Pubdate: Mon, 31 Oct 2005
Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Copyright: 2005 The Christian Science Publishing Society
Contact: http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=CFF0C5E4
Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/83
Author: Warren Richey, The Christian Science Monitor
Related: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-1084.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/hoasca

ON DOCKET: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VS. DRUG LAWS

The Supreme Court Takes Up a Case Involving a New Mexico Sect That 
Could Be Important for Other Minority Religions.

WASHINGTON - In a case with potential important significance for 
minority religious groups in America, the US Supreme Court this week 
takes up a clash between the nation's drug laws and a statute 
protecting religious liberty.

At issue in the case set for oral argument Tuesday is the scope of 
the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The law requires 
the federal government to justify any measure that substantially 
burdens a person's ability to practice his or her religion.

But what happens when a religious ceremony requires consumption of a 
drug outlawed under the Controlled Substances Act? That is the 
essence of the dispute in a case called  (UDV).

Although the case involves the use of drugs, how the high court 
resolves the matter could have an impact on a wide array of religious 
groups in the United States that depend on a robust defense of 
religious liberty to practice their faith free of government 
interference. If the nation's drug laws are found to trump religious 
protections, other laws might also be applied in ways that 
substantially erode religious freedom, legal analysts say.

On the other hand, if religion may be invoked to easily bypass the 
nation's criminal laws, that could greatly complicate and undermine 
federal law-enforcement efforts, analysts say.

The case involves a religious sect of 130 members based in New 
Mexico. The group, adherents of the Brazil-based religion UDV, 
believes the use of sacramental tea in its ceremonies helps them 
connect with God. Consumption of the tea is the central ritual act of 
their faith. Some analysts liken it to the consecration of wine at a 
Roman Catholic mass or serving unleavened bread at a Passover Seder.

The problem is that the tea, made from two sacred plants found in the 
Amazon region of Brazil, contains a hallucinogenic substance banned in the US.

When US narcotics agents discovered this, they confiscated the 
group's supply of the sacramental tea as an illegal drug and barred 
them from importing any more from Brazil. The group sued, claiming 
the government was infringing on their religious rights by blocking a 
fundamental aspect of their religious worship and threatening to 
prosecute them should they continue to use the sacramental tea.

A federal judge and federal appeals court agreed with the group and 
issued a preliminary injunction against the government. The court 
ordered the government to accommodate the UDV members by allowing 
them a religious exemption from the drug laws. The courts ruled that 
such actions were necessary under RFRA.

Government's Case

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration argues 
that the government has a compelling interest in the uniform 
enforcement of the nation's drug laws.

Congress determined that a categorical ban on this hallucinogenic 
substance was required to help protect the health and safety of 
Americans, including the followers of UDV, from detrimental effects, 
government lawyers say. "Religious motivation does not change the 
science," writes Solicitor General Paul Clement in his brief to the court.

The government also argues that a categorical ban is needed to 
prevent diversion of the drug into America's illicit recreational 
drug market. And it is necessary to comply with international 
treaties banning all trafficking in narcotics and psychotropic substances.

Lawyers for the religious group counter that Congress passed RFRA 
after it passed the Controlled Substances Act and that since RFRA 
applies to all federal law, it requires the government to make 
religious accommodations even from criminal drug laws when individual 
accommodations are deemed appropriate after a careful case-by-case review.

For example, Congress has created an exemption for the religious use 
of peyote by native Americans, they say.

"The government's successful accommodation of the sacramental use of 
peyote, also a [banned] Schedule I substance, belies its claim that 
such substances require a categorical ban, even for religious use," 
Nancy Hollander, an Albuquerque lawyer representing the UDV, writes 
in her brief.

Ms. Hollander accuses the government of playing fast and loose with 
the facts in claiming there are adverse health effects to the group's 
use of sacramental tea. She says the only study of sacramental tea 
use "found no significant health concerns."

On the potential for diversion for recreational drug use, she says 
use of the tea is tightly controlled during ceremonies, and 
consumption of the tea outside such ceremonies is considered 
sacrilegious. Hollander adds that there hasn't been a US conviction 
for attempting to traffic the hallucinogenic substance contained in 
the tea in 27 years.

She says the government's argument concerning international treaties 
is also flawed. The treaty doesn't apply to sacramental tea, she 
says, and other treaties signed by the US require signatory 
governments to respect and accommodate religious practices.

Other Groups Weighing In

Although the New Mexico sect has only 130 members, the case has 
attracted the attention of a large cross section of religious groups 
expressing concern about the case. They include the Baptist Joint 
Committee, the National Association of Evangelicals, Agudath Israel 
of America, the Minaret of Freedom Institute, the Sikh Coalition, and 
The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, which publishes 
this newspaper.

In an appendix to a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the UDV, the 
Christian Science Church said in part: "Although The First Church of 
Christ, Scientist, supports the legal arguments made in this brief, 
neither the church nor the theology of Christian Science supports the 
use of drugs or any other material substances as an aid or pathway to 
spirituality or a greater understanding of God."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake