What Do Christian Groups Think About Marijuana?

[The GCW]

What Do Christian Groups Think About Marijuana?


Source: Slate Magazine (US Web)

Author: Torie Bosch

Published: Tuesday, March 20, 2007



Washington, DC -- On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a First Amendment case involving a high-school student who was suspended for holding a sign that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." His provocative slogan turns out to have been little more than a ploy to get on TV. But what do Christian groups really think about marijuana?
It depends on the Christians, and it depends on the weed. Many major Christian denominations and religious groups have issued statements supporting medicinal marijuana use.

The Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Episcopal Church have all either issued resolutions or signed statements supporting the use of marijuana under the supervision of a doctor. The Episcopal Church's 1982 resolution even delves into politics by saying that it "urges the adoption by Congress and all states of statutes providing that the use of marijuana be permitted when deemed medically appropriate by duly licensed medical practitioners."

There are biblical rationales for such a position. The Presbyterian Church's position on pot-smoking, which they adopted during a June 2006 General Assembly, notes that Matthew 25:35 calls for people to give aid to those who are suffering. Many Christians in favor of medicinal marijuana use this line of argument, saying that if it helps ease the pain of people dying from cancer, it's a good thing.

But churches that support prescription cannabis don't always endorse bong hits just for the fun of it. The United Methodist Church considers marijuana a gateway drug. At the Episcopal Church's 1982 General Convention, a resolution was passed "proclaiming there are harmful effects which can be permanently disabling with the use of marijuana." The Presbyterian Church is less strict; it stated in 1971 and again in 2006 that "marijuana is not properly classified … and conclusive evidence is lacking that it produces physiological effects or automatically leads to the use of more serious, addictive drugs."

Other churches take more of a hard-line approach to marijuana. The Catholic Church says that drugs "constitute direct co-operation in evil" and does not seem to make exceptions for marijuana. The Vatican has condemned legalizing "soft drugs" like marijuana, and its newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, recently scolded Italian lawmakers for liberalizing pot-possession laws. The Mormon church (whose members consider themselves Christians) also strongly advises members to refrain from smoking marijuana, though it has no established position on medical use.

Some small Christian groups, like Christians for Cannabis, advocate smoking pot. A fringe Christian and Jewish sect calling itself Temple 420 uses marijuana as a sacrament. Police raided the temple in February, and the pastor is facing drug charges.

-0-

Also posted at http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22783.shtml

[Nachtschattenreich]

Here´s the context of the "co-operation in evil" quote:

[datboyc]

I dont approve of The Catholic Church.

Matthew 18:3 "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

18:4 "Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven"

The Pope is how old? and he acts it. Nor do they support todays youth; they try and make the next generation into clones of themselves.

Advice can only be suggested, not forced.

[Rev. Steven Wilson]

Datboyc wrote:

[datboyc]

though i consider myself a christian (because i follow the teaching of christ) i also dont wish to go to war, nor do i wish anyone to go to war. I'm sure in your religion of choice, there has been some person, at some time that made a violent act. humans are humans, and for some reason violence is how most living things make a point/defend what they believe when there is no other means.

when i say no other means, i'm sure you dissagree, as do i. there is always another way. this is just the easiest way for me to put it.

religious text is religious text, most of what is being said is the same. most people tend to focus on the dissagreements, but all in all every man woman and child knows what is right and what is wrong. It is weather they choose to make the right desicion in the situation, that makes them worthy in the eyes of the higher power of choice. no human is perfect, and they shouldn't try to be. although they should strive to do what is right when they have the choice.

[Nachtschattenreich]

If I had been born as an American I might be building another independent temple, but since I am an European I will - if at all - worship in the Church that was at my cradle.*

As far as the Papacy is concerned, I would like to remind that the holder of the office is elected for lifetime, i.e. the longer the candidates are waiting for their inauguration the more opportunities for change paradoxically. Would you think Benedikt XVI. is among those of his generation who have learned to use the internet the way like you and me grew up with?* This is also an interesting question to ask about other religious leaders.

Sometimes the discourse on Catholicism takes an odd turn, as in this local example (German language) of a PR campaign against what is being called Contemporary Inquisition, which is orchestrated by the Wittek cult, who are Christian bigots wildering on the pastures of atheism and veganism. If you are handed a leaflet decrying Catholic bigotry in the strongest possible terms, don´t fool yourself into the assumption you were receiving it from a fellow atheist.