Opinions - Why can't I exploit freedom of religon...

[Creeping Death]

I'm wondering what can qualify as a "religion" in the eyes of a government. For example if the cops catch me with drugs, and i say that it's my religion, what would your religion have to "contain" in order for it to hold a quarter in court?

I know that it wouldn't work, but i'm qurious about it. In case i wanna start my own religion someday.

[Nature Boy]

I think under Irish law at least, that you must have at least 100 members affiliated officially with your church. Being completely non-religious myself, I would love to abuse that law (afterall, straight men in a part of Canada are abusing the gay marriage law by marrying for financial benefit) by gathering together 100 friends (a difficult thing to do) and declaring ourselves a religion who base their spirituality on the use of psychadelic drugs. It wouldn't fly in this country. The government would put the foot down.

[MrJim]

It's a tough question - Religion itself tends to be a term reserved for larger groups. In order to become a religion one must first start a cult, and then once the membership has gotten large enough it becomes a sect. Once the sect has grown and gained widespread acceptance in an area it can become a religion.


For one's homespun religion to be given some sort of understanding and leiniencyin court, I believe that the law works in such a way that laws that were around previous to the initiation of the cult in the country of it's founding cannot be directly broken in the new cults practice. BUT if the cult was founded in a country at a time when there was no laws contravining the beliefs of it, then that is when you might have a CHANCE of arguing for religious exemption. Eg Rastas from Jamaica in America or Native Americans and Peyote. Staying out of the Limelight is also very important. This is all subjectto the judge and country where the religion vs Law arguement is being fought.


As you can probably guess it is something I have thought about before - One loophole I think might work --Resurrecting a dead religion of your native soil is such a way to show that there was a continuum of the religion in the first place - I.e. It had never truly died. Then you could take exerpts from their texts and liberally explain what it COULD mean. But still... It's all a very uphill battle - Your better off starting your own commune. Your own REMOTE and out of the Limelight commune.


NBL - Where did you get that thing about Straight malemarriages in Canada? I hadn't heard that before.Edited by: MrJim

Reputation Comments on this post:

awesome 3rd and 4th sentences

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by MrJim

Where did you get that thing about Straight male*marriages in Canada? I hadn't heard that before.

Yahoo News I think.

[criss]

...in order to use cannabis, LSD and MDMA in my place of worship (my house) with other members of my religon.

How could I win this fight in a court of law?

[criss]

The United Kingdom is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article 9 guarantees "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance" and that "freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".



Religious freedom is a fair attack, though it's too bad more people don't believe in it. Native Americans won the right to use peyote in their rituals, as they had for freakin' hundreds of years before Europeans killed them and took their stuff. Why should a religious defense be valid for an old religion but not for a new one?

Sure, people will invent new religions just to justify their drug use. So what? Freedom of religion implies freedom of thought, freedom of philosophy, and - within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others - freedom of action. If some Swimmer has a ++++ trip and decides to begin worshipping superintelligent neural networks of viruses that can only be communed with via the use of 4-Aco-DMT, then so be it. It's their right.


Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Some random thoughts taken from wiki, and from users of the forum.

[Paracelsus]

Why can't I use my freedom of religion to commit ritual killings? Because my religion would not be officially recognized, which is a requirement to have freedom of religion. Regulations for recognizing a religion vary from country to country, but generally one has to have a minimum number of members (and proof of this), a proper organization, and the doctrine has to be legal under present law.

The thoughts above are nothing but wishful thinking and whining.

[Alfa]

You would need a religious context as well. Meaning:

• church
• rituals
• belief system
• gatherings
• organization
• preferably historical precedence
• excluding recreational use

Since SWIY is from the UK: the religious use of magic mushrooms actually does have historical precedence.

The use of magic mushrooms as a religious sacrament within the organisation of a church would surely be something that the right to freedom of religion protects. However; this can not be an excuse for recreational use. The concept of a religious organization has to be more than just a concept.

It would surely be interesting and I suspect worthwhile as well, to invest time and energy in this approach. I also think that there would be many people interested in the religious use of magic mushrooms within a spiritual organisation.

Magic mushrooms also have another nice plus: it has been scientifically proven that magic mushrooms provoke mystical experiences. This alone would be grounds to found a church on. Magic mushrooms can be seen as a vessel to reach mystical & religious states.

[Metomni]

Originally Posted by Alfa

You would need a religious context as well. Meaning:

• church
• rituals
• belief system
• gatherings
• organization
• preferably historical precedence
• excluding recreational use

He explained that his place of residence would act as his place of religious practice. I don't know if you would have to prove that it is an "acceptable" church, but this seems like a good argument.

