legal background
It is best that you seek the assistance of a lawyer who specializes in criminal and constitutional law before you have trouble with the police, feds, or other law enforcement officers.
The following information may help your lawyer prepare for your defense.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
Article 18 states “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.”
In 1968 the United Nations International Conference on Human Rights agreed that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights “constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community” to protect and preserve the rights of it citizenry.
With almost every nation in the world being a member of the United Nations, this applies on nearly a world-wide basis. The ability to use the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in a particular nation’s courts may vary greatly.
The U.S. Constitution’s first amendment states “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.”
The portion prohibiting a government religion is known as the Establishment Clause. The portion guaranteeing freedom of religion is called the Free Exercise Clause.
Until the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Establishment Cluase was held to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, or the preference of any one religion over another, or the preference of religion over non-religion. Section 1 of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the “substantive rights” of free speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and other limitations on government power. This is known as the Incorporation Doctrine.
Between 1938 and 1955 the Jehovah’s Witnesses had more than forty (4) cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning the majority of them, asserting the freedom of religion even in the face of state legislation.
In the 1938 case Lovell v. City of Griffin the Supreme Court held that cities could not require government permits for the distribution of pamphlets.
In the 1939 case Schneider v. Town of Irvington the Supreme Court struck down anti-littering laws that were only enforced against Jehovah’s Witnesses passing out pamphlets.
In the 1940 case Cantwell v. Connecticut the court ruled against a law that forbid soliciting donations without obtaining a certificate from the Public Welfare Council. The Supreme Court ruled that any law granting a public body with the function of determining if a cause was religious or not violates the First Amendment.
In the 1940 case Minersville School District v. Gobitis the Supreme Court held that members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses could be required to salute the American flag in public schools. Justice Frankfurter claimed that membersof minority religions could attempt to reverse discriminatory laws through the exercise of the vote. NOTE: This decision was overruled in 1943.
In the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette the Supreme Court reversed the Gobitis decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote “the very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities … One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, to free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote.” While the Supreme Court did not rule that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, it did rule that students may not be compelled to recite it.
In the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 203, 91 L. Ed. 711, applied the Establishment Clause to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Black wrote “The establishment of religion, of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force or influence a person to go to or remain away from a church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance.”
Under Chief Justice Earl Warren the U.S. Supreme Court expanded religious rights.
In the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale the Supreme Court struck down a non-denominational prayer written by the New York Board of Regents. Justice Black wrote “it is no part of the official business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried out by the Government.”
In the 1963 case Abington Twonship v. Schempp the Supreme Court struck down laws requiring a teacher to read the Lord’s Prayer or the Bible in the classroon of a public school. The Supreme Court introduced the “secular purpose” and “primary effect” tests to determine compatibility with the Establishment Clause.
In the 1963 case Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 the court ruled in favor of Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by the state of South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, as required by the Seventh-day Adventist faith. NOTE: This right was partially revoked in 1990.
In the 1972 case Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 the Supreme Court established the Compelling Interest doctrine, ruling that a law that “unduly burdens the practice of religion” without a compelling interest, even though it might be “neutral on its face”, would be unconstitutional. NOTE: This right was partially revoked in 1990.
In the 1974 Universal Life Church (ULC) case Civil No. S-1964 federal Judge James F. Battin wrote “Neither this Court, nor any branch of this Government, will consider the merits or fallacies of a religion. Nor will the Court compare the beliefs, dogmas, and practices of a newly organized religion with those of an older, more established religion. Nor will the Court praise or condemn a religion, however excellent or fanatical or preposterous it may seem. Were the Court to do so, it would impinge upon the guarantees of the First Amendment.” The judge required the IRS to accept the ULC as a legal church. The IRS had belittled the ULC as a mail-order church. The IRS’s official rules for determining what constituted a legal religion were struck down. The IRS responded by simply retitling the exact same rules as unofficial guidelines.
The Universal Life Church has only two beliefs (1) “the absolute right of freedom of religion” and (2) “to do that which is right”. Federal Judge Dale A. Kimball wrote in a 2002 decision “The ULC claims that each person has the right to do what is right for him or her as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others and is within the law.” THE ULC ordains ministers for free and sells certificates. Judge Kimball also wrote “The ULC requires virtually nothing from its ministers; they are not required to perform any religious ceremonies, to oversee a congregation, to provide religious guidance or counseling, …”
In the 1985 case Wallace v. Jaffree the Supreme Court ruled against an Alabama state law requiring that students in public schools observe a daily period of silence for the purpose of private prayer. While the Supreme Court did not rule that a moment of silence was unconstitutional, it ruled that the sole purpose of the Alabama law was to advance religion, which violated the secular purpose test.
Unfortunately, in the 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 ruled that a state law could prohibit free exercise as long as it does not target a particular religious practice. Alfred Smith and Galen Black, both Native Americans, were fired from from their jobs as counselors for a private drug rehabiliation oragnization for using peyote during religious ceremonies of the Native American Church. Oregon law prohibits the knowing or intentional possession of peyote, so the state of Oregon denied unemployment compensation.
In the 1992 case Lee v. Weisman the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for religious officials to offer prayers before voluntarily attended ceremonies such as graduation, prohibiting the government from conducting religious exercises at public occassions even if attendance was not compulsory.
