Transcendent Compounds - Hunger Strike for Religious and Spiritual Freedom - 2012

[Psylo]

x

Edited March 22, 2013 by Psylo

[ballzac]

So you would prefer to be charged with a drug offence rather than tell a judge that your consumption was on spiritual grounds? What an odd choice to make when facing a criminal record. Honesty to the establishment, in their adherence to the farcical war on drugs.

 

I honestly don't know what I would actually do in the event, but this is about public policies, not about the action of individuals. It's similar to my opposition to the death penalty. Despite the fact that there are things people could do to me, or my loved ones, to make me wish them dead, I don't think that we, as a society, should be putting policies that reflect this into place.

Some members will, however, guzzle Robitussin when they don't have a cough. Isn't that deceptive, and an insult to those with genuine cold & 'flu symptoms?

 

The difference is that the premise here is precisely that religious beliefs should be afforded great respect. If the premise is flawed, I don't think the cause should be supported. And if the premise is not flawed, then we ought to be be respectful to people's religious beliefs (as per the premise) and not exploit the freedoms based thereon, for our secular actions.

[CβL]

Hey Greg, I know we have our differences, but I think we are mostly on the same page (the very fact we can discuss the concepts we have is testament to that).

In light of some of the words in here, I realize that ultimately we probably would be better off if you succeeded, than if you didn't.

With that said, I wish you the best of luck. I hope you stay safe, don't receive any harm, and perhaps engage a few people to think wider (I think that this will be the greatest effect you have from this opportunity).

Kind regards,

-cbl/blunt

[Psylo]

x

Edited March 22, 2013 by Psylo

[goneski]

So you would prefer to be charged with a drug offence rather than tell a judge that your consumption was on spiritual grounds? What an odd choice to make when facing a criminal record. Honesty to the establishment, in their adherence to the farcical war on drugs.

 

But by saying your consumption was on spiritual grounds, you're also supporting the farcical war on drugs against those who refuse to admit to a spiritual/religious consumption of said substances.

This just serves to reinforce the privilege religious groups gain over others and sets society on a trajectory with two negatives -- the war on drugs is still happening, and those who are religious (or "spiritual" or whatever the hell) gain a special right.

Not to mention, the burden of proof is probably with the offender who will then have to prove use on spiritual grounds.

I don't know about anyone here, but I don't like the idea of lying in court to protect my arse.

Instead of sidestepping the issue and exploiting a legal loophole, I think it's much better to bring the absurdity of the situation to light and support equal rights for all.

Edited September 21, 2012 by SYNeR

[ballzac]

You've made a lot of good points, Psylo. I'm going to really think about this. But I still think there is a big difference between taking advantage of medical and religious loopholes. Claiming that you have a cough when you do not does not have any impact on the public perception of coughs, lol. By claiming to be religious, it gives credence to the notion that religious ideas, beliefs, and practices, should be given special treatment in our society. By saying that I should be given rights that others do not, by claiming to be religious, I would be reinforcing the fallacy that religion is of special importance, and this is problematic both within the context of the use of psychoactives, and in a broader context. There is no such problem with claiming to have a cough, because regardless of whether you think these chemicals should be restricted to people who are ill, there is no denying that being ill is a special circumstance which should be evaluated as a separate issue, and there is no wider context where people with coughs are campaigning for greater rights than those without coughs. You don't see people with coughs burning down embassies and killing people who make jokes about their cough simply because others, whether they have the same cough, a different cough, or no cough at all, are too afraid to point out that people with coughs don't have some special exemption from criticism, ridicule, and restriction of rights, that the rest of us do not have.

Religion is a special case that has a very significant impact on our society, and to validate the ridiculous notion that religious people deserve more rights and respect than the non-religious is, IMO, the wrong path.

