First Church of Cannabis

[Benton]

(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.

Can't say if it was targeted towards any one group, but the intent of the bill was to allow businesses to ignore laws based on religious beliefs... which includes discrimination.

[Bmoreblitz]

Holy smoke!

[*michaelsean*]

(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.

Size isn't the issue as much as history or tradition.  It would keep me from starting up a church tomorrow saying it is against our church principles to serve black people. 

You guys are arguing against some measures that prevent discrimination for the sake of discrimination because you just don't like a group of people.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 01:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Size isn't the issue as much as history or tradition.  It would keep me from starting up a church tomorrow saying it is against our church principles to serve black people. 

You guys are arguing against some measures that prevent discrimination for the sake of discrimination because you just don't like a group of people.

"History and Tradition" has nothing to do with RFRA.  

[Au165]

(06-12-2015, 01:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Size isn't the issue as much as history or tradition.  It would keep me from starting up a church tomorrow saying it is against our church principles to serve black people. 

You guys are arguing against some measures that prevent discrimination for the sake of discrimination because you just don't like a group of people.

What are you talking about? I gave you case law referring to the ability of the government to deny a "Religion" the ability to use drugs as part of it's practice. I am not talking about discrimination at all.

As for your church that refuses to serve black people example, completley different subject with no bearing on this issue. There is a concept when dealing with rights that basically says that ones rights end when it infringes on another's. This is the basis for why we don't allow discrimination and why some try and argue unsuccessfully that it is okay for them to discriminate because of their religion. The good of the many over ride the "rights" of a few especially when the "right" is the right to discriminate.

Use of marjiuana for religious use has been an acceptable defense in cases against Rastafarians. What will be interesting in this case is what makes a religion a religion. The defense is acceptable, but defining a religion is the tough part. Considering the IRS already gave him a tax exempt status as a religious body makes for an interesting show down.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 03:12 PM)Au165 Wrote: What are you talking about? I gave you case law referring to the ability of the government to deny a "Religion" the ability to use drugs as part of it's practice. I am not talking about discrimination at all.

As for your church that refuses to serve black people example, completley different subject with no bearing on this issue. There is a concept when dealing with rights that basically says that ones rights end when it infringes on another's. This is the basis for why we don't allow discrimination and why some try and argue unsuccessfully that it is okay for them to discriminate because of their religion. The good of the many over ride the "rights" of a few especially when the "right" is the right to discriminate.

Use of marjiuana for religious use has been an acceptable defense in cases against Rastafarians. What will be interesting in this case is what makes a religion a religion. The defense is acceptable, but defining a religion is the tough part. Considering the IRS already gave him a tax exempt status as a religious body makes for an interesting show down.

Is it the job of the courts to "define" religions?  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2015, 02:41 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: "History and Tradition" has nothing to do with RFRA.  

As evidence of a true matter of conscience.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2015, 03:12 PM)Au165 Wrote: What are you talking about? I gave you case law referring to the ability of the government to deny a "Religion" the ability to use drugs as part of it's practice. I am not talking about discrimination at all.

As for your church that refuses to serve black people example, completley different subject with no bearing on this issue. There is a concept when dealing with rights that basically says that ones rights end when it infringes on another's. This is the basis for why we don't allow discrimination and why some try and argue unsuccessfully that it is okay for them to discriminate because of their religion. The good of the many over ride the "rights" of a few especially when the "right" is the right to discriminate.

Use of marjiuana for religious use has been an acceptable defense in cases against Rastafarians. What will be interesting in this case is what makes a religion a religion. The defense is acceptable, but defining a religion is the tough part. Considering the IRS already gave him a tax exempt status as a religious body makes for an interesting show down.

We are talking about a specific law that goes against your concept of rights which is why this law is so controversial so my "Can't serve black people" church is absolutely relevant, which is why this law can be used as a defense.  You don't get to just say, 'It's a religious belief" and everyone walks away.  It's is saying you can use it as a defense, and a jury can decide.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2015, 03:17 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Is it the job of the courts to "define" religions?  

They aren't defining religion, they are determining if this is truly a religious belief held by the person.  It doesn't even have to be an organized religion, but you are going to have to offer some sort of evidence.  It's akin to me putting on a defense saying I am legally insane.  I can't just declare it, I have to have some sort of compelling evidence for a jury. 

