View Full Version : Opinions - Why can't I exploit freedom of religon...
Creeping Death
05-10-2005, 19:13
I'm wondering what can qualify as a "religion" in the eyes of a government. For example if the cops catch me with drugs, and i say that it's my religion, what would your religion have to "contain" in order for it to hold a quarter in court?
I know that it wouldn't work, but i'm qurious about it. In case i wanna start my own religion someday.
Nature Boy
05-10-2005, 19:18
I think under Irish law at least, that you must have at least 100 members affiliated officially with your church. Being completely non-religious myself, I would love to abuse that law (afterall, straight men in a part of Canada are abusing the gay marriage law by marrying for financial benefit) by gathering together 100 friends (a difficult thing to do) and declaring ourselves a religion who base their spirituality on the use of psychadelic drugs. It wouldn't fly in this country. The government would put the foot down.
It's a tough question - Religion itself tends to be a term reserved for larger groups. In order to become a religion one must first start a cult, and then once the membership has gotten large enough it becomes a sect. Once the sect has grown and gained widespread acceptance in an area it can become a religion.
For one's homespun religion to be given some sort of understanding and leiniencyin court, I believe that the law works in such a way that laws that were around previous to the initiation of the cult in the country of it's founding cannot be directly broken in the new cults practice. BUT if the cult was founded in a country at a time when there was no laws contravining the beliefs of it, then that is when you might have a CHANCE of arguing for religious exemption. Eg Rastas from Jamaica in America or Native Americans and Peyote. Staying out of the Limelight is also very important. This is all subjectto the judge and country where the religion vs Law arguement is being fought.
As you can probably guess it is something I have thought about before - One loophole I think might work --Resurrecting a dead religion of your native soil is such a way to show that there was a continuum of the religion in the first place - I.e. It had never truly died. Then you could take exerpts from their texts and liberally explain what it COULD mean. But still... It's all a very uphill battle - Your better off starting your own commune. Your own REMOTE and out of the Limelight commune.
NBL - Where did you get that thing about Straight malemarriages in Canada? I hadn't heard that before.Edited by: MrJim
Nature Boy
06-10-2005, 14:23
Where did you get that thing about Straight male*marriages in Canada? I hadn't heard that before.
Yahoo News I think.
...in order to use cannabis, LSD and MDMA in my place of worship (my house) with other members of my religon.
How could I win this fight in a court of law?
The United Kingdom is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article 9 guarantees "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 worship, teaching, practice and observance" and that "freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
Religious freedom is a fair attack, though it's too bad more people don't believe in it. Native Americans won the right to use peyote in their rituals, as they had for freakin' hundreds of years before Europeans killed them and took their stuff. Why should a religious defense be valid for an old religion but not for a new one?
Sure, people will invent new religions just to justify their drug use. So what? Freedom of religion implies freedom of thought, freedom of philosophy, and - within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others - freedom of action. If some Swimmer has a ++++ trip and decides to begin worshipping superintelligent neural networks of viruses that can only be communed with via the use of 4-Aco-DMT, then so be it. It's their right.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Some random thoughts taken from wiki, and from users of the forum.
Paracelsus
19-12-2007, 22:07
Why can't I use my freedom of religion to commit ritual killings? Because my religion would not be officially recognized, which is a requirement to have freedom of religion. Regulations for recognizing a religion vary from country to country, but generally one has to have a minimum number of members (and proof of this), a proper organization, and the doctrine has to be legal under present law.
The thoughts above are nothing but wishful thinking and whining.
You would need a religious context as well. Meaning:
church
rituals
belief system
gatherings
organization
preferably historical precedence
excluding recreational useSince SWIY is from the UK: the religious use of magic mushrooms actually does have historical precedence.
The use of magic mushrooms as a religious sacrament within the organisation of a church would surely be something that the right to freedom of religion protects. However; this can not be an excuse for recreational use. The concept of a religious organization has to be more than just a concept.
It would surely be interesting and I suspect worthwhile as well, to invest time and energy in this approach. I also think that there would be many people interested in the religious use of magic mushrooms within a spiritual organisation.
