[TheeBadOne]

Judge Rules Boy, 4, Cannot Take Peyote in Native American Religious Rites

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84835,00.html

WHITE CLOUD, Mich. — A family court judge ruled Tuesday that a 4-year-old boy cannot take peyote at American Indian spiritual ceremonies.

In his decision, Judge Graydon W. Dimkoff wrote that "peyote is dangerous, and in general should be avoided." He went on to state, however, that the boy could ingest peyote when he is fully aware of the implications, is physically and emotionally ready, and has the permission of both parents.

The boy's father, Jonathan Fowler, 36, a member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, had asked Dimkoff to reverse an earlier decision and allow his son to ingest sacramental peyote with him at the Native American Church of the Morning Star.

Kristin Hanslovsky, Fowler's ex-wife, had fought the request, saying she did not want to violate anyone's religious freedom, but giving the boy peyote could cause long-term neurological defects.

Fowler's attorney, Thomas Myers, of Michigan Indian Legal Services, has said the case was about ensuring that "rights guaranteed to Native Americans by treaty or statute are secured, and I think that would include constitutional rights."

Peyote, a bitter-tasting cactus that grows in southern Texas and northern Mexico, has been a part of Indian culture for thousands of years. Those who ingest the plant -- usually drunk as a tea or eaten as a greenish paste -- believe it provides enlightenment and other spiritual and physical benefits.

The plant's active chemical ingredient is mescaline, a hallucinogen. The U.S. criminal code classifies peyote as a controlled substance, and in most instances a person caught with more than 4 ounces faces the possibility of a 20-year prison sentence.

But during the last century, peyote's use in religious rites spread among American Indians throughout the United States, including the upper Midwest. Congress recognized this sacramental use of peyote eight years ago by amending the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 to protect the practice in all 50 states.

Testifying on Fowler's behalf at a court hearing last year, John H. Halpern, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, said he has found no evidence of a child or adult being harmed by the use of peyote in Indian religious services.

"This is a sacred ceremony," said Halpern, who has conducted an extensive study of peyote use among Indians. "It's not something to entertain people."

About 300,000 Indians who belong to the Native American Church of North America, the nation's largest church for indigenous peoples, ingest some form of the cactus, Halpern said.

Some of the churches do not let young children ingest peyote, however. At the Peyote Way Church of God in Klondike, Ariz., a person must be at least 18 -- or 14, with parental permission -- to take the substance.

"Peyote is an introspective experience," said church co-director Anne Zapf. "It's a God experience and generally you have to have a few sins under your belt."

[CZ-75]

Good call.

I oppose this as much as any other form of brainwashing children. Let him become old enough to know what the implications are first.

[Pendragon]

other forms of brainwashing children...

Name any religion, lifestyle, belief system or disciplinestyle and there are people on here who will tell you that what THEY do is not brainwashing, but what they OTHER people do - definately brainwashing :)

Who would you rather your kid spend the summer with? Sarah Brady or Charlton Heston? (yeah, you cranks who say neither, stop missing the point)

Until we can decide on the single correct position for everything and decide to make sure everyone holds those same "right" views, we will all be brainwashing our children.

Incidentally, do you have children?

[CZ-75]

There is a degree to that assertion, as well.

To me, however, I find it like pornography: I know it when I see it.

When it ceases to be benign and is plainly obvious, it is brainwashing, to my perspective.

[TallPine]

Maybe he could just give the boy Ritalin instead ... :neener:

[Don Gwinn]

I'd have a harder time with it if both parents were in favor. Since the mother is against it, the court has a role to play and cannot protect the parental rights of both to an equal degree. Therefore, he has to use his judgment. If it is true that Peyote can cause neurological problems in children, then it seems pretty clear that he'd have to side with the mother.

But again, you're going to make someone mad no matter what you decide.

[braindead0]

Judge Graydon W. Dimkoff wrote that "peyote is dangerous, and in general should be avoided."

According to whom? Judge Dimkoff? Or a variety of reliable impartial scientific sources??

OTOH: 4 years old...he's too young to enjoy it!:evil:

[dev_null]

Rhetorical Question:

Does this mean the courts can decide your kid can be prevented from attending your church/synagog/mosque//kiva/temple because the judge feels your wine & wafer, your ritual, or other particulars of your religion are "...dangerous, and in general should be avoided?"

Dangerous precedent, IMO.

-0-

[Sir Galahad]

I've been to the Ceremonies. I've seen 90 year old grandmothers who've been attending these Ceremonies all their lives and they are still sharp as a tack. The problems here are this:

1.) First, does the government have a right to tell Native peoples what is or is not religiously appropriate for the children? Before you answer that, did you know that the Sundance was illegal until 1978when they passed a law to give Native people--finally---their First Amendment RIGHTS.

2.) Did this judge consult with actual members of the Native American Church or ask an actual Road Man what he thinks was proper? No. He went on the same "it's for the chiiildddreeen!!" scare tactic. Did anyone see if Peyote actually WAS harmful in small amounts? And how come Christian churches can dispense small amounts of alcohol (a KNOWN health hazard for children in large amounts) to children at Communion, but Native peoples cannot give their Sacrament to their children?

3.) How about the rights of Native peoples on THEIR land? The Great White Fathers claimed the Rez would be Indian land. But, like the toilet paper those treaties were written on, I suppose that was just said to shut them up.

4.) If he mother had concerns, why did she marry a man who believes in the Peyote Way? What about this man's rights to the same religious freedoms others enjoy.

And by the way, I NEVER saw a Ceremony where the Road Man was not in strict control and kids allowed to eat a lot of Peyote.

[IRONFIST]

Go ahead and shoot me for saying it, but it WAS your land until we took it from you and and now its our land UNTIL someone else takes it from us. Which seems to be happening as we speak. I have always considered treaties to be meaningless, because the victor makes the rules that the vanquished must follow. My advice to "Indians" everywhere is to try to take back "your" land, any way you can and maybe a miracle would happen. I doubt it though. You would all probably be killed but at least you gave it a shot. Or you could go the illegal alien route and reconquer your lost lands one baby at a time, which seems to be the policy of Mexico and its citizens towards the United States nowadays. Isnt it funny the way things go. Rant mode off, its a good time to take some Thorazine and dream my fears away :rolleyes:


Michael in Sandy, OR

[Sir Galahad]

Ironfist, I was going to ignore your ignorant and racist comments. But think on this. You use the term "your" and "we". Excuse me, but we're all Americans here. Lots of Native people DIED in wars for this country so racists like you can spout your garbage; one right from here among the Hopi People, Lori Piestewa. The reason I draw attention to the Rez is because this is what Native people were told was their land. That is why there are tribal governments with their own police forces. But I wonder how many other Indo-European (White) people appreciate you basically saying here that all Indo-European people are liars? That's what you've basically said. I said the treaties were not worth the paper they're written on when they're not honored. A people of honor honors their word.

Now tell me that the "yours" don't deserve the same First Amendment rights as the "we"s. Is that what you really want to say? Perhaps that "we" ought to just be nice hang-around-the-fort Injuns and quit being so arrogant as to ask for our rights? Funny hearing that from a guy I would suppose should understand the value of rights.

Thank you for showing the kind of backwards racism still alive and well in the 21st century.

And, don't forget. Once they are able to tell the "yours" what is appropriate for their children, they will come next for the people who thought they were part of the "we"s. Except, by then, there will be no one left to speak up for you.

By the way, households with guns are already being considered "unsafe" for the children. Protect the rights of others, that you may preserve your own.

[Destructo6]

4.) If he mother had concerns, why did she marry a man who believes in the Peyote Way? What about this man's rights to the same religious freedoms others enjoy.
You assume that he believed in the Peyote Way when she married him. This could very well be a recent discovery of his or even the reason they parted company.

We're not talking about the father's religious freedoms. He can do what he wants. The question is whether, when the parents are divided, can one parent's religious desires for their child prevail over the others.

[IRONFIST]

Ya know Sir Galahad, you sure threw that label "Racist" at me alot in your post. I dont understand why, because nowhere in my post did I try to posit the notion that Whites were superior or that other races are inferior. I have always thought that folks who think and talk like that WERE the definition of Racism. Now someone like yourself, who hurriedly flipped thru my post, got mad and didnt take the time to actually READ what I wrote might get the wrong idea that I am a bigot. I am not. I do not disdain others races at all. Whatever your racial heritage, you are welcome to eat supper with me, visit my home, be my boss or marry my sister regardless of whether you are Red, White or Plaid. Stating the obvious fact that a flood of Hispanic illegal aliens are freely crossing our border daily is not being bigoted. It is truth. A portion of Mexican citizenry will always believe that our South-Western states rightfully belong to them and they would love to take them back. They think that someday they will. How is me saying that bigoted? The Hispanic birthrate is the highest in the nation, outstripping White and Black and Red births. How is me stating that bigoted? The new Hispanic immigrant population is not being assimilated into the traditional "Melting pot" because there are so many spanish speakers here already, they have formed large communities based on just their ethnicity. They live, work, shop, eat and play in a Hispanic culture that is seperate from the rest of the United States. In the past, millions of immigrants have become "Americanized" within a generation or two because they really had no choice. There were small enclaves here and there that spoke their native tongues but most legal documents werent printed in their former countries language, signs on busses and banks and telephones and everything else werent in their native tongue and most of the citizens here spoke English. The new emmigrants took a chance and spead thruout the country where there was housing and work. They learned enough English to survive and their children learned even more. And while their ethnic culture was weakened, their "American" culture became stronger. How else do you think that such a disparate country like this became so powerful and great. It is because we Americans come from so many other places and we are unified by a common language and way of life. Gosh, I really sound like a racist, dont I! The issue now confronting us is that Hispanic immigrants and illegals aliens can survive here in their own communities and not truly interact with the rest of the U.S. This takes away one of the strengths of our country and I truly wish it was different. As for treaties, they are only good for starting kindling in a stove. When one side wins a in conflict over another, the winners dictate the terms of a treaty. The terms are usually unfair and the losers have to stomach the injury. Just because pretty words are put down on paper, it doesnt make an injustice more palatable. I prefer a man or womans word of honor over a silly piece of paper. Lets be brutally honest... In a perfect world, when the White settlers came into this country the "Indians" would have wiped them out. Extinction time. But that didnt happen, they were to merciful and helpful and their race was almost destroyed. My ancestors did that and they were wrong. But as wrong as they were, what happened was not the first time or last time that a technologically advanced people subjugated another. What I personally find surprising is that the U.S. goverment at the time didnt take the small final step and wipe the "Indians" out. No survivors, no Reservations and no treaties. Thankfully they didnt go this route, but now we have to sort out the legal and moral mess that came with the formation of quasi-legal countries within our soveriegn borders. In less-than-perfect world, we would have encountered the "Indians" back then and realized that their strengths and uniqueness could be added to our own. I wish they could have been accepted as full citizens, with their culture as intact as possible and little or no bloodshed. There would be no Reservations, because there would be no need for them. If this could have happened this way, the "Indian" race today would be much more stable and strong than it is now and our country would have one less nasty stain on it from the past.

PS- I write"Indians" the way I do because I dont think they emigrated from Cacutta or Bombay. If they should be called anything it should probably be The First people, because they were here before me. I know, I know Sir Galahad, another evil racist, bigoted thought by me... How terrible!

Michael in Sandy, OR

[Sergeant Bob]

The Peyote Way Spirit Walk (http://www.peyoteway.org/peyoteway/the_spirit_walk.htm)

We are asking a $250. donation for this service.($200. for Church members) Click here for the Spirit Walk Checklist

Associate membership is available to anyone over the age of 18 regardless of race or spiritual disposition for $50. Members will receive a copy of the Bylaws, a copy of the Doomsday Revelation, a copy of the Revelation Concerning Entheogenic Sacraments, Declaration of Religious Belief Certificate, and a membership card.

If you want some paper literature click here (http://www.peyoteway.org/peyoteway/info_request.htm) or join now using PayPal. Your donations are sorely needed. Please support religious freedom and all race Peyotism by joining now.

The Peyote Way Church (http://www.peyoteway.org/)
A non-denominational All Race Peyotist Religion
Since 1978


Mail order religion?

[Don Gwinn]

And how come Christian churches can dispense smallamounts of alcohol (a KNOWN health hazard for children in large amounts)

That's how come. ;) (emphasis mine)

Besides, most churches have wine and grape juice. Guess who the grape juice is for?

[Chris Rhines]

I see the ruling as a mixed bag.

This is the bad part: "peyote is dangerous, and in general should be avoided." Irregardless of whether Peyote use is dangerous or not, the judge has no right to determine what chemicals an individual is to consume.

Also this: "(The boy can be allowed to consume Peyote when he...) is physically and emotionally ready,... Again, the authority under which the judge determines this is suspect at best.

I've no moral objection to a four-year-old taking Peyote in a religous ceremony (nor for any other purpose.) My objection to religon in general notwithstanding.

The big question is, is a four-year-old a miniture citizen, with all the rights and responsibilities thereof (and hence, possessed of the right to determine what chemicals he consumes?) Or is he a ward of his parents, therefor having no rights, but privleges granted by his parents?

If he's a citizen, then the answer should be clear.

If he's still a ward of his parents, then it's his parents decision whether he can or not. In that case, I'd be interested in how the ex-wife thinks that she still has a say in the matter. There's alot of reletivism tied up in there, and it could stand a philosophical overhaul.

- Chris

[VaughnT]

A child has all the rights of an adult at birth. Though they possess the inalienable and God-given rights spoken of in the Constitution, they are still wards of their parents because they do not have the intellect to makes sound/safe decisions. What looks like a good idea to a child might really be a bad idea in the eyes of a parent because the parent can see the outcome.

How many times have we said, "I should have listened to my parents!" ?

This point becomes less and less clear as the child matures because they are starting to develop the ability to see the ramifications of their actions. When they can see the obvious conclusions to their chain of events, they can make an intelligent, reasonable decision.

I don't believe it is at all inappropriate for a judge to step in and mediate between separated parents. I also don't feel that it is inappropriate for a judge to side in favor of the child not taking a psychotropic drug, the effects of which are far stronger than a shot of wine. If the father had presented scientific evidence showing that peyote is no greater physiological impact than wine, then we would be looking at racism or religious discrimination.

Of course, I'm not privy to the inside scoop and all of the above is therefore circumspect at best. Personal opinions are wonderful things.

[George Dickel]

We're talking about a 4 year old child, not an older teenager or an adult. He's 4 years old! He hasn't hasn't developed enough judgement yet for anyone to trust him to cross the street by himself and some of you are saying that it is acceptable to give him a halucinogenic drug. Using this philosophy it would be OK to give him crack if his parents had no problem with it. :banghead:

[Master Blaster]

Anyone who supports giving a hallucinogenic to a 4 year old has never taken one themselves.

A four year old cannot handle this stuff, it does not matter what the reason. when he is older and can decide for himself, That is his business and his right.

At four??????? Peyotyl?????????

The child would be scared out of his mind, It would be a horriffic experience for him.

I KNOW.

[Chris Rhines]

Using this philosophy it would be OK to give him crack if his parents had no problem with it. Yup. :)

The child would be scared out of his mind, It would be a horriffic experience for him.

I KNOW. And?

Whether or not the ingestion of Peyote is bad ain't the issue. The issue is who owns the child. One school of thought says that the child owns himself, which is fine. Another says that the child is owned by his parents, which although not my favorite, is also okay. The judge, however, has determined that the child is owned by the State. And that, people, is not acceptable.

[Shalako]

I really don't want to be my brother's keeper, but I had neighbors that were dealing crack with the help of their 7 or 8 year old children (curbside delivery). By their behavior, I was pretty sure the kids got the second hand fumes on a daily basis if not the real deal. I understand where Chris is coming from and appreciate his viewpoint. There could be a real slippery slope with the courts subjugating the parents' authority. But my personal opinion in this particular case was that something had to be done. It seemed like criminal negligence to fry some kid's brain like that. If peyote is considered the same thing, then I feel the judge is acting on society's behalf to limit the harm the parents are doing to the poor kids (our future).

My neighbors were evicted before it came to me having to snitch on them. I am really not my brother's keeper, but dang I wanted those dirtbags locked up!

[George Dickel]

Whether or not the ingestion of Peyote is bad ain't the issue. The issue is who owns the child. One school of thought says that the child owns himself, which is fine. Another says that the child is owned by his parents, which although not my favorite, is also okay. The judge, however, has determined that the child is owned by the State. And that, people, is not acceptable.

Chris, I have no great need for the government to run my life or to make decisions for me but there are times where official intevention is necessary. This isn't a case of who owns the child it is a case of protecting a person incapable of protecting themselves. If a parent is such a nut case that they are willing to give drugs to a 4 year old, then someone has to step in for the welfare of the child.

If I was the judge that guy would have lost all parental rights and would have been under a restraining order to never see him again until the boy was of legal age. You do not give drugs to a child, period and you don't allow a society to exist that condones it either.

What is your solution to this problem?

[Chris Rhines]

George -

What problem? Seriously.

- Chris

[Preacherman]

A word of caution, please, folks. THR is not a forum for the discussion of religion, sexuality, the morality (or otherwise) of abortion, etc. Some of the arguments in this thread are verging on taking it way OT into the area of religious faith, which will get it closed instanter. By all means debate the legal issues involved, but please refrain from judging another religion, no matter how sure you are of your position. In that way, we can keep the "legal" and "political" aspect uppermost, which allows this thread to continue.

Thanks.

[Master Blaster]

The judge, however, has determined that the child is owned by the State. And that, people, is not acceptable.

Ah Chris, in a utopian society there would be no need for the courts or laws. But we dont live in a utopian society, and often people do not make well thought out choices. So the legal system must step in and protect them from themselves.

By your logic it would have been ok, if say, your father burned you with a lit cigarette as punishment for spilling your milk when you were 3, say 50 times over your whole body????

Or how about if he made you drink a whole quart of Jack daniels so you could have a religous experience???

Consider this the 4 year old is not cpable of making his own decisions due to a lack of knowledge and judgement, or defending himself due to a lack of size and strength. Normally this is the parents role, but if the parent is lacking in judgement then the state steps in. It happened here at the request of the mother. Sometimes it happens when the child is already dead or seriously injured. :mad:

4 year olds should not be taking Peyotyl. I always thought that only members of the tribe who had come of age did this. A four year old would not have the wisdom to understand the experience, and it could prove to be very traumatic. Peyotyl is toxic, when taken first there are stomach pains followed by vomitting, then the visions commence. Visions can last several hours and can be very very intense, some adults cannot handle the experience. So I'm Told (disclaimer).
When he's 16 or 18 he can decide.

Here in DE we would remove the child for his protection and rightly so.

[Sergeant Bob]

So, do those of you advocating the use of hallucinogenic drugs by 4 year old children think the mother of the child has no say in how her child is raised? If you are married with children, then get divorced and your spouse has custody, do you think he or she should be able to do with your child anything they wish? What if, after your divorce your spouse decides to join .The Peyote Way Church (http://www.peyoteway.org/) (you need not be Native American to join).
Would you have no problem with someone giving your child a hallucinogenic drug? How about crack? Heroin?
Can you honestly say you would have no problem with it?
If it doesn't bother you, you don't deserve to have children.
Somewhere, a line has to be drawn

[LawDog]

What problem? Seriously.

The problem is that the child's mother does not want her child taking peyote at the age of four.

The child's father does want his child taking peyote at the age of four.

This is a problem requiring mediation, which this judge has done.

To further muddy the mess, one of the specific provisos of the father gaining custody of the child was that the father not involve his child in the peyote sacrament until the child was of legal age.

In Libertarian words, the father agreed to a contract (for the custody of the child), and is now violating the terms of that contract.

There's your problem.

LawDog

[Sir Galahad]

Remember:

One day, a judge is going to rule that a child of four cannot visit his father until the father gets rid of all his guns because they are a danger to the child. What if your ex-wife decides she doesn't want her child exposed to firearms? Hmmm? I could use the same arguments I've seen here to make a case to keep kids out of homes with guns.

By the way, SGT. Bob, the "Peyote Way Church" is NOT the Native American Church any more than every Baptist church denomination is the same as the other. Before you speak definitively on a subject, I suggest you do more than look on the net. Perhaps a book by Weston LaBarre might help.

As I said earlier, a Road Man strictly controls the Ceremony. The child, at the most, might have the Peyote dabbed on the tongue. At many Ceremonies, the Road Man may not permit the child to eat the Peyote. For those whose knowledge of Peyote comes from Carlos Castenada, one has to eat a LOT of Peyote to have effects. Some people here seem to think this child is going to go to that Ceremony and eat the whole bowl of Peyote. And those people say that because they don't know what actually goes on at a Ceremony. So until you do know, don't assume you know what happens there. It's just like anti-gunners assuming that a house with guns is dangerous because there are guns in there.

If the father, though agreed in a court to not involve the child, then that is something else entirely. As such, the father needs to keep his word as a man of honor.

Ironfist, you admitted you were ranting in your post. I can't read minds. Just because you didn't MEAN what I understood you to be saying doesn't make me wrong and you right or vice versa. No hard feelings, 'kay? :D

[IRONFIST]

Sorry Sir Galahad, but I aint buying what your try to sell. There are plenty of hard feelings between us because of your very casual use of the "Racist" and "ignorant" labels. Your saying something like that isnt something that I can let roll of my back. You misunderstood my earlier position and when I clarified it with a rebuttal and further explanation, you dont even have the courtesey to apologizing for your behavior. The tone of your post was "Oh well, thats over". Someone who thinks like that isnt the type of person I want to have a conversation with. I also noticied that you really didnt address my opinions in my second post in any meaningful or constructive way, so I'm letting our one-sided dialogue end here because its not doing anything but wasting bandwidth and time. My apologies to everyone else here for being off-topic. Thanks....

Michael in Sandy, OR

[Sir Galahad]

Very well, Ironfist. I apologize. Happy now?:rolleyes: Or does a proper apology to you involve groveling? Ain't gonna happen.

First you make some very broad remarks. Then you get mad when someone interprets them in a way that a lot of people would interpret them. If you what to carry a grudge over it, that's your problem. First you throw your very broad opinions around and then want to throw your weight around over them? Whatever.:rolleyes:

And you're right. I'm not the kind of person you want to have a conversation with. Feelings mutual.

[clem]

Sir Galahad & Ironfist,
You all better watch out. I said something about Islam a few weeks back and one of the modulators got all over my butt and even threathened to void my posting privs.

:(

[pax]

C'mon, guys. If you want to have a urinary contest with each other, don't do it where the rest of us have to watch. Take it to PM, e-mail, or behind the barn.

Thread is closed for lack of civility.

pax

Calumnities are best answered with silence. -- Samuel Johnson