If this guy wants to go ahead with his church, and in doing so break the law and not just talk about marijuana, then he is taking a pretty big chance.

[Benton]

(06-12-2015, 03:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They aren't defining religion, they are determining if this is truly a religious belief held by the person.  It doesn't even have to be an organized religion, but you are going to have to offer some sort of evidence.  It's akin to me putting on a defense saying I am legally insane.  I can't just declare it, I have to have some sort of compelling evidence for a jury. 

If this guy wants to go ahead with his church, and in doing so break the law and not just talk about marijuana, then he is taking a pretty big chance.

And therein lies the problem. A religion, by definition, is a belief or view. Those who practice a religion don't have any proof (outside of the ones that have someone claiming to be a deity themselves).

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2015, 03:42 PM)Benton Wrote: And therein lies the problem. A religion, by definition, is a belief or view. Those who practice a religion don't have any proof (outside of the ones that have someone claiming to be a deity themselves).

They don't have to prove their religion, they have to prove or show some evidence that it's truly a sincere belief.  That's a good thing as it prevents people from doing my example.

[*michaelsean*]

And just to be clear, I'm all for making pot legal although I've never used it. I'm the original Bill Clinton. I took a puff once, but changed my mind and didn't actually inhale it into my lungs. Pot being illegal is a waste of time, resources and everything else.

[Au165]

(06-12-2015, 03:17 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Is it the job of the courts to "define" religions?  

They will have to define what makes a religion in order to determine if in fact they have a right to use it under a religious exemption. The same way they had to define porn, even if it was a very vague definition haha.

[Au165]

(06-12-2015, 03:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: We are talking about a specific law that goes against your concept of rights which is why this law is so controversial so my "Can't serve black people" church is absolutely relevant, which is why this law can be used as a defense.  You don't get to just say, 'It's a religious belief" and everyone walks away.  It's is saying you can use it as a defense, and a jury can decide.  

I'm sorry you don't under stand what legal precedence is, but I have merely pointed out why this case is interesting based on past case law. Also I pointed out already why your "refuse blacks" argument doesn't relate to this case. The infringement of others rights to further your own has been repeatedly denied by the supreme court over the years. In this case it is a question of if a religion can in fact use marijuana for religious purposes. The answer to that is yes as has been upheld many times previously, the question that makes this different is what defines a religion? You don't know if it is part of practicing a religion until you have said what a religion is. The reason this is important is because of the religious freedoms act, which specifically says the government can't infringe unless it is to protect the greater good (see your whites only example and why it doesn't apply). I am basing my argument on legal precedent you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 03:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They don't have to prove their religion, they have to prove or show some evidence that it's truly a sincere belief.  That's a good thing as it prevents people from doing my example.

Quote:Neither this Court, nor any branch of this Government, will consider the merits or fallacies of a religion. Nor will the Court compare the beliefs, dogmas, and practices of a newly organized religion with those of an older, more established religion. Nor will the Court praise or condemn a religion, however excellent or fanatical or preposterous it may seem. Were the Court to do so, it would impinge upon the guarantees of the First Amendment.

Universal Life Church vs United States

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 04:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: They will have to define what makes a religion in order to determine if in fact they have a right to use it under a religious exemption. The same way they had to define porn, even if it was a very vague definition haha.

I don't know if that's the case.  The first amendment sort of guarantees us the right to practice whatever religion we want.   The burden isn't on us to prove to the government that our religious beliefs are sincere, otherwise we aren't really free to practice whatever religion we want.  Only what the government deems is "sincere".  

This case is interesting I believe due to the question of whether or not the government has a compelling reason to disallow adherents from using pot as part of their sacrament.  Given the fact that it is already legal in several states for recreational and legal purposes, what good reason does the state have to burden people practicing their faith?

The purpose of RFRA laws is to make it difficult for the government to infringe on first amendment rights.  It isn't to make people prove whether their religions are legit or not.  

[Au165]

(06-12-2015, 04:29 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I don't know if that's the case.  The first amendment sort of guarantees us the right to practice whatever religion we want.   The burden isn't on us to prove to the government that our religious beliefs are sincere, otherwise we aren't really free to practice whatever religion we want.  Only what the government deems is "sincere".  

This case is interesting I believe due to the question of whether or not the government has a compelling reason to disallow adherents from using pot as part of their sacrament.  Given the fact that it is already legal in several states for recreational and legal purposes, what good reason does the state have to burden people practicing their faith?


