under the first ammendment to the constitution, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
congress found in favor of the use of peyote during native american tribal rituals, in that it is a cerimonial sacred religious tradition
http://www.nativeamericanchurch.com/law.html
Love Medicine
Detail of beadwork from an Ojibwe medicine pouch
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Just a random thought, but I assume that during Prohibition wine was still legally used during communion in Christian churches, so during this time of "Prohibition" of drugs, they are still OK for religious purposes. The government might not see the correlation, but I do. (I'm sure that the gov't insists that it be a recognized religion with its own tax exempt number and all.)
I can see how that would work for religious purposes because its being used not abused.
yes but maybe other religions use other drugs and that is not permitted. i don't think they should allow native americans to use peyote even if it is for religious purposes
how can one offically interpret between a religious ceremony or not? if one wanted to do peyote on a reservation, how does the government have full control over it?
if it's for religion it's fine, but i agree with clare. so many people would innately abuse it. and if people use religion as an excuse for going to work high, there is no excuse.
"Two other courts have ruled that the exemption cannot be limited to
Native Americans. Kennedy v. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs, 459 F.2d 415 (9th Cir. 1972); and Native American Church of
New York v. United States, 468 F.Supp. 1247 (S.D.N.Y. 1979),
affirmed, 633 F.2d 205 (2nd Cir. 1980). When the exemption was
created in 1965, Congress attributed the exemption to a California
Supreme Court decision, People v. Woody, 394 P.2d 813 (Cal. 1964),
which held that the exemption was required because of the Free
Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. That same day,
the California Supreme Court ruled that the sacramental use of peyote
by nonmembers of the Native American Church was also constitutionally
protected. In re Grady, 394 P.2d 728 (Cal. 1964). Again, in 1978,
when Congress enacted the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Pub.
L. 95-341, Aug. 11, 1978, 92 Stat. 469, Congress affirmed that the
peyote exemption was required by the First Amendment (no mention was
made of the unique political status of Native Americans)."
Here is the link that this came from: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg04.htm
http://www.erowid.org/plants/peyote/peyote_culture1.shtml
"Shamanism and Peyote Use Among the Apaches of the Mescalero Indian Reservation"
Cornell Law School's info on this
Jess - I think what you're saying is meant in a good way, but when you are talking about limiting someone's religious rights you enter into dark territory. Your point, about addictive substances being avaiable to people whose DNA makes them more succeptable to addictions is reasonable, but you forget that this is a predisposition to alcoholism specifically.
You need to look at peyote use in religious circumstances not as drug use, but as a way for believers to get closer to their god/gods. Depriving people who belive peyote brings them closer to god of the means to commune with their god goes against what the first ammendment stands for. Religious peyote use isn't abuse and the people who engage in peyote rituals usually treat the drug with extreme reverance.
the fact that the government allows the native americans to use peyote for any reason shows what i think is a feeling of guilt the government has for what they have done in to past to native americans
i agree with ben, but i also think that in todays world we give the native americans too many rights for their so called "land" letting them do what they want on it
I think allowing Native Americans to use peyote is perfectly acceptable. How would Christians feel if we were told we weren't allowed to have wine for communion? Who are we to impose on their religious beliefs? As long as it's not abused and used specifically for religious purposes, I think it's fine.
I agree with Laurie. Peyote is an element of their religion, and i don't see how we have the right to change how they practice their faith.
I completely agree with Laurie. The government should not be allowed to put any restrictions on any religion. It's unethical.
Post a Comment