RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, AS LONG AS THE FED APPROVES

Once again, this page feels obligated to revisit the sacred boundaries that
separate church and state. As we have argued before, religious beliefs have
no place in the structuring or maintenance of state and federal laws.

Legal foundations must have absolutely no affiliation with any religious
backing, regardless of whether those beliefs represent a majority.
Likewise, laws should not interfere with religious practices, despite
arguments that some aspects might be considered dangerous or against
government interests.

Federal law requires a governmental group to present a "compelling
interest" before attempting any religious constraints on another group, but
officials may manipulate a situation, giving them the upper hand when
forced to present that interest.

The Supreme Court will consider the case of Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita
Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, one that potentially could set a precedent
either strengthening religious freedom or putting it at the mercy of the
federal government based on bogus arguments.

The church, which operates in Santa Fe, N.M., uses hallucinogenic tea
during religious services. About 140 members practice the religion in the
United States, and 8,000 practice worldwide.

The church is based in Brazil and combines aspects of Christianity with
traditions rooted in the Amazon basin.

The New Mexico branch imports hoasca tea, but the Bush administration
argues it violates international drug trafficking laws.

Trafficking the tea, government officials say, "directly impairs narcotics
law-enforcement efforts, frustrates intergovernmental cooperation and
weakens the government's ability to insist that other countries adhere to
their treaty obligations."

The federal government makes a point, and the Supreme Court is likely to
rule in its favor, but the justices should not overlook the sanctity of
free religion before coming to any conclusions.

If the court bases its decision on already determined precedents, the New
Mexico church doesn't stand a chance. In 1990, peyote, which contains the
hallucinogen mescaline, was criminalized by the court. The court denied
challenges by Native Americans who sought First Amendment protection.

"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from
compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state
is free to regulate," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote at the time.

The New Mexico church argues that its law-abiding members should continue
to practice the religion, which they say does not endanger the users or
constitute drug abuse.

"The record does not support the government's alarmist arguments that
denial of the petition [to continue shipment] will result in physical or
psychological harm," according to the court filing.

Granted, transporting the tea might defy international efforts to stifle
drug traffic, but the integrity of U.S. enforcement agencies is not the
group that stands to lose the most from this battle.

The concept of free religion and expression is at stake, and governmental
interference can only hinder the U.S. Bill of Rights, which already faces
eventual deterioration. Likely, the preservation of church and state will
fail, and religious freedom will become extinct - perhaps the majority's
will would prefer that - but individuals across the country should cringe
at the thought of government-regulated religions.

It all starts with prevailing governmental interest in religious practices,
but where does it stop? At what point does the federal government cross the
line into the sacred territory of personal beliefs?

The consequences of government interference will rattle the foundations of
the United States, and the ripples will be felt across the free world as
the model of independence falls victim to government meddling.

If the United States stands a chance at spreading democracy across the
globe, maybe it should first stabilize its own guarantees of personal freedom at