Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
One More Chance for Religious Marijuana
Last week the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal by a man who argues that his conviction on marijuana charges violated a state law protecting religious freedom. Daniel Hardesty, a member of the cannabis-centered Church of Cognizance, was arrested in 2005. His religious freedom argument was rejected at trial and by the Arizona Court of Appeal, but now he will get one more chance. Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act allows the state to impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religion only if it is "the least restrictive means" of furthering a "compelling government interest." The appeals court concluded that the burden imposed on Hardesty by marijuana prohibition met that test, declining to question the legislature's judgment that "the use and possession of marijuana always pose a risk to public health and welfare."
I noted Hardesty's case last August. The founders of his church, Dan and Mary Quaintance, were featured in my June 2007 Reason story about psychoactive sacraments. Unlike Hardesty, whose sincerity was conceded by the state, the Quaintances were deemed unserious by a federal judge, who concluded that their beliefs and practices did not qualify as a real religion. They pleaded guilty to possession and conspiracy charges last year, shortly before they were scheduled to go on trial.
[via the Drug War Chronicle]
MNG|1.13.09 @ 7:08PM|#
Hmm, it will be interesting to see if the federal laws under the
RFRA could apply here.
Though ultimately it would be nice to see the stuff legalized
through less back door routes, I hope the guy wins.
Guy Montag|1.13.09 @ 7:18PM|#
Can we dispense with the religiousit and healthosity bs and just make it legal in the name of freedom?
Paul|1.13.09 @ 7:22PM|#
is "the least restrictive means" of furthering a "compelling government interest."
Well, that about wraps it up for his case.
the innominate one|1.13.09 @ 7:23PM|#
I hate to agree with Guy, but I'll make an exception just this
once.
Although the word is "religiosity".
Guy Montag|1.13.09 @ 7:29PM|#
Yea whatever tio. If you are not paying my bar tab don't bitch about my sloppy typing. And you should have seen how I spelled sloppy before correcting it! And correcting too.
|1.13.09 @ 7:36PM|#
I'm not sure I understand why, exactly, it should matter how
serious a person is about their religion. ...in order for it to be
protected by the Constitution. I hope some of my Catholics are
never subjected to the same scrutiny.
...and I imagine that could happen, what with people of different
faiths getting a free pass in administering all sorts of medical
practices.
Regardless, I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise to see the Drug
War take religious freedom captive, what with all it's done to due
process, unreasonable search and seizures, etc., etc.
|1.13.09 @ 7:40PM|#
Does the "seriousness test" apply to the establishment side of
religious freedom too, or is it just people's free exercise that
can get cropped by the seriousness test?
I mean, if someone doesn't protests the ten commandments being up
in a courtroom, does the seriousness of the plaintiff's beliefs
come into play?
What if I don't want my kid being taught about creation in public
school? Do I get to protest that even if I go to church, or are
establishment protections only for serious agnostics?
Special Agent Don|1.13.09 @ 7:43PM|#
HaHa you atheistic dopertarians.Funny as hell if you have to join a church to enjoy your legal herb.
Mad Max|1.13.09 @ 8:59PM|#
In the specific circumstances of modern America, Religious
Freedom Restoration Acts deserve the support of traditional
Christians.
(a) The true principles of liberty have been forgotten by many in
power, so all sorts of bad laws get passed. Exceptions to these bad
laws are useful.
(b) Many in power regard traditional Christianity as a dangerous
fringe religion. Therefore, it is necessary to beat these
secularists at their own game by invoking the protection of laws
aimed at the protection of fringe religions.
Given the objective modern circumstances, if the government is
allowed to harass the users of "sacramental marijuana," they will
be emboldened to harass religious employers and force them to
insure their employees for birth control, to harass religious
landlords and force them to rent to adulterers and fornicators, to
harass religious adoption agencies and force them to place children
in the custody of homosexuals, to harass churches and force them to
allow their property to be used for same-sex "marriages,"
etc.
With judicial precedents in favor of the
spiritual-enlightenment-through-weed crowd, it will be more
difficult for the secularists to carry off their persecution of
more traditional believers.
|1.13.09 @ 9:04PM|#
"the Quaintances were deemed unserious by a federal
judge..."
What a loophole! The Constitution is often interpreted as
prohibiting the government from "respecting an establishment of
religion." But it says nothing about DIS-respecting an
establishment of religion! I guess those dead old white guys
weren't as clever as they thought.
Elemenope|1.13.09 @ 9:30PM|#
I guess those dead old white guys weren't as clever as they
thought.
I'm not entirely sure they would have taken this seriously
either.
Elemenope|1.13.09 @ 9:33PM|#
(b) Many in power regard traditional Christianity as a
dangerous fringe religion.
