COCT MINISTRY
CHURCH OF COGNITIVE THERAPY
mental, physical, and spiritual development
First Amendment of the Constitution of the United 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.”
Federal Religious Freedoms Restoration Act
​
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
​
In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection.
(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
State Religious Freedoms
Restoration Acts
​
Let me start off by saying that in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act only applies to the federal government but not states and other local municipalities within them. As a result, 21 states have passed their own RFRAs that apply to their individual state and local governments.
My case fell under the Idaho RFRA, which is as follows:
Idaho Statutes
​
TITLE 73
GENERAL CODE PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 4
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED
​
73-402. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED. (1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(3) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
(a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
(b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(4) A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this chapter against a government shall recover attorney’s fees and costs.
(5) In this section, the term "substantially burden" is intended solely to ensure that this chapter is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
History:
[73-402, added 2000, ch. 133, sec. 2, p. 353.]
TITLE 73
GENERAL CODE PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 4
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED
​
73-401. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with evidence, and persuasion under the standard of clear and convincing evidence.
(2) "Exercise of religion" means the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
(3) "Government" includes this state and any agency or political subdivision of this state.
(4) "Political subdivision" includes any county, city, school district, taxing district, municipal corporation, or agency of a county, city, school district, or municipal corporation.
(5) "Substantially burden" means to inhibit or curtail religiously motivated practices.
History:
[73-401, added 2000, ch. 133, sec. 2, p. 352.]
The Right to Worship
The right to worship according to one's own conscience is a core aspect of religious freedom, emphasizing the individual's autonomy in matters of faith. It means that people should be free to choose their beliefs and practices without coercion from the government or others.
Key Aspects of the Right to Worship According to Conscience:
Individual Autonomy: This right recognizes that each person has the capacity and freedom to form their own beliefs and to act according to their convictions.
Freedom from Coercion: It protects individuals from being forced to participate in religious practices that go against their conscience.
Right to Choose: It includes the freedom to choose a religion, to change one's religion, or not to have any religion at all.
Inner Belief and External Practice: This freedom encompasses both internal belief and the external expression of that belief, including worship and observance.
Limits to Freedom: While this right is fundamental, it is not absolute and may be subject to limitations when it comes into conflict with public safety, order, health, morals, or the rights of others, according to Wikipedia.
Historical and Philosophical Roots:
Enlightenment Ideals: The concept of individual conscience as a guiding force is rooted in Enlightenment thought, which emphasized reason, autonomy, and individual rights.
Religious Reformation: The Protestant Reformation also played a significant role, promoting the idea that individuals should have the right to interpret religious texts and practices for themselves.
Founding of the United States: The Founding Fathers of the U.S. were deeply influenced by these ideas, incorporating the protection of religious freedom, including freedom of conscience, into the Constitution.
Connection to the First Amendment:
Free Exercise Clause: While the First Amendment doesn't explicitly mention "conscience", it protects the free exercise of religion, which is closely tied to the concept of conscience.
Preventing Government Overreach: The First Amendment seeks to prevent the government from interfering with individuals' religious beliefs and practices, allowing them to follow their conscience in matters of faith.
In summary:
The right to worship according to one's own conscience is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to make their own decisions about their religious beliefs and practices. It protects individuals from coercion and promotes a pluralistic society where diverse beliefs can coexist peacefully. The George Washington Institute for Religious Freedom notes that "Every man ... being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience".
AI generated
My Argument
My case was about the spiritual use of cannabis as a sacrament as a Rastafari and member of the COCT. Cannabis has been used by thousands of people for thousands of years. Its use is in different ethnic backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, spiritual backgrounds, and religious backgrounds. The common denominator is the spiritual use of cannabis for enlightenment (the act or means of enlightening : the state of being enlightened) purposes. Rastafari is not a religion. It is a spiritual way of life. The state's goal in side-stepping my Rastafari claim was to prove that the Church of Cognitive Therapy was not a religion, therefore nullifying my religious protection under the law.
The state of Idaho did not comprehend that a spiritual path to enlightenment often accompanies religious beliefs. My argument was about the spiritual use that coincides with religious beliefs (religiosity-the quality or state of being religious : religious feeling or devotion) and not directly about the religious use. Therefore, they claimed it did not meet their standard for religious protection under the law; however, their standard was Christianity (Catholicism), to which no spiritual path is equal to. For instance, Buddhism is a spiritual path with no deity; therefore, it does not meet the standard as well; however, millions practice it as a spiritual path.
​
My goal in fighting the state of Idaho for five and half years was not necessarily to win but to force them to make a ruling and interrogate them on how to build a solid foundation for entheogenic churches, ministries, and personal spiritual practitioners, hence this website.
