COCT MINISTRY
CHURCH OF COGNITIVE THERAPY
The Church Of Cognitive Therapy (COCT) aligns with global entheogenic spiritual communities that explore the sacred use of psychoactive substances beyond recreational contexts. The church emphasizes safety, ethical guidelines, and holistic mental and spiritual well-being while integrating traditional plant-based sacraments with therapeutic and spiritual objectives.
COCT Ministry is a modern entheogenic secular, religious, and spiritual movement that blends cognitive psychology, shamanic wisdom, and ceremonial plant medicine, offering a structured yet flexible path toward personal enlightenment, spiritual connection, and introduction to a global community of participation.
COCT Ministry is a pastoral trauma healing platform originally organized to heal veterans with PTSD, cancer, and addiction in 2003. Its origin was constructed using cognitive therapy, neuroplasticity, ancient ceremonial indigenous practices, and aligning with the animist belief in a Universal Divine Life Force that animates all things. These practices and beliefs were instrumental in curing a long period of depression and trauma for the organizer. The ministry's lineage is heavily rooted in veteran-to-veteran-led religious and spiritual practices.
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".
My Argument
1. The Core of My Case
My case centered on the spiritual use of cannabis as a sacrament, both as a Rastafari practitioner and as a member of the Church of Cognitive Therapy (COCT). Cannabis has been used spiritually by thousands of cultures for thousands of years. Its use spans ethnic, cultural, spiritual, and religious backgrounds. The common denominator is simple: cannabis has long been used as a sacred tool for enlightenment — the act or state of becoming spiritually illuminated.
Rastafari itself is not a religion in the Western sense; it is a spiritual way of life. The state of Idaho attempted to sidestep my Rastafari claim by arguing that the Church of Cognitive Therapy was “not a religion,” and therefore I was not entitled to religious protection under the law.
2. What the State Misunderstood
Idaho failed to understand a basic truth:
A spiritual path to enlightenment often accompanies religious belief, even if it is not organized like Christianity.
My argument was about spiritual use that coincides with religious devotion, not about conforming to a traditional Western religious structure. Idaho’s standard for “religion” was essentially Christianity (specifically Catholicism) — a standard that excludes countless legitimate spiritual paths.
For example, Buddhism is a spiritual path with no deity, yet millions practice it as a valid spiritual tradition. Under Idaho’s logic, Buddhism itself would not qualify for protection.
3. Why I Fought the Case
My goal in fighting Idaho for five and a half years was not simply to win. It was to force the state to make a ruling and to expose the flaws in how entheogenic churches, ministries, and spiritual practitioners are evaluated. This website exists because of that fight — to help others build a solid foundation for entheogenic spiritual practice.
4. Idaho Ignored Its Own RFRA
Idaho’s RFRA clearly states:
“Exercise of religion” means the ability to act or refuse 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.”
This means:
-
My practice did not need to be motivated by a traditional religion.
-
My path did not need to resemble Christianity.
-
My beliefs did not need to be part of a larger system.
Yet Idaho acted as if none of this existed.
5. The Real Reason for Their Resistance
The state feared that recognizing spiritual or religious cannabis use would undermine federal and state drug laws. They assumed “everyone would claim it.” But this is not true — not everyone will claim a religious defense.
The real issue is that the state refused to use the least restrictive means, even though RFRA requires it. When no narrow path is allowed, the state is in direct conflict with:
-
The First Amendment
-
Federal RFRA
-
State RFRA
And citizens have the right to petition for redress of grievances when their rights are violated.
6. The Meyers Test: A Judicial Barrier
The Meyers Test — created in United States v. Meyers (1996) — is a judicial guideline used to deny entheogenic religious protection. It is not a law passed by Congress. It is a court‑invented standard used to curtail cannabis‑based religions and spiritual practitioners.
The test requires proving:
-
Ultimate Ideals
-
Metaphysical Beliefs
-
Moral/Ethical System
-
Comprehensiveness of Beliefs
-
Accouterments of Religion (founder, writings, rituals, holidays, etc.)
If the court does not “understand” or “agree” with your answers, they simply declare them insufficient. Historically, almost no cannabis‑based spiritual group has passed — except peyote‑using NAC members and ayahuasca‑using UDV/Santo Daime.
Under this test, a spiritual path is not considered religious, and therefore not protected.
7. The Problem With the Meyers Test
The Meyers Test contradicts the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from:
-
Establishing a definition of religion
-
Favoring one religion over another
-
Restricting the free exercise of spiritual belief
Yet courts use this test to do exactly that.
