A question about religion and government interference.Follow

I would like to start off by saying, that I am an Atheist, but I have an open mind to religions. The reason I am an Atheist is because I have yet to see any reason that I should have a religious faith. Should I see proof of there being a God, I would take it into consideration.

Now, on to my primary focus...

As far as I know, any person could create their own religion at any time (I may be wrong, thats partially why I am posting this) While this may seem like a juvenile thing to ponder, it sparked a great interest in me; If I were to create my own religion, and as part of my beleifs I was required to (oh say.....) buy marijuana, and smoke it twice a day. (this is the best exaple I can think of at the moment, but I did not come up with this idea merley as a way to smoke legally, it is a hypothetical circumstance) Could the US government interfere with my buying and smoking marijuana, since my religious faith requires it?

I am no scholar when it comes to legalities, and separation of church and state so I am fully aware that I may be wrong in somthing I've said or implied.

I don't have any plans of trying this, but this has been popping into my head for the past few days, and it seemed like a good idea to ask you guys.

Edited to make it easier to read





Edited, Mon Dec 6 22:53:47 2004 by AsarathOfWindurst

I believe a group of people on New Zealand (go figure) got Jediism accepted as a real religion.

I'm waiting for the retail version of their lightsabers. Some wear scarfs, others wear crosses; I wear my saber and robe.

Force choke, *****!!

Edited, Mon Dec 6 22:51:11 2004 by Qaoz

Indeed they can, just ask the Mormons. Mormonism, in the past, and some branches of it to this day, allowed bigamy. US law does not. By and large, if your religion requires you to break the laws of the land, you can rest assured that you will probably be arrested and prosecuted for it (assuming its something worth their time to pursue, or serious enough to **** off Mrs. Grundy).



I don't know if there's any government differantiation between a cult and a religion. As far as I know the only thing that the government is concerned with as far as religion goes is whether or not your religous organization qualifies for tax-exempt status.

Actually, Inasum (somewhat out of character, tsk tsk) was more correct in his statement.

The only reason the US gov't allows Native American usage of certain substances is because we, as a nation, have a lot of guilt to deal with on the subject of Native Americans. Also, there's that whole bit about allowing sovereignty and all that. It's just way easier to look the other way.
The moment something harmful to someone other than the participants in a ritual becomes likely, you can expect action to be taken, sovereignty be damned.

Was it bigamy? For some reason I had always thought it was polygamy? Sorry to sidetrack the conversation, but I am curious.

Polygamy was/is allowed in their religion. Bigamy was the most commonly practiced form, though. After all, once a man gets two wives, he's out of ears for them to yell into.

Could the US government interfere with my buying and smoking marijuana, since my religious faith requires it?


Yes. Religion is not a pass from following the law.

The Catholic Church had no edict against boy fuc[b][/b]king but it turned out that it was still illegal for them to practice it.

The good news is that it's not much of a sin so they should all be going to heaven.

I know its a joke, but, The church didn't have an edict against it but it wasn't required in order to be catholic, so the government stopping it didn't hinder any part of the religion

The term to use in this case is "Agnostic." An athiest is someone who believes fully in themself, and no higher diety, period. Their religion is that they themselves are the closest thing to god that they will ever know, or adknowledge. This is what I am.

An agnostic on the other hand is someone who has some desire to believe in a higher power, but sees no swaying proof. If proof was presented, they would believe.

That's just a semantic issue though...



You should check out the Church of Rastafari. It's a Jamaican based religion in which daily rituals include meditation while under the influence of a commonly growing "weed" found in abundance in Jamaica... you guessed it, sweet sweet Mary Jane. As for how much the US gov't respects their religion, I'm not sure.

Just remember - if your religion involves something fun like ritual sacrifice, ritual scarring, orgies, drugs, virgins, or alcoholism, then it will probobly not be allowed by the US.

Freedom of religion means freedom of white anglo-saxon religions. About the only place where other things are a little more accepted (that I've seen) has been in Louisiana, in the deep deep south. Voodoo, and Santeria aren't uncommon, along with other Carribean religions. Plus, the government doesn't seem to step in when they perform ritual sacrifices of chickens/goats, but then again it might just not be popular knowledge.

As far as I know, any person could create their own religion at any time (I may be wrong, thats partially why I am posting this) While this may seem like a juvenile thing to ponder, it sparked a great interest in me; If I were to create my own religion, and as part of my beleifs I was required to (oh say.....) buy marijuana, and smoke it twice a day. (this is the best exaple I can think of at the moment, but I did not come up with this idea merley as a way to smoke legally,
----------------------------------------------------------------

many people have created their own religion. scientology is a good example.

but for your example, the problem with mind altering drugs is they tend to cause OTHER people problems. if you wanted to get stoned, and were willing to sit in your own house, blow your mind away, and not come out untill you were straight, i dont think anyone would have a problem, as long as they didnt have to pay for any of your medical expenses as a result of it.

but no......, you get stoned, you get the munchies, and get into your car, and there you sitstaring at a green light at a dead stop waiting for it to sink in it is your time to go, and some poor innocent schmuck slams into your car from behind. you get high on coke, your out driving 100 mph living the high life when you lose controll and hit a bus stop full of people. you are drunk and run a red light and kill a family of four on their way to church.

the government has a responsibility to protect people. that includes protecting them from the liberties of other people.

as far as religion is concerned, our fore fathers had the foresight to understand that religious influence on government can have very negative effects on the entire population. one persons belief should not be forced on the masses. the crusades taught them this, as well as the churches influence on europe, and the horriffic acts that were done in its name to further this influence.

thus the seperation of church and state.

you are free to practice any religion you want as long as it does not harm other people.

seperation of church and state is yet another lesson, besides the crusades, bush missed in history class. 4 more years of *** backward thinking, go bush.

I am a law student, not an expert but I've learned a thing or two about legal crap.
Yes, the government would still hold you to the same standard as everyone else as far as drug use is concerned. As has been said a few times on this thread, the law is put in place to protect everybody. In class we've learned that laws are formed either by legislatures, such as congress, or by common law means, such as when judges make desicions that legislatures haven't covered. When judges make desicions they use a balencing test which factors in personal privacy, what has been the moral past, what do simialr laws say and how can the citizens as a whole be best protected.
If you where to smoke pot and claim religous reasons in court, the judge would balance your personal religous rights againest the other factors. Though nothing in the law is ever 100%, probably the judge would find that the safety of others, the current drug laws and that drug use has been looked at as wrong from a moral standpoint for generations to find you guilty. If you handed the drugs out to your "followers" also, you'd be guilty of distribution as well.

The federal government doesn't have any marriage laws. Currently each state decides their own, this is why Utah's laws used to allow multiple partners. There is current talk of a constitutional admendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, this would get rid of poligamy forever in this country.

There is no such thing as seperation of church and state. Churches aren't taxed because they are looked at simiarlary to charities. Churches have to abide by certian rules to keep their tax-free status, such as not promoting specific candidates or parties. Seperation of church and state is make belief and is not in the constitution.

It is illegal for anyone to force a religion on you. You are free to worship your dog, God, or Santa Claus. But how ever you decide to worship, you must remain within the boundaries of what the law considers acceptable behavior.