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, 2006

The 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’ Banner

By 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 -

Our Most Controversial Posts

• Another GTL Guest Column: “Were You There When The Lights Went Out…” — By Charlotte Wilson
• The GTL™ Sunday Guest Column — “GO BACK TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY!!!” By Christopher L. Doster
• The GTL™ Sunday Guest Column — “Punch Drunk Boxer” By Christopher L. Doster
• Sarah Palin Goes “Barracuda” At Republican Governors Association Press Conference; Offending Some Whom Aspire For The Next Presidency