Evidence or paranoia?
Mad Max|1.13.09 @ 10:11PM|#
LMNOP,
Please, please, please deny that government authorities in America
have tried to (a) force religious employers to extend their
employees' health insurance to cover birth control, (b) force
religious landlords to rent to adulterers and fornicators, (c)
harass religious adoption agencies and force them to place children
in the custody of homosexuals, and (d) harass churches and force
them to allow their property to be used for same-sex "marriages."
Your denials will provide much-needed humor.
Alternatively, you could admit these things, while assuring
traditional religious believers that their freedom is in no danger.
Of course, I'm not sure even you could keep a straight face while
claiming this.
The Bearded Hobbit|1.13.09 @ 10:15PM|#
Mainstream Xtians are going to allow a) drugs to a b) non-Xtian
religion?
Let me explain how things are done on *this* planet. . .
.. "ROFLMAO" Hobbit
Elemenope|1.13.09 @ 10:21PM|#
Mad Max --
Sounds like Christians are...wait for it...living in a society
along with everyone else. A society that has rules. Some rules they
don't like.
How horrible. I understand that there is a fine tradition
of civil disobedience in that religion. You might want to get
cracking on that, if these things are so important.
Mad Max|1.13.09 @ 10:24PM|#
LMNOP,
Excellent defense of libertarian principles! (Not).
I would love to hear other H&R commenters defend these
particular societal rules, aimed as they are at the regulation of
private behavior which in no way involves the initiation of force
or fraud.
Some of the rules of "living in society" are expressed in the
Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. How do those rules grab ya?
Mad Max|1.13.09 @ 10:27PM|#
Hobbit,
You realize that an X is often regarded as a cross symbol, right?
So you don't necessarily take the sting out of the word "Christian"
by replacing "Christ" with an "X."
Voton|1.13.09 @ 10:31PM|#
It was a good try, but, to paraphrase Edina Monsoon, if smoking legal doobage were as easy as joining some bogus religion, sweetie, everyone would be doing it.
Elemenope|1.13.09 @ 10:44PM|#
Excellent defense of libertarian principles!
(Not).
Thanks. Because what I was doing there was clearly parroting the
shibboleths of an ideology.
Look, there's a difference between annoyance and oppression.
Christians by their own admission live "in the world" and have to
adhere to the rules of Caesar. if something really is so terrible
that they think they'll be in jeopardy of eternal hellfire or
whatever for going along, then fine. Don't do it. If there are
consequences attached, well, they can't be worse than hellfire, can
they?
a) force religious employers to extend their employees' health
insurance to cover birth control
Because, shock, people who aren't Christians who are your employees
would like to use a condom or BCP, which is normally covered by
insurance. How is their using BCP or not any of their *employer*'s
business?
(b) force religious landlords to rent to adulterers and
fornicators
Because fornication and adultery is any of the landlord's
business...how exactly?
(c) harass religious adoption agencies and force them to place
children in the custody of homosexuals
Linky?
(d) harass churches and force them to allow their property to be
used for same-sex "marriages."
Linky?
|1.13.09 @ 10:50PM|#
I wonder what they'd do with Discordianism.
"...if smoking legal doobage were as easy as joining some bogus
religion, sweetie, everyone would be doing it."
And the whole purpose of the rule of law is to stop people from
doing what they want. ...unless it's part of a "legitimate"
religion?
I don't think that makes sense.
The Bearded Hobbit|1.13.09 @ 10:58PM|#
Mad Max,
Not trying to "sting" anyone, just using a common shorthand.
.. Hobbit
tarran|1.14.09 @ 1:24AM|#
While Mad Max is being intemperate, he is correct on at least a
few points.
If you want to take a plumb line libertarian perspective, if you
force people to do certain acts they don't want to by threatening
violence against them, then you are aggressing against them.
This includes mandating that people open their property to guests
they don't want (the public accommodation clauses of the Civil
Rights Act).
It also includes forcing them to engage in business transactions
they don't want to engage in. Mandating that they purchase health
insurance policies that cover unwanted medical procedures would be
an example of such an action.
Arguing that these rules apply to all, and that somehow that makes
them just is absurd. consider Massachusetts in the late 1600's. One
of my ancestors earned his living as a titheman; he made sure
people attended church, and had the power to arrest people for the
crime of skipping services. Now, one could argue that forcing
people to attend church was not a violation of their rights simply
because these were rules that everybody had to follow, and
Christian principles of non-violence, love for one's neighbor and
the commandment to turn the other cheek is exercised by members of
the society would lead to a paradise here on Earth as a powerful
argument that they were socially beneficial.