Magic mushrooms also have another nice plus: it has been scientifically proven that magic mushrooms provoke mystical experiences. This alone would be grounds to found a church on. Magic mushrooms can be seen as a vessel to reach mystical & religious states.
You would need a religious context as well. Meaning:
church
rituals
belief system
gatherings
organization
preferably historical precedence
excluding recreational use
He explained that his place of residence would act as his place of religious practice. I don't know if you would have to prove that it is an "acceptable" church, but this seems like a good argument.
As for the rituals, I'm sure you could either A) Say that the act of ingesting these substances is for ritualistic purposes or B) Invent some rituals that include the ingestion of the substances.
Your belief system would be based upon what is learned from the experiences undertaken.
The gatherings could be the only time and place where the drugs are taken.
At least to some degree, it is possible to argue all these things, but at some point you have to ask whether or not it would ever actually work?
The precedence issue is an interesting one though. Aren't there accounts of native americans (and I'm sure others) taking substances such as peyote and not being held accountable because they argued for religious use?
Very interesting thread, I'd like to hear more input on this subject.:thumbsup:
I appreciate that it is a bit of a silly idea (making up a fake religion to accomodate drug use). But this stems from my view that organised religion and drug policy are more than a bit silly!
But why does a religion have to have a historical background to be acceptable? That's not freedom of religion, it's freedom to pick from what has been put in front of you!
I'm planning on writing a letter to my MP explaining why I need to use MDMA in order to "worship superintelligent neural networks of viruses that can only be communed with via the use of said substance." (or similar)
I plan on including as much relevant, informative material as possible about ++++ experiences, harm assesment etc etc and I hope to educate a bit at least!
...any help and advice for writing such a letter would be greatly appreciated also.
radiometer
20-12-2007, 00:57
This thread reminds me of the Mr. Boffo comic strips with the "People unclear on the concept" theme.
Here's a free tip - avoid using the word "exploit" in your letter. And get a spellchecker, no MP is going to read a letter about "religon."
Lethargy
20-12-2007, 02:08
I would say that if one intends to use freedom of religion to partake of illicit psychoactives one ought to go the whole hog and make a valid religion out of it.
Contrary to much belief, practicing religious rituals, especially with the use of powerful psychoactive substances will often induce belief in the religion, whether or not said belief existed beforehand. If one intends to make a fake religion and one has to practice it (to prove to some observer that it exists) then one would most likely want to make it as beneficial to the participants as possible.
Plus, I know from firsthand knowledge that self-created belief systems can work wonders if used consistently to reflect upon and evaluate one's life and reality. And all this without the use of drugs! Perhaps your "fake church" could one day lead a revolution in human consciousness, or at least your personal consciousness. This would make it more than worth any extra effort put in.
AntiAimer
20-12-2007, 10:39
If Jesus and L Ron Hubbard can do it, you can too. You just have to be smart.
Things like this has already been done like temple420.com and some church in Arizona(http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/137087.php).
Pot church takes a hit
S. Arizona couple face prison for what they say is religious use of marijuana
By Stephanie Innes
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 07.09.2006
PIMA — The Church of Cognizance, which has quietly operated here since 1991, has an unusual tenet — its worshippers deify and use marijuana as part of their faith.
Until federal authorities charged them with possessing 172 pounds of their leafy green sacrament earlier this year, church founders Dan and Mary Quaintance say they smoked, ate or drank marijuana daily as a way of becoming more spiritually enlightened.
But now, with added conspiracy charges, the Quaintances face up to 40 years each in prison in a case they call religious persecution.
Federal prosecutors say religious freedom does not exempt the use of illegal drugs. The Quaintances say it does. They also say a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing a religious group's use of a hallucinogenic tea containing a federally banned substance should nullify the charges against them.
The couple is scheduled to go on trial in Las Cruces, N.M., on July 18, though defense lawyers are asking for a delay.
"They have a bona fide religion and the only marijuana they utilize is for the practice of their religion," said Mary Quaintance's attorney, Mario A. Esparza. "Our Constitution in the United States guarantees that freedom of religion, and the Quaintances are being punished for the very thing the Constitu- tion stands for.