[dionysus]

why is telling a court your use is spiritual so distinctly a lie? i may not believe in god, gods, or deities, but under the circumstances of a psychedelic session it is certainly not un-common for folk to 'meditate' on a stimuli (song etc) and come out the other end with a strange connection to that stimuli. even if that is just hearing a particular guitar riff that you like whilst 'tripping' then when hearing it again sober remembering in particular the time you heard that under the influence, and remember how it made you feel .that is spiritual. spirit > soul > psyche(delic). the very etymology implies spirituality...

[chilli]

Going by the way this has been handled overseas, even in the unlikely event the law was modified to allow for religious use, it will be for a specific religion and not just one you made up when you dropped LSD.

What I mean is, even in countries where laws like this have passed it has been for actual members of a recognized religion, so is that the kind of thing we are talking about, or just some kind of general idea of religious use? It seems like such wishful thinking that you would get off on a drug charge because you said 'well it was for spiritual purposes'.

I can see why members of the Native American church and Santo Daime are afforded these privileges from a political perspective, but I can't see how that principle is going to work with the Community of Infinite Colour.

[goneski]

But doofing is a religion, right?

They certainly do have that evangelical feel to them. Loud music, bright lights, joyous dancing, communal spirit..

Edited September 21, 2012 by SYNeR

[whitewind]

why is telling a court your use is spiritual so distinctly a lie? i may not believe in god, gods, or deities, but under the circumstances of a psychedelic session it is certainly not un-common for folk to 'meditate' on a stimuli (song etc) and come out the other end with a strange connection to that stimuli. even if that is just hearing a particular guitar riff that you like whilst 'tripping' then when hearing it again sober remembering in particular the time you heard that under the influence, and remember how it made you feel .that is spiritual. spirit > soul > psyche(delic). the very etymology implies spirituality...

 

There is a big difference between spirituality and religion. Especially when it comes to the Law.

[goneski]

why is telling a court your use is spiritual so distinctly a lie? i may not believe in god, gods, or deities, but under the circumstances of a psychedelic session it is certainly not un-common for folk to 'meditate' on a stimuli (song etc) and come out the other end with a strange connection to that stimuli. even if that is just hearing a particular guitar riff that you like whilst 'tripping' then when hearing it again sober remembering in particular the time you heard that under the influence, and remember how it made you feel .that is spiritual. spirit > soul > psyche(delic). the very etymology implies spirituality...

 

True -- and I've agreed previously that psychedelics can be used for spiritual experience regardless of your belief system. But, I don't like the chances of trying to convince a court that.

EDIT: I know a couple of Law students I could chase this up with, maybe -- unless someone has some further insight?

Edited September 21, 2012 by SYNeR

[whitewind]

I think that there has been an unfortunate tendency to get aggravated by Greg's discussions, but that's because the topic is cogent and very interesting for many people here. Ultimately most of the points made and argued for and against Greg's action are quite legitimate. I think Greg is upset that he hasn't received more moral support, but the reasons why are quite clear - there are a lot of people who would like to freely use psychedelics who are not religious, and it specifically excludes them from partaking unless they lie and pretend they are something they are not, which can be very difficult when you feel strongly about the subject. As Psylo said, many people have been badly damaged by religion and therefore will argue strongly against promoting it, even if it's in a good cause. I agree with supporting poor children in Africa, but if the money goes first towards building a mission, then a well, I'm going to speak out and look for alternative ways of providing water. Ultimately though, wells are being built so we should probably support the missionaries while we push for political change that allows everyone the ability to dig their own well.

Though I guess it depends on which you think is the worst evil;

Supporting religion or

Illegality of psychedelic use

Edited September 21, 2012 by whitewind

[dionysus]

There is a big difference between spirituality and religion. Especially when it comes to the Law.

