I think you're confusing my point with one of the others from the Lycaeum. I don't care which substances your temple condones or rejects, my problem is with our only being allowed the basic human right to do with our bodies what we will if that right is included within a religion rather that it being our birthright whether we are athiest, agnostic, or what have you.
Laws against sodomy weren't dropped because of a bunch of sodomizers declaring that sodomy was a part of their religious practice, thet were dropped because of a bunch of people realizing that sodomy is nobody's business other than yours and the person you're sodomizing.

Indeed, the choice to ingest whatever substance you may choose is a right which should never be taken away, I agree.



Good point, but laws and politics are not the only reason for choosing only botanicals... I have other reasons as well.

Aaaaagggghhhh!!!!!!!!
THIS is why you get fucked with.
I didn't say ANYTHING about choosing only botanicals in either post except in the second when I say that I don't care one way or the other.

I agree with Noman here. It is in fact very strange that only a religious context would legitimaze basic human rights. I would rather think that basic human rights legitimize religious freedom. A person doesn't have rights because he's religious. A person has the right to be religious, because he's a person.
That's what i meant when i sayed that non-religius people are discriminated.
But i'm a pragmatist.
You cannot win this battle in one step.
That's why i would sugest to first establish that religious rights are founded in the freedom of one's own mind, the freedom to think. And that any view on life is as legitimate as another regardless of how religious or non-religious it is and THEN, that the use of entheogens is part of a certain view on life.
The freedom to have any view on life, religious or not, is a step closer to the right to be in charge of your own life.

Thats the point I've been trying to make all along.



Geeze does this really bother you that much? Aaaaagggghhhh? I don't mind being fucked with.

I made the effort of reading most of 'Coatl's propositions about the Temple of Entheogenic spirituality. I have to say it sounds more like a way to make the use of psychoactive plants legitimate (at least in the case of those who are illegal at the moment and those that may turn illegal in the future) than a religion itself.

And this is an argument on which the grounds of such an establishment may never get permission. Because it has no defined spiritual and/or ceremonial context to be granted the legal status of a church. Maybe an establishment at the best like the Wicca organisation but that's all.

Implementing an illegal entheogen (e.g. Peyote) within the practicals of a religion is doable of course, just in the case of the Peyote way or the Rastafaris. I guess one of the reasons is the fact that religions whose ceremonies implemented such enthogens was in practice before they get illegal. The framework and beliefs of said religions is therefore based, influenced and driven by their use. In times when dialogue can sometimes happen to demand "special privileges" for religious purposes (just like our days for instance) this is a strong argument that needs to be taken into account from the authorities.

But here you are talking about a whole bunch of "drugs", with different (but yes, similar) cultural uses, experiences and the sort. Plus, some of them are notoriously watched for from the authorities (like the mushrooms part). It would be very difficult to create a coherent and most importantly convincing implementation of the said entheogens in the framework of such a religion. How about the authorities saying to you:

"OK, you seem to have some good reason to make your religion, go ahead! but forget the use of mushrooms, iboga, peyote and salvia. These are illegal! Anything else you want, you're free to use".

Or in the worst case:

"So you mean you can use the still legal HBWR, RC, or morning glory seed to get altered experiences? Hmmm....lets have a closer look at these, we may need to save the children from these potentially lethal and addictive drugs".

In my humble opinion the whole idea cries as a way to be getting high without legal restrictions, that fine for me, you have me here. But the people you'll definitely need to convince will not like that.

Much easier to become a member of the Peyote way church or stick to legals. There's always going to be legal ways to get high.

But this would mean that when you would use peyote to have a religious experience, it's all OK, but if you would, like for instance the nobelprizewinning discoverers of the structure of DNA, would use LSD to visualize some non-religious concept, it is not OK.
So there is a distinction being made here; if you use a psychedelic substance to visualize a creature that might or might not exist, it's legitimate; if you use a psychedelic subtsance to visualize something that absolutely exists, it is not.
I emphasized 'nobelprizewinning' here,to make clear that psychedelic experience without religious context can still be part of an explanatory system. A philosophical system that is as serious as any religious system and of wich it's possible contribution to society dousn't have to be doubted.
If someone simply would want to have some kicks legally, i also agree that this should be possible. But when lawmakers would say;" if you just want to have some fun, we do not allow you to use this substance, but when the use of it is part of a method to gain understanding through experience, of something you consider to be vital for your existence (that might also contribute to society in some way), we do allow this" then the judicial preference for possibly non-existant beings, is realy weird.
Non-religious people are being discriminated here, because any system of belief that lacks almighty supreme beings, is aparently considered to be less serious, less legitimate amd less respectable.
Budhism is a good example of how something can be clearly a philosophical system, but that whether it's a religion or not is debatable. And at the same time, whether it's a religion or not, is not vital for it's acceptance, since we all agree that it's a system that provides meaning to those who follow it.

Wow great posts guys!!! Seriously, I really apperciate the type of post I'm seeing right now! These are great arguments!



That is an excellent point! I don't know how to say this to where it will be understood properly... but I'll try... The Temple will advocate the freedom of choice when it comes to the ingestion of substances, but will not directly advocate things like LSD or MDMA for spiritual use. I suppose within the church it would be a don't ask, don't tell kind of policy. I do believe (and this might bug some of you) that botanicals are better than synthetics or extracts and (this is why it's a religion) I believe they were sent directly from God for humans to use to become better people. Now you could argue that the invention of LSD was willed by God or whatever... but they way I see it.... God put a few very special botanicals for us to use... and that's all we really need.

Great topic!
1. I would say drop the reference to other religious texts, because we're not all fans of them here (I'm not, at least), and it makes us look like less of a religion if we officially admit to reading everyone else's stuff.
2. Keep it minimal- just establish a basic ethical standard- for example, 'And it harm none, do your will' is all Wiccans have and need.
3. For the spiritual bit, I would suggest we say that the entheogens and philosophising shape our spiritual beliefs- the only concrete beliefs are the core ethical ones, which cannot be broken whatever the plants tell you. That keeps it libertarian rather than dogmatic.
4. I think you'd stand little chance in the forseeable future with such an array of botanicals. Maybe a sect for each one, and these sects not being mutually exclusive? My foaf would join the extracted DMT one, he has decided that he will follow this path for the rest of his life

Noman and Polytrip- I agree with you entirely. But I see the religious 'loophole' as a way to get a foot in the door. Eventually, when entheogens can be openly used religiously, the perception of their use in the public eye will soften, and that can only help the emancipation of all drug users. The two campaigns can run concurrently, but my foaf will pursue on religious grounds, because that's how he feels about DMT.

My foaf sincerely views DMT as an entheogen, and for him it is his chosen spiritual path in life. DMT has enriched his life so much already, after years of boredom and loss of wonderment. DMT is his religion, philosophy his sacred texts, the fact that he is agnostic is immaterial, the universe is 'god' to him. Buddhism is sometimes said not to have a 'god', and it's still a religion. Hinduism has hundreds of gods (perceived by brahmin as being aspects all off the same thing)... and how is that any different from our variety of spice elves, whether we believe them to be real or not?

I heard that the rastafari are denied because the powers that be do not believe the smoking of marijuana to be specifically required by the religion. Their religion is Christian, except they believe Haile Selasse was Jesus's second coming, and he never told them to smoke pot. That's another reason why I think each entheogen needs its own sect- some may get through, but only if the entheogen is a central requirement for worship.

As Coatl doesn't like extracts, my foaf will accept the gauntlet as suggested...
My foaf hereby founds... The Way of Nexus!
DMT is our sacrament and method of worship.
Our ethical rudder is 'If it harms no other, do as you will'.
We have no other dogma- just embrace the molecule.
Who wants to join?

Link to the thread:
http://www.dmt-nexus.me/...s&m=25167&#25167

Dude thank you for that excellent post!

I'm glad somebody gets what I'm saying!!!

Terms like "religion" and "church" are mostly used so that this spiritual practice may gain recognition as a true religion, warranting protection under human rights.

Please understand this.

We do not sputter dogmatic bullshit! We are servants of the plants! We do as they say! We allow them to teach! We do not interfere with the message the plant has given! We are simply a guide! The plant is the teahcer!!!



A number of reason...

First off it's illegal and a church may is more likely to gain entheogenic human rights.

and...

Community, I like people who take entheogens for the most part, I like interacting with other human beings and not being alone in my entheogenic spirituality. I want to have entheogenic festivals! Entheogenic study! Entheogenic church!

Why don't I have human rights unless I'm practicing a religion?

Ask the government not me.

You know as well as I do that this is the best and most likely route and is a good first step...

Just tell the government when they find your spice lab- "Fuck you, I'm an athiest and I love smoking DMT cause it gets me high and it's my right to do so"

...Now... While I actually agree with you... I think it'd go much better if they busted in and found all someones peyote and you said- "This plant has been used for religion for 1000s of years, I'm doing the same. It's a natural organism, it deserves to live and grow, etc."

they even took alexander shulgins peyote...and he had a license to mess with that stuff

I guess he should have said that he was a seventh level priest of the Church of Yamma Yamma instead of saying that he was a brilliant organic chemist researching compounds that could evolve our consciousness by thousands of years in a couple of generations.

They're not gonna buy that. The government's a bitch.

yes but without them we wouldnt be exactly where we are now...all things happen perfectly

Exactly my point. But i like the pragmatic aproach of coatl.
BTW, there are places where you don't have human rights regardles of whether you practice a religion or not. But still... religious freedom is something that sometimes contradicts other human rights, like with more of those other rights. I think our society needs an ongoing debate about human rights and what they mean to us.
There are more of these 'loopholes', that create situations of unequality and they are hardly debated at all. For instance; it looks as if human rights violations are considered less serious if they're not committed by an official government, but just some rebel army, or a large company that uses african, indian or chinese slaves to suply us with our precious blue jeans, coffee, tea or cocoa.