--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 2005, at 1:43 PM, anonymousff wrote: > > > > > If cultivated and used in ritualistic manner, as part of ones > > > spiritual path, to gain spiritual benefit, per below, I wonder if > > > anyone has claimed religious freedom to use it.
I googled some stuff. For those interested hare some links. Its not clear the current status of the bill and court rulings. Last link is 2002, overturning prior more-freedom oriented rulings. It may come into play as the TMO gets more zany and hinduistic. http://www.civilliberties.org/spr97const.html I am referring to the religious use of cannabis as use of ganja, in this article. Your right to use ganja and stronger psychedelics religiously probablly finds its legal expression strongest under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The constitutional question here involves so-called laws of general applicability. The question is: when a law passed for some reason not related to making problems for religion, does in fact make problems for religion, what changes: the religious person, or the law? If that sounds abstract let's talk about a good example involving free expression. In the early 1990s the Supreme Court applied the same test to religious freedom and came to the same conclusion: if the law just happens to make it impossible for you to live according to your religious beliefs, find some new beliefs, because the government doesn't have to change the law. There was a big uproar and the Congress overwhelmingly passed the RFRA of 1993. Its quite short and it says that when the law prevents you from living according to your religious beliefs, the law has to change (usually). The courts hate this law. And by and large they have refused to follow it. They narrowed it down to only applying when the law affected a sincerely held belief that was central to your religion. However to the credit of the courts, you don't have to be a member of an organized religion, and your belief doesn't have to make sense. You might believe, for instance, that the mothership is behind the Hale-Bopp comet and eating toxic applesauce is a great way to beam yourself up. The question is not verity, it is sincerity. The Heaven's Gate 39 did not violate any laws. There are gazillions of cases invoking the RFRA of 1993. Usually in vain. A California court told Gregory Peck (not the actor) that his Isreal Zion Coptic Church could use ganja as a sacrament, and he could possess it, but he couldn't grow it or buy it. This decision is downright spooky when you consider the parallel arguments about medical marijuana. Most cases seem to involve prisoners unable to follow the practices of their religious beliefs. The courts generally could care less. They find that prison discipline would collapse if anything beyond generic chapel occurred. Some cases, however, involve established churches who violate zoning laws - usually by feeding the poor or some other charitable act which upsets the neighbors. By and large the courts have favored the churches over the zoning laws. So we have the most bizarre outcome of all. The government is suppressing religion on all fronts, the jails are filled with religious prisoners whose cases cry out for justice, and the case that comes before the Supreme Court to allow it to determine if the RFRA of 1993 is constitutional involves a church in Texas which wants to expand its building. It is in an area zoned for historic preservation and the government doesn't want it to get bigger or to change anything in the building facade. Oral arguments have been heard and now we are awaiting the pronouncement of the fate of the RFRA of 1993. If it is upheld, there is still an enormous distance to go before there is actual religious freedom involving the use of psychoactives in the USA. If you use ganja or LSD religiously you are more likely to be a martyr than a winner if you go to court. ********************* http://www.metnews.com/articles/guer052902.htm Wednesday, May 29, 2002 Ninth Circuit Rejects Rastafarian's `Religious Freedom' Defense to Charge of Marijuana Importation By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer/Appellate Courts A member of the Rastafarian faith does not have the right to bring marijuana into Guam, either under the territory's Bill of Rights or the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. Reversing the Supreme Court of Guam, a Ninth Circuit panel—which heard argument in Honolulu in November—reinstated drug charges against Benny T. Guerrero. The court did, however, leave open the possibility that such a defense might succeed if raised to a charge of simple possession. Guerrero, who has used the Rastafarian name Iyah Ben Makahna for 20 years but was indicted under his birth name, was arrested at Guam International Airport with five ounces of marijuana and 10 grams of marijuana seeds in his luggage. A Superior Court judge, in a 1999 ruling, held that as a legitimate member of Rastafarianism, a religion to which marijuana use is central, Guerrero had a right to use the drug under both the territorial Bill of Rights and RFRA. **************************** http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-09-01/pols_naked3.html If Dubya wants to promote a happy, peaceful climate inside the Beltway, he's gotta love this: Right before Bush and his party got silly in Philly, within 30 minutes of each other, both houses of Congress unanimously passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. You can just call it Son of RFRA. RFRA, if you're wondering, would be the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, spiked by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997, enacted in Texas and eight other states since then, and now back in truncated form. (President Clinton has yet to sign RLUIPA, but is expected to.) All these versions have the same thrust: Religious institutions, or people who claim a religious interest, can ignore laws that apply to everyone else. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