 

sure, but gregs religion (which theoretically speaking is a legal entity, at least within Vic) is based only upon spiritual use of these compounds, the rest of the dogma is up to the individual within the establsihment. so, if you have a spiritual experience during a session can you not, without lying, claim to be active within the community of infininte colour? are we all not now providing discussion that is essentialy forming the basis for the foundations of such a community, hence not excluding any one of us? the only difference with gregs idea and standard religious models is that, ideally, we happily accept that other people have slightly different ideas whilst still being aware we are working toward a common goal, rather than renaming urselves catholocism, christianity, mormonism etc in a stupidly divisive manner (although, here we are dividing ourselves)

[santiago]

mr psylo, yes ill admit lazyness....shoot me. lesson learned i probably wont do it again and i generally dont...kicking myself for getting involved actually but what the heck im in the barrel now. ok im sceptical. thanks for post 1 paragraph 4........so dec 21 right, wouldnt greg and the posse be dead by then, i dont really get it?? is this a hunger strike with barley sugars??........i promise i will scour this thread tomoz for any evidence i have missed between post one and now, ill predict i dont find anything interesting although i liked chilli's triangle, that was pretty........generally i think greg is full of it and im hoping he proves me wrong which is why i want proof of this so called hunger. for what its worth then ill make my decision about him and a minority section of entheo bandits who in my opinion serve not alot of purpose except for self serving ego gloating and delusions of granduer.

[Torsten]

Going by the way this has been handled overseas, even in the unlikely event the law was modified to allow for religious use, it will be for a specific religion and not just one you made up when you dropped LSD.

What I mean is, even in countries where laws like this have passed it has been for actual members of a recognized religion, so is that the kind of thing we are talking about, or just some kind of general idea of religious use? It seems like such wishful thinking that you would get off on a drug charge because you said 'well it was for spiritual purposes'.

I can see why members of the Native American church and Santo Daime are afforded these privileges from a political perspective, but I can't see how that principle is going to work with the Community of Infinite Colour.

 

You are perfectly correct that overseas these rights have only been granted to certain religions. However, while the UdV spent a million or more on their case, the SD and any other such groups will spend only a fraction of this because all the legal arguments have previously been made and are now binding on the courts. One might think that the US decisions have little impact elsewhere, but that is not the case for two reasons. First is that it becomes difficult for the USA to pressure other countries into disallowing such rights when they had to allow them there. Second is that even though there is no binding precedent, australian law does actually look to the UK primarily and then the USA for legal interpretation when there is new ground being covered here. The UdV application is exactly such new ground.

In the USA small spiritual groups will not benefit much from the legal changes because there the law is about religions and these are clearly defined. In australia however there is no such definition. We do not have a minimum number of members required to make a religion. We also have no special register for religions. This is where Greg's lengthy legal enquiry gives him the edge on almost anyone participating in this discussion. In australia any association that has certain spiritual components in its charter or constitution can call itself a religion and is afforded the same rights under the law. So while there is certainly a human perception barrier to accepting small groups as religions here [which may influence the decisions at the lower court levels], when it comes to the higher courts these small groups have to be afforded the same rights and protections. This is why forming a 'religion' the way greg has done is absolutely essential if you want to go down this path.

There are other reasons too why the registered religion is important. It will only be a matter of time till the UdV or SD will take aya to court in australia. If the UdV wins here the way it has in the USA and other countries then ANY religious group that has aya as a sacrament at the time will pretty much automatically be afforded the same rights. If you're not incorporated as an association or company at the time then you will not be included in those rights.

I think the discussion on what individuals would do to get out of a drug charge has little to do with this topic. I think using religion as an excuse just to get yourself out of trouble is a bit pathetic if it is not true. However using religion as the thin edge of the wedge to change the law [or its interpretation] is fair game in my opinion.

[goneski]

I don't know how you can be so hopeful though and call religion a thin edge of the wedge.. IMO, it's just reverting us to the dark ages

and completely ignores secularism. Shit, we can't even get equal rights for same sex couples.

Giving the religious special rights and protecting religious sensibilities has gone on for centuries now with no end in sight. What makes you so sure this will end up benefiting everyone

and not a single group?

