Loading ...Not a joke; it’s a valid question…
Remember back in February of 2006 when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Christian sect in New Mexico who believed they had to drink hallucinogenic team containing DHT to “get closer to God” were “A-Okay” because it was constitutionally protected as “Freedom Of Religion”?
Here’s a bit of a reminder for you as we take a little “stroll down mem’ry lane” — Law.Com — February 22nd, 2006…
Supreme Court Sides With Church in Hallucinogenic Tea Dispute
Gina Holland
The Associated Press
February 22, 2006The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that a small congregation may use hallucinogenic tea as part of a four-hour ritual intended to connect with God.
In their first religious freedom decision under new Chief Justice John Roberts, the 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 in New Mexico, 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. …”
(Snip!)
“… Roberts, writing his second opinion since joining the Court, said that religious freedom cases can be difficult, “but Congress has determined that courts should strike sensible balances.”
A VERY interesting ruling, and the right one to make, in my not so humble opinion. I applauded the SCOTUS and Justice Roberts at the time. I wish I could prove it to the newer readers, but I can’t since our web host screwed up and deleted about eight months of our archives. Since we can’t do anything about that, let us continue.
So, anyway, along comes this group of students who were professing to be able to “get closer to God” via the bong — thus their name: “Bong Hits For Jesus”. Anybody who’s ever actually enjoyed a bong hit could see where these people were coming from… except their principal, who said they were lawless cretins who needed to be silenced for their religious beliefs. One would ASSUME that once the case made it to the Supreme Court of The United States, they would refuse to even hear it since they’d already ruled in favor of religious folks who believed the Government had no right to deem a drug as “illegal” if a religious sect felt it was imperative for them to ingest that drug in order to “get closer to God”, wouldn’t you? It would be common sense to most level-headed folks, right? Wouldn’t you think? BUT — that’s not what happened…
Just when you thought it couldn’t get nuttier, the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST themselves and their earlier decision in a 5-4 ruling yesterday:
Court Backs School On Speech Curbs
A 5-4 Majority Cites Perils of Illegal Drugs In Case of the ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ BannerBy Charles Lane
The Supreme Court yesterday gave public schools new authority to regulate what students say, allowing principals to punish speech or demonstrations that may “reasonably be viewed” as promoting illegal drug use.
In its most significant ruling on student speech in almost two decades, the court said that the principal of a high school in Juneau, Alaska, did not violate senior Joseph Frederick’s constitutional right to free speech when she suspended him for unfurling a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” as students waited for the Olympic torch relay to pass their school in 2002. A bong is a water pipe commonly used to smoke marijuana.
“Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and teachers . . . poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care from the dangers of drug abuse,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a five-justice majority of the court. “The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers.” …”
(Snip!)
“… Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, arguing that Frederick had raised a “nonsense banner,” which advocated nothing, legal or illegal, and that the court’s opinion could be read to permit broad censorship.
“[T]he court’s ham-handed, categorical approach is deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students, about the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use,” Stevens wrote.
Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Stevens’s opinion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer also dissented, writing separately that the court should not have decided the free-speech issue at all and ruled only that the principal was not individually liable for her decision. …” – The Washington Post
Hmm. In the FORMER case, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of those Citizens who professed to believe they must ingest illicit drugs in order for them to “get closer to God”. In the latter, the SCOTUS ruled against like-minded citizens who felt the need to speak out in favor of the use of illicit drugs in order for them to “get closer to God”. The SCOTUS said “Nope. Can’t do it.” See the hipocrisy here?
This latest ruling illustrates The Peter Principle is alive, well, and a quite valid theory; particularly as applied to The Supreme Court Of The United States Of America today…
Annnnnd… you just can’t have it both ways, boys and girls. But… don’t try and tell the SCOTUS that.
Other blogger reactions (thanks in part to MemeOrandum): The Volokh Conspiracy (Right); The Reaction (Left); Obsidian Wings (Left); The Moderate Voice (Center); Comments From Left Field (Left – Adult Language); The Democratic Daily (Left); Liberal Values (Slightly Left of Center)
***
Thanks to our friends at RealClearPolitics for selecting this article for their REAL CLEAR BLOGS TUESDAY – Morning Edition roundup where they match this opinion Vs. Betsy’s Page -
A big thanks to our good friend Michael van der Galien of The Moderate Voice for selecting this post to be added to today’s TMV Center Of Attention roundup -
There is one major difference in the two cases, and at least the Supreme Court (unlike some of the lower courts) was able to see the difference. In one case, you have a group that legitimately uses a “drug” in religious ceremonies. In the second case, you have a group of over-privileged rich kids doing something they thought would be cool and funny – it has NOTHING to do with religion OR FREE SPEECH.
This “case” should never have been taken to court at all, much less the Supreme Court. The kids knew what they were doing was wrong when they did it. That’s why they HID THEIR BANNER until the last moment when they knew the cameras would be on.
People should just wake up and smell the coffee on this one. It was a teen-age prank. They got caught and punished. End of story. It has been TOTALLY blown out of proportion.
Our courts, our country, has been hijacked by brain eating pod creatures.
Center of Attention » The Moderate Voice // Jun 26, 2007 at 10:25 AM
[...] GTL wonders: “How Can The SAME Supreme Court Rule AGAINST “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” and IN FAVOR OF [...]
We have a schezephrenic Court now, thanks to Bush, that has actually become a force of five, which rule in diametrically opposite fashion to the other four in just about any case. You can bet that if the four rules the kettle is black, the five will rule otherwise, simply to declare that any ruling by the four must be liberal and thus wrong. If the neo-cons wish to install a conservative dictator forever, now is the time to do it, when the conservative administration can do absolutely no wrong, according to these right-wing cronies.
Oh, and by the way, I’m throwing a religious ceremony (party) that requires the government to buy me 20 kegs of my favorite beer. Thanks, SCOTUS! You all are invited!
“…brain eating pod creatures…” — OK, Buffalo, that was a good one, LMFAO
Good call, F&B, what I was going to point out. And to add to it – if the kid in question in the schools case could have shown that he belonged to a sect that, as a regular part of worship, took “Bong Hits for Jesus” and actually called it that, had belonged to that sect for more than the last two minutes, and that sect was not brought into being in the last two minutes for the purpose of making this silly statement, SCOTUS would likey have ruled in favor of the kid.
I see no contradiction in the rulings.
Lee wrote: “We have a schezephrenic Court now, thanks to Bush, that has actually become a force of five, which rule in diametrically opposite fashion to the other four in just about any case.”
As opposed to a leftist stacked court which does things like toss out the 5th Amendment and rule that the State can strip a person of property and give it to a developer for his private gain. Look at just who ruled how on that. Even the “moderate” swing vote of Sandy Day put the official OKEY-DOKEY on that little bit of socialism.