As for the rituals, I'm sure you could either A) Say that the act of ingesting these substances is for ritualistic purposes or B) Invent some rituals that include the ingestion of the substances.

Your belief system would be based upon what is learned from the experiences undertaken.

The gatherings could be the only time and place where the drugs are taken.

At least to some degree, it is possible to argue all these things, but at some point you have to ask whether or not it would ever actually work?

The precedence issue is an interesting one though. Aren't there accounts of native americans (and I'm sure others) taking substances such as peyote and not being held accountable because they argued for religious use?

Very interesting thread, I'd like to hear more input on this subject.

[Mr. Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Alfa

The use of magic mushrooms as a religious sacrament within the organisation of a church would surely be something that the right to freedom of religion protects. However; this can not be an excuse for recreational use. The concept of a religious organization has to be more than just a concept.

It would surely be interesting and I suspect worthwhile as well, to invest time and energy in this approach. I also think that there would be many people interested in the religious use of magic mushrooms within a spiritual organisation.

I have looked into this in some detail. I even took legal advice on the matter. Basically, no, it couldn't have worked. The way the Irish constitution is set up, religions are only recognised on the basis of their actual registered existence, so in this case, that means that we can't claim to be continuing a tradition of old, we would have to actually be able to prove that our particular organisation is thousands of years old.

Secondly, even if you could get over this problem, you run into what our constitution charmingly refers to as 'public order and morality'. This is a rather vague term, and would likely override any claimed religious freedom to indulge in actions which offend this precious public morality. Particularly in the area of 'drugs', there is no question but that a court would rule that your claim to religious status is spurious and that your right to consume such substances poses a real danger to public order. They wouldn't even have to prove this to any great extent since it's largely a matter of opinion.

Sure, sure, you could challenge all of it in the courts. First you'd go through the Irish courts system, at a cost approaching 500,000 EUR, then you'd take it to Europe at even greater expense, with the strong liklihood in the end that you'd be a. made out to be a total lunatic, b. exposing yourself to public ridicule, c. spending all of your money on solicitors and barristers and d. most likely on the losing end after all that.

In order to win, you would have to show that, by outlawing mushrooms, the government was actively targetting your religious freedom. This is even less likely to succeed since nobody would have heard of your religion. In this instance, it's harder to win the case. Even if you managed to overcome all of the odds and win, you would only win on the very narrow grounds that registered members of your religious group (registered before the mushroom ban, btw) are exempt from that particular section of the law, so there would be no wider benefit.

The strong legal advice I got - and this would be from a sympathetic solicitor - was that it hadn't much hope of working out.

Of course, we all know that mushrooms are more than a 'drug', they are a valid spiritual tool, but try telling that to a conservative judge interpreting a catholic constitution.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Always interested in hearing about other countries and law... too bad though.

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by Mr. Giraffe

Secondly, even if you could get over this problem, you run into what our constitution charmingly refers to as 'public order and morality'. This is a rather vague term, and would likely override any claimed religious freedom to indulge in actions which offend this precious public morality.

'Public order and morality' and the 'common good' are the two main provisions in the Irish constitution which allow the state to legally strip us of all of our civil liberties whenever it feels like it.

[sweetsweetmary]

So just a thought. If shulgin would have made a church and created a religion of RC's before analogue laws and whatnot, then this church would exist today? Pretty funny. I think I would join that one.

[criss]

I appreciate that it is a bit of a silly idea (making up a fake religion to accomodate drug use). But this stems from my view that organised religion and drug policy are more than a bit silly!

But why does a religion have to have a historical background to be acceptable? That's not freedom of religion, it's freedom to pick from what has been put in front of you!

I'm planning on writing a letter to my MP explaining why I need to use MDMA in order to "worship superintelligent neural networks of viruses that can only be communed with via the use of said substance." (or similar)

I plan on including as much relevant, informative material as possible about ++++ experiences, harm assesment etc etc and I hope to educate a bit at least!

[criss]

...any help and advice for writing such a letter would be greatly appreciated also.

[radiometer]

This thread reminds me of the Mr. Boffo comic strips with the "People unclear on the concept" theme.

Here's a free tip - avoid using the word "exploit" in your letter. And get a spellchecker, no MP is going to read a letter about "religon."

[Lethargy]

I would say that if one intends to use freedom of religion to partake of illicit psychoactives one ought to go the whole hog and make a valid religion out of it.

Contrary to much belief, practicing religious rituals, especially with the use of powerful psychoactive substances will often induce belief in the religion, whether or not said belief existed beforehand. If one intends to make a fake religion and one has to practice it (to prove to some observer that it exists) then one would most likely want to make it as beneficial to the participants as possible.