And what users would have to do to get out of a drug charge is very much relevant, as it helps to highlight the stupidity of the legal system in regards to religion, if anything.

It also raises questions of how relevant these laws are and to what extent they are enforced and how a court of law would use discretion within individual cases.

EDIT: does this even have any scope outside of Victorian law? Another aspect to consider.

Edited September 22, 2012 by SYNeR

[Bretloth]

Besides the mental masterbation I like to look at the facts. Greg starts off supposedly repressenting some Near Death Experience experiment, which only ever included him and never got past the stage of I think this will be a good idea. Then we get the cult, sorry community of infinite colour which greg wants to lead and promotes himself as the repressentitive of, which only includes himself and never got past the I think this will be a good idea stage. Then we get the hunger strike that didn't happen, and again another one now I also really doubt will actually happen. So, you will forgive me if I do not believe a fucking word of it. But I'm sure that won't stop greg promoting himself shamelessly...

[ballzac]

Interesting quote from Greg's website:

Why this Website? Why discuss Transcendent Compounds?

...

The answer in one word is simply: Truth!

I am sick of pretending to be someone I am not.

I am sick of having to hide my religious beliefs and practice with lies and deception

I am tired of the mindless, unthinking ignorance demonstrated by some who misrepresent and attack my beliefs.

 

...and interesting that in support of Greg's cause, many are suggesting to 'bend' the truth, for the non-religious to pretend to be people we are not, and to hide our religious beliefs (or lack thereof) with lies and deception.

Also interesting how Greg has managed to demonstrate ignorance and misrepresent and attack my beliefs. I'll leave off the adjectives from that appropriation of his statement, but I think you get the picture

I'm not going to speculate on whether Greg is actually going to go through with this. Apart from those who are planning on actively supporting him, it makes no difference at this stage. But I do wonder if there is going to be any formal monitoring of his eating habits during this period to demonstrate that the protest is actually taking place as claimed, not so much for the scrutiny of those among us who are skeptical, but for the media and Government to be convinced that he is serious.

[Torsten]

I don't know how you can be so hopeful though and call religion a thin edge of the wedge..

Giving the religious special rights and protecting religious sensibilities has gone on for centuries now with no end in sight. What makes you so sure this will end up benefiting everyone

and not a single group?

And what users would have to do to get out of a drug charge is very much relevant, as it helps to highlight the stupidity of the legal system in regards to religion, if anything.

It also raises questions of how relevant these laws are and to what extent they are enforced and how a court of law would use discretion within individual cases.

EDIT: does this even have any scope outside of Victorian law? Another aspect to consider.

 

* it's the thin edge of he wedge because that is how it has worked in other countries. Once you ahve a chink in the armour of "all drug are bad m'kay" it is possible to use the precedents to erode the laws further. Pot laws did it in holland and switzerland. Synth drugs did it in portugal. The increasing chinks did it to the european union where now drug penalties are not allowed to be more damaging than the harm from the drug itself [hence no more jail for simple possession]. In the USA the medical pot wedge has now brought the pot legalisation within reach.

* in other countries the changes based on religion will only benefit the original religious group and then any other bona fide religious group that can ride on the coat tails. In australia the situaiton is different. I won't explain it again because I did so in detail in my last post. But basically a right given to one religious group will need to be afforded to any other religious group, where a religious group can be as small as 5 members [the minimum for an incorporated association]. I think the higher courts will then have difficulty in not giving the same right to individuals because the religious rights in australia do not actually require membership of a religion. So essentially the who religion membership is only to overcome perceptions.

* what users do to get off a d rugs charge is not relevant in this discussion because it is the application of the law rather than the interpretation of it. if you get off on a charge because of religious claims then this does not bind the next magistrate to do the same, ie nothing has been won for anyone but you. Having a religious claim accepted by a higher court will be binding on the lower courts and hence benefits everyone. getting yourself off is selfish and may harm the cause while getting a higher court ruling is the opposite.

