Should ayahuasca rituals in direct relation to practising religion be ommitted from lawful prosecution?

Question

I live In australia.

Great work PLUTONIC......I like your efforts, it is much appreciated. The U.D.V (ude)is a south american group of Christian faith who partake in ayahuasca ritual in congregations of up to 400 people every two weeks. Members of their sermon can speak if they desire but many choose to listen as they take their "spiritual journey" provided by the DMT substance in the tea(also produced in the pineal glande in your brain, released after about 48 days in the womb and just prior to death) a natural substance not chemically extracted, simply boiled and brewed correctly.

I am investigating the likelyhood of such action here in australia. Short of that I'd like to find RYANS MUM and give her a wedgy!!!

http://www.udv.org.br/english/index.html

Here's a link regarding a particular group, successful with preventing one of the most sacred human rituals.

http://www.udv.org.br/english/index.html

Here's a link regarding a particular group, successful with preventing one of the most sacred human rituals being criminalised.

There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that people can be harmed under this type of controlled environment that would warrant prosecution however Im sure if caught here you might be subject to some very serious scrutiny.

So suggestions on what part of the law would best used to defend such ritual and action will also be helpful. thanks

Answer 1

Religion must not be curtailed unless it is against public policy.

Answer 2

I can give you the Lockean prospective on religious toleration. I do believe that Locke was spot on, and his teaching should almost always be put forward.

Locke argued that each person has a natural right to decide their worship within their souls. In essence, each person was free to choose in what way they were to follow/serve/praise God.

But beyond this sort of toleration, Locke saw no natural right to religious activities. If the government came to a reasonable conclusion to why a religous practice should not be performed, then the government could legally outlaw that practice.

The example a wise old man gave me was this -

Say that a religion sacrificed cattle as part of their religious ceremonies. Sounds fine, right? Well, what if there was a shortage of cattle for food at the same time? Could the government stop that religious practice for the sake of feeding more people?

Locke's answer is an undeniable yes. The government can stop a religious practice/ceremony for the sake of the commonwealth. Toleration, for Locke, only meant that in the heart of each person, they are free to worship. They are not completely free to practice as the please.

Now, this may sound very bleak. There is a silver lining though.

Locke also understood that while religions have no right to practice their faith, any government can easily allow religious practices. Allowing the practice is not a right, but a preference given by the government.

The same old man gave me this example -

During the revolutionary war, George Washington allowed the Omish not to be drafted into the army. The Omish are pacifists by faith. Washington very explicitedly stated they had no natural right to not serve in the army, but the goverment would grant them that priviledge.

If you would like more information on Locke's teaching, please see Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration -

http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

Finally, to answer your question - I think it would decide on the prudence of your government. If the practice is safe and does not hurt your regime, then it should be allowed. If not, then I find it hard to believe that it should be allowed.

Answer 3

No. Someone should not be able to hide behind their religion in order to avoid prosecution. If something is illegal they should go to jail for it not matter what.