|
I wasn't referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the compelling state interest test. Even before that, the U.S. Supreme Court had always rejected the use of illegal drugs for religious purposes, with the exception of the use of peyote by the Native American Church. Most countries with constitutional protection of freedom of religion prohibit use of illegal drugs even for religious purposes, and their courts don't consider that a violation of freedom of religion. Constitutional protections of freedom of religion are intended primarily to protect what are traditionally considered to be religious practices, and which can be carried out with little harm to others: e.g. prayer, meditation, singing, giving sermons, printing and distributing literature, etc. They are not intended to give religions a carte blanche exclusion from the law. Otherwise we'd have to allow the practice of such religious activities as human sacrifice. I'm not saying I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court on this -- I don't support drug prohibition. But "(Despite rulings that the First Amendment protects religions even if they do not make sense, courts today tend to reject such defenses in "drug" cases.)" is biased, and ignores the Court's logic. -- SJK |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)