Status Quo

Since I have a class every other week I was not at Baycrest last Friday. But I am already looking forward to the Oleg Shabbat service this coming Friday. I’m looking forward to being more efficient as a volunteer, because helping newcomers integrate does take away some of the efficiency from any program. I’m also looking forward to knowing the clients by name. I feel like when I’ve done that I will have done 50% of what is necessary. What’s more, on Friday I spoke briefly with Aviva Babins, Museum and Project Co-ordinator. She informed me that I will be starting in the museum in March although I was hoping to start this week.

Because I have no real Baycrest related updates I wanted to relay my thoughts on a current court case somewhat related to this week’s readings. The case surrounds a church called The Church of the Universe and a judge’s decision to reject their notion that pot smoking is a religious right. The congregants were caught a couple of years ago, as well as recently, selling marijuana to undercover police officers. The judge made his decision based on the implication that allowing the church to be exempt from the province’s marijuana laws would in effect nullify those same laws. I agree with the ruling based on personal ethics but I only somewhat agree with the logic because it agrees with my personal ethics. I’m not familiar with Canadian disestablishment law but if it in anyway reflects the American first amendment then issues such as defining the establishment of religion applies. I believe that posterity and how far any new religion differs from traditions of older religions should be a major factor in determining authentic religious practice in jurisprudence. In the Case of The Church of the Universe its founders claimed that marijuana is God’s Tree of Life and smoking and wearing the leaves is a necessary act of worship. Assuming that the Church is speaking of the Biblical tree of life then it is obvious that their act of worship differs greatly from the emphasis of the Christian religion and scripture. Usually, new religions that differ greatly from the older religions are afforded the title “cult”. But in this case the Church does not appear to have a charismatic element or even psychological brainwashing element. I don’t purpose to deny that the Church has any claims under the banner of religion. In fact I think the Church is a suitable example of how religion can influence the very heart of the state-through the laws that govern it. Even though they didn’t gain a ruling in their favour I can think of several objections to the judge’s logic (e.g. the underlying assumption that marijuana should be illegal as opposed to alcohol with similar if not worse effects on the body). And history has attested that when on a large scale people begin to question the status quo, the way things are become the way things were.