Should there be freedom of religion?
The courts have been pretty clear on this: your right to your freedom of religion ends where the rest of the laws begin. That means no child abuse and no human sacrifices. That leaves some gray area, which you’re obviously alluding to with the bit about hallucinogenic drugs. The Supreme Court decided last year that peyote, used sincerely as part of a religious practice, is a valid form of religious expression. In a sense that’s less a test of freedom of religion and more of a check on the government’s ability to ban drugs. I don’t think that anybody would challenge the government’s right to ban murder or child abuse, but in seeking to eliminate drugs the government is on shakier ground. There are legal drugs and illegal drugs and since the distinction between two is practically random, the government has a hard time demonstrating compelling interest. So the court isn’t going to hold up your meth-smokin