8. The Path Forward
I believe that if we remove the state’s excuses — by building legitimate, well‑structured entheogenic churches and ministries — they will be forced to rule in favor of spiritual practitioners.
However, many so‑called “cannabis churches” are simply dispensaries in disguise, using religious language to sell cannabis. These groups harm legitimate spiritual practitioners by giving the state ammunition to deny all claims.
A legitimate entheogenic church or ministry should:
-
Grow and distribute its own sacrament
-
Provide it only to members
-
Accept donations (tithes/offerings) rather than selling
-
Offer genuine spiritual or religious services
-
Maintain structure, teachings, rituals, and doctrine
This is how we build a foundation that the courts cannot easily dismiss.
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
Law Review
OLD WINE, OLD BOTTLES, AND NOT VERY NEW CORKS: ON
STATE RFRAS AND FREE EXERCISE JURISPRUDENCE
By MARK STRASSER
C. Cordingley
At issue in Idaho v. Cordingley (254) was whether Cordingley’s possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia was protected under the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA).255 Cordingley had founded the “Church of Cognitive Therapy (COCT), established specifically for the use of marijuana as a ‘sacrament,’”(256) and he argued that his religious exercise was substantially burdened by Idaho law.
The Idaho appellate court explained that the “legislative history of the FERPA makes it clear that in adopting the statute, the Idaho legislature intended to adopt the ‘compelling interest test’ contained in its federal counterpart, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which the United States Supreme Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores . . . was invalid as it applied to states.”(257) The plaintiff had to show that he was engaging in a religious exercise and that the challenged state law substantially burdened that exercise. (258)
At issue was not whether Cordingley’s beliefs were sincere or even whether the Idaho law substantially burdened the activity associated with those beliefs. (259) Instead, the issue was whether the beliefs at issue were “religious” or purposes of the Idaho statute when Cordingley had admitted that “the Church of Cognitive Therapy is not so much a religion as it is a companion to religion.” (260) As such, it provided a way for people to “become spiritual or enlightened, but it [did] not have a comprehensive belief system with the trappings of a religion.” (261)
When analyzing whether the burdened practices qualified as religious, the court cited to Ballard and Thomas, but also cited Yoder’s attempt to distinguish between the religious and the merely personal and philosophical. (262) The Idaho court denied that it was trying to be extremely restrictive with respect to what constituted a religion, instead suggesting that should there be “any doubt about whether a particular set of beliefs constitutes a religion, the court will err on the side of freedom and find the beliefs are a religion.” (263)
To determine whether the beliefs at issue constituted religious beliefs, the court used a multifactor test. “Under this test, to help determine whether a particular set of beliefs qualifies as ‘religious’ under the RFRA or its state equivalent, a court examines the extent to which a party’s asserted ‘religion’ (1) addresses ‘deeper and more imponderable questions’ of the meaning of life, man’s role in the universe, moral issues of right and wrong, and other ‘ultimate concerns’; (2) contains an ‘element of comprehensiveness’; and (3) the ‘formal, external, or surface signs that may be analogized to accepted religions.’” (264)
The court found that the church met the relevant criteria to some extent. (265) However, because some of the factors were not met and because “COCT is singularly focused on the use of marijuana to a degree that has consistently been found not to be indicative of statutorily recognized religious practice,” (266) the Idaho appellate court found that the practices at issue were not religious and thus did not qualify for enhanced protection under the Idaho statute.
Yet, it is difficult to reconcile this approach with the approach taken in Ballard, where the beliefs of the “I Am movement” (267) were not examined with respect to whether they incorporated “ultimate ideas” or constituted a “moral or ethical belief structure” or even whether the “comprehensiveness of beliefs” entitled the group to be designated as religious. The Ballard Court noted that “[r]eligious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others,” (268) and that the fact that certain experiences are “beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law.” (269) Further, a set of beliefs that is described by the adherents as a “companion to religion” (270) would seem to be religious even if not providing many desired metaphysical answers, precisely because it was to be understood in light of other beliefs or belief systems.
That said, it was fair for the Cordingley court to point out that the United States Supreme Court has not always espoused deference to the claim that particular views are religious. (271) The Yoder Court suggested that it is permissible to distinguish between the religious and the philosophical, (272) although the Court provided no guidance about how to perform that task beyond saying that Thoreau’s views were not religious. (273) The failure to say more was regrettable, if only because many of such analyses will be subject to one of the dangers mentioned by the Ballard Court—permitting the trier-off act to decide whether a particular set of beliefs is religious or, perhaps, sufficiently profound or comprehensive opens the door to a potentially unsympathetic trier-of-fact subjecting a set of avowedly religious beliefs to very critical examination. (274) While Yoder might have been trying to protect the diversity of religious belief,(275) it has been used to exclude belief systems from qualifying as religious.
STRASSER PDF
Law Review
State v. Cordingley Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 39518
Cordingley testified that cannabis is a "sacrament" and has been used in religious services for over 10,000 years. He and all members of his Church of Cognitive Therapy (COCT) carry it on their persons in containers clearly marked "sacrament" with the words, "[t]he sacrament for the Church of Cognitive Therapy, using the full exercise of religious belief. Not for sale ... ," and that when it is used in conjunction with prayer, 1 it aids and comforts those people in need. The central tenant of belief is that the sacramental use of cannabis leads to spiritual enlightenment and brings one closer to the creator of the universe, or god. The use of cannabis is for the same purpose of meditation and prayer, practices common in most religions. Minister Cordingley testified that the use of cannabis was "vital and mandatory" in his everyday practice of the Rastafarian is a testified that are as many as twelve million people on this planet that use cannabis as part of their everyday practice of religion.
The State of Idaho contends that the magistrate was correct in denying Cordingley protection under FERPA because his use of marijuana does not constitute the "exercise of religion." Respondent's Brief, p. 5. The State of Idaho contends that Cordingley's Church of Cognitive Therapy, COCT, is not really a church because it is non-denominational and includes beliefs of enlightenment, a term not commonly used in Christian religion.
The state argues: The magistrate court denied court Cordingley's motion to dismiss finding the COCT is a community with an emphasis on spirituality, rather than emphasis on any particular religious beliefs. The goal is enlightenment and can be had by Catholics Jews, and even Atheists. Ultimately the only connecting fiber among the various members is their use of marijuana to help in the pursuit of enlightenment. Respondent's Brief, pp. 7-8.
Cordingley acknowledges that COCT church utilizes the Bible as well as other texts as everyday tools to understand the path of enlightenment and the meaning of god, but rejects the State's narrow view of religion and his legitimate practice of Rastafari, a theocentric religion based upon the Bible. Cordingley also rejects the State's misguided attempt to discriminate against other religions seeking enlightenment 2 without the necessity of a theocentric god, i.e. Buddhism, but that is his not his personal belief or central to the arguments in this case.
Cordingley contends that the evidence overwhelmingly supports that his use of marijuana was "principally motivated" by his religious belief. State v. White, 152 Idaho 361, 271, P .3d at 1221.
Cordingley finally contends that there is no support for the State's contention that the marijuana possession is based upon a compelling governmental interest or reasonably tailored to protect his religious freedom.
State v. Cordingley Appellant's Reply Brief Dckt. 39518 PDF
Law Review
State of Idaho v Levon Cordingley/COCT Ministry/Church of Cognitive Therapy
In denying Cordingley's motion to dismiss, the magistrate first noted it was undisputed that Cordingley's beliefs were both sincerely held and substantially burdened by the applicable controlled substances statutes. The magistrate then analyzed whether Cordingley's beliefs are “religious” such that the FERPA is implicated, relying on a multi-factor test utilized by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475 to determine whether a particular set of beliefs is “religious” under the RFRA. The magistrate surmised:
As Cordingley explained, the COCT is a community within with an emphasis on spirituality, rather than an emphasis on any particular religious beliefs. The goal is to attain enlightenment. This enlightenment can be had by Catholics, Jews, and even atheists. The only connecting fiber among the various members is their use of marijuana to help them in this pursuit. Despite some of the trappings of religion, this is nothing more than a basic philosophical belief that such use will help with enlightenment.
This Court believes that more is required to establish religious beliefs that are protected under Idaho law. On intermediate appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate's denial of Cordingley's motion to dismiss, first indicating the magistrate did not err in utilizing Meyers as guidance into its inquiry of whether Cordingley's use of marijuana was “religious” in nature. The district court then affirmed the magistrate's finding that Cordingley had not carried his burden to show he was engaging in a “religious” practice: Cordingley acknowledged that the Church of Cognitive Therapy is not so much a religion as it is a companion to religion.
In reality, this church presents an ideology or philosophical belief as to how people can become spiritual or enlightened, but it does not have a comprehensive belief system with the trappings of a religion. There is no evidence that the church provides a belief system with answers to the problems and concerns that confront human beings or that it provides answers to questions about life, purpose, or death. The church does not promote a moral code or rely on any one set of teachings. Instead, the church provides a sacrament that is to be used as an accompaniment to other religious beliefs.
State of Idaho v Levon Cordingley/COCT Ministry/Church of Cognitive Therapy