gramps wrote:Because of RFRA, we have a strange situation out there. On the one hand, if I join the O Centro church in the states, I can legally trip my balls off with DMT brew (ayahuasca), share it even with my kids and parents (assuming they are members too), and never worry about the law coming down on me. This despite the fact that DMT is a Schedule I drug.
On the other hand, if I desire to trip my balls off on DMT brew, but fail to join the O Centro church before I do that, and am unlucky enough to run into problems with the law, I could have a felony record for the rest of my life, as well as spend some time behind bars.
That is where we are today. I can't accept that the First Amendment was intended to allow religious believers to avoid criminal laws and sanctions. Do you think that is how the First Amendment should be read?
I see this as an Establishment Clause problem, too. "Separation of church and state" is just shorthand for the religion clauses in the First Amendment standing for the principle that the government is neutral toward religion. Religion is supposed to be neither favored nor disfavored by governmental action. In the above statutory scheme, members of certain denominations are given privileges that other members of society---even members of other religions---do not have (e.g., trippin' balls on DMT brew). In other words, members of the O Centro church are given preferential treatment.