Comment: Sorry. I think his argument on this point is bogus.

(See in situ)


Sorry. I think his argument on this point is bogus.

Whether the wording in the drug law referred to articles for the treatment (etc.) of "man or other animals" OR "man or animals" - that is, whether it included man in the animal kingdom or not, it would have no bearing on the spirit of the law and its implementation; it wouldn't add, detract, or otherwise change its meaning or intent - not to exclude the use of drugs for veterinarian purposes. Lucky he had the judge he did. That wording does nothing to infringe on his right to practice his religion. The real issue was more substantive - how his involvement could have been construed to have violated the law in the first place. I'm Christian, and I'm not offended by the wording. In science, depending on the context, one might refer to two "kingdoms," or three, or five, or six. The classifications are based on certain similar features. In one context, there are three kingdoms: mineral (without life), plant (alive but rooted in place), and animal (alive and having voluntary movement). That's not to say there isn't further differentiation. The wording itself acknowledges that man is a distinct entity.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir