Religion
Related: About this forumShould Marijuana Be Legal for Religious Purposes?
Posted: 08/15/2013 5:30 pm
Eliyahu Federman
Medical marijuana is spreading in acceptance, with Illinois this month becoming the 20th state to legalize medical marijuana.
This week a Federal court judge ruled that religion can be used as a defense in a marijuana distribution charge. But so far no states have legalized religious marijuana use, even though there is compelling reason to do so.
People consume alcohol for religious reasons, especially Jews. At least 25 states even allow minors to consume alcohol for religious purposes. So why not legalize marijuana for legitimate religious purposes?
Various world religions include the practice of ritual drinking of alcohol. Christians drink communion wine. Jews drink Kiddush wine, Passover Seder wine, and consume alcohol on festivals such as Purim where the tradition is to celebrate by drinking until one can't distinguish Haman (our enemy) and Mordecai (our hero).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliyahu-federman/should-religious-marijuan_b_3749742.html
http://www.unitedstatesvmarijuana.com/court-cases/unitedstatesvrogerchristie
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)or it should be. Who gets to determine if a substance is used for a religious purpose or not and by what criteria do they make such a decision?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)"legitimate religious purposes."
Then explain what differentiates a "legitimate religious purpose" from an illegitimate one.
You ARE the lawyer, after all.
rug
(82,333 posts)If it's too strenuous, scroll further downthread for some information.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)100% bullshit, as evidenced by the myriad stories of "religious" people behaving very, very badly in the name of their religion.
But what is YOUR opinion, rug? Why do YOU think a substance that is illegal for everyone should be legal for "legitimate religious purposes and what differentiates a "legitimate religious purpose" from an illegitimate one?
rug
(82,333 posts)You do understand the purpose of it, don't you?
Do you want the government to determine the validity of your thoughts?
It's clear you've read neither link. If you did, you'd see how the Venice Commission handles the question. It starts by applying protection to all beliefs, explicitly including nonbelief, atheism and agnosticism.
You are confusing your own (ill-informed but protected) opinion that all religion is bullshit with the legitimate purpose of civil law to determine - and if necessary, to regulate - its effect inside a society.
If you simply want to outlaw religion, then say so. I look forward to the reactions you get if you overcome your temerity and actually say what you so often imply in the most wearisome manner.
As to your extraneous ad hominem question, I agree with the extant First Amendment cases on religious issues. FWIW, my personal opinion is (not quite) as irrelevant as yours.
If you ever get around to reading these case, or any summary of them short of a cartoon, let me know what you think of them.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)If my religion believed in human sacrifice (as an extreme example) then by your logic it would be protected. So why are some things that are not ok for the general public ok because someone "believes in it?"
rug
(82,333 posts)Actual pleadings are what determines issues in a courtroom.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)and do some psychedelics once or twice a year.
I think it was in New Mexico or Arizona.
Should they be allowed to do so? I would say yes.
Am I interested? Not at all.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)Christie's case seems to "I really do want to sell marijuana to people, so much so that it's my religion". It's pretty farcical to suggest that something should be illegal if the person doing it doesn't claim it's for 'religious purposes', but legal if they do. Better to sort out what should be illegal or not, because of what harm, if any, it does, than fart around with legal loopholes that depend on nebulous concepts like 'spirituality' and 'religious belief'.
rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)They allowed churches to use alcoholic communion wine? They didn't?
It might help if you said how it was answered.
rug
(82,333 posts)Read up on why sacramental and communion wines were exempted at the time of enactment. You'll find something in there about "legitimate religious purposes".
muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)I really didn't know if alcoholic wines were exempted, given that some sects are happy with non-alcoholic wine. It's quite possible that everyone made do with that. All you had to do was say.
So this means anyone can invent a 'religious' ceremony involving any prohibited drug, and they're legal? Or is it a question of "legitimate means 'if we feel like accepting it'"?
rug
(82,333 posts)The analysis in the United States focuses on governmental intrusion into religious belief or practice rather than the belief itself. Here is a law review article that summarizes the case law on defining religion for legal purposes. Although the focus is on employment law, it has a sturdy summary of what the law considers a legitimate religious belief, purpose, or practice. That is essential in determining religion in any area of law.
https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jbl/articles/volume7/issue2/Page7U.Pa.J.Lab.&Emp.L.363(2005).pdf
Outside the U.S., the Venice Commission has been busy in providing model guidelines.
http://www.osce.org/odihr/13993
In short, civil laws regarding religion are not haphazard, whimsical, random, or dependent on 'if we feel like accepting it".
muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)is crucial because, as noted supra, it determines who is protected and who
is not. Therefore, defining religion "is more often than not a difficult and
delicate task." There is currently no consensus on how to define religion
in this context.
As far as 'legitimate' beliefs and practices goes, it says beliefs should be held "with the strength of traditional religious views" to be considered religious. But there doesn't seem to have been a definitive decision about marijuana use by Rastafarians, so I can't see that we have a sturdy summary that lawyers agree on.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/legally_weird/2013/05/new-twist-in-rastafarians-religious-pot-case-where-is-he.html
In what circumstances does a practice become more acceptable because we believe the actor is doing for a religious reason?
rug
(82,333 posts)The practice must stem from the religion itself. A good precedent is the conscientious objection cases. The historic peace churches, such as the Quakers and Mennonites, had a demonstrable history as pacifists. Objecting members of other religions, such as the Catholic Church, had a more difficult time because those churches, as part of their teaching, had variants of the just war doctrine, so there was no per se exemption. Many religious pacifists ended up in federal prison because their churches were not explicitly pacifist.