No matter how beneficial, these laws authorized my ancestor to
violate the rights of the citizenry in his town. We look back on
the notion of a state forcing people to observe the state religion
on threat of imprisonment as an example of barbarism and repudiate
it as being illiberal and incompatible with any notion of a free
society.
Simmilarly, forcing people to violate the edicts of their religion,
especially when the edicts do not involve the violation of the
rights of others (an example of a 'religious' edict that violates
the rights of another would be one calling for adulterers to be
stoned to death), is a clear violation of their rights.
In the case of birth control coverage, a person can simply
a) purchase birth control with their own money
b) purchase insurance with birth control coverage
c) quit and go somewhere else
d) suck it up.
Option e) demanding that a lawyer warn the employer and threaten
him with having his business shut down and with the potential for
jail time should he take his resistance to extreme levels is not a
moral option.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 1:51AM|#
tarran --
The major problem I see with the "religion" argument is that the
religion of the person undertaking the act in question is *almost
never at issue*. The employer is not using the birth control, so he
cannot have a substantial interest in whether it is provided or
not. He can care in an abstract way, and our great freedoms allow
him to abstain from purchasing or using them, but he can assert no
reasonable interest to make it harder for *others* to get it.
Ditto the landlord with the compulsive fornicators. Unless they are
fornicating *with him*, his religion can have little bearing on the
matter, since it does not involve him having to violate his beliefs
*as they pertain to him*.
I understand the wider libertarian argument mandating, well, pretty
much anything, and on some level I sympathize. But seeing how
religion in particular is a protected and exalted category the
practice of which is *heavily* protected, I have a hard personal
time caring about things that do not directly infringe upon it but
make religious people peripherally uncomfortable.
And, hey, since religion is a lifestyle choice, I feel that a
person is free to accept the advantages and disadvantages of that
choice, knowing in the society they are living in what they are
getting into.
tarran|1.14.09 @ 2:54AM|#
Elemonope,
I disagree. (big shock there huh? :) )
The employer is being forced to purchase birth control
devices. Unless, of course, he is making the employee bear the full
costs of the health insurance, in which case, the employee is not
really losing anything by abandoning the employer prefered plan and
purchasing another one.
You may feel that he does not have an interest, but obviously does.
Imagine if the law said instead that employers would be prohibited
from purchasing insurance covering birth control devices. If an
employer were to protest this law, would you dismiss their concerns
by arguing that they had not interest in whether or not their
employees used birth control or not (setting aside the employee's
concerns)?
As to the landlord, how do you know the landlord does not have an
interest? Maybe he sincerely believes that fornicators are bad
tenants, that they bring crime, vandalism and a spotty payment
record. Maybe he believes it is a sin to facilitate immoral acts.
This would be simmilar to the reluctance you might have with
regards to selling guns to a member of the Aryan Nations.
Again, I should point out that these victims you think these laws
protect are always free to find other people to do business with.
The fact that you feel pity for them and want to expand their
choices in no way entitles you to compel other people to do
business with them through threats of violence.
Just as I have no business forcing you to change how you manage
your affairs, specifically which companies you choose not to do
business with because you disagree with the causes they support,
you have no business forcing them to do business with fornicators
or to purchase birth control devices. It's that simple.
As far as your argument that people who choose to follow a religion
whose dictates conflict with the legal code must suck it up, I am
unmoved. The law is an ass. Should the Lovings not married because
the state of Virgina had a law that said they shouldn't? How about
the train companies that challenged jim Crow laws requiring that
they segregate their vehicles? Should they have sucked it up
too?
Laws are either moral or immoral (and I mean this from a natural
rights perspective and not from the evangelical Christian
definition or morality). Moral laws, such as laws against murder
and theft should be followed. Immoral laws, such as laws that
forbid drug possession, prostitution, gun-running, racial
discrimination, and questioning the solvency of the U.S. banking
system, should not. Arguing that people have a duty to obey the
law, regardless of the morality of the law will get you nowhere
with me.
Forcing people to facilitate acts they feel are immoral is a
violation of their rights. So long as they are not being permitted
to violate the rights of others (for example by tearing up
prescription cards for drugs they refuse to dispense), any law that
forces them to behave in ways that they feel is immoral should not
be followed.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 7:30AM|#
As far as your argument that people who choose to follow a
religion whose dictates conflict with the legal code must suck it
up, I am unmoved. The law is an ass. Should the Lovings not married
because the state of Virgina had a law that said they shouldn't?
How about the train companies that challenged Jim Crow laws
requiring that they segregate their vehicles? Should they have
sucked it up too?
No. I wasn't being facetious about the civil disobedience thing
earlier. If you truly think a law is immoral, I believe it is your
*duty* to break it. Enough people agree and/or sympathize with your
act, and you get change, or at least a movement for one. That's,
after all, how progress happens in the place we live.