Plus, I know from firsthand knowledge that self-created belief systems can work wonders if used consistently to reflect upon and evaluate one's life and reality. And all this without the use of drugs! Perhaps your "fake church" could one day lead a revolution in human consciousness, or at least your personal consciousness. This would make it more than worth any extra effort put in.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Awesome post mate :)
	good input

[AntiAimer]

If Jesus and L Ron Hubbard can do it, you can too. You just have to be smart.

Things like this has already been done like temple420.com and some church in Arizona(http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/137087.php).

Pot church takes a hit
S. Arizona couple face prison for what they say is religious use of marijuana
By Stephanie Innes
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 07.09.2006

PIMA — The Church of Cognizance, which has quietly operated here since 1991, has an unusual tenet — its worshippers deify and use marijuana as part of their faith.
Until federal authorities charged them with possessing 172 pounds of their leafy green sacrament earlier this year, church founders Dan and Mary Quaintance say they smoked, ate or drank marijuana daily as a way of becoming more spiritually enlightened.
But now, with added conspiracy charges, the Quaintances face up to 40 years each in prison in a case they call religious persecution.
Federal prosecutors say religious freedom does not exempt the use of illegal drugs. The Quaintances say it does. They also say a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing a religious group's use of a hallucinogenic tea containing a federally banned substance should nullify the charges against them.

The couple is scheduled to go on trial in Las Cruces, N.M., on July 18, though defense lawyers are asking for a delay.
"They have a bona fide religion and the only marijuana they utilize is for the practice of their religion," said Mary Quaintance's attorney, Mario A. Esparza. "Our Constitution in the United States guarantees that freedom of religion, and the Quaintances are being punished for the very thing the Constitu- tion stands for.

"They did not distribute to anyone outside of the church and they never profited from it," Esparza said.
The Church of Cognizance, which leaders say has 72 monasteries located in members' homes nationwide, has a simple motto: "With good thoughts, good words and good deeds, we honor marijuana; as the teacher, the provider, the protector."
Dan Quaintance, 54, says the church has 40 to 50 members in Arizona, but cannot estimate how many there are nationwide. Leaders say members must be 18 to join, and he says the average age of worshippers in Arizona is 35. Dan, who preaches at weddings and funerals of church members, says the church does not sell its sacrament or proselytize.

"Laws exist to protect people from injury and we've injured nobody," said Dan Quaintance, an Iowa native, Vietnam veteran and retired welder who identifies himself as his church's "chief cognoscente."
"Marijuana is the averter of death," he said. "The energy and spirit that is in marijuana is God. You consume the plant and you consume God. You are sacrificing your body to the deity."

The Quaintances were arrested Feb. 22 in Lordsburg, N.M., just seven days before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a small religious group based in Santa Fe that combines Christianity and American Indian practices could use hallucinogenic tea in its ceremonies. The tea, called hoasca, contains dimethyltryptamine, or DMT, known for its hallucinogenic properties.
A variety of religious groups representing millions of members filed briefs supporting O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, or UDV, and its use of hoasca — among them the Arizona Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union for Reform Judaism. Some supporters likened banning the tea to a federal ban on sacramental wine.

Graham County Sheriff Frank Hughes says that in his 10 years on the job, he's never had a complaint about the Quaintances, who live in a small rectangular home in the sparsely populated rural community of Pima, about 90 miles northeast of Tucson.
Their home sits on a four-acre property that's dotted with old vehicles. Alongside their house is a wall made out of tires, which the Quaintances say eventually will form the boundary of an outdoor chapel.
The couple's 31-year-old daughter, Zina; her husband, Tim; and their three children have a home on the property, as do the Quaintances' 28-year-old son, Dennis, and his wife, Vanessa, and their son.

Their home bears no resemblance to a traditional church, inside or out. Yet the Quaintances call it a monastery and are adamant that the church they founded together is a sincere, legitimate faith — on par with any mainstream religious denomination.
A tapestry of Bob Marley smoking a large joint decorates the front hallway, and inside, the couple has a few handmade pipes, some of which have won ribbons in the glazing division of the Graham County Fair. Most of their pipes and other sacramental accessories were seized when authorities searched their home March 3, they say.
The Quaintances do not grow their sacrament but, rather, say they rely on donations of it, which they pick up from church "couriers." That's what they say they were about to do when they were arrested.