So the test is not simply religious motive, but a nexus between the practice sub judice and a religion that has a demonstrable existence independent of the scrutinized practice.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)have not been told it's protected as a religious belief.
rug
(82,333 posts)Unlike some countries, the US does not register official religions. That is a good thing.
The application of its laws to a religion is addressed as cases arise.
Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief and defines religion very broadly for purposes of determining what the law covers. For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others. An employee’s belief or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it. Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs.
Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious, beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.” Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII.
Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, or refraining from certain activities. Whether a practice is religious depends on the employee’s motivation. The same practice might be engaged in by one person for religious reasons and by another person for purely secular reasons (e.g., dietary restrictions, tattoos, etc.).
Discrimination based on religion within the meaning of Title VII could include, for example: not hiring an otherwise qualified applicant because he is a self-described evangelical Christian; a Jewish supervisor denying a promotion to a qualified non-Jewish employee because the supervisor wishes to give a preference based on religion to a fellow Jewish employee; or, terminating an employee because he told the employer that he recently converted to the Baha’i Faith.
Similarly, requests for accommodation of a “religious” belief or practice could include, for example: a Catholic employee requesting a schedule change so that he can attend church services on Good Friday; a Muslim employee requesting an exception to the company’s dress and grooming code allowing her to wear her headscarf, or a Hindu employee requesting an exception allowing her to wear her bindi (religious forehead marking); an atheist asking to be excused from the religious invocation offered at the beginning of staff meetings; an adherent to Native American spiritual beliefs seeking unpaid leave to attend a ritual ceremony; or an employee who identifies as Christian but is not affiliated with a particular sect or denomination requests accommodation of his religious belief that working on his Sabbath is prohibited.
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html
Assuming you're referring to your earlier post, you are confusing caselaw in a specific case in the Ninth Circuit with a general lack of legal recognition. You should know that caselaw is based on applying law to specific facts brought in a specific case.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)What the EEOC has decided for a definition is not a definition applied in criminal law.
rug
(82,333 posts)It is not the job of the government to certify religious belief. The job of the government is to scrutinize its own actions when it encounters religious belief. That is why you will see the issue addressed in different contexts across the board, such as employment, discrimination, taxation, marriage, criminal law, real estate and virtually every other area of law.
Do you actually think there's a list of approved religions somewhere in Washington?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)Your OP itself shows that it's not an open-and-shut case of religious beliefs meaning an exception to a prohibition law is always given; marijuana has not received such an exemption, while alcohol did when that was prohibited.
"That is why you will see the issue addressed in different contexts across the board, such as employment, discrimination, taxation, marriage, criminal law, real estate and virtually every other area of law. "
Well, it was you who has tried to bring in an employment law definition, and claimed it shows how religious beliefs are treated in criminal law. It's no use you whining that they are different areas now.
"Do you actually think there's a list of approved religions somewhere in Washington?"
Clown question, bro.
rug
(82,333 posts)I don't know why you're exhibiting obtuseness on this, it's been explained to you often enough. The clown question is apparently necessary, bro. I suppose I'll infer your answer since you didn't supply one.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)You're being rude, and ruining your own thread.
rug
(82,333 posts)Reminds me of the warden in the Shawshank Redemption.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Same shit, different carpet.
rug
(82,333 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)Wine is used sacramentally in the RCC, Anglican Communion churches and some others. Some use grape juice; Mormons use water. It depends on the teachings of the church regarding use of alcohol and validity of the Eucharistic elements.
The Native American Church uses peyote sacramentally. Harvesting and sale of peyote is highly regulated, though poaching has reduced the crop substantially in some areas.
I'm not sure, but I think Rastafarianism uses marijuana sacramentally. Pot, though, is such harmless stuff that I can see no reason for it not to be sold legally to any adult who wants it. There are other economic benefits to cultivation of hemp that would also accrue in that case. Something like datura, on the other hand, is probably best left restricted to medical use, given how dangerous it can be in the hands of people who don't know how to handle it.
spin
(17,493 posts)That's what is called commonsense. Marijuana is not more dangerous than alcohol and alcohol is legal.
I last smoked marijuana in the early 1970s and I was not impressed with the experiment. I personally prefer beer. I worked at a job where I was subject to drug testing and consequently I avoided any use of marijuana. But I've had a number of friends and acquaintances over the years who did use marijuana. Some also drank to excess. In my opinion, a drunk is far more dangerous than a person who is simply high on marijuana.
We lost our War on Drugs decades ago. Our continued refusal to legalize certain drugs such as marijuana has led to gang violence on the streets of our cities and even in rural America as drug gangs fight over turf. How many people, both innocent bystanders and gang members have died because in the crossfire of these turf wars? How many citizens have we sent to prison for the possession of small amounts of marijuana and how many lives have we ruined by doing so?
rug
(82,333 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I think it should be treated like booze, except those who are prescribed marijuana by their doctors should have it covered by their insurance.
jmowreader
(50,528 posts)
mike_c
(36,269 posts)If it's legal, anyone can use it as a sacrament if that's what they want to do, just like they can do with tobacco today. Or butter. Or whatever. Or they can just enjoy it without the ritual trappings.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)
on point
(2,506 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)
SamKnause
(13,087 posts)Cannabis should be legal for ALL ADULTS !!!
We should be free to grow and use cannabis.
The war on cannabis is a war against we the people !!!!
juajen
(8,515 posts)taxes, why shouldn't they have unfettered access to anything they want?
Do I need the sarcasm thingie? I'm old and do not want to look for it. Maybe I could declare myself a religion. What do ya'll think?
rug
(82,333 posts)