First Church of Cannabis picking up steam.

[findingZzero]

If I had to deal with someone inebriated, I'd rather it be a pot head than a drunk. Ban alcohol (which i like) and legalize weed!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

They won't win. They can't convince a judge that it's a sincere religion... when everything else points to the contrary.

RFRA hasn't had a great record of victory for drug exemptions... aside from maybe one case with a very specific and long-standing religious base.

 

[HoughMade]

They won't win. They can't convince a judge that it's a sincere religion... when everything else points to the contrary.

RFRA hasn't had a great record of victory for drug exemptions... aside from maybe one case with a very specific and long-standing religious base.

Tru Dat

 

[rambone]

They won't win. They can't convince a judge that it's a sincere religion... when everything else points to the contrary.

RFRA hasn't had a great record of victory for drug exemptions... aside from maybe one case with a very specific and long-standing religious base.

The idea of people proving to a judge that their religion is "sincere" is crazy to me.

 

[mrjarrell]

They won't win. They can't convince a judge that it's a sincere religion... when everything else points to the contrary.

RFRA hasn't had a great record of victory for drug exemptions... aside from maybe one case with a very specific and long-standing religious base.

Hmmm.....the state of Indiana recognises them as a legitimate religion. So does the federal government. And they're not arguing the federal RFRA. They are arguing the Indiana RFRA, which has different language than the federal. They may lose, but the RFRA and it's supporters will be shown to be what they really are if they do lose.

 

[rambone]

They may lose, but the RFRA and it's supporters will be shown to be what they really are if they do lose.

Don't you think it will tell us more about the court, than about the RFRA/supporters?

What do you think they really are?

 

[mrjarrell]

Don't you think it will tell us more about the court, than about the RFRA/supporters?

What do you think they really are?

It will tell us a lot about the courts in this state. But, if the supporters of the states RFRA do not come out in support of the church, then they are, as many people have said, just a bunch of people who wanted special protections only for their particular sects and not others. The RFRA was pushed by the evangelical rightists in this state like the American Family Association and Eric Miller. This was always about protecting a special interest groups vision.

 

[BugI02]

It will tell us a lot about the courts in this state. But, if the supporters of the states RFRA do not come out in support of the church, then they are, as many people have said, just a bunch of people who wanted special protections only for their particular sects and not others. The RFRA was pushed by the evangelical rightists in this state like the American Family Association and Eric Miller. This was always about protecting a special interest groups vision.

Hypocrits? Are you trying to say hypocrits?

 

[MCgrease08]

The First Church Of Cannabis has filed suit against the state and city and their multitudes. They've also requested an injunction against the states marijuana laws to allow them to use their sacrament in the meantime. I'm looking forward to seeing this case roll on. The RFRA opened a box of worms for the state, now they have to defend it.

First Church of Cannabis Files Suit | IndyPolitics.Org

See post #76 of this thread.

 

[HoughMade]

So the approved position is that anything that is generally illegal should be legal if someone starts something they call a religion and make the illegal activity a sacrament. If the members of a a religion that has been long recognized with beliefs and sacraments that predate, oh, the state itself, does not actively support this new "religion", then they are hypocrites.

Seems reasonable and not at all all anti anything.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Hmmm.....the state of Indiana recognises them as a legitimate religion. So does the federal government. And they're not arguing the federal RFRA. They are arguing the Indiana RFRA, which has different language than the federal. They may lose, but the RFRA and its supporters will be shown to be what they really are if they do lose.

I questioned elsewhere about people seeing this law as somehow legalizing illegal things. I used heroin, cocaine, murder as examples. Someone responded to me in a way that sounded somewhat reasonable, and showed me where my examples weren't valid:

The idea is not that the RFRA specifically legalized something, but that it increased the Government's burden of proving that they have a compelling interest to restrict any activities associated with a religious belief and that they do it in the least restrictive way possible.

While I don't think the church will even get as far as being recognized as a religion, they are making the case that arresting people for something that is legal in other states (unlike Heroin, Cocaine, and Murder) is not the least restrictive thing they could do and, in fact, the Government does not have a compelling interest to restrict religious use of something that you can get a prescription for in half of the country.

