|
| =A0=A0MSNBC.com
Court upholds church use of hallucinogenic tea
Justices unanimously rule that N.M. congregation can drink illegal drug
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:11 p.m. ET Feb. 21, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that a small
congregation in New Mexico may use hallucinogenic tea as part of a
four-hour ritual intended to connect with God.
Justices, in their first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice
John Roberts, moved decisively to keep the government out of a
church=E2=80=99s religious practice. Federal drug agents should have
been barred from confiscating the hoasca tea of the Brazil-based church,
Roberts wrote in the decision.
The tea, which contains an illegal drug known as DMT, is considered
sacred to members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal,
which has a blend of Christian beliefs and South American traditions.
Members believe they can understand God only by drinking the tea, which
is consumed twice a month at four-hour ceremonies.
New Justice Samuel Alito did not take part in the case, which was argued
last fall before Justice Sandra Day O=E2=80=99Connor before her
retirement. Alito was on the bench for the first time on Tuesday.
Roberts said that the Bush administration had not met its burden under a
federal religious freedom law to show that it could ban =E2=80=9Cthe
sect=E2=80=99s sincere religious practice.=E2=80=9D
The chief justice had also been skeptical of the government=E2=80=99s
position in the case last fall, suggesting that the administration was
demanding too much, a =E2=80=9Czero tolerance approach.=E2=80=9D
The Bush administration had argued that the drug in the tea not only
violates a federal narcotics law, but a treaty in which the United
States promised to block the importation of drugs including
dimethyltryptamine, also known as DMT.
=E2=80=9CThe government did not even submit evidence addressing the
international consequences of granting an exemption for the
(church),=E2=80=9D Roberts wrote.
The justices sent the case back to a federal appeals court, which could
consider more evidence.
Roberts, writing his second opinion since joining the court, said that
religious freedom cases can be difficult =E2=80=9Cbut Congress has
determined that courts should strike sensible balances.=E2=80=9D
The case is Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal,
04-1084.
=C2=A9 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
|