Freedom of Religion?
First things first I do not smoke pot. First Amendment states:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the Fourth Estate; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Rastafari movement (also known as Rastafari, or simply Rasta) is a new religious movement[1] that accept Haile Selassie I, the former Emperor of Ethiopia, as God incarnate, called Jah[2] or Jah Rastafari. For Rastas, smoking cannabis, usually known as ganja or herb, is a spiritual act, repeatedly accompanied by Bible study; they consider it a sacrament that cleans the body and mind, heals the soul, exalts the consciousness, facilitates diplomacy, brings pleasure, and brings them closer to Jah. In america use of pot is illegal.
So how can the first admendment be true if it does not allow you to fully practice the rasta religion?Plz only serious answers
Because the laws against pot were not passed to persecute a religious belief. Religions cannot turn against the law, like if a religion believes in human sacrifice, to be precise not a "right" protected under the law, get it? It's sort of duplicate idea with pot.
I have never smoked pot, but I don't presume it should be illegal, but ... there it is.
The 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion inside the confines of the law. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to smoke marijuana just because you claim your religion considers it a sacrament. If some nutjob started a religion that said that it be ok to rape and murder people they would not be allowed to rape and murder even though they claim it to be part of their religion.
If you wanna smoke pot, then why don't you work on trying to grasp it legalized? Instead of making up a ruse to say its ok because of your religion.
Religion does not allow you to break laws. That is so impossible.................and honestly just resembling you I really don't the answer to that am very sorry because..............actually this is an serious answer...........I am not playing around!
Smoking pot is a ritual of Rasta. The activity itself is not a religion. It's bent for the same reason the ritual of human sacrifice is illegal. If your religion tell you to kill people who have a physical impairment because they are frail, then should we allow that too?
The Supreme Court has held that religiously dull laws that affect all people equally do not violate the right to freedom of religion where on earth there is a legitimate public interest in regulating the conduct that the canon forbids.
To use a more extreme example than yours, the followers of a very old religion - Thuggee - used to find lone travelers on the roads of India and kill them as a sacrifice to the Goddess Kali. (That's where on earth our word "thug" comes from.) Should we allow Thugs to practice their religion freely in the USA in the name of freedom of religion?
As Justice Blackmun said within a case regarding the use of Peyote in Navajo religious ceremony:
"This court over the years painstakingly has developed a consistent and exacting standard to test the constitutionality of a state statute that burdens the free exercise of religion. Such a statute may stand only if the imperative in general, and the State's refusal to allow a religious exemption in unique, are justified by a compelling interest that cannot be served by less restrictive means."
Richard
There is a big debate over not just the words of the Constitution, but also the intent of those words; and it comes surrounded by large part because many those have arguments similar to yours. But think about this; if religious freedom routine what you seem to be implying, i.e. that there should be no stopping a religious group from performing act that it considers a religious act, then there is no passageway human sacrifice could be considered wrong, as long as there is a willing victim, and some religion claiming this is a religious feat. I am not of the Christian faith, but it seems quite clear that the framers of the Constitution, whether they call themselves Christians, Deists, or otherwise, framed the Constitution with a majority Christian people in mind. And the customs of a religious folks are not necessarily condoned by the actual religion. There are some Christian groups who call themselves snake-handlers, but snake-handling is not supported by Christianity. Most religions have a religious book, and they have the example of the enthusiasm of the main leader or originator of the religion. I have not looked it up, but I believe Haile Salassie never smoked weed, neither did Jesus, so if they are imitating their 'god' or whatever they truly call him, afterwards they are actually doing something that is not condoned by thier religion.
