Judge dismisses woman’s religious drug-use argument- al.com
BAY MINETTE [AL] — Brenda Shoop said Thursday that she grew up in a Southern Baptist church. In recent years, she has struggled to find the spiritual fulfillment she has been looking for while exploring other denominations. Her religious belief and understanding, however, hit a turning point in nursing school when she read about marijuana’s disassociation side effect, she said.
That side effect, she said, helped her get closer to God as it quieted all the voices in her head and helped her “rise above the mundane and see that you are part of a bigger picture.”
The Shoops argued that since their arrest [for growing 28 marijuana plants in their back yard] they have started a ministry in their Robertsdale home and serve as missionaries for Universal Orthodox Church, which is based in Atlanta. The Christian denomination believes marijuana has biblical origins and was a key ingredient in holy anointing oil of Moses and the christening oil of Jesus Christ, according to testimony and court documents.
The Shoops’ attorneys also argued that they were protected by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment because their religion mandates the cultivation and consumption of cannabis.
Baldwin County Assistant District Attorney Christopher Murray, however, successfully argued that while the Shoops may have believed marijuana was a key part of their relationship with God, they didn’t get involved with the church until after they were arrested.
“A belief under law is not a religion,” Murray said.
[Judge] Wilters agreed. He also said that if the court gave the religious protection argument credence it could promote drug abuse.
It would also be difficult to determine whether drugs were being used for religious purposes or illegally, Wilters said
That would require pre-World War II measures, the judge said, such as when Germany required Jews to wear the Star of David.
“I don’t think this county wants to consent to doing something such as that,” Wilters said.
I think this is the first time someone has ever invoked the Nazis to explain why we can’t have a religious right to use cannabis. I guess the judge imagines that to separate the acceptable decent religious users from the reprehensible evil recreational users we’d have to make the religious wear a big pot leaf signifying their beliefs. Hey, if it kept me from ever being arrested or pee-tested for weed, I’d be glad to slap a pot leaf on my jacket!
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act recognized the right of certain native tribal religions to use hallucinogens that have long traditions within their church. There is a complicated series of tests that courts use to determine if the religious practice is “sincere” and to date, nobody has successfully passed those tests for a marijuana-using religion. (Despite the assertions of certain “THC ministries” that sell you a $250 “get out of jail free” kit supposedly proving your religious use of cannabis, all a religious argument for cannabis use will get you in court is plenty of time in a cell to read your holy book.)
That’s not to say there isn’t truly legitimate religious use of cannabis as a sacrament – I know plenty of sincere religious practitioners (Eddy Lepp comes to mind) using cannabis to further their understanding of their God. But they are never going to get the consideration that the ayahusca-using tribes got from the courts, because, frankly, there are just too damn many of us smoking weed and the courts know a religious-use decision opens the floodgates to every cannabis smoker suddenly gettin’ religion. There will always be some technicality (or just outright judicial malfeasance) to prevent the cases from going forward.
[...] Brenda Shoop told an Alabama court her religious use in the Universal Orthodox Church protected her under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. She served a year and a day in prison. (http://stash.norml.org/judge-dismisses-womans-religious-drug-use-argument) [...]
[...] Brenda Shoop told an Alabama court her religious use in the Universal Orthodox Church protected her under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. She served a year and a day in prison. (http://stash.norml.org/judge-dismisses-womans-religious-drug-use-argument) [...]
[...] some of his members have used these motions to dismiss successfully; however, I have reported case after case after case after case after case over the past eighteen months where religious cannabis [...]
What you all fail to realize is, the law is the law. And the law will always win in court. If you can’t understand a simple statute of “A belief under law is not a religion” then you are an idiot. You don’t know what you are talking about and making irrelevant points does not strengthen your opinion. You don’t even understand the true implications of why the judge dismissed the decision before complaining about the lack of justice and how instead this is a case of deciding only certain religions and followers can practice drug use. Hell, if you were to go as far as to say that this even was a case of civil disobedience for the greater good of religion, they did a shoddy job. Mentioning this at all just strengthens the arguement on the other side. If you truely are advocating to legalize Marijuana, this is not a good example for an arguement.
There is a complicated series of tests that courts use to determine if the religious practice is “sincere” and to date, nobody has successfully passed those tests for a marijuana-using religion.
Please enumerate and explain these tests, or post a pointer to where such information can be found.
Keep in mind that the 1st Amendment is unambiguous:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Some argue that the free exercise clause is not absolute. Extending this, then, they argue that the government has complete authority to determine the validity of any religion or religious practice. See how easy it is to completely eliminate your rights? You have no right to your own religious beliefs and practices, only to those approved of by the government.
This is exactly what the 1st Amendment was created to prevent. I see nowhere in the constitution any indication that the rights enumerated therein are not absolute. I see a very clear statement, a limitation on government, that says the government has no authority to prohibit the free exercise of religious activities.
But, surely we can’t allow HUMAN SACRIFICE, can we?
I am willing to concede that, maybe something like this should be discussed. If it were allowed, then it would have to be consistent with the beliefs of all of those directly involved. You might be shocked to think that such a thing could even be considered. But, this very week, in Oregon, a sixteen year old boy died because he refused medical treatment on religious grounds. Isn’t this human sacrifice? Had he been allowed to direct that he be tied up and have his heart cut out with a stone knife, his death would probably have been less painful, and certainly his suffering more brief. Here is the death of a child, under the age of consent, due to his free exercise of religion. But, I can’t sit in my home and smoke a bong hit of marijuana in order to facilitate my personal exploration of my relationship to God?
We send our children to die in the desert for the profits of Halliburton and other American industries. If we are going to challenge the practice of human sacrifice, this would be a good place to start.
If government is allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religious practices, then certainly it should be in the most extreme circumstances, and perhaps is should be restricted to life or death cases. Perhaps there is some justification for the argument that the government should protect those who have not yet reached the age required to form legal contracts. However, people should accept that there are some costs to freedom. The lives lost in incidents resulting from an absolute protection of free exercise of religious practices would probably be few in comparison to the lives that would be sacrificed to regain our freedoms from an oppressive government run amok.
-ED
“A belief under law is not a religion,”
What does this statement mean?
It sounds like he is trying to isolate the specific beliefs held by this person about marijuana’s place in Christianity, and to then claim that this subset of beliefs do not qualify as a religion.
That may be the case. But, I don’t think the Shoops were trying to claim that their religion consisted solely of their beliefs about the biblical use of marijuana. I doubt that they found marijuana, then threw out all of the rest of their Christian religious beliefs, keeping only their beliefs about the biblical use of marijuana as their religion. And so, their religion is Christianity, but an interpretation of Christianity which incorporates the use of marijuana. If you are going to accept the fundamental concepts of Christianity, and the government acknowledges and accepts these beliefs as religion, then I don’t see how any belief could be too fantastic to be incorporated as a part of the religion.
To my knowledge, there has never been a real test in the courts of the right to use consciousness altering substances for religious purposes.
How can this be?
It is such a glaring absence that it calls attention to itself.
In fact, the government never had any authority to prohibit the responsible religious use of consciousness altering substances. All of the laws prohibiting use, possession, blah, blah, etc., are misapplied when used against those who partake in these substances for religious purposes.
-ED