​
The simple fact remains that Idaho’s and other RFRAs plainly state that, the "Exercise of religion" means the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." To me, it seemed as though they couldn’t understand their own laws, because it plainly states that I did not have to act in a manner motivated by religious beliefs, or my path does not have to be equal to a larger system of belief such as Christianity (Catholicism).
​
The fact is the state believed if they ruled in favor of religious or spiritual entheogens (cannabis), then it will undo the very laws that make them illegal on a federal or state level and everyone would make that claim. The issue with this is not everyone will claim religious defense. The major issue with this type of governing is, they do not use the least restrictive means in these types of judgments. Least restrictive means they have to allow a narrow avenue no matter how small it may be. According to the laws that govern religious beliefs it would be in direct conflict if no narrow path is available.
​
It is in direct conflict of the First Amendment of the Constitution and the RFRAs to simply rule against every church, ministry, and practitioner that uses entheogens (cannabis) religiously or spiritually and in doing so we have the right to a redress of grievances.
​
The Meyers Test is an establishment of religion created by the Judicial branch of the government and used on a federal and state level to curtail entheogenic (cannabis) religious use and spiritual practitioners so they cannot be awarded religious protection under the law.
​
Nearly every spiritual or religious cannabis practitioner, church, or ministry, and other entheogenic practitioners, churches, and ministries, which have ended up in the courts have had to deal with what has been referred to by the courts as The Meyers Test.
​
It is in direct conflict with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which 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.”
​
However, the judicial system is not “Congress” and has the right to suggest the establishment of religion or create a guideline to curtail or counter outrageous claims of religion (cannabis religions or spiritual use).
​
The Meyers Test is a guideline that was created in the case UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MEYERS, Defendant-Appellant, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, November 5, 1996, 95 F.3d 1475., which if passed, then the state had the burden to prove a person’s, church’s, or ministry’s religious or spiritual use of cannabis wasn’t enough to qualify for religious protection under the law.
The courts came up with a long list of must-haves for a person, church, or ministry to prove their case. They had to suffice the courts in these areas; Ultimate Ideals, Metaphysical Beliefs, Moral and Ethical System, Comprehensiveness of Beliefs., Accouterments of Religion; Founder, Teacher, Counselor, Important Writings, and Oral Traditions, Gathering Places, Keepers of Knowledge, Ceremonies and Rituals, Structure or Organization, Holidays and Festivals, Diet and Fasting, Appearance and Clothing, Propagation, Church Creed.
If the courts did not agree with or comprehend the answers, then they would simply say that part of the test was not sufficient to qualify for religious protection. If the majority of the test was not sufficiently passed, then it did not qualify for religious protection under the law. The courts have rarely allowed a person or an organization to pass their long list of must haves with the exclusion of peyote and ayahuasca. According to the courts, a spiritual path is not religious and therefore not protected under religious freedom protection laws. A spiritual path would be a non-religious path that seeks enlightenment through non-religious avenues such as entheogens, meditation, fasting, heat, tone-producing instruments, or chanting and so on.
​
It is my belief that if we take away their defense, then they will be forced to rule in favor. This being said, there have been many cannabis churches and ministries that are simply by name only and just trying to circumvent cannabis laws just to make money as a dispensary by inadvertently selling cannabis to the public in states where there are medicinal and recreational laws. These types of churches and the individuals running them are putting a stain on those who are legitimately helping others obtain a spiritual path to enlightenment.
​
To be a legitimate church or ministry one should be modeled as such. They should grow and distribute their own brand and packaging. They should only distribute to their members and accept donations for it (tithes and offerings). They should also provide religious or spiritual services for their members.
The Meyer's Test
Below is the entirety of the Meyers Test and you should answer everyone in your own words. Nothing is ever for certain, but this is the best the government has as their defense so if we can take it away from them, they will be forced to try something else or give up!
1. Ultimate Ideas: Religious beliefs often address fundamental questions about life, purpose, and death. As one court has put it, “a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters.” Africa, 662 F.2d at 1032. These matters may include existential matters, such as man’s sense of being; teleological matters, such as man’s purpose in life; and cosmological matters, such as man’s place in the universe.
2. Metaphysical Beliefs: Religious beliefs often are “metaphysical,” that is, they address a reality that transcends the physical and immediately apparent world. Adherents to many religions believe that there is another dimension, place, mode, or temporality, and they often believe that these places are inhabited by spirits, souls, forces, deities, and other sorts of inchoate or intangible entities.
3. Moral or Ethical System: Religious beliefs often prescribe a particular manner of acting, or way of life, that is “moral” or “ethical.” In other words, these beliefs often describe certain acts in normative terms, such as “right and wrong,” “good and evil,” or “just and unjust.” The beliefs then proscribe those acts that are “wrong,” “evil,” or “unjust.” A moral or ethical belief structure also may create duties--duties often imposed by some higher power, force, or spirit--that require the believer to abnegate elemental self-interest.
