Cognizance trial

A couple arrested in New Mexico for possessing a total of 270 kg of marijuana between them, and charged under the Controlled Substances Act of the United States, claimed they were following neo-Zarathushtrian practices and that marijuana is the same as haoma used in Zoroastrian liturgy and rituals. Danuel Quaintance described himself as the founder of the "Church of Cognizance.” Mary Quaintance and Joseph Butts called themselves members of this church.

"The Church of Cognizance…has a simple motto: ‘With good thoughts, good words and good deeds, we honor marijuana as the teacher, the provider, the protector,’” Stephanie Innes sums up its teachings in The Arizona Daily Star (December 27, 2006).

To defend themselves against prosecution, the trio invoked the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 which permits religious practice unfettered by state interference in the United States unless and until there is compelling need for the government to intervene.

The case had aroused community interest and, to ensure that Zoroastrianism was not misrepresented in the discussion before the court, the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America (FEZANA) had seconded president of the North American Mobed Council, Ervad (Dr) Jehan Bagli — a religious scholar and a chemist of distinction — to liaise with the assistant attor­ney’s office and debunk any trumped up claims to Zoroastrianism in the trial before US district judge Judith Herrera in Albuquerque, New Mexico August 21-23, 2006.

Making hardly any direct reference to Zoroastrianism or Bagli’s testimony in her memorandum opinion and order of December 22, 2006, the judge refused to accept that the Church of Cognizance was a religion which could claim the protection of RFRA.

However, Luis Martinez, assistant US attorney, District of New Mexico, had noted in his letter of August 28, "Dr Bagli’s expertise in medical chemistry and the Zoroastrian faith was indispensable in the preparation and presentation of the government’s case…(His) presence and testimony kept the defendants from claiming the Zoroastrian faith as their own. Further, Bagli’s testimony revealed both that the defendants were not of the Zoroastrian faith and that the defendants’ philosophy was a desecration in the view of the Zoroastrian faith. Without Bagli, the defendants would have claimed the Zoroastrian faith in an attempt to justify their drug smuggling pursuant to the Religious Freedom Act. The government, without Bagli’s assistance, would not have been in a position to counter these false assertions…”

In his update on the case FEZANA president Rustom Kevala notes, "Bagli prepared and made a statement of the correct Zoroastrian liturgical practices and the ritual use of haoma. He testified that haoma as used in present day ritual is not cannabis. Zarathushtra rejected the use of intoxicants or hallucinogens in Zoroastrian rituals. Bagli testified that Zoroastrians believe that mind is a priceless divine gift to mankind; and any mind-altering substances that abuse that gift are not acceptable. Haoma was worshipped as a deity and used as a plant in religious practices in the pre-Zoroastrian Indo-Iranian era. Archeological evidence shows that different plants were used at different times based on availability. That haoma was a plant with hallucinogenic properties remains a speculation rather than fact.”

The defence cross-examined Bagli about the Pundolites and the Ilm-e-Khshnoom version of Zoroastrianism. "Bagli showed that they are not cults since they do not have separate ‘churches’ for their members. All Zoroastrians practice the same religion, but some interpret it differently,” writes Kevala.

The defendants had harped on the "good thoughts, good words, good deeds” trilogy that guides the action of most Zoroastrians — without being able to provide any of the other underpinnings of the faith like asha or freshokereti — asserting, "There is not much more than that inside the Zoroastrian religion.”

The judge argued, "The defendants have not presented evidence that a higher power, force or spirit (presumably cannabis, their asserted deity) expects them to behave in a manner consistent with ‘good thoughts, good words, good deeds.’ Defendants, likewise, have not presented evidence that if they do not behave in a manner consistent with ‘good thoughts, good words, good deeds,’ they will face religious consequences. Defendants do not maintain, for example, that they will face a final judgment day on which a higher power will pass judgment on their thoughts, words and deeds to determine whether their souls will pass to heaven or hell.”

To decide whether RFRA was applicable to the case, the judge set out to answer two questions: "Whether the defendants’ beliefs are religious and not simply a philosophy or way of life, and whether those beliefs are sincerely held.”

Applying a series of tests as framed in previous judgments to decide whether the Church of Cognizance could be considered a religion at all, the judge assessed the defendants’ religious beliefs in terms of ultimate ideas ("Religious beliefs often address fundamental questions about life, purpose and death”), metaphysical beliefs ("they address a reality that transcends the physical and immediately apparent world”), moral or ethical system ("these beliefs often describe certain acts in normative terms, such as ‘right and wrong,’ ‘good and evil,’ or ‘just and unjust.’ A moral or ethical belief structure also may create duties – duties often imposed by some higher power, force or spirit – that require the believer to abnegate elemental self-interest”) and comprehensiveness of beliefs ("an overarching array of beliefs that coalesce to provide the believer with answers to many, if not most, of the problems and concerns that confront humans”).

Bagli: mind is priceless

The last test, titled "accoutrements of religion” included a variety of clauses such as a clear founder/prophet/teacher comparable to the known prophets of religion in the world, important/sacred writings, gathering places like temples/churches/synagogues, keepers of knowledge like the clergy/sages, ceremonies and rituals, structure or organization including a hierarchy of teachers, clergy, etc, holidays or days of special observance, diet or fasting, appearance and clothing and propagation ("Most religious groups, thinking that they have something worthwhile or essential to offer non-believers, attempt to propagate their views and persuade others of their correctness”).

Concluding that the defendants "meet only one of the five factors indicative of whether a particular set of beliefs is ‘religious’ for the purpose of RFRA,” the judge went on to examine the sincerity of the defendants’ belief and found it wanting. Even more damaging was the fact that the defendants had been caught with a cache of 270 kg of marijuana. Noting that the "defendants presented no evidence that their beliefs require them to provide a significant number of church members with a yearly supply of marijuana” or indeed, that they did so distribute it, the judge held, "This quantity of marijuana suggests that the defendants possessed marijuana for commercial, as opposed to religious, purposes” and concluded, "Defendants cannot avoid prosecution for illegal conduct simply by transforming their lifestyle choices into a ‘religion.’”

Thus the judge is said to have set the stage for a full trial of the offenders under the Controlled Substances Act. "It is important to understand that this case has no bearing on the laws and conditions in any country except the United States,” writes Kevala, adding, "FEZANA is reviewing the legal ramifications of the matter. We want to ensure that no teachings, rituals or beliefs of our religion are used by anyone for illegal or self-serving purposes.” Cautioning that "the internet is full of misinformation and is open to mischief by anyone,” Kevala’s advice is to "adhere to our religious principles and continually seek the guidance of Ahura Mazda in all we do.”