"They did not distribute to anyone outside of the church and they never profited from it," Esparza said.
The Church of Cognizance, which leaders say has 72 monasteries located in members' homes nationwide, has a simple motto: "With good thoughts, good words and good deeds, we honor marijuana; as the teacher, the provider, the protector."
Dan Quaintance, 54, says the church has 40 to 50 members in Arizona, but cannot estimate how many there are nationwide. Leaders say members must be 18 to join, and he says the average age of worshippers in Arizona is 35. Dan, who preaches at weddings and funerals of church members, says the church does not sell its sacrament or proselytize.
"Laws exist to protect people from injury and we've injured nobody," said Dan Quaintance, an Iowa native, Vietnam veteran and retired welder who identifies himself as his church's "chief cognoscente."
"Marijuana is the averter of death," he said. "The energy and spirit that is in marijuana is God. You consume the plant and you consume God. You are sacrificing your body to the deity."
The Quaintances were arrested Feb. 22 in Lordsburg, N.M., just seven days before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a small religious group based in Santa Fe that combines Christianity and American Indian practices could use hallucinogenic tea in its ceremonies. The tea, called hoasca, contains dimethyltryptamine, or DMT, known for its hallucinogenic properties.
A variety of religious groups representing millions of members filed briefs supporting O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, or UDV, and its use of hoasca — among them the Arizona Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union for Reform Judaism. Some supporters likened banning the tea to a federal ban on sacramental wine.
Graham County Sheriff Frank Hughes says that in his 10 years on the job, he's never had a complaint about the Quaintances, who live in a small rectangular home in the sparsely populated rural community of Pima, about 90 miles northeast of Tucson.
Their home sits on a four-acre property that's dotted with old vehicles. Alongside their house is a wall made out of tires, which the Quaintances say eventually will form the boundary of an outdoor chapel.
The couple's 31-year-old daughter, Zina; her husband, Tim; and their three children have a home on the property, as do the Quaintances' 28-year-old son, Dennis, and his wife, Vanessa, and their son.
Their home bears no resemblance to a traditional church, inside or out. Yet the Quaintances call it a monastery and are adamant that the church they founded together is a sincere, legitimate faith — on par with any mainstream religious denomination.
A tapestry of Bob Marley smoking a large joint decorates the front hallway, and inside, the couple has a few handmade pipes, some of which have won ribbons in the glazing division of the Graham County Fair. Most of their pipes and other sacramental accessories were seized when authorities searched their home March 3, they say.
The Quaintances do not grow their sacrament but, rather, say they rely on donations of it, which they pick up from church "couriers." That's what they say they were about to do when they were arrested.
They smoke the marijuana or sometimes blend it into a milk-like drink, saying it helps them to become more enlightened and in tune with the universe. Until they were arrested, the Quaintances say they'd smoked or ingested the plant every day of their 33-year marriage, even before they formed their church. Both were marijuana users when they met, and they credit the plant to helping their marriage survive.
"It makes you better at what you do, enhances who you are. It is the most beautiful plant on Earth," said Mary Quaintance, 51, a homemaker from Northern California who married Dan in 1973, when she was 18. They met while Mary worked as nurse's aide in Chico, Calif., and rented a room from Dan's parents.
Dan Quaintance, who grew up in the United Methodist faith and once was president of his church youth group, says finding marijuana helped him finish high school, later kick a heroin addiction and get through acute pancreatitis.
It was during his illness that he began researching marijuana's use among ancient cultures, and he started to think about forming his own church. As he reread the Bible, he believed many passages that referred to a leaf, tree or plant were talking about marijuana.
"Religion is basically putting your faith in what you rely on," he said. "Jesus started his church because of what he believed and learned."
He filed a "declaration of religious sentiment" on behalf of the Church of Cognizance with the Graham County Recorder's Office in 1994, though Dan, his family and other members say the church dates to 1991.
Services at the Church of Cognizance aren't scheduled. According to the Quaintances, members call the monasteries and arrange a worship time, which typically includes using marijuana and listening to sermons by fellow cognoscenti that talk about peaceful existence.
