cbs2.com— The Reverend Craig X Rubin, leader of the 420 Temple, argued in a court hearing that marijuana is a religious sacrament and its usage in his church is protected under federal law.
Jul 25, 2007View in Crawl 4
This is similar to the Supreme Court Ruling which affords the right to the UDV and similar churches (such as the Santo Daime) the right to use Ayahuasca during spiritual practices. It is protected by federal law.
From Bill Hick's remark on the absurdity of anti-drug PSAs: "...this is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" immediately followed by the commercial "This Bud's for you...."
Practically speaking, any law that results in your legal problems overrules any law that doesn't. This is what I can figure from reading this article, and from considering how the very same state tries and fails to protect its medical marijuana users from the feds.
I don't think he has a legal leg to stand on... banning things used for religious purposes is alright as long as it is not banned to target the religon. This case i link too is one where the law was overturned and the religion allowed to continue slaughtering animals. It was only overturned because the law targeted the single religion while ignoring similar things that hunters and slaughter houses did that were similar in nature, but only excluding the ritual. Pot is illegal for the whole population and not specifically banned because a religion is doing it and thus doesn't fall under the religious exemption.Linky to the legal decision <a class="user" href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lukumi.html">http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lukumi.html</a>
bebcJul 25, 2007
bulls**t, What a shame, this guy dared to use the name of GOD. Go to hell
diablo75Jul 25, 2007
This is similar to the Supreme Court Ruling which affords the right to the UDV and similar churches (such as the Santo Daime) the right to use Ayahuasca during spiritual practices. It is protected by federal law.
physphdJul 26, 2007
From Bill Hick's remark on the absurdity of anti-drug PSAs: "...this is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" immediately followed by the commercial "This Bud's for you...."
markofthedeadJul 26, 2007
what the hell, that was awesome. am i the only other one who knows what a tithing is?
carbonandroidJul 26, 2007
Might have to reconsider my atheism. Good luck Reverend Craig X Rubin
theholycowJul 26, 2007
Practically speaking, any law that results in your legal problems overrules any law that doesn't. This is what I can figure from reading this article, and from considering how the very same state tries and fails to protect its medical marijuana users from the feds.
misterzeroJul 26, 2007
No Officer, we are high on God.
lordbenJul 26, 2007
I don't think he has a legal leg to stand on... banning things used for religious purposes is alright as long as it is not banned to target the religon. This case i link too is one where the law was overturned and the religion allowed to continue slaughtering animals. It was only overturned because the law targeted the single religion while ignoring similar things that hunters and slaughter houses did that were similar in nature, but only excluding the ritual. Pot is illegal for the whole population and not specifically banned because a religion is doing it and thus doesn't fall under the religious exemption.Linky to the legal decision <a class="user" href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lukumi.html">http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lukumi.html</a>
icantdothatdaveAug 3, 2007
whether or not smoking pot is wrong is not what I'm debating, it's the fact that he's trying to use religion to make it right