* ideally this should all play out in the federal arena, but to do that you would need to do it in canberra or NT I think. However, just as the Vics have copied the charter from the feds the interpretation will also look beyond state boundaries. It is not binding, but the judiciary does not like setting up contradictions, regardless of boundaries. So you would expect similar laws to be interpreted similarly in different jurisdictions and indeed this can be argued when it does move into a different jurisdiction. I think greg found the federal situation too expensive and daunting. working it at state level will be easier.

[Torsten]

Bretloth - I think it was pretty obvious the NDE thing was never going to happen. greg was naive and new to the scene then, and while NDEs are fascinating there is little we can do 'safely' to eplore them. Also, i think after spending time with some ketamine fiends he realised that he had a lot of catching up to do ;)

There is a fine line between being 'out there for the cause' and being labelled as self promoting. Greg doesn't sell anything and doesn't try to benefit in any way from what he does, so why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Maybe one more time? You may well be right, but just think how nasty your statement makes you look if he is indeed going to proceed with it ;)

[Seldom]

Torsten 2 questions i would ask of you, the acknowledged atheist pushing the religious approach:

1)why is religion a preferable vehicle than a scientifically based approach? (my opinion is that it isn't.)

2) how many others are going to take the approach you do, i.e supporting a religion which you don't believe? (my opinion is that approaching the issue this way will only result in a parody of what a movement for religious freedom should comprise).

[whitewind]

sure, but gregs religion (which theoretically speaking is a legal entity, at least within Vic) is based only upon spiritual use of these compounds, the rest of the dogma is up to the individual within the establsihment. so, if you have a spiritual experience during a session can you not, without lying, claim to be active within the community of infininte colour? are we all not now providing discussion that is essentialy forming the basis for the foundations of such a community, hence not excluding any one of us? the only difference with gregs idea and standard religious models is that, ideally, we happily accept that other people have slightly different ideas whilst still being aware we are working toward a common goal, rather than renaming urselves catholocism, christianity, mormonism etc in a stupidly divisive manner (although, here we are dividing ourselves)

 

Do not know the answer to this. Greg, can we assume that this is your intention, to include everyone in the psychedelic community, atheist or not, and must we formalise our position within the group so that we can take advantage of your efforts to prove the State Government is behaving illegally in preventing religious people from taking psychedelic substances? I have decided to support your fight with the Vic state government, as I think your intentions are good and you have Torsten's backing (which means something to me - I have faith in his judgement). I do have some reservations regarding religion and the whole premise of "God" but I will put those on one side for now.

One of the things you could do is provide us with a "template letter" to work with in our submission to the Vic government. Many people are hesitant to write because of the difficulty in making themselves coherent. Most pressure groups do this as a matter of course, especially with online petitions. You basically add your details to the bottom of the letter, make any amendments (I usually change the first and last paragraphs, and add anything else I feel is relevent) and then email it off. Written submissions, even emails, are very effective, especially when there are a lot of them asking for a specific response.

I think we should all support Greg; if it works, then anyone who has doubts about the efficacy of lobbying the government intensively may have increased hope of change, and more will to engender it. If it doesn't, we haven't lost much apart from some time.

[ballzac]

it's the thin edge of he wedge because that is how it has worked in other countries.

The wedge strategy is also the name of the method used by the Discovery Institute to try to get religious myths taught as fact in science classes in the US. The thin edge of the wedge was a relabelling of creationism to "intelligent design theory" and the claim that it is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion. The thick edge was, of course, a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the creation of Adam and Eve by God. They had some success in convincing school boards that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory and should be taught in the classroom, until one particular school board was sued by the parents of some of the children. The link between ID and creationism was proved in a court of law, which set a precedent that made any further attempts at introducing creationism very difficult.