"Dan and Mary are two of the most beautiful, wholesome people," said Daniel Jeffrey, an enlightened cognoscente in Puna, Hawaii. "We're not involved with herb for any kind of profit gain. If you tell people that, their mind just can't grasp it."
Still, Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the Virginia-based First Amendment Center, says any group seeking an exemption to the nation's drug laws, even for religious purposes, has a "hill to climb."
And he says the federal government is likely in a better position to win against the religious use of marijuana than it was for the hallucinogenic tea case, given the prevalence of marijuana and the federal government's concern about a drug problem in the country.
The hallucinogenic tea is difficult to find and reportedly doesn't taste very good, Haynes said, noting the same is true for peyote, which also is a federally banned substance.
A federal exemption for peyote exists when it's used for religious practices by members of the Native American Church. In Arizona, people using peyote who aren't members of the Native American Church also are exempt as long as the peyote is used for a "bona fide religious purpose" in a manner that doesn't threaten the public. But there are no such exceptions for marijuana.
"Marijuana is difficult, even if they have a sincere religious belief," Haynes said. "The federal government has already successfully fought efforts to get a medical exemption."
The U.S. Constitution contains no legally recognizable definition of religion, but courts still can apply a test of sincerity, said Jeremy Gunn, director of the Freedom of Religion and Belief program for the American Civil Liberties Union, which supported the UDV church.
If, for example, a group of prisoners calling themselves the Church of Cabernet and Filet Mignon argued religious belief as a reason to be served wine and better food, the government would have a right to question the sincerity of their theological belief, he said.
"The UDV case did not open the floodgate," he said. "The government needs to show why it makes sense to apply the drug laws in that circumstance. In the UDV case, the hallucinogenic tea is honestly a traditional part of the religious practice."
The office of the U.S. attorney for New Mexico, David C. Iglesias, prosecuted the UDV case, and also is prosecuting the Quaintances. His office declined to comment on a pending case.
The Quaintances have no history of criminal convictions in Arizona, where they've lived since 1986, but both have prior convictions for marijuana possession in Washington state, records show. Dan Quaintance says he also has a 1974 conviction from California for driving under the influence and spent 30 days in jail for that offense.
The Quaintances spent two weeks in a New Mexico jail after their arrest this year and, as part of their court-ordered release, must have regular urine tests to ensure they aren't using any marijuana. Both say that living without their deity for the first time in more than three decades is extremely difficult.
The complaint against the couple, which was amended, includes two other defendants — Timothy Jason Kripner, 23, of Tucson and Joseph Allen Butts, 48, of California.
The revised complaint raised the stakes in the case, adding conspiracy charges and more than 220 pounds of marijuana. Dan Quaintance says Kripner and Butts are both certified couriers for the church. Kripner was traveling with the Quaintances when they were arrested, and authorities say Butts was involved in a conspiracy with them to distribute marijuana.
"They may take Dan and Mary down but they will never take the church down," Mary Quaintance said.
Nature Boy
20-12-2007, 13:09
It's sad that we've reached a day where we have to make up religions in order to justify personal drug use. Double standards such as Native American peyote use infuriate me. Either ban everything or legalise everything, you can't have anything in-between. I know peyote has been used by Native Americans in rituals long before drug laws were written up but no-one should have to form an organised religion in order to use anything. Religion is changing. The concept of organised religion is fading fast. Most people my age are either non-religious or don't participate in organised churches. Therefore, is their form of individual religion not as valid as anyone else's just because it hasn't been rubber-stamped and government forms haven't been filled in? It's a crock of shit.
Seems as though America's obsession with religion is the only back-door that allows them to bend the rules a little bit. Religion over common sense, logic, rationality and millions of dollars worth of potential tax revenue. Rich.
Although the topic starters approach is not the most serious on this issue, this is a very viable idea, which has very deep legal roots in both national and international law.
