CheebaKing

What really puzzles me is the fact that churches are allowed and do serve alcohol to minors. So you have to wonder, where do you draw the line? It's pretty hipocritical if christians can serve wine to kids as young as 6 but a rastarfarian can't toke up during service of prayer even thought their beliefs call them to do so.

__________________
I'd love to...but last time I went I never came back.

mirage

well the fact is christainty has ALOT of pull in the usa, hence why the gov turns a blind eye to underagers drinking wine in church.

they would say we can not step in on such a relgious matter bla bla bla bla

the gov always bends over for the christain faith.

im not agaist any faiths, but NO faith should have a say in how the gov is ran

look at the natives who use a certain psychoactive herb, the gov is trying to take that right away from them as we speak.

The GCW

I don't know all about most others, but I believe that rastafarianism is authentic. Authentic in that there are an honest group of humans that use kaneh bosm in there day to day religous rituals. I don't want to deprive humans that right. Partly 'cause I don't want anyone to send the army after me for my Christian beliefs, as in the past.
Is'nt that partly why those guys came her to begin with or something? Freedom to rilig w/o the persecuters slicing and dicing?

Any way I am not aware of much church underage drinking, but sure why not? When I was a kid there was a taste now and then in the span of many years, not much. Why not gonja?

Would underage Cannabis consuming in a church require long term mandatory caging. At whose cost does it cage?
Rastafarians? How many black people do we have to put in jail to stop white people from using cannabis?

tha_hashassin

in 1967 this is what the court had to say about the Free Exercise Clause when Dr Timothy Leary tried to used the religious defense:

Congress has demonstrated beyond doubt that it believes marijuana is an evil in American society and a serious threat to it's people. It would be difficult to imagine the harm which would result if the criminal statutes against marijuana were nullified as to those who claim the right to possess and traffic in this drug for religious purposes. For all practical purposes the anti-marijuana laws would be meaningless, and enforcement impossible. The danger is too great, especially to the youth of the nation, at a time when psychedelic experience, "turn on," is the "in" thing to so many, for this court to yeild to the arguement that the use of marijuana for so-called religious purposes should be permitted under the Free Exercise Clause. We will not, therefore, subscribe to the dangerous doctrine that the free exercise of religion accords an unlimited freedom to violate the laws of the land relative to marijuana. (Leary v. US [5th Cir 1967]383 F.2d 851.)

nothing has changed since then. the supreme court has even ruled that while religious 'beliefs' are fully protected by the constitution, religious 'actions' are not and may be regulated or banned to protect "compelling state interest." the deal here is that a law cannot be made specifically to impede religious practice. with this in mind, the court will uphold any criminal law despite it's impact on free exercise.

as far as the church serving alcohol to minors, let's get real here folks. it's not like the priest has a full bar set up and is serving long island iced tea's to the sunday school class. we're talking about a sip of wine to represent the blood of christ. there's nothing wrong with that and you all know it. let's not stoop to "thier" level by being so picky about a harmless activity.

Slightly Stoopid

My church serves non-alchaul wine, i thought all churchs did!

__________________
Slightly Stoopid
"Before you knock it, try it first. You will learn that it is a blessing and not a curse"
-Ben Harper

CheebaKing

exactly our point for marijuana

but no matter how you want to look at it, sip of wine or straight liquor, it's still serving alcohol to minors. Just remember that common sense and "well it's not that much" unfortunatly doesn't have any place in our legal system.

KWhite

Well, in reading the news now, for the last several years, a gestalt has become kind of clear to me.
I believe it was the Guam Supreme Court, or perhaps Court of Appeals which determined use by rastafarians is allowable, last year.
But being a Territory Guam is bound by U.S. laws I believe.
Now the freedom of religion defense has effectively been cut to a nothing by the Supreme Court, using, and I can see their logic, The religious acts clause.
Come on, some people believe the sacrifice of small children to be religiously needful.
Yes I realize they are nuts, and fringe groups, some of the nicer ones only want to use small animals.
I am a RABID pro-marijuanaist *Grins...new word???*
But the Court MUST look after all of us.
If they ruled point blank that all religious actions were allowed, what would that open us up to?
I realize they used this as an excuse to not make marijuana religiously available, peyote fell to a similar ruling.
But I think the underlying principal is sound.
Legalization will NOT be won on the religious front, excepting good people like you letting the good people in your church, coven, circle, tribe or whatever know...
you smoke, and are a pretty darned good person.
My thoughts
kelly

veronicavbs

Hey, Good point, Im sure i fully understand. can you elaborate or let me know where you get ur info. Ty V

Buzzby

Slightly Stoopid hasn't been around here in five years. I doubt that he'll answer you. Before you reply to a post, it might be worthwhile to check its date.

__________________

phuzz01

Wow, can you believe it's been that long? I am starting to feel old. And I swear, I'm not!