Religion

[Finshaggy]

Alright so your proposed defense is that you use marijuana as required by the spiritual Rigveda text that is related to the Hindu religion? Is that right?

And that without it, I would not have been able to withstand what I did. And would not be who I am. It is truly a light, a way, a father, and a god to me. As stated in the religious text, it is our earthly link to Shiva. The good father, the god of animals and dance, the creator, destroyer, and preserver.

 

[Finshaggy]

Shiva sent the Marijuana plant to Earth as IT'S reward. We are denying it a GOD GIVEN RIGHT.

 

[Finshaggy]

and trust me your plants dont appreciate your love of them

Then why do they come out so pretty and get me so high, even with such shitty (under $100 for 2 grows) growing conditions and being harvested early all the time?

 

[RainbowBrite86]

OK i'm still looking at the Ballard case but the Lemon case isn't applicable because it's subjective. They did have a secular purpose and according to them it had nothing to do with your religious beliefs. If you're going to charge that their main purpose was to interrupt your religious practices then you'll have to be prepared to prove intent. The ESA case is a ruling on tax exemptions for churches, not applicable to this case. McDaniel, already said was conjecture. The YFZ case is regarding CPS and it's right to remove children without proper cause. CPS could have come in and inspected the living conditions of the children without removing them, and instead they chose to immediately remove them. It won't be applicable to your case either.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Then why do they come out so pretty and get me so high, even with such shitty (under $100 for 2 grows) growing conditions and being harvested early all the time?

View attachment 2166643View attachment 2166644View attachment 2166645

that is some sorry looking bud . .. . . and shiva would not appreciate your disrespect of the plant . . .. cfls . . for shame

 

[Finshaggy]

OK i'm still looking at the Ballard case but the Lemon case isn't applicable because it's subjective. They did have a secular purpose and according to them it had nothing to do with your religious beliefs. If you're going to charge that their main purpose was to interrupt your religious practices then you'll have to be prepared to prove intent.

Their intent was to remove me from any place where I could freely practice my religion, to break into my home, and to steal my sacrament. It's applicable

 

[Finshaggy]

The ESA case is a ruling on tax exemptions for churches, not applicable to this case.

There's something in there or I wouldn't have put it.

 

[Finshaggy]

The YFZ case is regarding CPS and it's right to remove children without proper cause. CPS could have come in and inspected the living conditions of the children without removing them, and instead they chose to immediately remove them. It won't be applicable to your case either.

No, the YFZ case is regarding any GOVERNMENT entity illegally searching RELIGIOUS PEOPLES for acting strangely. EVEN when it comes to kids.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

OK i'm still looking at the Ballard case but the Lemon case isn't applicable because it's subjective. They did have a secular purpose and according to them it had nothing to do with your religious beliefs. If you're going to charge that their main purpose was to interrupt your religious practices then you'll have to be prepared to prove intent. The ESA case is a ruling on tax exemptions for churches, not applicable to this case. McDaniel, already said was conjecture. The YFZ case is regarding CPS and it's right to remove children without proper cause. CPS could have come in and inspected the living conditions of the children without removing them, and instead they chose to immediately remove them. It won't be applicable to your case either.

none of your reason will help shaggy he is delusional . . . . . . . he actaully thinks his growing skills shows respect for the plant that is medicine to most of us smokers . .. . . . the spear point of an agenda to try and not take responsibility for his actions

people like fin are why closed minded people think stoners are retards. . . . . .

 

[Finshaggy]

none of your reason will help shaggy he is delusional . . . . . . . he actaully thinks his growing skills shows respect for the plant that is medicine to most of us smokers . .. . . . the spear point of an agenda to try and not take responsibility for his actions

people like fin are why closed minded people think stoners are retards. . . . . .

Yeah, but not the guy talking shit repeatedly, who can hardly put any detail into a post. He's bringing us forward in STRIDES right?

 

[RainbowBrite86]

OK so in the Ballard case, it's an appeal of the conviction of two religious leaders for collecting donations from people based solely on religious experiences they claimed to have had. Someone alleged that they hadn't actually had these religious experiences, and were committing fraud. The judge ruled that whether or not they believed these religious practices had actually happened could not be put to the jury for question, because then every religion would be vulnerable to the same. But the prosecutor isn't going to say your religious experiences never happened. The prosecutor is going to say you were using an illegal substance.

OK take me through the whole thing. The police show up at your house. Go from there.

 

[RainbowBrite86]

Their intent was to remove me from any place where I could freely practice my religion, to break into my home, and to steal my sacrament. It's applicable

Shaggy. You believe that was their intent. They don't. If you're going to allege that that was their intent, you have to be able to prove it. Otherwise, it's just your word against theirs.

 

[Finshaggy]

The prosecutor is going to say you were using an illegal substance.

1. The case may have specified experience, but the actual quote from the judge who made the ruling in words did not. He just said the "[They] cannot be held to...something" I don't remember the exact words, but it just said "About their faith" not "About experiences regarding their faith."

2. I WILL tell them everything, this is just evidence that I don't have to

 

[RainbowBrite86]

There's something in there or I wouldn't have put it.

The ruling was that churches do not have to name a supreme being to receive tax exemption status as a church.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Yeah, but not the guy talking shit repeatedly, who can hardly put any detail into a post. He's bringing us forward in STRIDES right?

your a con man . . . .no one in any court will fall for your story . . . .. .

and its called being concise vs vague and misleading

 

[Finshaggy]

Shaggy. You believe that was their intent. They don't. If you're going to allege that that was their intent, you have to be able to prove it. Otherwise, it's just your word against theirs.

You cannot deny that they intended to ARREST (take me somewhere) for the assumption that I was using/possessing my sacrament.
You cannot deny that they DID BREAK INTO the house to STEAL the sacrament, that was THE MAIN OBJECTIVE
You cannot deny that it DID hurt the continuation of my religious practices

Whether or not they call it a sacrament, I do.

 

[Finshaggy]

The ruling was that churches do not have to name a supreme being to receive tax exemption status as a church.

Then that's it. Just read the whole thing instead of paraphrasing in your mind. I bet the wording was in our favor.

Wording is EVERYTHING in law.

 

[RainbowBrite86]

1. The case may have specified experience, but the actual quote from the judge who made the ruling in words did not. He just said the "[They] cannot be held to...something" I don't remember the exact words, but it just said "About their faith" not "About experiences regarding their faith."

2. I WILL tell them everything, this is just evidence that I don't have to

OK but this case, this ruling, is just an overturn of conviction and granting a new trial based on the fact that it shouldn't be up to a jury whether or not someone is acting in good faith according to their religion. In other words, you can't prove whether or not someone actually believes they talk to Shiva. Or Buddah. Or Satan. The judge said "The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position." All this says is that no one can ask the jury to determine whether or not you actually believe what you're saying about your religion.

 

[RainbowBrite86]

Then that's it. Just read the whole thing instead of paraphrasing in your mind. I bet the wording was in our favor.

Wording is EVERYTHING in law.

Shaggy, that has nothing to do with your case at all. It's a tax exemption status case. That church can still be tax exempt and now, because of that case, so can other churches who choose not to name a specific deity.

 

[Finshaggy]

OK but this case, this ruling, is just an overturn of conviction and granting a new trial based on the fact that it shouldn't be up to a jury whether or not someone is acting in good faith according to their religion. In other words, you can't prove whether or not someone actually believes they talk to Shiva. Or Buddah. Or Satan. The judge said "The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position." All this says is that no one can ask the jury to determine whether or not you actually believe what you're saying about your religion.

Ok then where is our dispute?

That doesn't go against anything I said. They can't ask me SHIT about my religion with weed. I will tell them things, and they can ask things on the border of it.

But they cannot truly ask the only things they can hope to fight against.