My thing is, people like Mad Max would much rather bitch about
these things than act on them, which is how I know they aren't
serious. There's divine commandment and then there are the puny
laws that man made; there should no contest...if they were
serious.
the innominate one|1.14.09 @ 7:31AM|#
if Christianity were a fringe religion, it wouldn't be nearly so dangerous. it is its very broad acceptance in combination with untenable tenets that makes it dangerous.
MNG|1.14.09 @ 7:51AM|#
Perhaps if the religious employer is willing to give up the tax
treatment that fosters the providing of the insurance of his
employees through the job (though the employee tends to pay for
it), then he has a better case. tarrans choice b is currently
discouraged because of these policies.
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg2214.cfm
|1.14.09 @ 7:56AM|#
"...the Quaintances were deemed unserious by a federal judge, who concluded that their beliefs and practices did not qualify as a real religion."
Precisely what does a real religion look like? Believing
in a non-existent, bad-tempered sky fairy is enough to qualify as a
religion as long a you don't take drugs? Ahhh... I see. That's why
Scientology qualifies as a real religion.
Help me here. Does this really make sense to anybody?
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 8:03AM|#
Precisely what does a real religion look like? Believing in
a non-existent, bad-tempered sky fairy is enough to qualify as a
religion as long a you don't take drugs? Ahhh... I see. That's why
Scientology qualifies as a real religion.
Help me here. Does this really make sense to anybody?
I'm pretty sure it's the difference between believing a religion
that happens to have tenets that conflict with the law, and
*fabricating* a religion specifically *for the purpose* of
conflicting with the law.
Not that a judge would know the difference.
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 8:54AM|#
'My thing is, people like Mad Max would much rather bitch about
these things than act on them, which is how I know they aren't
serious.'
So please provide me some examples of when I rented my property to
fornicators, or provided birth control to my employees.
It is fairly convenient that, in your world, religious believers
don't get to complain about their mistreatment, but I would suggest
they are as much entitled to do so as the kid with the "Bong Hits 4
Jesus" banner.
What I specifically said was to explain why I supported the rights
of religiously-motivated dope-smokers. I presume from your
discussion that you think the government should send these people
to prison, because after all the laws against dope are laws
everyone else has to obey.
|1.14.09 @ 8:56AM|#
And what if his 'religion' required human sacrifice? Should we allow that? I fail to see the difference. This is a similar situation between the rights of society vs. his religious 'rights', where societies right to keep people safe from dangerous drugs is supreme.
robc|1.14.09 @ 8:58AM|#
Mad Max,
It is not that the X looks like a cross, it is that Chi is the
first letter in Christ in Greek. And a Chi is an X.
robc|1.14.09 @ 9:00AM|#
Juanita,
That is why we libertarians have the nonaggression principle. We
can then distinguish easily between human sacrifice and pot
smoking.
Plus, you are a troll, so I dont know why I responded.
|1.14.09 @ 9:21AM|#
That is why we libertarians have the nonaggression
principle. We can then distinguish easily between human sacrifice
and pot smoking.
No, one is crime against a person, and the other is crime against
society. Using drugs causes negative downstream effects on society,
i.e. crime, violence, increased health care costs, decreased
productivity, etc.
|1.14.09 @ 9:23AM|#
I really don't think children should be using drugs, and that is what would happen if they weren't illegal. Do you really want surgeons and airline pilots to be stoned because that is what would happen without drug laws.
dhex|1.14.09 @ 9:27AM|#
"Many in power regard traditional Christianity as a dangerous
fringe religion."
man, i'd hate to see what you'd feel like in a country that was
actually hostile to your religious beliefs, rather than simply not
putting them above everyone else's beliefs.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 9:32AM|#
What I specifically said was to explain why I supported the
rights of religiously-motivated dope-smokers. I presume from your
discussion that you think the government should send these people
to prison, because after all the laws against dope are laws
everyone else has to obey.
If they get caught, it seems that they would go to jail, just like
me, a person who smokes for non-religious purposes would, if I were
caught. The "but I believe in the Sky-Fairy!" exception is absurd.
It says nothing about the underlying justice or injustice of the
law involved, but merely the ridiculous nature of the particular
attempt at exculpation.
The underlying problem is that you are seeking to tie the trappings
and *current* moral sense of a religious doctrine to the history of
that religion in order to make an appeal to authority of
tradition.
The way Christ is worshiped today is almost nothing like the way he
was worshiped nineteen centuries ago. Beyond that, understanding of
the laws that engender the moral commandments have changed
drastically. If Haredi Jews or Fundamentalist Christians went
around trying to stone people because they planted two crops side
by side or wore a cotton/polyester blend t-shirt, we would lock
them up. The fact that you hang on to particular sexual
commandments because they comfort you or reinforce your view of a
degenerate humanity, more power to you, but don't expect others to
join in or allow those personal prejudices to be visited upon
others.
