The case of a church of pot testing religious freedom on the sincerely-held standard is absurd. Which says more about the standard than the church.
It was bound to happen. A pot church claiming a sincere religious belief. This is precisely the case we all imagined when Justice Samuel Alito penned the majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case.
But this isn’t just a case of pushing the limits or accepting all of our options. It’s about that very litmus test. And how incomprehensible it really is.
They Didn’t Find a Sincere Enough Pumpkin Patch
This week the state of Indiana won a case against the First Church of Cannabis in district court. The attorney general for Indiana called it a “pro-marijuana political crusade that turned into a legal stunt.”
Seriously, who could blame him? This is the kind of non-news story we would have laughed at a few years ago.
Except that Hobby Lobby opened the door. And the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act kicked it wide.
I’ve written a lot about this before, so I encourage you to go back and read about one of the central problems with the Hobby Lobby decision and RFRA: they both give a license to discriminate. And not only against minorities, but against other religious groups and people.
I’ve also written about how these laws promote a selfish and heretical form of religion and look nothing like my own sincerely-held belief.
But I’m afraid the deliciousness of this story might distract us from the point.
We don’t necessarily want a church of pot to win.
I’m not anti-pot. I have no problem with the First Church of Cannabis. And to tell you the truth, it’s way closer to a religious tradition I could legitimize than others out there. That’s really, really not the point.
I’m not looking for them to win or lose. If they appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, I don’t want them to win on the sincerely-held standard. Because that standard is utter nonsense.
The issue isn’t the pot.
The issue isn’t belief.
It’s that this standard of sincerely-held belief has not only made a mockery of the court, but left the very idea of religious identity in the sight of the law a privileged and spoiled brat.
One’s sincerely-held belief is functionally meaningless now under the law. Because there is literally no way to know whether or not a person is sincere.
The sincerely-held standard is a grift.
It’s a grift, an empty illusion offered like a treasure. Does a person actually believe it? How do we know? What’s demonstrable and provable? What’s the test?
It doesn’t actually matter!
The court could try to figure that out. Or it could wrestle with the impact. But it won’t. Because the court is never only interested in intent. It cares as much, if not more, about behavior.
The sincerely-held standard doesn’t do that because it’s a pretend answer. It just claims belief that’s “sincere” is itself a thing. And that belief can somehow trump other laws. But does it actually deal with the problem? Does it prove or disprove anything?
Of course not. There are no parameters or justifications. It’s a raincheck for a real decision. Because we all know why the Greens got to claim their sincere belief and others can’t. And it isn’t really the sincerity of belief.
But other people? Good luck.
- Muslims banned? Too bad, apparently.
- Pot a sacrament? Not when we’re trying to be “tough on crime” (cue the ‘70s cop show music).
- But rich people denying contraceptive care to thousands of employees? Don’t even bother asking WWJD, because that belief is sincere city!
This sincerely-held standard is a scam. But this isn’t the only place we see it.
Christians, Racists, and Corrupt Politicians
The thing about Alito’s opinion in Hobby Lobby is that it sounds a whole lot like other decisions before the court. A particular kind of case before the court.
The mind-reading kind.
Cases which have come before the high court in recent years involving racism have been treated as incomprehensible and impossible to adjudicate. I’m sorry, I just don’t know what to do! How can we deal with racism if we can’t read minds? they ask. As if racism is premeditated or only about what’s in the human heart.
As if the court itself weren’t tasked with dealing with the people who screw other people over. For whatever reason.
But this standard is offered, like the sincerely-held standard, to replace action with inaction. How can we know what’s in the human heart? Doesn’t really matter, since we can see it in the actions themselves.
And then there’s the case of Bob McDonald, the former Virginia governor, convicted of corruption. Again, they couldn’t peer into this heart or read his mind to see his intentions so the bribes he received must be gifts. So hard to tell the difference!
Even worse, they seem to have overturned his conviction, in part, because he was bad at delivering on the bribes. Like his incompetence got in the way of his corruption. Seriously.
This is an odd combination, don’t you think? These evangelical Christians alongside of racists and corrupt politicians.
It’s odd that we’d use the same standard to protect the religious freedom of one and the racism and corruption of others.Our method of defending the supposedly virtuous is the SCOTUS version of “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”
Strange to protect them all from prosecution. Especially when the court fails to protect other religious people, minorities, or the very public itself.
We need a different standard
I don’t actually want the First Church of Cannabis to win or lose because of a standard I think is dangerous and incomprehensible.
And I also don’t want us to only name the hypocrisy of applying the standard one way for Christians who put public safety at risk for a fringe belief about contraception or in another way by ignoring “sincere” belief in the sacramental character of marijuana.
Both are terrible choices. And the grift has been to convince us this is what we’re stuck with.
I don’t want us dependent on a Supreme Court’s ability to read the mind of a conservative Christian but not that of a racist or corrupt official. That’s a terrible legal standard and demonstrably unfair.
We need a standard which balances the public and personal. One which applies not just to owners, but employees, not just to Christians, but under-represented minorities, but most of all, one which protects all of us, especially the weakest. All people, not just the ones “on our side.” And regardless of how sincere they claim to be.