I kind of get the argument trying to be made (assuming this is the same argument being made by the marijuana group). I sort of agree with the "arresting for something legal in other states" thing when in combination with "least restrictive". I still think they won't be able to make a winning argument on the bolded portions, though.

Where have you seen that they are recognized as a legit religion on a state and federal level? I missed those details. From what I've heard, that's the main portion they need to debate to a judge. (I don't follow this thread incredibly close)

 

[rambone]

If the members of a a religion that has been long recognized with beliefs and sacraments that predate, oh, the state itself, does not actively support this new "religion", then they are hypocrites.

To be fair, pagan idolatry is pretty old. Even this specific form.

Entheogenic use of cannabis | Wikipedia

 

[rambone]

It will tell us a lot about the courts in this state. But, if the supporters of the states RFRA do not come out in support of the church, then they are, as many people have said, just a bunch of people who wanted special protections only for their particular sects and not others. The RFRA was pushed by the evangelical rightists in this state like the American Family Association and Eric Miller. This was always about protecting a special interest groups vision.

I don't presume to speak for anyone else, but I support the RFRA and I support the right to worship marijuana. Both seem completely consistent with a free and voluntary society.

If some particular lobbyists are hypocrites, that really doesn't change the merits of the law.

 

[Leadeye]

Law firms love these people.

 

[HoughMade]

To be fair, pagan idolatry is pretty old. Even this specific form.

Entheogenic use of cannabis | Wikipedia

This is not those (the ancient religions cited therein). However, in the event that the courts have to determine it, I'll be glad to listen to the evidence for this being a deeply held religious belief or whether this was set up simply to smoke weed and to challenge RFRA, in which case it does not sound like a religion, but a political statement. There is plenty of precedent for evaluating whether a person has an honest religious belief.

...and the grant of tax exempt status as the proof of "official recognition"? What is this, the "Miracle on 34th Street" school of law? Even if the post office recognizes a guy as Santa, he may not be Santa. Likewise, because a place calls itself a religious organization aand fills out the right forms does not mean that status is established in perpetuity for all intents and purposes.

 

[rambone]

This is not those (the ancient religions cited therein). However, in the event that the courts have to determine it, I'll be glad to listen to the evidence for this being a deeply held religious belief or whether this was set up simply to smoke weed and to challenge RFRA, in which case it does not sound like a religion, but a political statement. There is plenty of precedent for evaluating whether a person has an honest religious belief.

...and the grant of tax exempt status as the proof of "official recognition"? What is this, the "Miracle on 34th Street" school of law? Even if the post office recognizes a guy as Santa, he may not be Santa. Likewise, because a place calls itself a religious organization aand fills out the right forms does not mean that status is established in perpetuity for all intents and purposes.

I think it is dangerous to use the government determine which beliefs are valid/invalid, or sincere/insincere, or honest/dishonest, or deeply held/shallow, or any other standard. I would find it offensive to have to explain myself to the government in any way.

Religion should be freely exercised as promised in the 1st Amendment. This freedom should not be restricted to what is popular or traditional.

 

[CHCRandy]

Likewise, because a place calls itself a religious organization aand fills out the right forms does not mean that status is established in perpetuity for all intents and purposes.

Yeah, you ever seen how much beer the Catholic church(Knights of Columbus) goes thru a week? I helped deliver it once.........I was amazed! I am pretty sure that is just a tax exempt bar.

On another note......Lawsuit has now been filed, guess the courts will decide.

 

[HoughMade]

I think it is dangerous to use the government determine which beliefs are valid/invalid, or sincere/insincere, or honest/dishonest, or deeply held/shallow, or any other standard. I would find it offensive to have to explain myself to the government in any way.

Religion should be freely exercised as promised in the 1st Amendment. This freedom should not be restricted to what is popular or traditional.

Would be great if people didn't try to game the system and courts weren't called upon to make these determinations. Nevertheless, since people do, someone has to make these decisions.

 

[richardraw316]

munchies

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Edit: Old link