First Church of Cannabis

[Au165]

(06-12-2015, 05:30 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: 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.   

It is not health in terms of ones health, it is the idea of public "health". It is easy to question the motives of a group, it however is harder to prove. They very well may go after the church, but it will be tied up in legal battles so long that it is probably legalized before any conclusion is reached.

I do have a question though, how many people do you think go there for no other reason than to smoke pot?

Interesting discussion though, always enjoy talking about legal matters.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 05:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: It is not health in terms of ones health, it is the idea of public "health". It is easy to question the motives of a group, it however is harder to prove. They very well may go after the church, but it will be tied up in legal battles so long that it is probably legalized before any conclusion is reached.

I do have a question though, how many people do you think go there for no other reason than to smoke pot?

Interesting discussion though, always enjoy talking about legal matters.

Not sure the "public health" really flies.  It is legal in one of the healthiest states in the country.  So are cigs.  So is booze.

The church hasn't opened its doors yet (July 1st).  How many people go to Christian church because they believe Christ is lord?  I've actually received tangible and spiritual benefits from using pot.  Jesus not so much.  

[*michaelsean*]

Will you guys please read the law before arguing about it.

It doesn't have to be a defined religion. Nobody is going to judge the religion. They are going to judge the person's sincerity. This law is used as a defense against civil or criminal charges. You will have to convince a jury that you are sincere.

Who dey as to your post about not judging the newness of a religion, that's not the point. The point is that this new religion will be poor evidence of your sincerity.

Au I get precedence, but this guy is claiming he can do this under the new law and that is the context in which I am discussing this.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 05:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Will you guys please read the law before arguing about it.  

It doesn't have to be a defined religion.  Nobody is going to judge the religion.  They are going to judge the person's sincerity.  This law is used as a defense against civil or criminal charges.  You will have to convince a jury that you are sincere.  

Who dey as to your post about not judging the newness of a religion, that's not the point.  The point is that this new religion will be poor evidence of your sincerity.

Au I get precedence, but this guy is claiming he can do this under the new law and that is the context in which I am discussing this.

The burden isn't on citizens to prove their sincerity.  The RFRA places the burden on governments to prove they have a compelling interest in infringing on religious rights.    

Hence why they are called "Religious Freedom Restorations Acts" and not "Prove your Religious Sincerity Acts".

Governments don't have religious freedoms.  Citizens do.   

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2015, 05:59 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: The burden isn't on citizens to prove their sincerity.  The RFRA places the burden on governments to prove they have a compelling interest in infringing on religious rights.    

Hence why they are called "Religious Freedom Restorations Acts" and not "Prove your Religious Sincerity Acts".

Governments don't have religious freedoms.  Citizens do.   

You have to remember that the case wont be about his religious beliefs, it will be about some sort of illegal action involving marijuana. That is their burden. Then he would put on his defense in which he would claim it's a religious belief of his. At that point the jury would decide if first they believe him, and if they do then whether there is a compelling state reason.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 06:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You have to remember that the case wont be about his religious beliefs, it will be about some sort of illegal action involving marijuana.  That is their burden.  Then he would put on his defense in which he would claim it's a religious belief of his.  At that point the jury would decide if first they believe him, and if they do then whether there is a compelling state reason.

You obviously don't understand the fundamental purpose of RFRA laws.  The first amendment establishes our freedom of religion.  In the case it conflicts with law the government has the burden of proof.   They have the burden of showing a compelling interest otherwise their laws would trump and trample on the first amendment, which would render it meaningless.

We don't have to justify our religious beliefs.  They have to justify why we shouldn't be able to act on them.

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2015, 07:37 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: You obviously don't understand the fundamental purpose of RFRA laws.  The first amendment establishes our freedom of religion.  In the case it conflicts with law the government has the burden of proof.   They have the burden of showing a compelling interest otherwise their laws would trump and trample on the first amendment, which would render it meaningless.

We don't have to justify our religious beliefs.  They have to justify why we shouldn't be able to act on them.

Exactly right.

Almost every religion is based an a crazy story with out a single shred of evidence to prove it is true.  There is no way a Christian could prove to a court that there was a rational basis for his beliefs.

The burden is one the State.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-13-2015, 07:37 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: You obviously don't understand the fundamental purpose of RFRA laws.  The first amendment establishes our freedom of religion.  In the case it conflicts with law the government has the burden of proof.   They have the burden of showing a compelling interest otherwise their laws would trump and trample on the first amendment, which would render it meaningless.

We don't have to justify our religious beliefs.  They have to justify why we shouldn't be able to act on them.

"This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause."

I didn't say the government didn't have to prove their compelling interest, or if I did I didn't mean to.

Again, this is a defense.  Theoretically you are trying to convince a jury why whatever marijuana crime you are charged with isn't really a crime in your situation.  That being it is part of your religious beliefs.  If your religious beliefs began yesterday, a jury may not buy it.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-13-2015, 12:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly right.

Almost every religion is based an a crazy story with out a single shred of evidence to prove it is true.  There is no way a Christian could prove to a court that there was a rational basis for his beliefs.

The burden is one the State.

Not proving that your belief is true, but rather that you hold that belief.  Such as history and tradition.

[WhoDeyWho]

The first service is streaming live right now:

http://www.theindychannel.com/live-video?_ga=1.67945112.804184847.1435768805

[fredtoast]

(06-15-2015, 10:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote:   If your religious beliefs began yesterday, a jury may not buy it.

Not if they are good Christians.

Matthew chapter 20

8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.
9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

[*Nately120*]

It's funny how odd this seems before I stop and realize that I was 8 years old when I was given wine by adults on a semi-regular basis as part of a religious ceremony.

[fredtoast]

(07-01-2015, 02:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's funny how odd this seems before I stop and realize that I was 8 years old when I was given wine by adults on a semi-regular basis as part of a religious ceremony.

Nothing wrong with a child having a sip of wine, but it was actually blood.


Now THAT is creepy.

[*Nately120*]

(07-01-2015, 04:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Nothing wrong with a child having a sip of wine, but it was actually blood.


Now THAT is creepy.

So why does it seem weird to puff on a joint in church and call it toking on the cremains of Christ?  All jokes aside, Michael Jackson allegedly gave children wine under the guise of it being related to Jesus, right?  We shoulda given him tax-exempt status for that!

[WhoDeyWho]

(07-01-2015, 04:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Nothing wrong with a child having a sip of wine, but it was actually blood.


Now THAT is creepy.

Pretending to eat someone's body and blood is perfectly normal.