Supreme Court: Church may use Hallucinogenic Tea /New Converts Expected

[terisan]

Decision was unanimous.

May Bode Well for some other Legalization possibilities?


The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that adherents of a small Brazilian-based religion practicing in New Mexico may continue to use a hallucinogenic tea. The court rejected arguments by the Justice Department that the communion ritual undermines federal anti-drug law.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted that Native American Church members can use peyote.
By Ken Heinen, Getty Images
The court broadly interpreted the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, intended to protect people from U.S. laws that appear to be neutral but can impinge on sacramental practices. (Related item: Opinion:Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal)

Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court that Congress sought "a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing ... governmental interests."

Read more at:
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-21-court-tea_x.htm>

[navarth]

1. I have a religion too

It's called "The church of nobody's goddam business what I smoke in the privacy of my own home". (non-denominational)

[KansDem]

4. Hey!, are you planning on going "door knocking to spread the word" anytime soon?

If so, I'll PM you my address. This might actually be one time I'll "take in" what advocates of a particular religion have to say...

[terisan]

5. sounds like a winner to me--maybe the new New Home Garden Movement will get Interesting.

[hlthe2b]

10. You don't even NEED converts... I say we were born into that

relgion... ;)

[sharp_stick]

18. Come by anytime

I'd love to hear all about this church and perhaps join.

[MADem]

2. Ok, what about de Rastafer-EYE, den? nt

[terisan]

8. Surely they should qualify/ I may have a Mystical Revelation any Moment Now. nt

[eShirl]

3. I didn't know UDV was a Christian sect

"The religious society, O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, known as UDV, is a Christian Spiritist sect with origins in the Amazon rainforest."

[terisan]

9. Oh You Raise Many Possibilities-I may start to agree that"we are a christian nation" nt

[rcrush]

6. This sounds like the 'church' I attend on weekends

Or when were at the beach and we got our mushrooms.

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. Good ruling.

When drugs were used in these ancient practices, rituals were developed around them to prevent abuse, and manage the whole thing is a socially positive way, to provide guidance and meaning to the seeker. This kind of highly ordered ritualized practice presents zero risk to society. I wouldn't support legalization of hallucinogenics in any other way: They can be consumed within the context of a support structure which is either spiritual or therapeutic.

[EOTE]

12. So hallucinogenics are ok...

just so long as they're consumed along with a good dose of mysticism and ancient rituals? No thanks. If wacky religious groups can consume this, I think I'm more than qualified to as well. I'm not a big fan of special rights being given out to churches.

[napoleon_in_rags]

15. No, in a support structure, which includes therapeutic, psychiatric.

Where some psychological / philosophical / spiritual goal is being pursued, and there are people around to support you and guide you through.

My point is that these drugs have value, but I don't think they should be recreationally legalized.

[EOTE]

17. But who decides what is a valid spiritual or philosophical goal?

Can I create my own religion based around the use of peyote and ayahuasca? Would I then be protected from prosecution? Having a medical doctor required to dispense a particular drug is one thing, but a fucking church? I don't want to have to be a member of one of those in order to have a bit of fun. If you're going to legalize it for them, legalize it for all adults. Otherwise it's just discriminatory bullshit.

[Chulanowa]

19. If you can figure out how to brew Ayahuasca, I think that should give you an "in"

Of course, if you've learned that, then you probably have legitimate claim to religious use of it. Ayahuasceros don't just hand the recipe out free, after all.

The thing with ethnogens is that a lot of them really are dangerous. Several of them require special preparation - Ayahuasca for instance - while others have to be carefully dosed. For most, the user has to be prepared for the experience beforehand, and in a few cases, must even be "led through" the trip.

All this can be done outside of a religious context, of course - My point is that a lot of these plants aren't exactly "privacy of my own home" stuff, they're "invite the neighbors over to make sure I don't gnaw off my own tongue and slip into coma" stuff.

[EOTE]

21. I'm aware it's something more experienced than taken.

And with the internet, very few recipes are sacred. And yes, many things can be dangerous. But does that mean that they should be legal solely in a religious context? I'm of the opinion that religion does very little good and an awful lot of bad. Why should I have to change my belief structure in order to partake?

[Chulanowa]

22. Well, here's some similar questions...

Why should I have to be Catholic to chow down on Communion wafers?
Why should I be Muslim to jog around the Kaaba?

While I don't think any psychadelics should be outlawed, I can't really say that I see the point to using them recreationally. First, the cultural trappings and ritual practice put you into a certain state of mind that actually makes the drug more effective. Casual use lends itself to bad trips and greatly reduced effects. Even with the white-boy american homegrown psychadelics, LSD and Ecstacy, definite cultures developed around the use that both protected the user and heightened their experience.

Plus there's the simple cultural respect aspect. Do you go around in blackface? Put chicken feathers in your hair and run around whooping? I imagine not, so why basically pirate someone else's practice, just to say you made your tongue tingly.

As for religion doing a lot of bad, well, can you tell me what great evils have been done by Rastafarians, Ayahuasceros, Bwitsi, Deadheads, and the Native American Church? :)

[napoleon_in_rags]

23. Ah, the evil of the demiurge.

I feel like there is this almost Gnostic current against religion right now, and I don't understand it. People had oral traditions, and its how they passed on wisdom. Somebody noticed that eating pigs is dangerous, so they said "God doesn't want us to eat pork". It was an observation at the time, put in terms of their cosmology. Now we understand that we share a lot of the same diseases with pigs, so that is our explanation within our cosmology, which is more effective, because it allows us to render pork safe to eat by addressing those diseases. Yet their original observations about pork had validity.

Its the same thing with psychedelics. Cultures who had them around determined that they should be used in a controlled setting, for a meaning and purpose. Not recreationally. We shouldn't throw that wisdom out the window. Now if you want to scientifically explore that, explain that, or do it better than the old cultures, (as scientists did with the safety of pork) good for you, more power to you. That would be an example of building on the wisdom of the ancients, which is good. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't throw it out the window.

[MagickMuffin]

11. The Supreme Court ruled ........... UNANIMOUSLY

:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:

Damn hippie Liberal Supreme Court Justices :applause:

[terisan]

16. That surprised me-maybe the conservatives are desperate for us to "tune out" during crisis.nt

[jody]

13. If marijuana is approved for religious purposes, medicinal purposes may be next, then recreation. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. Is there a "non-puke before the fun begins" drug I can convert to?

[Z_I_Peevey]

20. The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church

now has a precedent. This could get interesting.