- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,731
HIGH COURT RULING BOLSTERS RFRA "SPECIAL RIGHTS" STATUTE,
OK'S HALLUCINOGENIC TEA BREW FOR COMMUNION RITUAL
"Thumping Victory for Religious Accommodation"
'...retired to their tea and scandal,
According to their ancient custom after
Dinner."
-- William Congreve (1670-1729)
"The Double Dealer," Act 1, Scene 1
In a major blow to the separation of government and religion, the U.S.
Supreme Court last week ruled that members of a Christian Spiritis
sect could use a hallucinogenic tea as part of their religious ritual.
The unanimous opinion in GONZALES v. O CENTRO SPIRITA BENEFICIENTE
UNIAO DO VEGETAL was a victory for a Brazilian sect combining elements
of Christianity and native religion, and supporters of the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Santa Fe, New Mexico-based group
has about 130 members, and imports a substance known as hoasca which
is then combined with local plants and brewed into a tea used in the
church's communion ritual. In 1999, U.S. Customs inspectors seized a
shipment of the psychotropic chemical which is banned under the
Controlled Substances Act.
The group took legal action citing the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act passed by Congress in 1993. RFRA requires that the government
present a "compelling interest" before placing substantial burden on
any religious practice, and if it does so, must use the "least
restrictive means." Proponents of the statute claimed that the
legislation served to protect religious groups from intrusion by
government. But critics say that RFRA spawned a "two-tier" system of
justice, and unfairly exempted religious sects from "neutral civil
laws" that apply to all other individuals and groups.
In 1997, the high court struck down RFRA as it pertained to the
states, saying that Congress had overstepped its authority when it
enacted the legislation. The statute still applied to the federal
government, however, and over a dozen state legislatures -- spurred on
by a wide coalition of religious organizations -- quickly rushed to
pass their own versions of the measure.
In the GONZALES case, attorneys for the government argued that
enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act protected the welfare of
church members and prevented the possible spread of hoasca to
non-religious uses. This has been one of the few times the federal
government has not defended RFRA. Chief Justice John Roberts,
however, said that the government's case missed the very point behind
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and noted that the even
Congress had permitted unchallenged exemption to select drug laws for
members of the Native American Church who use peyote during their
worship services.
"If such use is permitted ... for hundreds of thousands of Native
Americans practicing their faith," said Justice Roberts, "it is
difficult to see how those same findings alone can preclude any
consideration of a similar exception for the 130 or so American
members of the UDV who want to practice theirs..."
A "Thumping Victory" for Religious Privilege?
Spokespersons for religious organizations supporting RFRA praised the
high court decision in GONZALES.
Anthony Picarello of the Washington, DC-based Beckett Fund for
Religious Liberty described the ruling as a "thumping victory for
religious accommodation laws," adding "It's especially good news for
religious minorities."
But Marci Hamilton of the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law was critical
of the decision, and said that RFRA was "an invitation (for
courts) to walk through Alice in Wonderland's looking glass."
The case put the Bush administration in conflict between its penchant
to "carve out" special rights for religious groups, and the
enforcement of drug laws. Holly Hollman of the Baptist Joint
Committee for Religious liberty told reporters, "The government had
argued a categorical approach that would have denied the UDV church,
basically, their day in court under the statutes." The Baptist group
joined with other religious organizations including the National
Association of Evangelicals and the American Jewish Committee in
filing amicus or "friend of the court" briefs in support of the UDV
and the RFRA legislation.
The conflict between religious practice and secular law has been a
common theme throughout American history.
In the 1897 decision of REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, the Supreme Court
examined the case of man charged with violating a federal statute
outlawing bigamy. He defended the practice citing religious freedom;
but the high court majority noted, "Laws are made for the government
of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief
and opinions, they may with practices..."
In recent decades, the courts have widened the protections for
exception religious practices.
* In SHERBERT v. VERNER (1963), the justices overturned a South
Carolina statute that had deemed a member of the Seventh Day Adventist
sect ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because she refused
to work on Saturdays.
* In the 1972 WISCONSIN v. YODER case, the high court ruled that the
state failed to justify a statute applicable to children in the Amish
religion requiring them to attend school until the age of 16.
The Amish plaintiffs argued that for religious reasons, they do not
educate their young after the eighth grade.
The court seemed to change direction, though, with an obscure 1990
decision in EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH. A member of the Native
American Church was denied unemployment benefits after failing a drug
test and losing his job. The substance in question was peyote, used
in the ceremonial rituals of the church. The State of Oregon argued
that drug statutes trumped any First Amendment rights since they were
"generally applicable" laws that applied to everyone.
