First Church of Cannabis

[WhoDeyWho]

A couple months ago, our legislature in the state of Indiana passed a bill, The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, that was sold as a bill to protect religious liberties, but was ultimately meant as a means for people to discriminate against gays on religious grounds.  An unintended consequence was the creation of The First Church of Cannabis whose doors open the day the law goes into effect on July 1st.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/matthew-tully/2015/06/11/tully-cannabis-church-smoke-pray-love/71056430/

Should be interesting to see how the state and Governor Pence reacts to this.  I'll admit to being a dues paying member.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2015, 09:59 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: A couple months ago, our legislature in the state of Indiana passed a bill, The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, that was sold as a bill to protect religious liberties, but was ultimately meant as a means for people to discriminate against gays on religious grounds.  An unintended consequence was the creation of The First Church of Cannabis whose doors open the day the law goes into effect on July 1st.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/matthew-tully/2015/06/11/tully-cannabis-church-smoke-pray-love/71056430/

Should be interesting to see how the state and Governor Pence reacts to this.  I'll admit to being a dues paying member.

That's an awfully big assumption based on nothing.  You know that "wall of separation' that libs love to quote?  That had to do with "rights of conscience" and believe it or not, that involves more than gay people.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 10:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That's an awfully big assumption based on nothing.  You know that "wall of separation' that libs love to quote?  That had to do with "rights of conscience" and believe it or not, that involves more than gay people.

I'm basing it on the fact that the lobbyist who pushed for the bill actively fight against gay marriage rights.  Moreover, they were disappointed when the language was clarified so that it would not allow discrimination against gays.

If this wasn't an issue for them, why would they be upset?  

This link is from Eric Miller's, Advance America website:  

http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1876

Eric Miller was one of the men the Governor invited to the signing ceremony for the bill.  He actively fought for the bill for that reason.  It isn't a stretch to think our fundamentalist Governor signed it for the same reason.

  

The only reason the language was clarified was because of the economic pressure forced on the state due to the potential loss of economic development and convention business, all while all eyes were on the city as a result of the NCAA tournament.

[*michaelsean*]

The legislature wrote the bill, and it said nothing about gay people. Then a whole bunch of people said, "Hey you can discriminate against gay people" and it became the anti-gay bill. We just had a giant Supreme Court case involving conscience with Hobby Lobby, and it had nothing to do with gay people. i personally wouldn't discriminate against a gay wedding, but I would discriminate against providing anything that would be used in an abortion.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-12-2015, 09:59 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: A couple months ago, our legislature in the state of Indiana passed a bill, The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, that was sold as a bill to protect religious liberties, but was ultimately meant as a means for people to discriminate against gays on religious grounds.  An unintended consequence was the creation of The First Church of Cannabis whose doors open the day the law goes into effect on July 1st.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/matthew-tully/2015/06/11/tully-cannabis-church-smoke-pray-love/71056430/

Should be interesting to see how the state and Governor Pence reacts to this.  I'll admit to being a dues paying member.

Personally I think this is awesome.  Like the saying goes...careful what you wish for.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2015, 09:59 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: A couple months ago, our legislature in the state of Indiana passed a bill, The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, that was sold as a bill to protect religious liberties, but was ultimately meant as a means for people to discriminate against gays on religious grounds.  An unintended consequence was the creation of The First Church of Cannabis whose doors open the day the law goes into effect on July 1st.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/matthew-tully/2015/06/11/tully-cannabis-church-smoke-pray-love/71056430/

Should be interesting to see how the state and Governor Pence reacts to this.  I'll admit to being a dues paying member.

back to your original topic, and the church is fine by me, but it's a defense and the burden of proof is on the person claiming conscience.  A church that just opened up may not have the necessary history on its side to make that claim.  

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 11:40 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The legislature wrote the bill, and it said nothing about gay people.  Then a whole bunch of people said, "Hey you can discriminate against gay people" and it became the anti-gay bill.  We just had a giant Supreme Court case involving conscience with Hobby Lobby, and it had nothing to do with gay people.  i personally wouldn't discriminate against a gay wedding, but I would discriminate against providing anything that would be used in an abortion.

