Church awaits ruling on use of hallucinogens

Crankinit said:
I was referring to the article, not you, but my point is that I would be highly suspicious of any spiritual organization who claims that the sole path to understanding of their beliefs is through drug use.
Click to expand...

Nobody was arguing that. The guy is from Brazil, where DMT is a sacrament and perfectly legal. Even during prohibition, churches could still serve wine. It's not like the service couldn't go on without wine, but it really isn't fair to take it away from people, is it?

Aldous Huxley, in his book island, describes a psychedelic trip as a spiritual "banquet". Do we need banquets to survive? Do we need DMT to believe in a god? No & no, we can get by on stale bread and bedside-prayers for the rest of our lives, but that doesn't mean we should limit ourselves to just that.

Indulge! I repeat, indulge...but sparingly.

"It's a banquet," she said emphatically. "And that's precisely why there has to be meditation. You can't have banquets everyday. They're too rich and they last too long. Besides, banquets are provided by a caterer; you don't have any part in the preparation of them. For your everyday diet you have to do your own cooking. The moksha-medicine comes as an occasional treat."
Click to expand...
 
Crankinit said:
I was referring to the article, not you, but my point is that I would be highly suspicious of any spiritual organization who claims that the sole path to understanding of their beliefs is through drug use.

I agree that drug use can do great (and terrible) things, and can for better or worse open your mind to new understandings of reality, but if their sole method of coming to terms with themselves spiritually is to take drugs, then maybe you should consider that it is just an effect of the high induced like any other, and has no greater meaning. I think it would end up being a crutch that would just deprive of them of spiritual and personal growth.
Click to expand...

Do you consider the weekly reading from the bible a crutch as well?
How do you that using an entheogen as the primary means to reach these levels takes away from the "greater meaning." Whatever that is.


Also, I'm curious, , do you know anything about Santo Daime?
Are you stating that all of the faithheads in Santo use a crutch?

Religion itself is a crutch, so even without the use of the psychoactives, they are demeaned.






nonnihilnitoris said:
Nobody was arguing that. The guy is from Brazil, where DMT is a sacrament and perfectly legal. Even during prohibition, churches could still serve wine. It's not like the service couldn't go on without wine, but it really isn't fair to take it away from people, is it?

Aldous Huxley, in his book island, describes a psychedelic trip as a spiritual "banquet". Do we need banquets to survive? Do we need DMT to believe in a god? No & no, we can get by on stale bread and bedside-prayers for the rest of our lives, but that doesn't mean we should limit ourselves to just that.

Indulge! I repeat, indulge...but sparingly.
Click to expand...

I tend to align with Huxley on many things. The only variance here is that I think this may very well fit under "to each his own." Some may have the experiences significantly diminished if there is anything more than two entheogen treks a year.
Some, finding no diminished flavor while dosing weekly.
Some never to dose ever.



Perhaps there's an analogy in the inevitable genome mapping for everyone, allowing for personalized meds.
 
entheogensmurf - I'm with you on that analogy - I hear that "biochemical individuality" is becoming a bit of a buzzword in certain circles.
I agree that religion is a crutch, but isn't everything?
I mean, is there something we can point to and say that it is not a crutch?
I think that it is really about the way people use things (like religion) that makes them crutches.
I think that if someone used the same things without being so attached, some enlightened master, that they could interact with the things in a pure way, and not use them as crutches.
Maybe.
 
I can't believe that this article fails to mention that members of other sects (Unao de Vegetal) won the right to use Ayahuasca in U.S. Supreme Court. Why would you even think to bother with anyone is beyond me.
 
I am not religious whatsoever, I believe people who connect with god through drugs or any other means are, well tripping (no pun intended :p and no offence to you religous people out there, its simply my own belief). That does not mean I do not accept their right to do so, or the merit and interest of viewing things from a different perspectie than my own.
However, using drugs to further or reinforce ones thoughts, perceptions and/or religious beliefs is an endeavour anyone should be allowed to pursue (as well as for pleasure but thats a *slightly* different argument). I don't believe these people are any closer to "the truth" or "god" having used these psychedelics, the point is they are using them with pretty much the best intention one could, as opposed to getting fucked up.
 
