[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.