In the 1993 case Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah the Supreme Court struck down a Hialeah, Florida, city ordinance that forbade killing of animals, while allowing numerous exemptions, such as killing for food, killing for leather, and killing as part of the kosher slaughter of Judaism. It was obvious that the law only applied to ritual slaughter as practiced by the Santeria religion, even though the religion wasn’t specifically named in the law. The Supreme Court ruled that because the city ordinance was not “generally applicable” that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it did not meet.
In 1993 the U.S. Congress passed the Relgious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), restoring the Sherbet Test of the compelling interest standard to all laws. The RFRA required that courts determine whether a person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief and whether the government action is a substantial burden on that person’s ability to act on that belief. If the first two tests are met, then the government must prove that it is acting in furtherance of a compelling state interest and that the government has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive (least burdensome) to religion.
In 1993 the state of Rhode Island passed the oldest (first) state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, General Laws of Rhode Island, title 42, Chapter 80.
In 1994 the U.S. Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedoom Act Amendments of 1994, which extended the American Indian Religious Freedom Act to “provide for the traditional use of peyote by Indians for religious purposes”.
In the 1996 case United States v. Meyers No. 95-8079 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the court ruled against David Meyers and claimed that the Church of Marijuana was not actually a religion. The court created a list of rules based on the Abrahamic religions that all non-Abrahamic religions are required to meet to be entitled to the same freedom of religion as Christians.
In the 1997 case City of Boerne v. Flores the Supreme Court struck down the RFRA for state and local governments. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio wanted to enlarge a church in Boerne, Texas, but a city ordinance protected the church as a historic landmark and did not allow it to be torn down.
In response City of Boerne v. Flores to several states passed their own versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, including Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut (S 52-571b), Florida, Idaho, Illinois, New Mexico, Rhode Island (passed in 1993), South Carolina, and Texas.
In 1998 the California legislature passed AB1617, with very similar wording to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Governor Pete Wilson vetoed the California law, claiming it would be misused by prisoners. Governor Jim Edgar vetoed the Illinois RFRA. The Illinois House overrode the veto 110-3 and the Illinois Senate overrode the veto 55-0. A RFRA in Virginia was returned to committee in 1999, where it died because it didn’t include a definition of religion restricting the rights to mainstream religions.
In the 2002 Universal Life Church (ULC) case Civil No. 2:01CV278K federal Judge Dale A. Kimball struck down a Utah law banning ministers ordained by mail or over the internet from officiating legal marriage. The court ruled in favor of ULC, claiming that there was no essential difference between internet-based or mail-order application and application by courier, fax machine, phone, or in person. The Utah law would have unintentionally “defrocked” ministers from many major mainstream Christian religions that conducted official church business via U.S. mail.
In 2002 in the case Guam v. Guerrero, (September 8, 2000) 2000 Guam 26, No. CRA99-025 the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that Bennie Toves Guerrero, a Hispanic Rastaman also known as Ras Iyah Ben Makahna, could not be prosecuted for possession of marijuan on federal lands for religious reasons. Guerrero had been arrested at the Guam airport and charged with importing five ounces of marijuana and 10 ounces of seeds. Unfortunately, the Appeals Court ruled that “Rastafarianism does not require importation of a controlled sibstance, which increases availability”, and therefore allowed the prosecution for importing marijuana.
In the February 21, 2006, case Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 126 S. Ct. 1211 the Supreme Court upheld the RFRA applying to the federal government. The complete text of this Supreme Court decision is here.
In the 1996 case United States v. Meyers No. 95-8079 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the court ruled against David Meyers and claimed that the Church of Marijuana was not actually a religion.
The court ruled that the religion wasn’t actually a religion because it failed to meet a long list of requirements that were estabolished with the intent of only allowing mainstream Abrahamic religions to have the right to freedom of religion.
The remainder of this section goes through the court ruling point by point to show why the popints are illegal and how a person who is a member of Am Khent Kemeticism might be able to meet the requirements anyway.
Note that it will be very difficult to obtain religious freedom because all federal judges are officially paid in money that includes the officially established written religious oath of office “In God We Trust”. The officially established religious oath of office specifically requires trust and belief in “God” (a religious being that exists only in Abrahamic religions) and specifically forbids worship of Goddess. There are zero federal judges who are members of Islam (second largest religion in the U.S.), Witchcraft (fourth largest religion in the U.S.), Hinduism (fifth largest religion in the U.S.), or Buddhism (sixth largest religion in the U.S.). Only Christians and Jews are allowed to be federal judges.
Federal judges, as members of the U.S. government’s officially established religion, are extremely frightened of the current fast growth of Am Khent Kemeticism and other Witchcraft religions. In just a few decades Witchcraft has gone from an obscure religion to the fourth largest religion in the U.S. and is continueing to grow at a pace that will result in it being the second most common religion in just a few more years.
The officially established U.S. religion specifically teaches that it is the only true religion and that believers of all other religions are condemned to eternal punishment.
It makes members of “one true way” religions extremely insecure to see anyone reject that one way. Judges have a legal duty and responsibility, as encompassed in their religious oath of office, to impose thier own religion to exclusion of all other religions.
You will find it exceedingly difficult to meet the continual imaginary barriers to free exercise of religion imposed by federal judges.
See also guide to cannabis.