The legislature wrote the bill with help from lobbyists and special interest groups.  Special interest groups such as the ones I highlighted.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 11:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: back to your original topic, and the church is fine by me, but it's a defense and the burden of proof is on the person claiming conscience.  A church that just opened up may not have the necessary history on its side to make that claim.  

I don't think the first amendment makes any stipulation as to the age of someone's religion as far as it being legitimate or not.  

I think the burden lies with the state to prove they have a good reason to deny people the right to practice their religion.  

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 11:41 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Personally I think this is awesome.  Like the saying goes...careful what you wish for.

Indeed.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2015, 11:54 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I don't think the first amendment makes any stipulation as to the age of someone's religion as far as it being legitimate or not.  

I think the burden lies with the state to prove they have a good reason to deny people the right to practice their religion.  

If i understand the law correctly, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and a history would help provide that proof.  

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 11:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: If i understand the law correctly, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and a history would help provide that proof.  

Read the first amendment. 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2015, 11:59 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Read the first amendment. 

What?  We are talking about this law not the first amendment since the guy who formed the church says he was inspired by the law. 

[Millhouse]

Thou shall not covet your neighbor's weed.

- Church of Cannabis's Bible Deut 5:21

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 12:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What?  We are talking about this law not the first amendment since the guy who formed the church says he was inspired by the law. 

The entire purpose of these types of laws are to protect religious liberty against the government.   Consequently it is the government who has the burden of proof.  Not those claiming religious rights.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 12:04 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Thou shall not covet your neighbor's weed.

                             - Church of Cannabis's Bible Deut 5:21

Thou shalt puff, puff, and pass.

No need to covet.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2015, 12:05 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: The entire purpose of these types of law are to protect religious liberty against the government.   Consequently it is the government who has the burden of proof.  Not those claiming religious rights.

The government can provide the burden of proof as far as a crime.  You have weed.  To get out of it, you now have the burden of proof that it is a matter of conscience.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 12:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The government can provide the burden of proof as far as a crime.  You have weed.  To get out of it, you now have the burden of proof that it is a matter of conscience.

The government would have to prove a "compelling government interest".  How "compelling" is it if weed is already legal for medical and recreational use in other parts of the country?  These laws put the burden on government, not individuals.  Peyote is illegal as well, and yet laws like this allow for their use for religious reasons.  

How can judges determine the sincerity of religious conviction?    

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2015, 12:19 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: The government would have to prove a "compelling government interest".  How "compelling" is it if weed is already legal for medical and recreational use in other parts of the country?  These laws put the burden on government, not individuals.  Peyote is illegal as well, and yet laws like this allow for their use for religious reasons.  

How can judges determine the sincerity of religious conviction?    

Like I said, some sort of history or tradition which peyote has.  It's not impossible, but just saying, "Hey I have a church" isn't going to be enough.

 Compelling government interest is it's illegal in the state.

[Au165]

Actually Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal set a precedent for small obscure religions to use drugs fore religious use. The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act basically says that no federal law shall substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion. The government has to prove that it will not hinder their religion or that stopping said practice is in the best interest of the public (greater good). The facts are a little different in this case, but it would set up an interesting show down on what constitutes a "real" religion.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 12:25 PM)Au165 Wrote: Actually Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal set a precedent for small obscure religions to use drugs fore religious use. The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act basically says that no federal law shall substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion. The government has to prove that it will not hinder their religion or that stopping said practice is in the best interest of the public (greater good). The facts are a little different in this case, but it would set up an interesting show down on what constitutes a "real" religion.

You are right.  These laws place the burden on the state.  Not sure if the courts want to put themselves in the position to be the arbiters of what religions are "true" and which one's aren't.  

Ultimately, I think it comes down to proving a compelling interest.  Obviously the fact that something is "illegal" is the reason these laws exist in the first place.