Wedge-type strategies are inherently dishonest. I appreciate that in this case it is less so, because many people will support action like this based on their belief that the thin end of the wedge is a legitimate and valuable end in and of itself. But if we are to support an action like this because the thick end of the wedge is our ultimate aim, which I believe is the motive for many, then that is a dishonest approach. It may be defensible to use a dishonest approach to combat injustices, but I would very much question how effective it will be.

For the creationists, it wasn't successful at all. Once their dishonesty was exposed in court, they were pretty much done for. That only left public perception, which has been changing gradually over the past few years. Creationists began using youtube to try to spread their ideas, and initially the ratings on their videos reflected the views of the general public in the US. The fight was picked up by rationalists, who could easily expose the deceptive tactics of creationists using the youtube format, and had no need for dishonesty themselves. The success of this strategy can be seen very clearly simply by looking at the huge change in ratings for videos on creationism or the debunking thereof. While this hasn't yet had much impact on the wider community in the US yet, I think it is inevitable that it will trickle down in this age of the internet and online media.

For me, I think honesty is always the best approach because if you remain honest then there is nothing to be called out on. The war on drugs is detrimental, regardless of where on the spectrum of rights and utilitarianism your ethics lie. This means that accurate, scientific facts, and the destruction of misconceptions about drugs and those that use them, are the best weapons against such ideologies. Some really good points have been made in this thread that have led me to think deeply about this topic, but I don't think I'll ever be convinced to support a cause I disagree with on principle in the hope that it will pave the way for changes in policy that I do agree with.

[ballzac]

Do not know the answer to this. Greg, can we assume that this is your intention, to include everyone in the psychedelic community, atheist or not, and must we formalise our position within the group so that we can take advantage of your efforts to prove the State Government is behaving illegally in preventing religious people from taking psychedelic substances?

 

I'm not sure if this is why Greg has been less than forthcoming on this aspect, but it may not be in the best interests of his cause if he stated that this was the case.

[Torsten]

1)why is religion a preferable vehicle than a scientifically based approach?

It isn't. I work on both strategies, with far more emphasis on the latter. The difference is that scientific approach has to go through the legislative process [which means overcoming resistance in parliament] while the religious approach goes via the judiciary and hence the existing laws. ie the latter does not try to make new laws, it just gets precedents set which are new interpretations of existing laws. A judge is far less answerable to public opinion and doesn't worry too much about his constituency, whether he will be reelected, and how radical policy will affect his pension. Politicians have shown us time and again that they are happy to ignore scientific evidence even if it is undisputed, if it means taking a risk on the electorate.

2) how many others are going to take the approach you do, i.e supporting a religion which you don't believe? (my opinion is that approaching the issue this way will only result in a parody of what a movement for religious freedom should comprise).

The only successes for freedoms to use hallucinogen [except pot] in the west have been achived via the religious approach, with the notable exception of those countries that have accepted that the drug war is lost and have gone to a different model [but lets not forget that this only applies to personal quantities, ie you can't buy aya or shrooms legally in portugal either] . Lets keep this foremost in our minds when weighing up the two options. The main drivers are certainly the true religions such as UdV and SD and until recently my support was just behind them. But I see no reason why greg's approach should not be tried. To me it makes no difference whether I support a real religion I don't believe in or a fake religion I don't believe in. In fact, greg's religion seems far more palatable to me than UdV and SD as it doesn't not contain christianity. You are perfectly correct that it turns the whole thing into a parody. The same way that the claimed separation of church and state is a parody, that the parliamentary policy stating all laws need to be in line with current scientific knowledge is a parody, and how the representation by the authorities that they have any impact on the drug trade is also a parody. Everything surrounding this issue is a parody, so why shouldn't we have our own? ;)

Ballzac - the wedge has worked elsewhere in this regard. It may not always work, but as I really don't care about religions I also don't care if it doesn't work in this case. I personally and this community have nothing to lose, but plenty to gain. And the religious proponents [wether true or fake] are happy for the support.