The Santo Daime church has won several cases about the religious use. here is some more information about it:
HALLUCINOGENIC ’SACRAMENT’ SPARKS DEBATE (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13593&highlight=santo+daime)
DPT and the Temple of True Inner Light (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9563&highlight=santo+daime)
First Legal Marajuana Church Founded! (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18196&highlight=ayahuasca+church)
Church argues marijuana a sacrament (CN) (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36684&highlight=church)
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VS. DRUG LAWS (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13324&highlight=church)
Pot & the religious freedom act of 1993 (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13336)
Peyote & the Native American Church (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2198)
Research: Magic mushrooms cause 'spiritual' experiences (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41396&highlight=ayahuasca+church)
Irish history of religious and non-religious shroom use (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21217&highlight=church)
Nature Boy I see where you are coming from but I believe that with that example Nativa Americans should be allowed to use peyote for religious reasons.
Afterall the things that the Europeans did to the Native Americans (taking their land, killing their buffalo, moving them to reservations finding out the res has gold then moving them again so they could take the gold) I believe that it is kind of a sign of apology and respect for them now a days.
If the Europeans would have never tooken over America then there would be no laws that prevent using peyote for religious or even recreational use.
Correct me if Im wrong but only certian people are allowed to use it and they are responsible with how much they use right?
ernestrome
24-12-2007, 14:09
You could drop the word "exploit", and start living in accordance with your beliefs for starters.
Or you could bugger off and leave the religious use defence for people who are genuinely using entheogens for religious purposes.
Nature Boy
24-12-2007, 15:05
You could drop the word "exploit", and start living in accordance with your beliefs for starters.
Or you could bugger off and leave the religious use defence for people who are genuinely using entheogens for religious purposes.
Laws and bureaucracy will always be there to be exploited. You can't fault people for tinkering with systems and barriers put in their way.
Nature Boy I see where you are coming from but I believe that with that example Nativa Americans should be allowed to use peyote for religious reasons.
Afterall the things that the Europeans did to the Native Americans (taking their land, killing their buffalo, moving them to reservations finding out the res has gold then moving them again so they could take the gold) I believe that it is kind of a sign of apology and respect for them now a days.
If the Europeans would have never tooken over America then there would be no laws that prevent using peyote for religious or even recreational use.
I too believe Native Americans should be allowed use peyote for religious reasons, just as much as a Mongolian-American should be allowed use it out of curiosity. Yes, Native Americans have been treated like shit, but making allowances demonstrates the fallibility and the hypocrisy of the systems in place.
The word exploit is apt, I feel. It is often necessary to exploit all options in overcoming unjust defences laid against individuals, as Nature Boy said. If it is possible to do something within the boundaries of the law then surely this is the better course? The problem with belief systems is that they spring from anywhere, presenting conflicting ideas of an ultimate truth that usually does not well withstand competition from others and thus I greatly dislike laws that create loopholes for religious practice, because I see no distinction between religious views and political ones, or any other opinion you posses. No belief should be sacrosanct and encouraging the profligation of religious sects whilst damning political positions and seeming to hold certain beliefs as more important than others can only be that self-same rank hypocrisy which we oppose in the drugs laws regarding alcohol and tobacco. I see no reason why the Native American population should be able to consume mescaline preparations when others cannot; the argument for this often lies in the ritualisation of the action as another poster mentioned, however this is not a particularly good argument as many mainstream religions and old religions actively despise ritualised services including several branches of Christianity. It seems to me that God is what you make of him and that worship is, in any case, an intensely personal thing and requires no other participants or church or ritualised process. Religion is simply what you beleive, whether that be the insane ramblings of a schizophrenic or the preachings of an imam; indeed some see no difference between the two.
Swim doesn't know if this will help but swim has become an official reverend by a recognized church. Swim purchased this for 10 and is allowed to legally marry people and use Rev. in title. This was done in hopes of claiming freedom of religon if the need arose.
Mr. Giraffe
22-01-2008, 22:37
The use of magic mushrooms as a religious sacrament within the organisation of a church would surely be something that the right to freedom of religion protects. However; this can not be an excuse for recreational use. The concept of a religious organization has to be more than just a concept.
It would surely be interesting and I suspect worthwhile as well, to invest time and energy in this approach. I also think that there would be many people interested in the religious use of magic mushrooms within a spiritual organisation.
I have looked into this in some detail. I even took legal advice on the matter. Basically, no, it couldn't have worked. The way the Irish constitution is set up, religions are only recognised on the basis of their actual registered existence, so in this case, that means that we can't claim to be continuing a tradition of old, we would have to actually be able to prove that our particular organisation is thousands of years old.