The purpose of RFRA laws is to make it difficult for the government to infringe on first amendment rights.  It isn't to make people prove whether their religions are legit or not.  

If they don't legally define what a religion is how do you determine if someone is in fact practicing a religion? Without a definition of religion how can one be denied a right to it?

Also as was pointed out they do have to determine if the person sincerely believes he is in fact practicing a religion. See United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), as they stated the beliefs don't have to be true they jsut have to honestly believe them to be true. So if this guy believes in marijuana,yad, yada,yada he just has to believe it true in his own mind. If it is determined to be a ploy to smoke pot then it in fact can be disregarded.

Also they can outlaw pieces of religions that effect the health, or welfare of the greater good. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 [1878] as they outlawed Polygomy, but obviously did not (and could not) outlaw Mormonism.


It really is a complex case, as is any case that concerns religion.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 04:39 PM)Au165 Wrote: If they don't legally define what a religion is how do you determine if someone is in fact practicing a religion? Without a definition of religion how can one be denied a right to it?

Also as was pointed out they do have to determine if the person sincerely believes he is in fact practicing a religion. See United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), as they stated the beliefs don't have to be true they jsut have to honestly believe them to be true. So if this guy believes in marijuana,yad, yada,yada he just has to believe it true in his own mind. If it is determined to be a ploy to smoke pot then it in fact can be disregarded.

Also they can outlaw pieces of religions that effect the health, or welfare of the greater good. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 [1878] as they outlawed Polygomy, but obviously did not (and could not) outlaw Mormonism.


It really is a complex case, as is any case that concerns religion.

No one can be denied the right to practice a religion.  In that case, the tenets of his religion weren't in question.  The only question was whether or not he sincerely believes it.  The burden rests with the state to prove one way or the other.  Moreover, the burden rests with the state to prove a compelling interest.  Can't say it is a "health" issue because pot is used as a means to improve health.  In terms of polygamy, I know of no states where it is practiced legally.  

Consequently, I think there is a stronger case to be made for pot at the moment, but I could see polygamist also having their day in court.    

[Au165]

(06-12-2015, 05:02 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: No one can be denied the right to practice a religion.  In that case, the tenets of his religion weren't in question.  The only question was whether or not he sincerely believes it.  The burden rests with the state to prove one way or the other.  Moreover, the burden rests with the state to prove a compelling interest.  Can't say it is a "health" issue because pot is used as a means to improve health.  In terms of polygamy, I know of no states where it is practiced legally.  

Consequently, I think there is a stronger case to be made for pot at the moment, but I could see polygamist also having their day in court.    

Yes they can be denied certain practices. As I pointed out that case (from the 1800's) determined they could not practice polygamy even though it was part of an obscure sect of Mormonism. No one practices it now because it was deemed illegal and did not meet the requirements of a religious exemption. The improve health argument would never hold up as there is not enough proof either way. The public health and interest only needs to show that allowing it would cause harm. Would they be successful proving that? Who knows but the fact remains that, yes the government can deny you the ability to practice certain aspects of your religion.

As for the other case the connection here is if the guy actually does believe what he is saying or is it a scheme to smoke pot. If it is determined the guy had told people he was doing this as a way to circumvent the law it would be determined he does not actually believe his religion to be a real thing therefor making it false.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 05:22 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yes they can be denied certain practices. As I pointed out that case (from the 1800's) determined they could not practice polygamy even though it was part of an obscure sect of Mormonism. No one practices it now because it was deemed illegal and did not meet the requirements of a religious exemption. The improve health argument would never hold up as there is not enough proof either way. The public health and interest only needs to show that allowing it would cause harm. Would they be successful proving that? Who knows but the fact remains that, yes the government can deny you the ability to practice certain aspects of your religion.

As for the other case the connection here is if the guy actually does believe what he is saying or is it a scheme to smoke pot. If it is determined the guy had told people he was doing this as a way to circumvent the law it would be determined he does not actually believe his religion to be a real thing therefor making it false.

Does peyote improve health?  Is it not more of an intoxicant that pot is?  From a precedent standpoint, that appears to be a fairly weak argument to make.  And this church now has a lot of members (I for instance am one of them).  How could the court possibly attempt to question the motives of the entire group?  Just think of the implications.  I can't see them going there with this.