Posted on 02/21/2006 4:43:45 PM PST by Graybeard58
American adherents of a Brazilian religious sect have won their battle to use hallucinogenic tea in their worship services.
In a unanimous ruling with major implications for minority religious groups in America, the US Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the right of religious organizations to claim exemption from certain laws that undercut their ability to practice their faith.
At issue was a clash between US drug laws - which ban the hallucinogenic substance in the sect's sacred tea - and a 1993 religious freedom law that requires the government to grant religious exemptions when possible.
Although the central issue in the case was the religious use of a banned drug, Tuesday's ruling has broader significance. It paves the way for others to win exemptions from generally applicable laws that impede their ability to worship.
The ruling has particular significance for minority religious groups whose faith includes practices and rites that are sometimes derided and ridiculed.
In upholding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in the context of the religious use of a banned drug, the justices said the government's desire for uniform drug control does not automatically trump religious considerations. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts says RFRA requires the courts to consider how a government restriction impacts an individual's religious practice and to weigh it against the government's interest.
The legal dispute involves the American branch of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (UDV). The group's first US branch opened in New Mexico in 1993, and today has 130 members.
A central aspect of UDV worship is consumption during tightly controlled religious ceremonies of a small quantity of sacramental tea. The tea, called hoasca, is made from plants found in Brazil's Amazon region. Group members consider the plants sacred and believe consuming the tea brings them closer to God. But any use of the tea outside the ritual ceremony is sacrilegious. The problem is that the tea contains a small amount of a naturally occurring psychoactive substance that is banned by US narcotics laws.
The current case began in May 1999, when US Customs inspectors seized three drums of sacramental tea shipped from Brazil to members in New Mexico. The agents seized the tea and told the group it would be prosecuted for drug trafficking if such imports continued.
The group filed suit in federal court claiming the government was violating their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion and their right to a religious exemption from the drug law under RFRA.
The First Amendment free-exercise claim was thrown out based on the Supreme Court's 1990 ruling that the Constitution does not mandate exemptions from generally applicable laws.
In that case the high court ruled that native Americans are subject to drug laws that ban the use of peyote even though its use may be confined to a religious purpose.
Congress responded to the 1990 ruling by passing RFRA, which attempts to restore by statute the same level of protection of religious beliefs and practices that existed under the First Amendment prior to the 1990 decision.
In addition to RFRA, Congress passed a law exempting members of the Native American church from prosecution for the religious use of peyote.
Both a federal judge and a US appeals court ruled that RFRA requires the government to explore possible religious accommodations that would allow UDV members to continue their worship without government interference.
Chief Justice Roberts cited the government's accommodation for peyote use by some native Americans as an example of how the US could carve out a religious exemption concerning an illegal drug. He said a similar accommodation that permits the UDV members to obtain and use their tea in a religious setting would not undermine drug laws.
"If such use [of peyote] is permitted in the face of the general congressional findings for hundreds of thousands of native Americans practicing their faith," Roberts writes, "those same findings alone cannot preclude consideration of a similar exception for the 130 or so American members of the UDV who want to practice theirs."
So I guess the Muslims can smoke their hash and chew their qat...some of the things that have retarded Muslim civilizations by centuries. That, along with their habit of wanting to kill anybody who is more successful than they are. And since that's about 99% of the non drug-and-Muslim infested world, they have a lot of people they want to kill.
"nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
not that I'm for drugs, but the First Amendment says what it says!
Aspects of some religions are illegal here. Human sacrifice.
You....nah...you could not just have tried to make that argument.
*shakes head*
I am not trying to equate it with anything or "make an argument" just stating the fact that not all aspects of all religions are legal just because they are religions. Pologamy is another example.
People, this is a statutory not constitutional case. Congress created this exception to the Controlled Substances Act. All the Court did was say the pres can't enforce the CSA in light of the RFRA
Yes. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals fought in favor of use of the hallucinogenic drug and against the Bush Administration.
It almost seems to have taken on additional, unintended, meanings.
Indeed. Interesting that first Bush Court overturned the Administration's actions in denying a group's Freedom of Religion.
It meant exactly what it means... the absolute freedom to worship in the way you see fit, provided it does not violate the rights of another person.
Do you have it on good authority that that was what was meant at the time of its adoption?
What about the Supreme Court's flat-out repudiation of the 9th & 10th Amendments in the Raich v. Ashcroft case? Don't those Amendments to our Constitution matter anymore?
no-one "accused" me of being "for" drugs....
IMO, perhaps as much as 50% of federal law is unconstitutional if viewed from a constructionist point of view, which I do......
that said, in sone circumstances such as war and the current counteroffensive to the global jihad, pragmatic measures are in order, temporarily, at least.
I know that no one has accused you of being for drugs...not yet, anyway. But that's the mindset of most of the Drug Warriors: if you're not a fellow Drug Warrior yourself, then you must be for drugs.
Such Drug War propoganda has become so ingrained into our thinking that you had to state such a disclaimer when you made your comment, & might not have realized it. After all, if you're not with then, you're against them (sounds a lil familiar, doesn't it?). Why, they might even consider you to be a "legalizer" like me!
I'm glad to hear that you consider yourself to be a strict constitutionist--it seems to me that our numbers are decreasing every passing day. There is only ONE in the enitre Congress (the honorable Rep. RON PAUL), although there are a handful of others that seem to do a fairly decent job @ respecting theor Constitutional Oath of Office (Sen. Coburn, Rep's. Rohrabacher, Flake, Duncan, Tancredo, & a few more). Will we ever elect another one into the White House for a change, or is all hope lost?
I would also say that your # of 50% (re: the unconstitutionality of all federal laws being written today) is a little low. Would it be fair to say that the federal government could do its limited, "few & defined" constitutional duties
w/ a budget of LESS than $1 trillion? What do you think?
Lipton will be coming out with their new LSD brew shortly . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.