Secondly, even if you could get over this problem, you run into what our constitution charmingly refers to as 'public order and morality'. This is a rather vague term, and would likely override any claimed religious freedom to indulge in actions which offend this precious public morality. Particularly in the area of 'drugs', there is no question but that a court would rule that your claim to religious status is spurious and that your right to consume such substances poses a real danger to public order. They wouldn't even have to prove this to any great extent since it's largely a matter of opinion.
Sure, sure, you could challenge all of it in the courts. First you'd go through the Irish courts system, at a cost approaching 500,000 EUR, then you'd take it to Europe at even greater expense, with the strong liklihood in the end that you'd be a. made out to be a total lunatic, b. exposing yourself to public ridicule, c. spending all of your money on solicitors and barristers and d. most likely on the losing end after all that.
In order to win, you would have to show that, by outlawing mushrooms, the government was actively targetting your religious freedom. This is even less likely to succeed since nobody would have heard of your religion. In this instance, it's harder to win the case. Even if you managed to overcome all of the odds and win, you would only win on the very narrow grounds that registered members of your religious group (registered before the mushroom ban, btw) are exempt from that particular section of the law, so there would be no wider benefit.
The strong legal advice I got - and this would be from a sympathetic solicitor - was that it hadn't much hope of working out.
Of course, we all know that mushrooms are more than a 'drug', they are a valid spiritual tool, but try telling that to a conservative judge interpreting a catholic constitution.
Secondly, even if you could get over this problem, you run into what our constitution charmingly refers to as 'public order and morality'. This is a rather vague term, and would likely override any claimed religious freedom to indulge in actions which offend this precious public morality.
'Public order and morality' and the 'common good' are the two main provisions in the Irish constitution which allow the state to legally strip us of all of our civil liberties whenever it feels like it.
sweetsweetmary
23-01-2008, 14:31
So just a thought. If shulgin would have made a church and created a religion of RC's before analogue laws and whatnot, then this church would exist today? Pretty funny. I think I would join that one.
Greenport
05-02-2008, 05:21
Freedom of religion can be and is exploited by people all the time. I once knew a kid when I was in high school who wore ICP clothing to school every day, even though it was banned, because he got away with it by saying it was part of his religion. ICP has nothing to do with religion except the various people who claim it does, yet it was exploited for this reason.
Mr. Giraffe
07-02-2008, 18:27
Dude, just because it worked in your school doesn't mean that a policeman or a judge is going to buy it.
Also clothes = not drugs.
Incidentally, what's ICP when it's at home?
purplehaze
07-02-2008, 20:36
Theres a organization in hawaii called the THC ministry. Swim has read many reports of people sliding by with pot charges by using the THC ministry. Swim doesnt have all the info to post but a quick google search could reveal alot hes sure.
http://www.thc-ministry.org/
purplehaze
07-02-2008, 22:40
sorry for double post this will be swims last post until he wakes up again so expect no reply for atleast 8 hrs (hopefully).
Swim has read alot into this after posting, including there forums etc. It seems there testominals havnt been kept up to date as the last one is from 2006. But just a little on how this is supposed to work. The guy roger christie is his name, running the organization THC - minisitry stands for the hawaii cannabis ministry, became ordained as a reverend. The way it is supposed to work is he is a reverend who marries people and provides holy sacrements at the wedding, and presumably the sacrements are cannabis. He further says that because he marries people and provides the sacrements it is then legal for him to possess and grow cannabis. He also says the way it works is he will ordain you as a reverend and send you a THC card to show your religion involves holy sacrement (cannabis) and it should be reffered to as holy sacrement. So by being a reverend who marries people and the sacrement being cannabis anyone who gets ordained as a minister can grow and posses cannabis because they need it for the ceromony. All in all swim is skeptical and would like some other users to investigate this, also read the .PDF swim feels like it might have some word play involved and would like someone else to read over it to prove its validity. Heres an example of what swim is talking about he says he got ordained when he saw an ad in rolling stone magazine and sent off for it and payed 5$ and thought that will be a good 5$ worth of entertainment; as a novelty. Thats how he words it. Also he says the word minister means "to comfort" and the word ordainment means we're putting into a documentation a recognition of your personal,private,agreement with creation, spirit, nature, god, god-dess- whatever you want to call it. you never have to define it; it's a lifelong journey.