I find it instructive that the only person the Bible *confirms* is
in heaven is a thief. Isn't part of the point of Jesus' ministry
that the Law cannot save? Keep yourself pure out of honoring the
rules, but you are in the world that follows different ones. The
Jews understood this, why do the Christians not?
And I never said you couldn't complain. I said that if all you do
is complain, I'm not going to take your complaints seriously.
Because, if these things were really as important as you claim,
you'd do more about them.
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 9:37AM|#
'It is not that the X looks like a cross, it is that Chi is the
first letter in Christ in Greek. And a Chi is an X.'
The X can be described as a Cross of Saint Andrew, or
Saltire, and it is in fact a Christian symbol.
Turn the X on its side, and you may realize you've seen it before.
Yes, that'r right, it's the symbol you recognize from the Scottish
flag and the
national flag of Jamaica.
dhex,
You sound like a George W. Bush apologist during the debate over
wartime rights abuses: Look, Saddam Hussein and Josef Stalin were
worse than George W. Bush, and this shows that George W. Bush's
policies are OK.
When Americans find themselves 'defending' the policies of their
governments by saying, 'hey, oppressive foreign countries are
worse!' then they've lost the debate. American policies should be
held to a higher standard - the standard of freedom raised by the
Founding Fathers.
After all, George III's stamp tax was not nearly as bad as the
taxes of the Ottoman Empire. Still, the Founding Fathers thought
the Stamp Tax was worth rebelling against. And this willingness to
rebel against even these 'minor' and 'insignificant' oppressions is
the reason why we still have freedom today (limited as it is).
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 9:42AM|#
LMNOP,
I was already aware you didn't share my religious beliefs.
'I find it instructive that the only person the Bible *confirms* is
in heaven is a thief.'
A repentant thief (if a thief can repent, so can a blogger!). And
don't forget 2 Kings 2:1-11.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 9:45AM|#
Mad Max --
The country is 80% Christian and we now have the newfangled
"Saddleback Test" for national office.
This is why the notion of Christians getting oppressed in the
United States is a poorly-told joke. Calling Christians oppressed
in the US is like calling pot smokers oppressed in Holland--because
they can't smoke a joint on the sidewalk.
What the Romans did to Christians: That was oppression.
Seriously, stop watering down the term.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 9:51AM|#
A repentant thief (if a thief can repent, so can a
blogger!). And don't forget 2 Kings 2:1-11.
Re: 2 Kings, I meant the normal way (dying), not the Holy Chariot
Express. And the Gospels differ on whether the thief was repentant;
IIRC, only Luke. The others have both thieves mocking him, or
remaining silent.
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 9:55AM|#
'What the Romans did to Christians: That was oppression.'
What Saddam Hussein did to his people - *that* was oppression. Stop
whining about aggressive interrogation techniques by our brave
soldiers trying to defend freedom? Are you trying to equate our
glorious George W. Bush with Saddam Hussein?
And what's with referring to Guantanamo as a 'gulag'? Millions of
people perished in Stalin's gulags - how dare anyone compare our
glorious President George W. Bush to Josef Stalin?
|1.14.09 @ 10:13AM|#
I really think children should be using drugs, and that is what wouldn't happen if they weren't illegal. I really want surgeons and airline pilots to be stoned because that would not happen without drug laws.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 10:14AM|#
Mad Max --
Your argument seems to be that since a thing admits to being on a
sliding scale, that therefore everything remotely related fits
somewhere on that scale. That's, frankly, pretty silly.
This is probably the wrong crowd for this, but not all restrictions
are by definition oppressions. Many are, and fall somewhere on the
scale, but not all.
tarran|1.14.09 @ 10:28AM|#
Elemonope,
I think both you and Mad Max are right about the oppression of
Christians - it's just that you are talking about two different
groups of people.
The most devout Christians (and I worked closely with a couple of
them a few years ago) are pacifists who view the state with
hostility, refusing to register for the draft, serve on juries and
the like. These guys were members of a pretty hardcore sect - both
of them had uncles who had died in prison for refusing conscription
in Yugoslavia. I would argue that they were oppressed. Both of them
were deeply unhappy to be paying taxes to the federal government so
that it could prosecute wars in their name. One even contemplated
stopping work altogether in an attempt to not owe income taxes, but
decided to forego it out of concern for the wellfare of his
children. The fact that the state imposed such a dilemma upon him
was a serious form of oppression. For months this guy wrestled with
his conscience, instead of doing the things he would otherwise be
doing.