They smoke the marijuana or sometimes blend it into a milk-like drink, saying it helps them to become more enlightened and in tune with the universe. Until they were arrested, the Quaintances say they'd smoked or ingested the plant every day of their 33-year marriage, even before they formed their church. Both were marijuana users when they met, and they credit the plant to helping their marriage survive.
"It makes you better at what you do, enhances who you are. It is the most beautiful plant on Earth," said Mary Quaintance, 51, a homemaker from Northern California who married Dan in 1973, when she was 18. They met while Mary worked as nurse's aide in Chico, Calif., and rented a room from Dan's parents.

Dan Quaintance, who grew up in the United Methodist faith and once was president of his church youth group, says finding marijuana helped him finish high school, later kick a heroin addiction and get through acute pancreatitis.
It was during his illness that he began researching marijuana's use among ancient cultures, and he started to think about forming his own church. As he reread the Bible, he believed many passages that referred to a leaf, tree or plant were talking about marijuana.
"Religion is basically putting your faith in what you rely on," he said. "Jesus started his church because of what he believed and learned."
He filed a "declaration of religious sentiment" on behalf of the Church of Cognizance with the Graham County Recorder's Office in 1994, though Dan, his family and other members say the church dates to 1991.

Services at the Church of Cognizance aren't scheduled. According to the Quaintances, members call the monasteries and arrange a worship time, which typically includes using marijuana and listening to sermons by fellow cognoscenti that talk about peaceful existence.
"Dan and Mary are two of the most beautiful, wholesome people," said Daniel Jeffrey, an enlightened cognoscente in Puna, Hawaii. "We're not involved with herb for any kind of profit gain. If you tell people that, their mind just can't grasp it."
Still, Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the Virginia-based First Amendment Center, says any group seeking an exemption to the nation's drug laws, even for religious purposes, has a "hill to climb."

And he says the federal government is likely in a better position to win against the religious use of marijuana than it was for the hallucinogenic tea case, given the prevalence of marijuana and the federal government's concern about a drug problem in the country.
The hallucinogenic tea is difficult to find and reportedly doesn't taste very good, Haynes said, noting the same is true for peyote, which also is a federally banned substance.

A federal exemption for peyote exists when it's used for religious practices by members of the Native American Church. In Arizona, people using peyote who aren't members of the Native American Church also are exempt as long as the peyote is used for a "bona fide religious purpose" in a manner that doesn't threaten the public. But there are no such exceptions for marijuana.
"Marijuana is difficult, even if they have a sincere religious belief," Haynes said. "The federal government has already successfully fought efforts to get a medical exemption."

The U.S. Constitution contains no legally recognizable definition of religion, but courts still can apply a test of sincerity, said Jeremy Gunn, director of the Freedom of Religion and Belief program for the American Civil Liberties Union, which supported the UDV church.
If, for example, a group of prisoners calling themselves the Church of Cabernet and Filet Mignon argued religious belief as a reason to be served wine and better food, the government would have a right to question the sincerity of their theological belief, he said.
"The UDV case did not open the floodgate," he said. "The government needs to show why it makes sense to apply the drug laws in that circumstance. In the UDV case, the hallucinogenic tea is honestly a traditional part of the religious practice."

The office of the U.S. attorney for New Mexico, David C. Iglesias, prosecuted the UDV case, and also is prosecuting the Quaintances. His office declined to comment on a pending case.
The Quaintances have no history of criminal convictions in Arizona, where they've lived since 1986, but both have prior convictions for marijuana possession in Washington state, records show. Dan Quaintance says he also has a 1974 conviction from California for driving under the influence and spent 30 days in jail for that offense.

The Quaintances spent two weeks in a New Mexico jail after their arrest this year and, as part of their court-ordered release, must have regular urine tests to ensure they aren't using any marijuana. Both say that living without their deity for the first time in more than three decades is extremely difficult.
The complaint against the couple, which was amended, includes two other defendants — Timothy Jason Kripner, 23, of Tucson and Joseph Allen Butts, 48, of California.

The revised complaint raised the stakes in the case, adding conspiracy charges and more than 220 pounds of marijuana. Dan Quaintance says Kripner and Butts are both certified couriers for the church. Kripner was traveling with the Quaintances when they were arrested, and authorities say Butts was involved in a conspiracy with them to distribute marijuana.
"They may take Dan and Mary down but they will never take the church down," Mary Quaintance said.

Reputation Comments on this post:

this would have been 30 points if you had quoted the article yourself, instead of only posting the link

[Nature Boy]

It's sad that we've reached a day where we have to make up religions in order to justify personal drug use. Double standards such as Native American peyote use infuriate me. Either ban everything or legalise everything, you can't have anything in-between. I know peyote has been used by Native Americans in rituals long before drug laws were written up but no-one should have to form an organised religion in order to use anything. Religion is changing. The concept of organised religion is fading fast. Most people my age are either non-religious or don't participate in organised churches. Therefore, is their form of individual religion not as valid as anyone else's just because it hasn't been rubber-stamped and government forms haven't been filled in? It's a crock of shit.