Link to the pdf. http://www.thc-ministry.org/religious-freedoms/
left side of page.
Mr. Giraffe
08-02-2008, 23:03
Sadly, it doesn't work.
http://cannabisnews.com/news/23/thread23370.shtml
Hawaii Supreme Court Rules Against Religious UsePosted by CN Staff on October 01, 2007 at 06:00:06 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press (http://www.ap.org/)
http://cannabisnews.com/images/cannabisicon.gif (http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml) Honolulu -- The Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled against a Big Island man who claimed he had to smoke marijuana to practice his religion in what he called the Hawaii Cannabis Ministry.
The court decided that Joseph Sunderland's freedom of religion didn't give him the right to smoke marijuana, but it didn't rule on whether Hawaii's strong privacy protections would have shielded him.
"The law prohibiting possession of marijuana ... applies to everyone," similar to traffic laws, said prosecuting attorney Janet Garcia. "Otherwise, you could have someone who says, 'My religious belief is that I shouldn't have to stop at a stop sign."'
One justice, however, argued in a dissenting opinion that privacy rights guaranteed by the Hawaii Constitution should allow people to smoke marijuana in their homes.
Justice Steven Levinson wrote in the court's split decision Sept. 21 that the framers of Hawaii's constitution intended to limit criminal punishment to cases where people are harmed.
"The issue is whether ... a fundamental right to privacy ... constrains the state from criminalizing mere possession of marijuana for personal use. My thesis is that it does," Levinson wrote in his dissent.
The case started when a Big Island police officer spotted a six-inch pipe on Sunderland's kitchen table in 2003 while the officer was looking for a missing child.
Sunderland told the officer the pipe was his, and he had a right to use it to exercise his religious beliefs. In fact, he said he had smoked marijuana from the pipe that morning.
He showed the officer a card indicating his membership in a religious organization called the "Cannabis Ministry," and he told the officer he had been practicing his religion since he was 16 years old.
Sunderland was charged with promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree for possession of the pipe and the marijuana residue inside.
"I believe that God put the holy herb onto this earth to help mankind to better understand him," Sunderland testified at trial.
He was found guilty and ordered to pay $175 in fines and fees.
His attorney, public defender Deborah Kim, said she will ask the Hawaii Supreme Court to reconsider the privacy issue. "The court has ducked the question of whether the right to privacy prevents the police from enforcing marijuana laws when someone is using marijuana in their home for religious purposes," Kim said. "The question is still very much open." Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Published: Monday, October 01, 2007
Copyright: 2007 Associated Press
The responses in this thread seem to be generated by a misunderstanding of "freedom of religion", which is clarified in the language of the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights and in our court cases.
The primary concern of Amendment 1 is establishment of a religion, that is, officially compelling citizens to adopt a particular religious view by means of federal legislation (including atheism).
First, it is clear that the prohibition of possession or use of certain substances cannot infringe on the individual's right to profess his religious views.
Second, drug use is not exclusive to religion. When its ban has a universal target, that marks the primary effect of the law; accordingly, it is an accidental, not intended, effect when it complicates ritual religious practice. Thus it does not qualify the legislation as having a religious interest, and religious freedom is not directly infringed.
The U.S. has a very consistent application of "freedom of religion" understood in the context of the first amendment, and the rare exceptions made for substance use are justified for several reasons other than religion.
While swim uses some drugs to enhance religious intellectual edification (not religious "experience"), and believes this a fine thing to do, swim does not think it is a human right any government is inherently bound to respect.
While swim uses some drugs to enhance religious intellectual edification (not religious "experience"), and believes this a fine thing to do, swim does not think it is a human right any government is inherently bound to respect.
