Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Supreme Court says Church can trip out, man

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US Supreme Court says Church can trip out, man

    A nice victory for those of us who are disgruntled with government interference of pharmacological usage. Alito didn't vote, but both cons, libs and mods are sympatico.



    Court Allows Church's Hallucinogenic Tea

    By GINA HOLLAND
    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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's 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'Connor 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 "the sect's sincere religious practice."

    The chief justice had also been skeptical of the government's position in the case last fall, suggesting that the administration was demanding too much, a "zero tolerance approach."

    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.

    "The government did not even submit evidence addressing the international consequences of granting an exemption for the (church)," 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 "but Congress has determined that courts should strike sensible balances."

    The case is Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, 04-1084.
    I have a friend who loves ayahuasca/hoasca (not a church member), makes him trip harder than anything else. My wife tried it and loved it, too.

    Now lets see what they do with partial-birth abortion.

  • #2
    I wonder what this was decided on. From the blurb here, it seems more evidenciary. Otherwise, it'd seem wierd for Scalia to rule drug use in religious ceremonies is ok here, but wasn't ok a few years back in the use of peyote.

    edit: Guess, I didn't account for Congress' intervening law.
    Last edited by Imran Siddiqui; February 21, 2006, 14:52.
    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

    Comment


    • #3
      Ok, that's it. We totally gotta start the Church of Pot. Just for ****s and giggles.

      -Arrian
      grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

      The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

      Comment


      • #4
        So, Roberts ruled against the Bush administration? That's odd because according to the Left, Roberts is just a right wing fanatic who was put on the bench to rubber stamp anything Bush wanted. I guess the Left was wrong.
        'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.'"
        G'Kar - from Babylon 5 episode "Z'ha'dum"

        Comment


        • #5


          Ah... I see. The RFRA was determined not to apply to the states in City of Boerne, but this case dealt solely with federal law, and the RFRA was passed after the Controlled Substances Law. Now it makes sense. It only applies in federal actions, but state actions, denying benefits based on religious drug use, are still subject to neutrality.
          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

          Comment


          • #6
            So, Roberts ruled against the Bush administration? That's odd because according to the Left, Roberts is just a right wing fanatic who was put on the bench to rubber stamp anything Bush wanted. I guess the Left was wrong.
            Nah, that's Alito.

            -Arrian
            grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

            The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

            Comment


            • #7
              The right wingers can't even keep their own judges straight.
              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The diplomat
                So, Roberts ruled against the Bush administration? That's odd because according to the Left, Roberts is just a right wing fanatic who was put on the bench to rubber stamp anything Bush wanted. I guess the Left was wrong.
                How much are we spending on running the atomic clocks? I have a better idea. Just set our time to the first conservative "ah ha those libruls werent so smart" post in any thread. Probably more accurate than any expensive newfangled contraption the government has come up with.

                Even the threads like "I love working at Super Target since it is even less fun than I am and I look fun by comparison" usually get the routine "It must be Bush's fault!" posts.



                Better yet...how could we start a forum game around this?
                meet the new boss, same as the old boss

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


                  Ah... I see. The RFRA was determined not to apply to the states in City of Boerne, but this case dealt solely with federal law, and the RFRA was passed after the Controlled Substances Law. Now it makes sense. It only applies in federal actions, but state actions, denying benefits based on religious drug use, are still subject to neutrality.
                  Yes; basically, religious freedom got off on a technicality here, while the Smith precedent remained. Congress can say that no federal law should be interpreted in a way that would violate the pre-Smith standard, but that's it, and this has only statutory, not constitutional force.

                  This case seems to be almost entirely statutory. It's about interpreting conflicting laws, not about the 1st amendment.
                  Last edited by civman2000; February 21, 2006, 18:03.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I can't work it out, is this a pro-druggie (i.e. liberal) ruling, or a pro-christian (i.e. conservative) ruling? HEAD GO BOOM

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gibsie
                      I can't work it out, is this a pro-druggie (i.e. liberal) ruling, or a pro-christian (i.e. conservative) ruling? HEAD GO BOOM
                      This is a straightforward interpretation of a federal law. The real question that makes head go boom is whether that law was pro-druggie or pro-christian.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        or both

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by civman2000
                          Yes; basically, religious freedom got off on a technicality here, while the Smith precedent remained. Congress can say that no federal law should be interpreted in a way that would violate the pre-Smith standard, but that's it, and this has only statutory, not constitutional force.

                          This case seems to be almost entirely statutory. It's about interpreting conflicting laws, not about the 1st amendment.
                          Exactly. I was originally confused about the unanimity, but then I read the actual decision. It doesn't seem the main news sites make the distinction about what the case was really based on.
                          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X