From: Henryindivideo@webtv.net   
      
     MSNBC.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’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.â€�   
   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.â€�   
   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.   
   â€œThe government did not even submit evidence addressing the   
   international consequences of granting an exemption for the   
   (church),â€� 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.â€�   
   The case is Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal,   
   04-1084.   
   Â© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may   
   not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)