4. Comprehensiveness of Beliefs: Another hallmark of “religious” ideas is that they are comprehensive. More often than not, such beliefs provide a telos, an overreaching array of beliefs that coalesce to provide the believer with answers to many, if not most, of the problems and concerns that confront humans. In other words, religious beliefs generally are not confined to one question or single teaching. Africa, 662 F.2d at 1035.
5. Accoutrements of Religion: By analogy to many of the established or recognized religions, the presence of the following external signs may indicate that a particular set of beliefs is “religious”:
a. Founder, Prophet, or Teacher: Many religions have been wholly founded or significantly influenced by a deity, teacher, seer, or prophet who is considered to be divine, enlightened, gifted, or blessed.
b. Important Writings: Most religions embrace seminal, elemental, fundamental, or sacred writings. These writing often include creeds, tenets, precepts, parables, commandments, prayers, scriptures, catechisms, chants, rites, or mantras.
c. Gathering Places: Many religions designate particular structures or places as sacred, holy, or significant. These sites often serve as gathering places for believers. They include physical structures, such as churches, mosques, temples, pyramids, synagogues, or shrines; and natural places, such as springs, rivers, forests, plains, or mountains.
d. Keepers of Knowledge: Most religions have clergy, ministers, priests, reverends, monks, shamans, teachers, or sages. By virtue of their enlightenment, experience, education, or training, these people are keepers and purveyors of religious knowledge.
e. Ceremonies and Rituals: Most religions include some form of ceremony, ritual, liturgy, sacrament, or protocol. These acts, statements, and movements are prescribed by the religion and are imbued with transcendent significance.
f. Structure or Organization: Many religions have a congregation or group of believers who are led, supervised, or counseled by a hierarchy of teachers, clergy, sages, priests, etc.
g. Holidays: As is etymologically evident, many religions celebrate, observe, or mark “holy,” sacred, or important days, weeks, or months.
h. Diet or Fasting: Religions often prescribe or prohibit the eating of certain foods and the drinking of certain liquids on particular days or during particular times.
i. Appearance and Clothing: Some religions prescribe the manner in which believers should maintain their physical appearance, and other religions prescribe the type of clothing that believers should wear.
j. Propagation: Most religious groups, thinking that they have something worthwhile or essential to offer non-believers, attempt to propagate their views and persuade others of their correctness. This is sometimes called “mission work,” “witnessing,” “converting,” or proselytizing.
Indigenous Practices and the First
Amendment
Indigenous practices and the First Amendment intersect in complex ways, particularly concerning the Free Exercise Clause, which protects the right to practice one's religion freely.
How the First Amendment Applies to Indigenous Practices:
Protection of Religious Practices: The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause generally protects Indigenous peoples' right to practice their traditional religions, including rituals, ceremonies, and use of sacred objects, similar to how it protects other religions.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA):
While not directly creating legal rights, AIRFA, passed in 1978, recognizes the importance of Native American religious freedom and expresses the policy of the U.S. to protect and preserve the inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise traditional religions.
Potential Conflicts: Conflicts often arise between Indigenous religious practices and government interests or regulations, particularly regarding land use, sacred sites, and the use of certain substances in religious ceremonies.
Challenges and Conflicts:
Sacred Sites and Land Use: Indigenous religions often have deep connections to specific places considered sacred. Government actions like development projects, road construction, or resource extraction on these lands can significantly impede religious practices and infringe on religious freedom.
Use of Sacred Substances: Some Indigenous religions involve the use of substances like peyote in religious ceremonies. This practice has sometimes clashed with drug laws, raising questions about the extent to which religious freedom protects such practices.
Definition of Religion:
The definition of "religion" itself can be a point of contention. Some traditional Indigenous beliefs and practices may not fit neatly into Western, theistic definitions of religion, leading to challenges in asserting First Amendment protections.
Lack of Legal Recognition: Historically, the legal system has sometimes struggled to understand and accommodate Indigenous religious practices, leading to limited protection in certain cases.
Case Examples:
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988): The Supreme Court ruled that the government could proceed with road construction in a National Forest, even if it interfered with the religious practices of Indigenous groups who considered the area sacred.
Employment Division v. Smith (1990):
The Court held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to Native Americans fired for using peyote in religious ceremonies, arguing that the state's interest in prohibiting drug use outweighed religious freedom claims.
Moving Forward:
Greater Understanding and Accommodation: There's a need for greater understanding and accommodation of Indigenous religious practices within legal and policy frameworks.
Consultation and Collaboration:
Engaging in meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indigenous communities is crucial when government actions could potentially affect their religious practices.
Protection of Sacred Sites: Finding ways to protect sacred sites and ensure access for religious practices is an ongoing challenge.
In summary:
The First Amendment offers a degree of protection for Indigenous religious practices, but significant challenges remain in ensuring full and consistent protection, particularly when conflicts arise with government interests or regulations.
AI generated