Register to read the introduction…
O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l , 546 U.S. 418 (2006). The government argued for the restriction of hoasca under the supposition that the ban of the drug would “…[protect] the health and safety of the Uniao Do Vegetal members, [and prevent] the diversion of hoasca from the church to recreational users…” (court case). According to Mill such an argument is based on restricting behavior prior to action. There is no certainty that the Uniao Do Vegetal, nor any individual in possession of hoasca would cause harm to himself or others. However, the United States government is not concerned solely in the protection of the Uniao do Vegetal, but more so for the consequences that may occur, should the drug be abused. The desimation of the drug to surrounding areas, and the illegal selling of hoasce could wreak damage on the surrounding community and the government’s interest in preserving the wellbeing of the people. The prevention of the potential harm that may occur is far greater in importance than the ritual of a small number of
…show more content…
However, the use of traditional practices is not always necessary or in the best interest of the individual. Through the elimination of certain customs seen as dangerous, the government is not “enslaving the soul” (11), Mill’s opinion on government intervention of religion, but rather freeing it. “…Custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement…” (80). The reliance on custom in a society inhibits the growth of new ideas and the development of intellect. Through blind acceptance of religion, people become content with the life of their ancestors and do not seek to improve their community. The elimination of customs, such as the use of hoasca, frees the people from repetition and instills in them a “spirit of improvement”, “individuality”, and a thirst for “change” (80). The growth of ideas in a select few, like Alert Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton, leads to a better, more educated life for …show more content…
Unfortunately, the rule of the majority, such as the jury in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l , 546 U.S. 418 (2006), is not always a fair representation of the population nor are they unbiased. One may easily believe that the ruling on Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l , 546 U.S. 418 (2006) is the clear and right choice because it was chosen by the representatives of the majority. However, if one looks at the pool of representatives, certain distinctions stand out from the majority of people. The representatives often possess different qualities, have received a different level of education, and are motivated by unique incentives. Differing from the average citizen, the representative does not necessarily have the same moral beliefs as the majority. This poses a problem because “men’s opinion’s,...on what it laudable or blamable...determine their wishes on any other subject” (12). Representatives do not enact laws based solely on the facts of the case, but bring to the decision underlying motives. The majority is in fact the minority, ruling based on elitist culture in which they were
However, the use of traditional practices is not always necessary or in the best interest of the individual. Through the elimination of certain customs seen as dangerous, the government is not “enslaving the soul” (11), Mill’s opinion on government intervention of religion, but rather freeing it. “…Custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement…” (80). The reliance on custom in a society inhibits the growth of new ideas and the development of intellect. Through blind acceptance of religion, people become content with the life of their ancestors and do not seek to improve their community. The elimination of customs, such as the use of hoasca, frees the people from repetition and instills in them a “spirit of improvement”, “individuality”, and a thirst for “change” (80). The growth of ideas in a select few, like Alert Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton, leads to a better, more educated life for …show more content…
Unfortunately, the rule of the majority, such as the jury in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l , 546 U.S. 418 (2006), is not always a fair representation of the population nor are they unbiased. One may easily believe that the ruling on Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l , 546 U.S. 418 (2006) is the clear and right choice because it was chosen by the representatives of the majority. However, if one looks at the pool of representatives, certain distinctions stand out from the majority of people. The representatives often possess different qualities, have received a different level of education, and are motivated by unique incentives. Differing from the average citizen, the representative does not necessarily have the same moral beliefs as the majority. This poses a problem because “men’s opinion’s,...on what it laudable or blamable...determine their wishes on any other subject” (12). Representatives do not enact laws based solely on the facts of the case, but bring to the decision underlying motives. The majority is in fact the minority, ruling based on elitist culture in which they were