This tension has long existed in the U.S. There were those four
pacifists who were murdered by the U.S. government for refusing
conscription in World War I. There was that Amish farmer who had
the horses he needed for his livelihood confiscated by the federal
Government as punishment for his refusal to participate in Social
Security.
At its purest form, Christianity is a religion that is incompatible
with the modern nation state. That incompatibility is why
Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire. It remains a
problem today for overbearing states. That pool of Christians are
oppressed pretty much everywhere (although they are rarely killed
for their religion in Western Europe and the U.S. anymore).
Now, most self-identifying Christians in the U.S. are not very good
Christians, seeing as they completely ignore the commandments to
turn the other cheek and to love their neighbors as God loves them.
They go to church, follow some standard rules that feel right,
including rules that permit vengeance and violence, and proclaim
themselves Christian. If some cards had fallen a different way 16
centuries ago or so, they would call themselves Mithras worshipers
and would behave much the same way. These guys are not oppressed.
Far from it. The people who run the state find them to be useful
footsoldiers, functionaries and sources of taxes. They work hard
for the state. The people running the government throw them a few
bones to satisfy them, inflame their passions about a few issues
that will never be resolved in a way that pleases them, and thus
convince them to voluntarily place their necks in the yoke of the
state. They call themselves Christians but have more in common with
the Pharisees than with the disciples.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 10:42AM|#
tarran --
That's pretty much my point. There are people who would suffer and
die to stand up for what they believe (Christians in the mold of
Jesus, Stephen, Peter, etc.), and then there are those who would
rather either 'complain and comply', or attempt to take over the
state and remake the world into their own moral paradise (to the
detriment of everyone and their own moral rectitude).
The first is very rare, and the second is very loud. I have respect
for the first and contempt for the second. The first can claim
oppression, sometimes. For the second, it is a sick joke used to
leverage more power or comfort.
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 11:15AM|#
Again, I have been explaining why I *support* the use of
Religious Freedom Restoration Acts to protect the rights of
spiritual dope-smokers, who seem to be mainly non-Christians (there
may be Christians of the 'bong hits for Jesus' variety, but I am
not familiar with them - the one's I've heard of are
non-Christian).
This leads to a discussion of such points as (a) I suck, (b)
Christians suck, (c) if Christians advocate religious freedom (even
for others), then that means they would be unwilling to undergo any
persecution for their faith. This last point is sufficiently
incoherent that it seems to be basically a recapitulation of
(b).
I am aware that there are Christians who want to put dope-smokers
in prison. There are also those (like LMNOP) who take the truly
solidaristic attitude that 'if I'm going to risk prison for smoking
dope, then I sure want those religious freaks to risk prison for
it, too.' I can certainly understand the latter attitude, although
it's not exactly generous.
I would like to correct what seems to be LMNOP's misconception of
the various federal and state laws protecting religious freedom. He
refers to these laws as furnishing a '"but I believe in the
Sky-Fairy!" exception' to the laws. In fact, these laws do not
require belief in any sort of God in order for your beliefs to be
classified as religious. For example, the Ethical Culture Society
is non-theistic, but if the zoning board tried to stop the local
Ethical Culture Society from putting an addition to its
meeting-place, then religious-freedom analysis would come into
play. Similarly with the Unitarian Universalist Association. They
don't inculcate belief in God (though they may tolerate theism
among some of their members), but if the local Civil Rights
Commission (say) tried to force the Unitarians to rent their church
to Rick Warren, then the Unitarians could invoke their religious
freedom.
tarran,
You mentioned pacifists. Are you aware that there are groups which
defend the rights of pacifists? Here's one such group.
tarran|1.14.09 @ 11:25AM|#
Mad Max,
I disagree with your rebuttal of Elemenope's sky-fairy clause. Such
clauses do exist.
Off the top of my head, I can think of one, the Social Security
law. Back when Social Security was made mandatory (as opposed to
being voluntary), a bunch of religious groups refused to
participate, claiming that it infringed on their religious
principles. The idea was that since disasters are acts of God,
people who buy insurance are thwarting Gods will or
something.
This lead to the famous case of one prominent Amish refusnik having
his horses confiscated that they could be auctioned off to pay his
'debt'.
He sued, and when the smoke cleared, there was a Federal Court
ruling declaring that forcing people to participate in Social
Security when it violated their religious principles was
unconstitutional. However, the proto-Scalia who penned the
decisions recognized the pandora's box he had opened. Recognizing
that there would be a bunch of religions founded for the express
purpose of permitting people to evade Federal Laws, he went on to
write that this exception only applied to religions existing at the
time of the decision, which had publicized their opposition
before-hand, and that furthermore, people who converted for the
purpose of evading taxes still owed them.
Despite thes circumscriptions, it is still a 'Sky-fairy'
clause.
tarran|1.14.09 @ 11:26AM|#
BTW, Mad Max, no I had not heard of them. I will keep this group in mind. :)
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 11:26AM|#
The Unitarian Universalist Association joined a legal brief in a case involving sacramental use of hallucinogens. Does this mean that the nontheistic UUA endorses a "Sky-Fairy Exception" to generally-applicable laws?
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 11:30AM|#
tarran,
That federal court you cited was much less generous than the
various Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) - laws passed by
legislative bodies, not by federal judges. These laws are not
limited to religious groups existing when the laws were passed. If
a religious belief is sincere, then the courts are required to
apply the statutory balancing test. And there is no limitation of
religious rights to theists.
The Military Selective Service Act has a Supreme Being clause
limiting conscientious-objector status to theists, but many judges
have found this clause to be unconstitutional, and other judges
have interpreted the clause out of existence.
The RFRA statutes do not have Supreme Being clauses, so far as I
know.
tarran|1.14.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Elemenope,
I must take issue with your impatience for religious exemptions. We
should embrace them! These exemptions are our chance to get a
camels nose into the tent...
Let's say we start the Church of Tarran - which encourages pot
smoking... People join the church and smoke pot (there would be
some other stuff, mainly to prevent hippie infestations). If the
members of the church are thriving, suffering none of the harms
that the hysterical ONDCP keeps coming up with (you will get
toenail cancer, you will murder your hamster in a psychotic rage
etc), then you have a coutnerfactual to point to in Drug policy
debates.
At this point, the legalization advocates hold the moral high
ground. The drug warriors, on the other hand point to a paucity of
empirical data supporting legalization because prohibition has
prevented their hypotheses from being falsified. If a religious
exemption turns out to be the first step in ending this disastrous
state overreach, then we should embrace it.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Mad Max --
There are also those (like LMNOP) who take the truly
solidaristic attitude that 'if I'm going to risk prison for smoking
dope, then I sure want those religious freaks to risk prison for
it, too.' I can certainly understand the latter attitude, although
it's not exactly generous.
You missed the point. It's that when the underlying rule is unjust,
exemptions for religion are cheating one's way out of actually
solving the problem. Same thing would be true for other suspect (or
ought to be suspect) classes; if the sodomy statutes, instead of
being overturned, has simply written in a "homosexual exception", I
would have been derisive towards that as well. Rules like this
encourage a "we got ours, and fuck y'all" attitude that is
particularly not helpful when the group going home is a large
one.
It's the "special rules for special people" thingee that you and I
and many other people around here complain about ad
nauseam. Why do you suddenly see an exception when it comes to
religion? I don't mean *practically* (it's in the Constitution,
duh). I mean, from theory. How do you *justify* it?
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 11:46AM|#
tarran --
The real problem here is the belief that we need more
counterfactuals than the mountain of evidence already in existence.
You need not start a religion to prove that smoking reefer isn't
particularly harmful. Just ask a doctor, any doctor, not
currently being paid by either side of the argument, to tell
you.
If the drug argument was about *evidence*, it would have been long
over.
|1.14.09 @ 11:46AM|#
@this thread!
bizarro, I LOVE YOU bizarro!
bizarro, ends justify the means, bizarro!
bizarro, keep dope ALIVE, bizarro!
bizarro, I LOVE YOU, bizarro!
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 11:48AM|#
Here is the
legal brief to which I referred. It was filed on behalf of the
Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion. According to Appendix
A of the brief, members of the Coalition include such sky-fairy
fanatics as the American Ethical Union, Friends Committee on
National Legislation (these are the hippy-dippy Quakers, not the
bonnet-and-buggy kind), People for the American Way, and the
Unitarian Universalist Association, as well as the usual
"fundamentalist" suspects. There's also some Hindus, Sikhs, and
other minority faiths.
The brief defends the federal RFRA not only in spite of, but
because of, its broad scope. From the brief:
'Though the Coalition includes members who often find themselves on
opposite sides of Establishment Clause and federalism issues, they
speak with one voice in the conviction that accommodating religious
exercise by removing government-imposed substantial burdens on
religious exercise is an essential element of a democratic society.
The Coalition's members supported the enactment of the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") to achieve this purpose, and now
join together to defend its constitutionality.'
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 11:52AM|#
The 'special people' protected by the RFRAs are those who
conscientiously oppose compliance with a statute based on a
'religious' worldview - that is, a view on ultimate reality which
may or may not be theistic.
When the government itself has a skewed view of reality, it would
be well to respect the conscientious views of those whose views of
reality differ from the government's.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Mad Max --
Not for nothing, but couldn't *anything under the sun* be justified
on that basis?
"My view of ultimate reality allows me to rape kittens and eat baby
stew. It's religion I tell ya. Ain't it grand?"
When the government itself has a skewed view of reality, it
would be well to respect the conscientious views of those whose
views of reality differ from the government's.
I agree with this, believe me. My thing is why do you think your
group has such a better handle on what a "non-skewed" view is than
the government? Why is religion a magical trump card, over and
above any feelings of conscience or principled dissent?
dhex|1.14.09 @ 12:20PM|#
max, using your definition of oppressed - absurdly loose it may
be - all non-religious taxpayers are oppressed by the government
favoritism that allows religious organizations to skate on taxes,
even when they're absurdly wealthy, profit-generating outfits. it
creates an unfair burden for those of us who don't run such
organizations.
such is the power of groups, though.
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 12:20PM|#
"My view of ultimate reality allows me to rape kittens and eat
baby stew. It's religion I tell ya. Ain't it grand?"
That's when we ge to the "compelling government interest" test. (By
the way, thank you for not invoking the played-out "human
sacrifice" example. Yours is more or less original). If the
government has a compelling interest in punishing baby-eating and
animal cruelty, and if that compelling interest cannot be promoted
by any narrower means, then the conscience of your would-be baby
killer and kitten-rapist can be overridden.
'Why is religion a magical trump card, over and above any feelings
of conscience or principled dissent?'
If the draft-law precedents are anything to go by (and recall that
these were decided in the teeth of an express Supreme Being
clause), then under certain circumstances, a person's nontheistic,
ethical objections to a law can qualify as religious. The exact
contours of the doctrine are not exactly set in stone, but if a
young secular pacifist can escape the draft by showing that his
ethical views play the role of more traditional religions, then
maybe other ethical objectors can avail themselves of RFRA's
protections. At the very least, I wouldn't rule it out.
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 12:23PM|#
'such is the power of groups, though.'
Groups, perhaps, but not *theistic* groups, since nontheistic
churches (like the Unitarians, Ethical Culture, or the Buddhists if
you interpret Buddhism as nontheistic) get to skate on their taxes.
And while I can't speak for all churches, many of them give back to
the community through such things as soup kitchens, etc., which
would otherwise end up as a line-item on a government budget.
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 12:24PM|#
And regardless of the situation of individual ethical objectors, a conscientious objector who belongs to a nontheistic organization like the UUA would certainly be able to get the court's attention under RFRA.
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 12:26PM|#
dhex,
Bear in mind that I referred to harassment, not oppression.
Of course, people who put up with institutionalized harassment may
eventually wake up to find that it has mutated to full-bore
oppression. Americans traditionally aren't disposed to wait around
to see if this happens.
dhex|1.14.09 @ 12:27PM|#
that's why i said groups. groups are handy things sometimes,
especially when it comes to taxes.
i guess that's oppression against non-groups, perhaps. dunno.
individuals. etc.
lmnop's general question is interesting, if almost unanwerable: why
does religion get to be the special reset button? that's a handy
bit of magic at play, there. (presuming you're part of the right
religion, obviously)
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 12:39PM|#
But 'compelling interest' is a tautological madhouse.
Governments are disposed to calling anything they want to do as
'compelling interest'. Look at drug policy but for one easy
example.
What I'm asking you to do is define how you think the contours of
that policy should look such that it includes religious practices
but excludes pathological behavior. I submit that the balance is
arbitrary (if not impossible) and must recourse to some other
appeal to authority (law, medicine, science, etc.).
|1.14.09 @ 12:58PM|#
Here you go, Juanita, FTFY:
And what if his 'religion' required human sacrifice? Should
we allow that? I fail to see the difference. This is a
similar situation between the rights of society vs. his religious
'rights', where societies right to keep people safe from dangerous
drugs is supreme.
|1.14.09 @ 1:06PM|#
as the just-ordained primate of the church of cognizance in oregon, i am pleased to announce a public service this afternoon at 4:20, during which i will sacrifice juanita to the god of cognizance, flash-sear her giblets on my altar and feed them to my holy kitty. byob.
Mad Max|1.14.09 @ 3:36PM|#
'What I'm asking you to do is define how you think the contours
of that policy should look such that it includes religious
practices but excludes pathological behavior. I submit that the
balance is arbitrary (if not impossible) and must recourse to some
other appeal to authority (law, medicine, science, etc.).'
I wouldn't mind appealing to law, medicine, and science, but, then,
I'm a fundamentalist.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Incidentally, check out the texts of the federal and state
RFRAs.
I did my undergraduate term paper in legislative process and
procedure on the RFRA of 1993. I must say, from Smith to
Flores, it had an interesting litigative lifespan.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245