Religious Politics - Judge rules a religion is not sincere (beliefs, choice)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/ed...re/17099.shtml

Judge Rules Arizona Church's Use of Marijuana Lacks 'Sincere' Religious Belief
The Arizona Daily Star, Tucson
Stephanie Innes
December 27, 2006

Dec. 27--A federal judge has ruled against the founders of a Southeastern Arizona church that deifies marijuana and uses it as a sacrament, saying they don't have a "sincere" religious belief.

In her refusal to dismiss charges against Dan and Mary Quaintance, U.S. District Judge Judith C. Herrera in Albuquerque wrote that evidence indicates the pair "adopted their 'religious' belief in cannabis as a sacrament and deity in order to justify their lifestyle choice to use marijuana."

The couple was arrested with 172 pounds of marijuana on 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.

Members of the O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, or UDV, said using the hallucinogenic tea during worship helped them gain union with God. The Supreme Court based its decision on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says the government needs to justify any action that would substantially burden people from practicing their faith.

The U.S. Constitution contains no legally recognizable definition of religion, but courts still can apply a test of sincerity.

It stikes me that the separation of church and state does not allow a court to say whether a religion is valid or sincere.

The repercussions, should this stand, are horrendous

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Bright-ness

It stikes me that the separation of church and state does not allow a court to say whether a religion is valid or sincere.

The repercussions, should this stand, are horrendous

Was it the religion that wasn't sincere, or the idea that marijuana was a sacrament?

The courts have given rulings on more than one occasion in areas where purported religious beliefs conflicted with some law, and they have not universally held in favor of the religious group.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Booko

Was it the religion that wasn't sincere, or the idea that marijuana was a sacrament?

I belive the religion itself. The judge said the religion was created to avoid state interest in drug control.

The courts have given rulings on more than one occasion in areas where purported religious beliefs conflicted with some law, and they have not universally held in favor of the religious group.

In two case involving controled substances, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the religion. In cases where there is compelling state interest, racial discrimination for example the decisions went to the state. State contracts have also been thought to be a high interest when money is given to a religious organization for a public service.