroscope' has a consistent moral base and approach to life, something we've been stripping out of society as fast as we are able it seems. So, we now face the degredation of life...
>
>Right now smoking pot is illegal and you and I should obey those laws. Maybe I take this position because I come from a generation where authority was pretty much benevolent.
>
>As far why the government 'waged war' regarding the alcohol issue I would remind you that this was a Constitutional Ammendment (later recinded as we all know). As such, being in the Constitution, it absolutely had the force of law. I would also remind you that there was more going on with respect to gangsters like Al Capone.
>
>If the right to smoke pot became law then I suppose those who wished to so do would be legally free to so do. IMO that doesn't diminish the notion that smoking pot has deleterious effects as drinking alcohol does - legal or not.
>
>This isn't about legal rights IMO but common sense. If you want to be stupid and blow out brain cells go ahead. I would still think they your pretty stupid to do it.
>
>>
>>I don't ask these questions cause I think every body must get stoned, I ask because everyone shoudl be able to choose without being afraid of thrown in jail.
>
>Well, if you break the law and jail time is the appropriate response I think you should go to jail.
>
>If you don't like the law use legal means to see if you can get it changed. I don't like some of the laws prohibiting prayer or other faith-based expressions in the public square. I will do everything in my power to change them but I will obey them until they prohibit me from having my faith, which sadly, is around the corner once again.
>
>>
>>>Think about it for a moment.. Drinking, smoking pot, snorting (whatever) induces an altered state. Altered from what some ask? Well, the usual response is from pressures, reality (almost always with a snicker) or some other representation of life in a non-induced state.
>>
>>Not always, it depends on what you take. For those that do escape, whats wrong with that? If you do some hard mental work all day, using a joint to put your mind at rest is like taking a nap after hard physical work all day. Sometimes people need a break.
>
>Well, what's the purpose of drinking or smoking pot then Mike? Using a joint "to put your mind at reat" is IMO nothing more than taking a drug to alter your mental state. How is this not altering your mental state as you assert "Not always."??
>
>I agree that people need a break. Absolutely. Are you suggesting that you cannot relax without taking a drug? I can and I'd ask what's your problem. Why not just relax without the drugs?? Or are you dependent upon them. Sounds like you are. Dependency is the first step towards addiction just in case you don't know...
>
>>
>>>Therefore, I think it can be safely asserted that those who drink or smoke dope to reach an altered state are running from reality and I fail to understand why that is beneficial...
>>
>>Thats fine. Go and think that, and never take drugs. Totally cool, but you should allow everyone else to choose for themselves.
>
>Why? (and this goes to the heart of the 'it doesn't hurt anyone' argument) If you're breaking the law your behavior is causing some person to need to spend time and money that could go towards some other venture to be spent tracking you down and prosecuting you. They do that because they are legally required to do this. Again, if you don't like this then work within the law to have it changed. Until then, when you break the law, you are a part of the problem, not the answer.
>
>>
>>>My advice is that anyone who smokes dope should stop and get reality-based life.
>>
>>Good advice. My advice for kids everywhere is instead of playing a video game, pick up a book, or learn something on the interenet. THat too is good advice, but I'm not going to support putting those kids in jail that remain in front of their xBox.
>
>Yup.. You analogy breaks down though as playing an xBox hasn't been deemed illegal. I suppose Sony would like that. <g>
>
>I also encourage kids to put the book down and go outside and play in the fresh air. Run, jump, play and just be a kid...