Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

High Tea: Sounds Good, But May Not Be... re: recent Supreme Court decision

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
SeveneightyWhoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 12:21 AM
Original message
High Tea: Sounds Good, But May Not Be... re: recent Supreme Court decision
High Tea: Sounds Good, But May Not Be...

February 27 2006
Counterbias.com
MEL SEESHOLTZ


The February 21, 2006 CNN headline read “Court sides with church on hallucinogenic tea.” The story reported on the “first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice John Roberts”:

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 … 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.


Sounds great. A cup of tea sure beats wandering in the desert for forty day and forty nights hoping to achieve the same “peak experience.” The decision does keep government out of religion – at least this particular religion in this particular case – but will the newly configured Supreme Court keep religion out of government? Or will the new Court, under the guise of “religious freedom” and “judicial restraint,” enable Christian fundamentalists to legally enforce their faith-based bigotry and discrimination with impunity?

Continue.. http://www.counterbias.com/574.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. woah, I've found the lawd!
I kid, but these are very smart people!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. What no crumpets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. The decision gives the appearance of prefering one religion over another.
In the 80s the Supremes ruled that taking peyote during a Native American religious rictual was forbidden as a violation against the federal prohibition of controlled substances. In this case at hand, a different bunch of Supremes give their blessing (pun intended) to a CHRISTIAN sect that ingests tea in their religious rictual, which gives an equivocal mind-alteration experience as peyote. Different religions, different societal groups (Native American, hispanic Christians), and different substances ingested.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC