"Madison police have been investigating Lion of Judah [House of Rastafari] since March, after receiving a tip that it was little more than a place to sell marijuana."

"Schworck and Bangert claim they provide marijuana as a 'sacrament' in exchange for donations.... Schworck and Bangert have sued the city in U.S. District Court, alleging the city violated their freedom to practice their religion when police seized marijuana on March 26 and the city, two weeks later, ordered them to stop the sale and use of marijuana at the church."

From "Landlord seeks to evict 'church' that took 'donations' for marijuana" (Wisconsin State Journal).

"Being an elevationist [the term they’ve coined for the theology of the new {marijuana-based} church] means being an explorer."

"Our spiritual journey is one of self-discovery, not one of dogma. We believe there is no one-path solution to life’s big questions. This is simply a supportive place for each one of us to find a pathway to our own spirituality, whatever that may be.... There are as many pathways to being an elevationist as there are elevationists."

Says Lee Molloy, quoted in "Holy smoke! The church of cannabis/As congregations dwindle, a new religion is lighting up Denver, Colorado. Aaron Millar joins the ‘elevationists’ of the International Church of Cannabis who worship the weed" (The Guardian).

Don't miss the photograph at the link of the beautifully painted interior of the 113-year-old church building that Lee and others were going to convert into apartments. But with marijuana legalized in Colorado: “We started having these stupid, fantastical conversations. What if we kept it as a church?” And "the International Church of Cannabis opened its doors with its own chapel, theology and video game arcade."

The idea of a church of marijuana is old.

But, in fact, cannabis use has long been part of religion, from ancient Chinese shamans to modern-day Rastafarians: inducing altered states of consciousness has been a cornerstone of belief since time immemorial. And even without drugs, whether it’s spinning Sufi dancers or drumming voodoo priests, or even just simple prayer or meditation, taking the mind to a higher plane has always been a road to the divine, whatever you may conceive that to be.

Many years ago, I based a Constitutional Law exam on a case I'd read about, where people had formed a church around marijuana use with the hope of being able to argue that they were entitled under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to an exemption from the federal criminal law. I seem to remember the name of the religion as "Our Church," but that might just have been the name I came up with for the exam.

Elevationists is a good name, referring to getting high. (The Anglicans have dibs on High Church.)

The key thing here isn't that they've thought of a new religion (or are screwing around with the idea of religion).  This is a story about real estate, interior design, and art.

If Pepsi pulled this ad, why can I still see it?

The NYT has an excellent summary of the social media uproar — "Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivializing Black Lives Matter":

Pepsi has apologized for a controversial advertisement that borrowed imagery from the Black Lives Matter movement, after a day of intense criticism from people who said it trivialized the widespread protests against the killings of black people by the police....

The ad looks very beautiful and expensive, and it seems to be part of a recent trend in ads (for example during the Super Bowl) that associate the product with a deep-but-shallow angsty-but-feel-good political message. And it reminds me of the old I'd-like-to-buy-the-world-a-Coke prettiness:



Coke told us "It's the real thing," so maybe Pepsi's the fake thing, and in that light, I suspect Pepsi made a beautiful and intentionally flawed commercial that would stir up social media and get everyone to watch the commercial and talk about it. Pepsi would apologize, but it wouldn't really be sorry. It made you look.

And I'm saying that because if that wasn't the idea, Pepsi is just so dumb. That commercial took a lot of work and a lot of money to make. So many people were involved. They had to know some segment of social media would trash them for appropriating the seriousness and pain of others. Unless they are flat-out idiots with too much money to throw around, perhaps enough to buy the world a Coke.

But if they were indeed idiots, it gives me hope. Hope that advertisers will henceforth eschew politics in ads for commercial products. Maintain the separation of commerce and politics.

AND: Much of the social-media trashing uses images from recent protests, such as the lovely black woman in a long dress who stood elegantly in front of riot-geared police. They're aghast at the idea that a woman giving a Pepsi to a cop would solve the problems that the protests are about. But maybe the commercial was made by old fools who remember the idea of protesting the Vietnam war by sticking flowers into the barrels of the rifles of guardsmen — as seen in the famous photograph "Flower Power" (by Bernie Boston):



BUT: Only a desire for virality can explain why, when Kendall Jenner rips off her blonde wig (at 1:48), she hands it to a black woman. Here, hold my wig. I gotta protest. I mean, it's one thing to say stop being blonde if you're going to join a protest, but it's aggravating to fling that thing at the nearest black woman.

But let's talk about the gender question — why does Jenner take off her wig and, also, wipe off her lipstick? That seems to say women who fix up their hair and put on makeup are somehow unfit for the political uprising — even an uprising consisting of not much more than a search for love and a display of graceful loveliness. That rejects a lot of women.

And what about the association with that other Jenner, Caitlyn? There's quite a bit of wiggage and makeup on that one.

ADDED: Now, I'm getting interested in the question of how much makeup to wear to a protest. I found this at reddit:

I'm going to DC for the Women's March on Washington on January 21 (the day after the inauguration) and I'm thinking about how I want to do my makeup for the day. Factors I'm considering:

• for everyday makeup I just do my brows, cream blush, and whatever lipstick I'm in the mood for at the moment
• it's gonna be cold and I'll be sleep deprived and tired from travel, so I want to go with something that won't require touch-up
• do I want to go for something sharp/severe and angry, or go for something overtly feminine [i have a thing about how society praises women when we act more masculine/ aggressive, and that femininity and softness are seen as signals of weakness rather than a certain kind of strength)

ALSO: Meade sends me this video...



... and I'm all: "Is that the music? I was trying to figure out who it was. I thought it might be Sting." I see it's Skip Marley — Bob Marley's grandson — and I feel sorry for him. Such a nice song and now it's getting dragged down by this controversy. Or is it getting a boost through this virality? We're all listening to it, noticing him.

In the comments, Meade, signing on to the virality theory, writes:

The entire thing is very Trump-y. Skip Marley, Jenner, Pepsi... even Trump will win from this.

AND: Rewatching the commercial, I'm struck by the complete lack of any racial message in the protest. The signs say "Join the conversation" or "Love" or show peace signs. Why are people saying Pepsi is using Black Lives Matter rather than a completely nonspecific anodyne generic protest? Is it just that there are many black people (along with a lot of other people) in the commercial?! Isn't it racist to look at black individuals and understand them as an embodiment of their race.

I didn't fix on the lyrics to the song, other than to notice the word "generation," long associated with Pepsi. You can read the lyrics here, along this response from Skip Marley to the question whether it's about the Trump election:

It didn’t stem from [the election], but it just happened to fall around that time. The song can be used in that way. It can [be used like that] because it’s up to people and their interpretation of a song. You can say it, but it’s not really a political song. I don’t want it to be viewed as a political song because it’s not really that kind of song. But I’m happy that people take it as strength in these times. It’s for the people in the United States to reassure that there’s a feeling inside that we're lions.

PLUS: I don't know if Skip Marley is, like his grandfather, a Rastafarian, but the lion is an important symbol in that religion. And the song does warn about losing religious freedom ("Yeah, if ya took all my rights away/Yeah, if ya tellin' me how to pray/Yeah, if ya won't let us demonstrate/Yeah, you're wrong...").

IN THE COMMENTS: Sean Gleeson said...

I didn't see a protest in the ad. More of a parade. The signs were wordless peace, love, and smiley face symbols. Everyone is smiling ear to ear. Even the police, who are not bothering anyone or barking orders, just standing by, like they are on a parade route. It's got kind of a flash-mob street party vibe.

Thanks for making me see the lineage back to "I'm a Pepper"!

Is it a violation of religious freedom to ban beards for prison inmates?

The Supreme Court just granted cert in Holt v. Hobbs...

... is a case filed directly by an inmate, in a hand-written petition.

The claim of entitlement to wear a beard for religious reasons, in spite of the general rule against beards in prison, is premised not on the constitutional right to free exercise (which authorizes government to impose neutral, generally applicable rules even though they burden religion), but on a statutory right to hold government to a strict scrutiny standard when it puts a substantial burden on religion. The statute in question is not the work of some backward state — as a layperson familiar with the recent to-do in Arizona might imagine — but the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, adopted by unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives and signed by President Bill Clinton in 2000.

ADDED: 2 weeks ago, we were talking about another case involving prison, hair, and RLUIPA, in which Supreme Court review is being sought. That case, from the 11th Circuit, is called Knight v. Thompson. We also talked about it last summer, and I showed you an old exam from my Religion and the Constitution class that depicted 5 different prisoners with different reasons — some religious — objecting to a rule requiring short hair.

It was very interesting to me to see how students would respond to the 5 different needs for long hair. If I remember correctly, most students found the Sikh's interest so strong that they began there. But then what happens? Do you include all? Just the Rastafarian-inspired man?  None of the others? And does thinking about that make you want to exclude the Sikh too? If your answer is yes, then you may be an 11th Circuit judge.

What if a black widow spider were to nest in a prisoner's dreadlocks?

That happened once. There might also be a fungus hidden in the hair-covered scalp. Weapons might be stowed in the hair, and guards searching for them by hand are afraid of getting cut by razor blades. Moreover, if a long-haired prisoner were to escape, he'd have a ready means of disguise: cut off that hair. These and other reasons were the "compelling interests" that worked for the government in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected a claim for a religious exemption to the no-long-hair policy in prison.

Snoop Dogg is now Snoop Lion... and he's the reincarnation of Bob Marley.

The new music will be reggae, not rap. He's 40 years old now and he's "got to give something" that the children can listen to, because "That's what you do when you're wise."

He says he's "born again" — born again as a Rastafarian.

Snoop didn't explain why he was switching from "Dogg" to "Lion," but it's likely a reference to the Lion of Judah, a religious symbol popular in Rastafarian and Ethiopian culture....

He said that in Jamaica, where he stayed for 35 days, he grew closer to his wife....

PR/religion? Who knows? But the sense of growing older and needing to provide for the next generation.... And since Bob Marley's son Rohan is happy with all this leveraging on Bob Marley, sure, go ahead. It's for the children.

Via Throwing Things.

Oh, but Rohan is not Bob Marley's only child.