^Why is getting fucked up not a good intention? (Or to phrase slightly differently: why does framing the act in the context of a search for higher meaning make the act any more valid?)
 
drug_mentor said:
I don't see how people don't see how infinitely less destructive it is to allow people to consume psychedelics to attain a form of "enlightenment", spiritual identity or just plain expanson of thought compared to millions of idiots getting drunk every weekend and starting fights, drunk driving, assaulting women, etc.
Click to expand...

The government doesn't have a "Psychedelic Tea Drinking" department.. they do have an Alcohol Tobacco and Firearm department. They can tax alcohol and the greedy fucks make money off of it, this isn't so for DMT brews.
 
Roger&me I didn't say it wasn't a good intention just all that spiritual shit is probably a better one. Trying to find some sort of enlightenment is probably a better intention than pure self gratification imho. This is coming from someone who indulges in such self gratification everyday and has never gone on a "spirit quest" or whatever lol.
I wasn't putting down drug use for recreation but more trying to point out its discrimination (not that all drug laws aren't mind you) to be standing in the way of drug use for religious purposes.
 
Why are religious people allowed to get high on drugs that the rest of us cannot use? This is absurd. It should be legal for everyone. Why do only religious folks have their rights protected?
 
Because there is a separation of church and state clause in the Bill of Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but there is no specific clause that protects the right to partake in drugs that have been declared illegal under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

I'm not saying I agree that it should be that way, but that is the answer to your question. The U.S. Criminal Code needs to be amended if you want to have that right protected under the law.
 
I do not undestand. If church members wish to commit crimes such as robbery and assault, can they? No. So why do the drug laws not apply to them? I apologize if I a being dense but I do not get it.
 
I think that Fjones is making an excellent point here.

The answer to the question above is that the US government has to be very careful to permit religious freedom, and not to get involved with the way people practice religion. This is one of the founding principles of the country. So it allows people to break the laws covering drugs only if it is part of their religious ceremony.

But what about if they want to break other laws as part of their religious ceremonies, and kill people? Of course, they can't do that. They can't rob people, either, or expose themselves in public. They can't even legally send spam as part of their religion. If their religion says that they must always wear a hat and sunglasses, they will be forced to remove them to obtain their next driver's license or passport.

So why can they use drugs?

What, really, is going on here?

I also disapprove of the government being allowed to choose what purposes are acceptable for taking drugs, but it is interesting that they make this exception.

Is this somehow a tacit admission that drugs really don't deserve to be in the same category as any of the other "crimes"?8o

It is all so ridiculous and subjective. They even have the right to decide if your religion is a "real religion", and people worshipping something unusual, or people in a religion of one are gonna have a hard time proving their case.

Can we get some freedom here, people?:X
 
panic_the_digital said:
I can't believe that this article fails to mention that members of other sects (Unao de Vegetal) won the right to use Ayahuasca in U.S. Supreme Court. Why would you even think to bother with anyone is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, really.

I have no idea why the defendant, and the reporters covering his case, have not pulled out the big guns: there are volumes upon volumes of historical evidence for psychedelics being used in religious contexts, at all times and places, to no ill effect. In fact, history supports religion being the main venue for psychedelic use for most of human history -- for many peoples the SOLE one! My own readings on the subject lead me to believe that psychedelics have the lowest potential for harm when they are used in religious settings for spiritual and mystical purposes. I'm talking on the level of population statistics, not individuals.

Simply put, spirituality (an for many people this entails organized religion), is a perfectly fitting place for psychedelic use if there ever was one. I'm all for any court action OR social movement that returns these chemical Teachers to their rightful and original place in society. If there's any non-clinical, non-academic area that the government allows psychedelics to be used in, religion should be it.