Seems as though America's obsession with religion is the only back-door that allows them to bend the rules a little bit. Religion over common sense, logic, rationality and millions of dollars worth of potential tax revenue. Rich.

[Alfa]

Although the topic starters approach is not the most serious on this issue, this is a very viable idea, which has very deep legal roots in both national and international law.

The Santo Daime church has won several cases about the religious use. here is some more information about it:
HALLUCINOGENIC ’SACRAMENT’ SPARKS DEBATE

DPT and the Temple of True Inner Light
First Legal Marajuana Church Founded!
Church argues marijuana a sacrament (CN)
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VS. DRUG LAWS
Pot & the religious freedom act of 1993
Peyote & the Native American Church

Research: Magic mushrooms cause 'spiritual' experiences
Irish history of religious and non-religious shroom use

[laws0n]

Nature Boy I see where you are coming from but I believe that with that example Nativa Americans should be allowed to use peyote for religious reasons.

Afterall the things that the Europeans did to the Native Americans (taking their land, killing their buffalo, moving them to reservations finding out the res has gold then moving them again so they could take the gold) I believe that it is kind of a sign of apology and respect for them now a days.

If the Europeans would have never tooken over America then there would be no laws that prevent using peyote for religious or even recreational use.

Correct me if Im wrong but only certian people are allowed to use it and they are responsible with how much they use right?

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by ernestrome

You could drop the word "exploit", and start living in accordance with your beliefs for starters.

Or you could bugger off and leave the religious use defence for people who are genuinely using entheogens for religious purposes.

Laws and bureaucracy will always be there to be exploited. You can't fault people for tinkering with systems and barriers put in their way.

Originally Posted by laws0n

Nature Boy I see where you are coming from but I believe that with that example Nativa Americans should be allowed to use peyote for religious reasons.

Afterall the things that the Europeans did to the Native Americans (taking their land, killing their buffalo, moving them to reservations finding out the res has gold then moving them again so they could take the gold) I believe that it is kind of a sign of apology and respect for them now a days.

If the Europeans would have never tooken over America then there would be no laws that prevent using peyote for religious or even recreational use.

I too believe Native Americans should be allowed use peyote for religious reasons, just as much as a Mongolian-American should be allowed use it out of curiosity. Yes, Native Americans have been treated like shit, but making allowances demonstrates the fallibility and the hypocrisy of the systems in place.

[ernestrome]

You could drop the word "exploit", and start living in accordance with your beliefs for starters.

Or you could bugger off and leave the religious use defence for people who are genuinely using entheogens for religious purposes.

[FuBai]

The word exploit is apt, I feel. It is often necessary to exploit all options in overcoming unjust defences laid against individuals, as Nature Boy said. If it is possible to do something within the boundaries of the law then surely this is the better course? The problem with belief systems is that they spring from anywhere, presenting conflicting ideas of an ultimate truth that usually does not well withstand competition from others and thus I greatly dislike laws that create loopholes for religious practice, because I see no distinction between religious views and political ones, or any other opinion you posses. No belief should be sacrosanct and encouraging the profligation of religious sects whilst damning political positions and seeming to hold certain beliefs as more important than others can only be that self-same rank hypocrisy which we oppose in the drugs laws regarding alcohol and tobacco. I see no reason why the Native American population should be able to consume mescaline preparations when others cannot; the argument for this often lies in the ritualisation of the action as another poster mentioned, however this is not a particularly good argument as many mainstream religions and old religions actively despise ritualised services including several branches of Christianity. It seems to me that God is what you make of him and that worship is, in any case, an intensely personal thing and requires no other participants or church or ritualised process. Religion is simply what you beleive, whether that be the insane ramblings of a schizophrenic or the preachings of an imam; indeed some see no difference between the two.

[jkolt89]

Swim doesn't know if this will help but swim has become an official reverend by a recognized church. Swim purchased this for 10 and is allowed to legally marry people and use Rev. in title. This was done in hopes of claiming freedom of religon if the need arose.

[Greenport]

Freedom of religion can be and is exploited by people all the time. I once knew a kid when I was in high school who wore ICP clothing to school every day, even though it was banned, because he got away with it by saying it was part of his religion. ICP has nothing to do with religion except the various people who claim it does, yet it was exploited for this reason.