The American Indian Religious Freedom Act is racist and therefore unconstitutional
- Thread starter Diode-Man
- Start date
Actually, only those specific tribes can. It's therefor, discriminating against other tribes, too.
Yes, JDawg's got a point.What makes you so interested? I am guessing you are not an American Indian (to adopt your term) or you wouldn't think this is an issue.
I think it's a just law. It recognizes that peyote consumption is sacramental for some tribes, and it discludes abuse of a narcotic by those who are just after a new thrill. Yes, it's a bit racist, but in a good way.
I would only wonder if all American Indians can use peyote, or just certain tribes to whom it has religious significance. It wouldn't do, I think, for say, some Mohicans from the northeast to be abusing peyote.
I would also wonder if non-Indians could join the peyote-consuming church, and then legally ingest it. I can guess that the church elders are wary of such people though.
Last edited:
In theory, sure. But it isn't easy.
It used to be easier - tribal membership was (and is) not based on race in any Red tribe I know of, and when big money was not at stake it was rare but possible for white guys (and gals, on occasion) to join tribes - or be joined to tribes, via capture and incorporation (especially as children). Their descendents today are Indians - whiteskinned ones, sometimes, although marriage and other breeding was normally within the tribe and the whiteskin genetics tend to be recessive.
I wonder if you started up your own religion and have the use of certain herbs :m: made up as a part of the way the religions ceremony's are done. :shrug: I've seen many new types of religions, some are cults I'd think, that come and go so I'm curious if anyone knows if this might be possible to do?
You failed to notice the restriction you listed in your original post. They may only use it in RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. They cannot just run around strung out in peyote houses giving bj's for their next hit. From what few cultural observations I have been able to make, it seems to me the religious activities and uses of intoxicating substances as part of those are not done all willy nilly. They are very controlled situations which require tribal elders to be involved and justification for the rituals. Little native children do not just run up to mommy and say "hey i wanna pray give me the stuff!!"
The US allows other religious exceptions to be made for other groups as well. such as the Amish. They are exempt from registering for the draft, not required to attend school past the 8th grade and are exempt from many taxes and social security if i am not mistaken.
I think what both exceptions achieve is the freedom of religion for these groups as well. They have rituals or lifestyles that are heavily dictated by their faith and are very different from the majority of religions represented by our population. while our base laws do not infringe on most religions, they do infringe on a few and for those few exceptions have to be made in order to guarantee their right to freely practice their religion. keeping in mind that their religions are were established way before North America was ever colonized. Creating your own personal religion to justify using illicit drugs is not something the government will tolerate.
It's not unconstitutional any more than permission to distribute wine in a church without a liquor license is unconstitutional.
The law protects their 1st Amendment right of freedom of religion.
The law isn't racist, because it reverses the racist practice of interfering in their religious practices which are differentiated from the wine-dispensing practices only by racial boundaries.
It would not be presumed evil since the purpose of religion is to uphold sacred principles.
Anyone else who wants to use peyote (or ayahuasca, the other Supreme Court case) for religious pupose, who is not protected under this law, has the burden of proving that it is a religious, not recreational, purpose. In the case of one Mexican tribe I am familiar with, they only did this once a year. So it's clear they aren't recreating.
Peyote, like pot and other natural substances, seems like an unnecessary drug to regulate. People who lead busy productive lives wouldn't have a lot of opportunity to waste time tripping on peyote. Most of the rest of the folks are too poor to afford it but if it were legalized they could get it cheaply or for free. It might be a better alternative than alcohol for addicts anyway, and unlike pot, it's probably not as likely to put them in a chronic lethargic state. It does have a slight toxicity issue, but prohibition probably just exacerbates that problem. It also has curative medicinal properties. In any case I think the drug laws do more damage than good by creating a huge criminal network just as Prohibition created the Mafia. I would vote to legalize all drugs, but I know I'm in the minority. The US is dominated by voters who are afraid of legalization. I think they are largely irrational, and in many cases, just mean and stupid. But so are they in many other areas of public policy. I'm not a drug user so it doesn't affect me personally, but I resent the presence of a father-figure ruling over its children as if they are not able to think for themselves, especially when imposed by a thoughtless voting public.
Explain again...why is it constitutionally invalid if that certain substance is part of their religious practice? You want to get :m: on some peyote? But are too “American" to legally use the drug? (Puff, Puff pass)
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The relationship between the U.S. government and the Native American tribes has always been bizarre, even when we finally stopped shooting them. They get to make their own laws on their reservations, but then we send our own cops in if our own people break our laws on their turf. In some cases, not consistently. And then they ask for help from our law enforcement because most of the tribal governments are too poor to govern effectively.
The wealthiest Native American nation is the Cherokee, and they don't even live on a reservation. They have thriving businesses all over Oklahoma. The largest reservation is the Navajo, and they manage to govern it fairly well. AFAIK neither the Cherokee nor the Navajo have any special dispensation for drugs in religious rituals.
The wealthiest Native American nation is the Cherokee, and they don't even live on a reservation. They have thriving businesses all over Oklahoma. The largest reservation is the Navajo, and they manage to govern it fairly well. AFAIK neither the Cherokee nor the Navajo have any special dispensation for drugs in religious rituals.
Let's not forget the Lakota.
If by 'bizarre,' you mean dishonorable and "screw 'em over every chance you get because no one cares," then yes- quite bizarre.
I think the feds are on to that scam, and there's even a new gov't agency the ATF (All Those Fuckers) whose job it is to monitor for rogues trying to get fools to follow them.
Anyway, if you could somehow get passed all that and start your own 'legitimate' cult, you'd have so much dough that you could easily afford all the conventional illegal drugs you want plus the kickback to your local police force. You wouldn't have to involve drugs as a sacrament in you new cult.
Many do. There are a couple of Cherokee reservations - the one most familiar to me is next to the Great Smoky Mountains national park.
IIRC the wealthiest tribe per capita is a family group remnant of a tribe I can't recall, a couple of dozen people out west, who have a large casino on their little reservation.
The biggest difference casinos made to my local tribes was to finance access to good lawyers. The tribes often get something approaching a fair deal in court, now, and that's made some waves, ya yoo-betcha.
They don't have dispensation for drugs, but they do for their own religious requirements and traditions - eagle feathers, for example.
I've never smoked eagle feathers... nice buzz? :m:
You are presumably referring to the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, whom are routinely known as "the richest tribe," etc.
Except that Connecticut isn't in any definition of "out west" that I'm familiar with. If building a big casino were enough to make a small tribe rich, then places like New Mexico would be hotbeds of tribal riches. But it turns out that you need a third ingredient, which is a large, proximate population of wealthy Americans. So the Pequots out east are able to cash in on their strategic location between NYC and Boston, and a few tribes in CA are able to rake in big bucks, and most of the tribes in between get what amounts to a small upgrade to their former bingo-parlor businesses. More than a few tribes get wiped out by the cost of financing over-ambitious casino developments that end up unable to attract sufficient customers. Still, I'll take it over the seeming alternative...
The connections to big property developers, and their politician buddies, also goes a long way.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It does strike me as odd that a secular nation can define what a religion is so those religious people can have special rights.
If "those religious people" were not, in fact, a distinct nation, you'd have a better point.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
What does that mean? Can I call my church a nation and have the same rights?
If you can get the US government to recognize you as such, and sign a treaty granting you want you want, then yes.
But you don't really think that the way the tribes ended up with the status they have now is by simple "calling their church a nation" do you? There is the niggling point that they were, mostly, extant nations already here before the USA existed, which makes a difference in these kinds of arrangements.