First Church of Cannabis

[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.