Of course here we come to a basic difference in the understanding of Human Rights in general. Whilst a policy may be consistently and logically applied this is no indication of the validity of the policy; and, in regard of Human Rights the concept needs a greater depth of evaluation. This is not to say that I do not agree with the first part of your post - in the specifics of the application of the First Amendment - but I would differ with you on this idea of Human Rights. I would argue entirely the opposite - that the prohibition of an action, act or possession that is, by its purpose, not specifically designed for or necessitative of harm to other parties is a violation of the fundamental human right to self-determination. No Government which is not in a clear and present emergency situation should have the right to create a crime to infringe upon individual liberty unless it can make a good case to show that the crime necessitates or highly predicates (in the majority of incidences) harm to parties other than the individual who performs the crime. Ronald Regan himself put it thusly: "Government exists to protect us from each other, where Government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
CrakkBakk
12-02-2008, 03:06
I'm wondering what can qualify as a "religion" in the eyes of a government. For example if the cops catch me with drugs, and i say that it's my religion, what would your religion have to "contain" in order for it to hold a quarter in court?
I know that it wouldn't work, but i'm qurious about it. In case i wanna start my own religion someday.
Didn't read the rest of the posts, but this would NEVER hold up in court.
The supreme court bases the majority of its decesions on previous court cases (w/ some exceptions such as seperations).
Some mormon was arrested for a crime that doesn't hurt anyone: bigamy. He said it was his 1st amendment right to practice a religion. The court statement was that the 1st amendment protected people only for believing in a religion, not necesarily acting on it. Wikipedia bigamy for more information.
The supreme court would simply pull that case up and you would be thrown in jail.
radiometer
12-02-2008, 03:57
Sadly, it doesn't work..."The law prohibiting possession of marijuana ... applies to everyone," similar to traffic laws, said prosecuting attorney Janet Garcia. "Otherwise, you could have someone who says, 'My religious belief is that I shouldn't have to stop at a stop sign."'
This was exactly my point, along with several other members.
Bikelbees
23-02-2008, 16:02
There are of course legal guidelines and Alfa's idea regarding sacramental use of mushrooms is useful. The key case in the UK was R v Taylor (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2001/2263.html); (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2001/2263.html%29;) here a Rastafarian argued for such liberty to use cannabis. He failed IMO through his defence team allowing the court to infer that such laws were commonplace and integral to the UK's obligations under the UN Conventions. These conventions are not binding on UK law at all, so why they keep citing them as if they were handed down from God is a mystery.
Of course these laws requiring established worship practices etc miss the point but its all we have to work with. Why is shamanism not recognised, why not have the right to a even single religious experience involving drugs? Our brains are programmed to receive these chemicals at the blood-brain barrier level, criminalising these molecules is nothing short of curtailing our biological destiny to unify our existing drug receptors of which there are a great deal, its like they have reduced what it means to be human, not only culturally and politically, but also biologically. The right to use your brain in any way would seem to me to be a fundamental tenet of religious freedom; however for the time being it could be worth testing the ground along the lines or organised religions in the same way as others have succeeded with peyote.
Mr. Giraffe
05-03-2008, 16:15
A fine and logical argument, Bickelbees, the only flaw in which is the outrageous sums of money required to take the sorts of cases which would need to be taken to open the possibility of such a right being recognised. And even then, it's hard to imagine that the highest courts will do anything but kick the matter back to national governments, allowing them the freedom to regulate for 'public order and morality'. After all, the judges are going to share the "drugs are bad" mindset and may fail to consider the nuance of the argument.
Bikelbees
05-03-2008, 16:56
Anyone charged with an offence or entitled to appeal are usually subject to legal aid funding. This is usually dependent upon counsel's advice, can make a free challenge. As for the judiciary, well, they are duty bound to consider certain arguments fully, as long as the arguments are properly drafted. I'm looking for a suitable team although its tough getting the required perception shift. I'm posting that Owen Davies QC who represented Taylor will NOT be participating, nor will Rudi Forston who also in a clients words (Casey Hardison) "limp and ineffectual". "Top" civil liberty solicitors firms Birnberg Pierce, Bhatt Murphy, Public Interest Lawyers and Leeds based Harrison Bundey have all demonstrated total disinterest in this cause as well - I would steer clear if you want a firm to fight new ground.