The Supreme Court majority ruled that the Constitution did not require
that government accommodate religious faiths by exempting practices
from these neutral statutes. Government could not single out
religious sects for discrimination or "burdens." On the other hand,
practices that ran astray of civil laws could not be justified simply
on the basis of the First Amendment.
Spurred by a vast coalition of religious and even state-church
separation groups, Congress moved quickly and in 1993 passed the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It stated that government may not
"substantially burden" religious exercise even when enforcing
generally applicable laws, and must use a "least restrictive means"
test to demonstrate any "compelling" interest if religious groups or
practices were involved. The portion of RFRA that applied to actions
by state governments was overturned in BOERNE v. FLORES.
In 2000, Congress passed another statute, the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Person's Act (RLUIPA). This legislation once again
promoted the use of the "compelling interest/least restrictive means"
standard when questions involving land use of the religious practices
of prison inmates arose. Federal statutes like RFRA and RLUIPA, along
the proliferating number of state "religious protection" laws, clearly
shows government moving away from a strict position of state-church
separation toward a more problematic policy of "accommodation."
Critics say that RFRA amounts to a form of "religion supremacy" in the
enforcement of generally-applicable laws. Columbia University law
professor Michael C. Dorf noted in a recent piece at the findlaw.com
web site:
"In last week's ruling in the hoasca case, the Supreme Court tacitly
adopted this theory. It remarked in a footnote that the Court had
invalidated RFRA as to state and local government in BOERNE, and it
proceeded on the assumption that, with respect to the federal drug
laws, RFRA could simply be treated as authorization for the courts to
find religious exemptions from those laws..."
That surging trend to provide "religious exemptions" constitutes bad
law and dangerous public policy, said Ellen Johnson, President of
American Atheists.
"Government should exercise 'strict neutrality' in respect to
religious groups and practices, and that means neither discriminating
in favor of or against religion," said Johnson.
"RFRA and this latest court decision clearly demonstrate that the
justices are elevating religion above legal standards which apply to
private individuals, groups and businesses."
For further information:
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/rlpa7.htm
("Mass. suit underscores 'special rights' for churches, RLPA, 9/7/98)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/rlpa9d.htm
("The Legacy of Compelling Interest/Least Restrictive Means test,"
includes links.)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/rlpa3.htm
("Mixed signals on RLPA as religious groups split," 8/9/98)
http://www.atheists.org/search.html
(Search the American Atheists web site for our extensive archive of
articles on RFRA, RLPA and RLUIPA)
OK'S HALLUCINOGENIC TEA BREW FOR COMMUNION RITUAL
"Thumping Victory for Religious Accommodation"
'...retired to their tea and scandal,
According to their ancient custom after
Dinner."
-- William Congreve (1670-1729)
"The Double Dealer," Act 1, Scene 1
In a major blow to the separation of government and religion, the U.S.
Supreme Court last week ruled that members of a Christian Spiritis
sect could use a hallucinogenic tea as part of their religious ritual.
The unanimous opinion in GONZALES v. O CENTRO SPIRITA BENEFICIENTE
UNIAO DO VEGETAL was a victory for a Brazilian sect combining elements
of Christianity and native religion, and supporters of the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Santa Fe, New Mexico-based group
has about 130 members, and imports a substance known as hoasca which
is then combined with local plants and brewed into a tea used in the
church's communion ritual. In 1999, U.S. Customs inspectors seized a
shipment of the psychotropic chemical which is banned under the
Controlled Substances Act.
The group took legal action citing the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act passed by Congress in 1993. RFRA requires that the government
present a "compelling interest" before placing substantial burden on
any religious practice, and if it does so, must use the "least
restrictive means." Proponents of the statute claimed that the
legislation served to protect religious groups from intrusion by
government. But critics say that RFRA spawned a "two-tier" system of
justice, and unfairly exempted religious sects from "neutral civil
laws" that apply to all other individuals and groups.
In 1997, the high court struck down RFRA as it pertained to the
states, saying that Congress had overstepped its authority when it
enacted the legislation. The statute still applied to the federal
government, however, and over a dozen state legislatures -- spurred on
by a wide coalition of religious organizations -- quickly rushed to
pass their own versions of the measure.
In the GONZALES case, attorneys for the government argued that
enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act protected the welfare of
church members and prevented the possible spread of hoasca to
non-religious uses. This has been one of the few times the federal
government has not defended RFRA. Chief Justice John Roberts,
however, said that the government's case missed the very point behind
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and noted that the even
Congress had permitted unchallenged exemption to select drug laws for
members of the Native American Church who use peyote during their
worship services.
"If such use is permitted ... for hundreds of thousands of Native
Americans practicing their faith," said Justice Roberts, "it is
difficult to see how those same findings alone can preclude any
consideration of a similar exception for the 130 or so American
members of the UDV who want to practice theirs..."
A "Thumping Victory" for Religious Privilege?
Spokespersons for religious organizations supporting RFRA praised the
high court decision in GONZALES.
Anthony Picarello of the Washington, DC-based Beckett Fund for
Religious Liberty described the ruling as a "thumping victory for
religious accommodation laws," adding "It's especially good news for
religious minorities."
But Marci Hamilton of the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law was critical
of the decision, and said that RFRA was "an invitation (for
courts) to walk through Alice in Wonderland's looking glass."
The case put the Bush administration in conflict between its penchant
to "carve out" special rights for religious groups, and the
enforcement of drug laws. Holly Hollman of the Baptist Joint
Committee for Religious liberty told reporters, "The government had
argued a categorical approach that would have denied the UDV church,
basically, their day in court under the statutes." The Baptist group
joined with other religious organizations including the National
Association of Evangelicals and the American Jewish Committee in
filing amicus or "friend of the court" briefs in support of the UDV
and the RFRA legislation.
The conflict between religious practice and secular law has been a
common theme throughout American history.
In the 1897 decision of REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, the Supreme Court
examined the case of man charged with violating a federal statute
outlawing bigamy. He defended the practice citing religious freedom;
but the high court majority noted, "Laws are made for the government
of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief
and opinions, they may with practices..."
In recent decades, the courts have widened the protections for
exception religious practices.
* In SHERBERT v. VERNER (1963), the justices overturned a South
Carolina statute that had deemed a member of the Seventh Day Adventist
sect ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because she refused
to work on Saturdays.
* In the 1972 WISCONSIN v. YODER case, the high court ruled that the
state failed to justify a statute applicable to children in the Amish
religion requiring them to attend school until the age of 16.
The Amish plaintiffs argued that for religious reasons, they do not
educate their young after the eighth grade.
The court seemed to change direction, though, with an obscure 1990
decision in EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH. A member of the Native
American Church was denied unemployment benefits after failing a drug
test and losing his job. The substance in question was peyote, used
in the ceremonial rituals of the church. The State of Oregon argued
that drug statutes trumped any First Amendment rights since they were
"generally applicable" laws that applied to everyone.
The Supreme Court majority ruled that the Constitution did not require
that government accommodate religious faiths by exempting practices
from these neutral statutes. Government could not single out
religious sects for discrimination or "burdens." On the other hand,
practices that ran astray of civil laws could not be justified simply
on the basis of the First Amendment.
Spurred by a vast coalition of religious and even state-church
separation groups, Congress moved quickly and in 1993 passed the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It stated that government may not
"substantially burden" religious exercise even when enforcing
generally applicable laws, and must use a "least restrictive means"
test to demonstrate any "compelling" interest if religious groups or
practices were involved. The portion of RFRA that applied to actions
by state governments was overturned in BOERNE v. FLORES.
In 2000, Congress passed another statute, the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Person's Act (RLUIPA). This legislation once again
promoted the use of the "compelling interest/least restrictive means"
standard when questions involving land use of the religious practices
of prison inmates arose. Federal statutes like RFRA and RLUIPA, along
the proliferating number of state "religious protection" laws, clearly
shows government moving away from a strict position of state-church
separation toward a more problematic policy of "accommodation."
Critics say that RFRA amounts to a form of "religion supremacy" in the
enforcement of generally-applicable laws. Columbia University law
professor Michael C. Dorf noted in a recent piece at the findlaw.com
web site:
"In last week's ruling in the hoasca case, the Supreme Court tacitly
adopted this theory. It remarked in a footnote that the Court had
invalidated RFRA as to state and local government in BOERNE, and it
proceeded on the assumption that, with respect to the federal drug
laws, RFRA could simply be treated as authorization for the courts to
find religious exemptions from those laws..."
That surging trend to provide "religious exemptions" constitutes bad
law and dangerous public policy, said Ellen Johnson, President of
American Atheists.
"Government should exercise 'strict neutrality' in respect to
religious groups and practices, and that means neither discriminating
in favor of or against religion," said Johnson.
"RFRA and this latest court decision clearly demonstrate that the
justices are elevating religion above legal standards which apply to
private individuals, groups and businesses."
For further information:
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/rlpa7.htm
("Mass. suit underscores 'special rights' for churches, RLPA, 9/7/98)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/rlpa9d.htm
("The Legacy of Compelling Interest/Least Restrictive Means test,"
includes links.)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/rlpa3.htm
("Mixed signals on RLPA as religious groups split," 8/9/98)
http://www.atheists.org/search.html
(Search the American Atheists web site for our extensive archive of
articles on RFRA, RLPA and RLUIPA)
