[androidbishop]

I'm all for magic mushrooms and legalization, but I don't buy this 1st amendment religious exemption bullshit. The law should apply equally to everyone and everything, or it ceases to have any meaning. It's the same as the Supreme Court carving out a religious exemption to the Civil Rights act. There's no good reason why people's woo-woo beliefs somehow changes whether the law applies to them or not. It's ridiculous.

[ruined]

having a private religious experience with a mushroom doesn't deny anyone legislative representation

[mike_d]

Laws exist to create a civil society. You shouldn't get an exemption because you have an imaginary friend.

[predictabl3]

>Laws exist to create a civil society.

That is... quite a comment to make in a thread about "illegal drugs" in the United States.

[pempem]

LOL

I agree. Let's get the church to pay taxes and return public lands and then I'm happy to chat.

[androidbishop]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but I actually endorse these ideas

[pempem]

I very much endorse them as well and so, happily join you.

[ruined]

in the meantime, let's get something positive out of the contradiction

[fragmede]

It does if you were found guilty of a felony and are currently in prison for having done so. Which; the store's owner was charged with three felonies.

[csdvrx]

> There's no good reason why people's woo-woo beliefs somehow changes whether the law applies to them or not.

There is: the 1st amendment is about what we consider more important than anything else: here, religion - but not just: freedom of assembly, of the press and speech also covers way, WAY more ground than any other country in the world.

Personally, I like that - and considering how many people believe in some $diety, it may be the majority.

If you don't like that, and think the majority also dislikes that, it's easy: find enough support to change the 1st amendment.

[anon373839]

In reality, the First Amendment does not create a religious exemption from drug laws. See Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

[androidbishop]

That's a pretty far fetched interpretation of the 1st amendment. It doesn't say "one's religious beliefs supersede the laws enacted by congress". Having religious beliefs doesn't mean I can practice ritual human sacrifice, or sell bleach to people with promises that it cures cancer, or impregnate a harem of child brides. Freedom of speech isn't a get out of jail card either. Most criminal statutes involve speech of some kind. You are not free to commit fraud, to lie to law enforcement, to engage in a criminal conspiracy, etc.

[mensetmanusman]

Most laws don’t apply to everyone, and they still have meaning.

[anonygler]

Religious exemptions are a good thing and should be respected. It’s important to be skeptical of novel religious claims, as they're usually just a cynical abuse of a legal exemption. Exemptions should certainly not be limitless: America is incompatible with human sacrifice.

[itisit]

I think we make selective religious accommodations and exemptions for no good reason. Why is one person’s fiction more deserving or more valid than another? Followers of CotFSM and Scientology have as much of a claim on special treatment as do older religions.

[OO000oo]

My sweet summer child...