While I can see why the government would want to restrict hallucinogenic tea or any mind-altering drug in a religious service, I don't believe that U.S. drug laws supersede religious expression. Native Americans are allowed to use peyote, so why shouldn't the 130 or so practitioners of this Latin American religion be allowed to use their drug of choice in a religious service?

My thoughts in this controversy are shaped by the separation of church and state that we have in this country. If the government is allowed to tell its citizens what is "correct" religious practice and what is not, then we would be in danger of losing our precious freedom of religion guarantee in the First Amendment. I am reminded of the quote, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." If this "different" religion from South America sacrificed a human being at its services, then it would be in Caesar's interest to prohibit the practice, not to mention an offense against one of God's Ten Commandments. But drinking a little mind-altering tea, or smoking a little mind-altering peyote, or even drinking a little mind-altering wine in a religious service is none of the government's business. Again, who says what an "OK" religion is? In America, it can't be the government!

THE REV. C.L. "SKIP" LINDEMAN

Congregational Church of the Lighted Window

United Church of Christ

La Cañada Flintridge

From as early as the 19th century, the courts have distinguished between religious beliefs and religious practices or actions. While beliefs are granted the full protection of the constitution, not so with actions, as is evidenced in the current issue regarding the use of "sacramental drugs."

During the Prohibition era, sacramental users of wine were exempt from the general prohibition laws and the element, which was transformed through religious practices into the blood of Christ, was secured through governmental resources. I imagine the same type of procedures can be adopted for the procurement of hallucinogens today.

This case is going to be a good test for our system. Sure it will answer questions about the extent of law and religious freedom, but it will answer even greater issues of tolerance and relativism. And the outcome may catch a lot of people off guard. While many believe that heightening awareness of God via chemicals is sacrilege, we can only see ourselves on the other side of the looking glass, and the bizarre world of religion, that justifies many profane behaviors in the name of the divine. It gives us another opportunity to consider Marx's assessment that religion is the opium of the people.

FATHER VAZKEN MOVSESIAN

Armenian Church

Youth Ministries

The control of substances used in ceremony is only one example of societal control over religious mores. Other reasonable controls include the limitation on age at marriage, numbers of spouses and methods of punishment for those who stray from rules of proper conduct. One hopes that an enlightened culture's laws will reflect care for its citizens' safety and well being, rather than insensitivity toward individual expressions of faith. The outlawing of substances presumably dangerous to human health, while controversial when applied to use by adults, is intended to promote health and provide safety, and is not a meaningless exercise in control over religious expression.

In the Baha'i Faith "we are required to abstain from all forms of intoxicants and are further expected conscientiously to obey the civil law of the country in which we reside." The Baha'i writings state that "concerning the so-called 'spiritual' virtues of the hallucinogens...spiritual stimulation should come from turning one's heart to God and not through any physical means such as drugs and agents."

BARBARA CRAMER

Secretary

Baha'i Faith

Glendale

I am 99% in favor of religious freedom. I think most reasonable people would fall into that category or somewhere close to it. I do not think that religious freedom trumps national, state or local laws.

The rule of law must, in my opinion, take precedence over every other consideration. If the Supreme Court rules that the tea is legal, even with banned substances included in it, then let it be the end of the matter. If the Supreme Court rules that the tea is illegal, then that should also be the end of the matter. Without law, and obedience to the law, we cannot survive as a workable, practical, productive society.

THE REV. THOMAS E. WITHERSPOON

Unity Church of the Valley

La Crescenta

God establishes human government to be "a minister of God to you for good" and "an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil" (Romans 13:4).

Religious freedom is perhaps the greatest good our government ensures. I agree with the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act's requirement that the government must justify any action that significantly limits a citizen's practice of his religion.

Congress has protected Native Americans' right to use peyote for their religious ceremonies. I believe the government should treat the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal's use of hallucinogenic sacramental tea in the same way.

But certain conditions in the use of their sacramental tea might qualify as evil, and thus be subject to governmental intervention. Do they use it for purposes other than their established religious ceremonies? Does its use significantly threaten members' health? Is it being distributed or sold to others for recreational use?

My personal conviction is that faith in Jesus Christ, not what we do or do not consume, brings us close to God. My right as an American to freely practice this faith is precious to me, as is my right to communicate this belief to others. We should be considerate of our fellow citizens' religious beliefs and extremely hesitant to limit their valued rights in any way.

PASTOR JON BARTA

Burbank

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 generally prohibits the federal government from restricting the use of controlled substances in bona fide religious ceremonies. The exception to this law is if there are serious health risks associated with the use of a substance or if there is significant potential for diversion of the substance to nonreligious uses.

Judaism dictates that a citizen of a democratic and compassionate country, such as the United States of America, is required to follow, uphold and protect the law of the land. The laws of this country are enacted by officials elected by us. We must have full confidence that these laws are approved to protect and preserve the population and not to hinder our religious rights.

In the 1920s and early 1930s, during the Prohibition era, alcoholic beverages were illegal in this country.

An important part of the Jewish Sabbath and holiday services is the "kiddush," or the benediction over wine.

After determining that wine in small quantities is harmless, and in order to preserve this ancient tradition, our government made an exception to prohibition law for sacramental wine, thus enabling the kiddush ceremony to be performed.

All substances can be harmful if not used in moderation. This includes wine, caffeine and every kind of food known to mankind. There are, however, some substances that are dangerous in any quantity and are rightfully illegal as a protection for society.

If this hallucinogenic tea were as harmless as wine in small quantities, I would encourage the high court to uphold the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for the religious needs of this group. However, in the specific case being discussed, the government claims that this tea is particularly harmful and can be diverted easily for nonreligious purposes. If this is indeed true, then use of the tea should be forbidden.

Our religious needs should never trump the responsibility we have to each other in maintaining a safe and civilized society.

SIMCHA BACKMAN

Chabad Jewish Center

Glendale

Let it be known that God has never required inebriation or hallucination to better get in touch with Him.

As a cogent, rational being of infinite wisdom, it would hardly be sensible to God that His creatures become incoherent on a drug trip to better facilitate their becoming more like Him. God's stated goal is that people be "conformed to the likeness of his Son" (Romans 8:29), and Jesus "being in very nature God" (Philippians 2:6) was not a person prone to chemically induced ecstasies. Rather, he utilized prayer, and had direct communion with His Father in that divinely ordained way. He taught His followers to do likewise.

As for the various drug cults, I imagine that our current system will have to more often deal with such situations as religious liberty slips ever closer into the realm of moral license.

The question is, where will we draw the line, or will a line be drawn? What happens when every imaginable "religious" behavior eventually trumps common decency and law? Would the return of shrine prostitution or child sacrifice be the outside the pale?

For now, it's "only" drugs, and for whatever perceived detriment to society narcotics may present in general, the courts will have to weigh their alleged necessity to particular religions in this society on a case-by-case basis.

Our government has already sanctioned peyote (mescaline) for some American Indian groups who also seek altered spiritual states, so it is hard to see why another group shouldn't have similar access.

I'm sure the marijuana disciples of Rastafarianism are also holding their smoky breaths as they watch this case unfold. Well, to each his own, but know that to use a substance for personal gratification or religious tripping is one thing, to blame God for it is another.

THE REV. BRYAN GRIEM

Senior Pastor

Light On The Corner