beh Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Last year the United States Supreme Court made a decision in the case of Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Wegetal. 126 S. Ct. 1211, 1219 (2006). This case established that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gives people the right to put religious freedom ahead of federal law under certain circumstances. The DEA wrote a roughly 3 page letter considering it. What do you guys have to say about this? http://myreality.churchofreality.org/index...?showtopic=1997 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Bourricot Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 NO NO NO NO NO and NO This scares me: This case established that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gives people the right to put religious freedom ahead of federal law under certain circumstances. This should NEVER happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurë Veteran Posted February 12, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 12, 2007 I agree with him ^. It sets an uncomfortable precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazi Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 This should most definetely not have been allowed. It does present some ugly possibilities. Foolish to allow religion to gain so much importance. That's exactly the reason for the major controversies at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbo Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 time to join the church of reality :p no i'm kidding. but native american tribes have been allowed peyote for a while, yet no one is up in arms over that? i'm not saying i'm for or against this, btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rathefeare Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I'm pro first amendment and very much for freedom of religion and also for the legalization of marijuana, but I can't support this. It establishes unequal rights under the law. Let everyone have the same rights or no one to have them. You can not let only a certain segment of the population do something that is illegal for the rest and when you make religion the defining characteristic; that is a very dangerous and discriminatory policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n3wt Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 no i'm kidding. but native american tribes have been allowed peyote for a while, yet no one is up in arms over that? Is Peyote illegal for the general public though? It'd be kind of hard to ban a plant that just grows wild in an area, Jimpson Weed is hallucinogenic and it isn't illegal in any way I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbo Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 it depends on the state, i think. but the majority of states have peyote illegal unless used for religious purposes (i.e. native americans) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Peyote is illegal. I think they should, but not for the reasons cited. As El pointed out, religious freedom should not superceed federal law UNLESS you have absolutely freedom hating, racist drug laws like we currently do. If the feds hadn't overstepped their bounds to begin with this wouldn't be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanManIt Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I'm against this. Putting religion before the law would be a huge mistake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbo Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 the only reason I (amongst others, i'm sure) support peyote being legal for certain Native American tribes is because the tribes that DO use it have been using since before we came over. this is completely different, and i agree that it shouldn't be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Why kev? Obviously if they were killing people before we came over should they should not be allowed to continue to do that. That is the rub with freedom of religion, it is a vast area of traditional practices. I think its wrong for 'newer' religions to be penalized as such. I will reiterate that the problem is our drug law, if that went away this would be a moot issue to start. Since we do have such draconian law, they should be allowed to bypass them because of the same reason as the Native Americans. We allow them to do this because of their beliefs, not how long they have practiced them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbo Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 well to use your example... if a religion wanted to kill someone (based on they beliefs), shouldn't they also be allowed to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I support the legalization (or, at least, decriminalization) of cannabis and I support the freedom to be a member of a religion but this is a dangerous precedent. I can easily see how this law could be used to open up other religious activities that may be slightly more harmful to the public. Then, you have two case laws and those could be used to support another religious activity that may be even more harmful to the public. Then, you have three case laws to support an even more harmful activity. Before you know it, it may be possible for the "Baby Killing Church of Jesus Christ" (entirely fictional) to murder children to prevent sin and ensure entry into heaven. I know this argument relies on slippery-slope argumentation, which is logically fallacious, but if there is anything certain about governmental affairs it is that precedents practically always create slippery-slopes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azcodemonkey Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 well to use your example... if a religion wanted to kill someone (based on they beliefs), shouldn't they also be allowed to do that? No, not even close. Drug usage versus killing someone is night and day. Consenting adults should be allowed to do with their bodies as they please. Obviously, if they decide to operate a vehicle, you're treading on different ground. Believe it or not, drugs can be used responsibly. No, I don't use drugs, with exception to an occasional beer or scotch. I've perused the law, and I see nothing that really says anything one way or another concerning drugs. I really don't see how a bunch of new religions are going to start popping up and justifying drug use as central to their beliefs. They have to prove undue burden of law. Good luck with that. They all be too high to get it right. ;) The questionnaire provided by the DEA is pretty thorough. I'll be impressed if the CoR can pull it off. Here's a summary of the court case that got this started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O...%A3o_do_Vegetal I think my greatest concern is if children are exposed to drug use through their church. Really, we have enough stupid people in the world. It would be a tragedy to allow all those young minds to be stunted before fully developing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbo Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 that case is about importing hoasca tea. it's completely irrelevant to this article. and most states have laws that exempt any bona fide religious activities from certain laws i.e. drugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts