Posted on 03/19/2007 6:24:09 AM PDT by nancyvideo
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear argument in a Juneau, Alaska, case that might further define the free-speech rights of high school students.
In a 1969 case, the high court ruled that students had the right to wear black armbands during the Vietnam War, but in two others in the 1980s, the court said schools had the right to ban offensive speech, as opposed to political speech, and control the content of student newspapers.
The case scheduled for argument Monday involves Joseph Frederick, a student at Juneau-Douglas High School and his principal, Deborah Morse.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightbias.com ...
I am safe to assume, then, that you don't know what a bong hit is.
I've known since I was a teen.
I'm betting that I can ask 100 random people on the street, 50's and under in age, and get an answer.
What do you think the majority answer will be?
From same source: "A bong, also commonly known as a water pipe, is a smoking device, generally used to smoke cannabis,"
Another: Dr Bongs provides a complete range of cannabis accessories from all the old favourites to new and exciting ideas
I suppose that the expression "bong hits" is understood by just about everybody, except those who don't take the common meaning of word usage and apply it.
The principal of the school in this instance was right on target. It was not rocket science.
While it was perhaps immature and adolescent, it was still a pro-drug message, and the principal was correct in finding it disruptive.
Clinton would say, "What is the meaning of 'is.'"
Those who work with kids day in and day out know what's being said/implied/hinted at. Any court that wants to play foolish "what's the meaning of 'is'" games is discounting the obvious.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."
There are none so dull as those who have their answer to the question they pose and ask it anyway, court notwithstanding.
So what does "Bong hits 4 Jesus" mean? Wouldn't the meaning of the WHOLE PHRASE be the issue in this case?
Please, enlighten us all, including the SCOTUS, who seemed as clueless as I am about this phrase, which I understand the author claimed was nonsense.
Is this a popular phrase nationwide with students all over the country? Wow. How hip are those in-the-middle of nowhere kids in Juneau, yu know?
"it was still a pro-drug message, and the principal was correct in finding it disruptive."
If any part is taken as a message then the whole message must be considered and they do not want to go there. An unholy war and an unconstitutional civil war is being waged upon a select group of Christians in this country. This was more a pro-Christian message than a pro-drug message particularly because we are talking about an herb. It is not like the drug approved by the FDA which was designed by man to kill human beings in the womb. It is a God given herb cultivated by man since the beginning of time which could free us from oil dependance while helping to feed the world. The principal acted out of fear and trampled a citizen's right to free speech. She deserves harsh punishment.
"When the government fears the people there is liberty;
when the people fear the government there is tyranny."
--Thomas Jefferson"
"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. "
Indeed, many are blind to the unholy war waged by false
and heretical Christians through their DEAmen. Some here
on the FreeRepublic forum even cheer them on in their
aggressions. What has happened to the freedom of Religion
which this Nation was founded upon? You even deride the
freedom of speech repeatedly. You should celebrate with
those performers and sing along or go and preach your
heresy of evil things from the pulpit like your predecessors
the Manicheans. But, do not for one moment believe that
Jesus stands at your side as you persecute his children for
the possession, propagation or protection of a gift from God.
I'm persecuting them by asking questions about them? I'm persecuting them by asking why they consider smoking pot to be a Christian Sacrament.
Why do you consider questions about faith pointless?
Google the answers yourself.
I read pages from the first few sites. Those aren't Christian sects. They are drug culture sites that quot scriptures and then infer that religious experiences mentioned in them were really drug induced experiences.
From the first couple sites I read the people writing the articles didn't even claim to be Christians, they were simply trying to explain biblical reports of the supernatural as being related to drug use.
Another site walks through the alleged discovery of a misinterpretation in the translation of Exodus 30:23 and that the oil used in holy anointing was made from Marijuana. Rumors of the discovery of that interpretation appear to date back to the early 1900s. They take a few word of a few etymologists over that of thousands over the years who say that the bible was interpreted correctly and the word was calamus, not kineboisin (cannabis).
However, even if you believe that the anointing oil was made from marijuana which would make for some very smelly oil, the bible doesn't suggest smoking or eating the oil.
Are we supposed to believe that God wanted his followers to get high by dumping some oil made from pot on their heads?
Doing what you feel like doing and rationalizing it and trying to justify it isn't Christianity. It would be much more accurately categorized as Humanism.
All your questions are pointless because this nation has freedom of religion and although you may personally doubt their interpretation you may not persecute them.
Actually the first amendment means the government cannot persecute them. You seem to have a very broad idea of what persecution entails. So let me use other words.
I don't hate people who don't share my faith. I don't wish to do them harm. However, I do not feel any obligation to let there claims that Christ promoted smoking pot go unchallenged. I don't feel the need to tell them that it's all right that they think that way and that they can believe what they want and I'll believe what I want.
Christ doesn't call on us to keep the good news to ourselves. If you feel that challenging what others believe is persecuting them, then you've bought into Humanism.
Our conversation started with me saying that this kid was intentionally insulting Christians. I still feel that way, and don't think you've made much of an argument otherwise.
The message is no different than any other bong hits message. Nothing hard about it at all except for those who don't believe their lying eyes.
See my previous posts about "bong hits" in the culture.
N3
{!}
Assuming that these are reasonable restrictions, I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't think the school district is arguing that she tore down the sign because of time, place, and manner restrictions (are all signs prohibited on school "time," whatever that is?), but I think it's pretty clear that she tore down the sign because of the message.
