Sunday, September 15, 2013
Religion, or late-morning munchies?
In a recent New York Times article, As a Religion, Marijuana-Infused Faith Pushes Commonly Held Limits, reporter Mark Oppenheimer reviewed a case regarding a Hawaii native, Mr. Roger Christie. Christie is a religious science practitioner, the minister of the Okeluheha Native American Church of Hilo, Hawaii, and the founder of the Hawaii Cannabis THC ministry.
Unfortunately however, Mr. Christie currently resides in the Honolulu Federal Detention center. It was Mr. Christies affiliation with the Hawaii Cannabis THC ministry that landed him in federal prison. He was indicted on charges that included conspiracy to manufacture and distribute.
Christie in no way denies his affiliation with the Hawaii Cannabis THC ministry, and believes that his operation is, "a real ‘street ministry’ serving the needs of our neighbors from all walks of life”, in which Mr Christie actually employees three secretaries and a door man. Mr. Christies attorney will argue that in Hawaiian federal court, clients should be allowed to present a religious freedom defense at the criminal trial and should be protected by the first amendment, and specifically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires that the government will present a 'compelling interest' whenever it feels substantially burdened by a religious practice. There was a similar case in New Mexico in which the Supreme Court relied on the act to permit a New Mexican church to use the hallucinogen 'hoasca' for sacramental purposes.
This poses the debate: is this case is about legal marijuana use, or rather, what defines a legitimate religion. Legalized peyote or hoasca have little to no recreational value, and actually make you sick before making you high. According to the Times article, "marijuana has a huge recreational market, diversion from religious to recreation uses; and false claims of religious use, would be major problems." The author points out that Mr. Christies case lacks the somber tone that usually distinguishes "religion". However, have the courts not really offered the public a coherent, clear, or current definition of religion, or any type of law regarding starting one of your own. Furthermore, who decides the different privileges between religions that are established and legitimate versus those more liberal and new? Is religion and freedom of religious expression a personal issue, or a constitutional issue?
I think that the major issue here is a) the inconsistencies with marijuana legalization, but more relatively b) the disparity in the definition of and what constitutes a legitimate religion. Perhaps it is time for the government to create some sort of council or cabinet that solely deals with religious law; a diverse collection of religious leaders that will act like a parliament, senate, or house of representatives, which could potentially legitimately and physically separate religion from federal law.
Tags:
0 Responses to “Religion, or late-morning munchies?”
Post a Comment