I don't buy the argument that a court decision in the defendant's favor would prompt the establishment of lots of little new half-assed cults that were just fronts for dippy hippies looking to get legally fucked up. In Pakistan, the few remaining Jewish rabbis and Roman Catholic priests are legally allowed to import and possess a small amount of alcohol for ceremonial use, despite the fact that alcohol is an illegal drug in Pakistan. You don't see Pakistanis joining these religious communities just so they can try alcohol! Nor do you see clergypeople in these communities selling the alcohol they're allowed to possess on the black market -- every bottle is accounted for with the Pakistani government. No, instead you see Pakistanis who want to drink simply finding ways to acquire alcohol illegally, under the radar. Same with Americans who want their trip without religion -- it's a hell of a lot easier to just network with people in secular contexts to find what you want, than to fake your way in a community of earnest seekers. I'm sure such religious groups could find some very easy ways to weed out aspiring members who were just in it for the drugs.

A professor at my school has a DEA license to possess a small amount of pharmaceutical-grade MDMA and LSD for research on lab animals. I asked him, and he said he has NEVER seen an abuse of this license by anyone in his lab, nor in the lab of anyone else he knows who has a similar license. He says the DEA keeps careful accounting of every microgram, and he's selective of how he stores it and who he hires to work in his lab. I'd be all for religious leaders of entheogen-using religions being monitored the same way, and punished and stripped of their licenses to distribute the drugs if any diversion is found.
 
I think I am missing something here. People who belong to a religion have freedom to use drugs that I, as an atheist, do not? How is that a SEPARATION of church and state? The STATE is making legal exceptions for he CHURCH! To me that CONTRADICTS the notion of separation of church and state.
 
^ I'm all for the full legalization of drugs across the board, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying a legal recognition of hallucinogens' appropriateness in religious contexts is an excellent place to start.

This has nothing to do with separation of church and state: it doesn't entail the government dictating how the populace must behave and believe with regards to religion, and nor does it entail religious bodies dictating how the government governs the populace. It's simply a group petitioning the government (through perfectly legitimate channels and peaceful means might I add), to protect their right to practice their faith the way they see fit.

You sound a bit 'sour grapes' over the fact that this guy is only fighting for the right for HIS PEOPLE to use drugs, rather than the everybody. Baby steps, dude. Any victory for the loosening of drug laws is a victory, no matter how small.
 
AfterGlow said:
Because there is a separation of church and state clause in the Bill of Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but there is no specific clause that protects the right to partake in drugs that have been declared illegal under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

I'm not saying I agree that it should be that way, but that is the answer to your question. The U.S. Criminal Code needs to be amended if you want to have that right protected under the law.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with you. The expression "separation of church and state" does not exist in the US Bill of Rights or the Constitution. It's not there. However, there is the 1st Ammendment that says:
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 press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, Congress has no power to make any law that establishes a religion nor any law that prohibits one's exercise of religion. That's it.

Americans have instrinsic rights (includes rights not expressly defined in the Constitution). The Constitution does not give people their rights. The Constitution only safeguards the peoples' natural rights. The Constitution gives a few defined powers to the federal government. The powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. Federal prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional. Why did it take a Constitutional ammendment to prohibit alcohol? The government doesn't give us rights, we have natural rights that we are created with. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The US Constitution does not authorize the federal government to make drug prohibition laws. The US criminal code needs to be ammended so that it stops interferring with peoples' rights.
 
Last edited:
Huaca said:
I do not agree with you. The expression "separation of church and state" does not exist in the US Bill of Rights or the Constitution. It's not there. However, there is the 1st Ammendment that says:
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 press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, Congress has no power to make any law that establishes a religion nor any law that prohibits one's exercise of religion. That's it.

Americans have instrinsic rights (includes rights not expressly defined in the Constitution). The Constitution does not give people their rights. The Constitution only safeguards the peoples' natural rights. The Constitution gives a few defined powers to the federal government. The powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. Federal prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional. Why did it take a Constitutional ammendment to prohibit alcohol? The government doesn't give us rights, we have natural rights that we are created with. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The US Constitution does not authorize the federal government to make drug prohibition laws. The US criminal code needs to be ammended so that it stops interferring with peoples' rights.
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top