Let's be honest: if the sign had said "Go USA! Win the Gold!" do you think the principal would have ran over and torn down the sign?
As far as your last question, the message was nonsensical. It doesn't mean anything, and the kid has said that it didn't mean anything--he saw a bumper sticker on a skateboard and he thought it would be a clever way to get his teacher riled up. Yes, it's juvenile, but that's not a judgment call I want a teacher making any more than I want a teacher making a judgment call on whether a student can hold up a sign during a football game that says "John 3:16."
No I do not.
I would categorize it not only as a time based restriction, but a manner based restriction. The manner in which he presented his message was offensive. Protected speech can be offensive it the part that gives offense is critical part of the message or a critical part of delivering the message effectively. I don't really understand what message he was trying to present, so it's difficult for me to gage if he needed to be offensive, but I'm skeptical.
I also don't think that bans based on the content are entirely unconstitutional, but they face a very high level of scrutiny. ie. You cannot make credible threats to the life of the President.
Since a lot of this is theoretical anyway, let me suggest a slightly different scenario.
Let me say the message is that he disapproves of laws and regulations restricting the use of Marijuana.
What if he presented a sign saying "Marijuana is not a performance enhancing drug" as a criticism of the Olympics testing (or at least having tested in the past) for Marijuana use among their drug tests.
You can make an argument that it was not the right time and place for his bong hits for Jesus sign, but that argument is weakened if he relates the message to the event. It would be a much harder to ban that sign unless the school had a policy of banning the students from holding up any signs at such events.
Word:Get over it, (and yourself as well).
One of the fears the SCOTUS expressed was that authorities at schools could not be expected to know exactly what to do in regards to different free speech scenarios. Fine! If they're not sure what to do, call counsel! I know I do at every turn as a businessman.
Before reacting in a violent manner, as in this case destroying the student's private property, get counsel lest the "John 3:16" sign at a football game be next.
"Free speech never takes (Bongs)hit!"
Oh, how dare I defend what I believe in or take offense at someone who chooses to be a jackass out of an immature desire to offend others.
You seem to care about being able to express ideas. However, it someone expresses one you don't share they should get over themselves?
That doesn't sound very supportive of a public discourse.
I only suggested that he needed to try expressing his view without being unnecessarily offensive.
When you disagree with someone, it appears your response is to tell them their opinions are worthless.
Did you come up with that approach on your own, or did you take it from the how to be a liberal play book?
"Our conversation started with me saying that this kid was intentionally insulting Christians. I still feel that way, and don't think you've made much of an argument otherwise."
I have not seen anything that says he is not a Christian.
In fact, almost every partaker of herb I have ever known
has been a Christian. The many comments on WOD threads
in favor of the state sponsored terrorism of the DEAmen
and their ilk written by crusading puritan christians are
far more insulting to the Christian faith than any banner.
The ignorant zealot is the worst of enemies to peace.
Proverbs 15:17 Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.
"The unlawful use of or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."--FBI definition of terrorism.
The lack of results in a generations long civil war(WOD) relegates all action taken by the government as significant only for the TERROR that it inflicts upon the citizenry in effort to control their appetites. (Not a Constitutionally mandated federal power!) The DEAmen are the Taliban of America.
Obviously not everyone is going to agree with all the laws that are passed, but they are still the laws of our nation.
The many comments on WOD threads in favor of the state sponsored terrorism of the DEAmen and their ilk...
We live in a nation of 300 million people where 24 hour news stations love to overly dramatize everything.
There are unquestionable instances where the DEA and other government agencies have overstepped the bound of the law in the war on drugs. However, despite the real seriousness of such cases, they are still relatively rare. There are also a lot of instances where the press or individuals misrepresent things to fan the flame of anger people have over the war on drugs.
"The unlawful use of or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."--FBI definition of terrorism.
Well other than the relatively rare serious abuse of authority, the actions of the DEA aren't unlawful. A number of the laws they enforce are arguably misguided, and I don't personally understand how some of the property confiscation laws are constitutional, but they are the law.
DEA agents aren't terrorists. They aren't targeting innocent people. They are targeting people who are breaking the laws that were passed by our representatives.
Your overblown hyperbole doesn't serve your cause well.
Your approach also seems to insult or belittle those who oppose your views rather than to provide information and reasoning that supports your views.
Once again, it doesn't serve your cause well.
The lack of results in a generations long civil war(WOD) relegates all action taken by the government as significant only for the TERROR that it inflicts upon the citizenry in effort to control their appetites.
The problem with that statement is it is the citizenry that elects the representatives that make the drug laws, and with the exception of medical use exclusions, our drug laws have widespread support among the citizenry.
Since many of these laws have the support of the majority of people, your claims of terrorism detracts from your credibility. Reports of abuse by the DEA sound like rantings of anarchists rather than serious governmental abuse of its citizens.
Not a Constitutionally mandated federal power!
I have some level of agreement with you on that point. I believe that the commerce clause has been horribly abused to unconstitutionally extend the authority of the federal government that should not be possible without a constitutional amendment. However, it you take a serious look at the past popularity of the war on drugs with the majority of the populations (despite strong opposition by a sizable minority), I think if the Federal government's regulation of drugs had been found unconstitutional, it is likely that the support for a constitutional amendment was there.
The DEAmen are the Taliban of America.
The Taliban is a brutal and oppressive minority that murdered people for little to no reason, supported men treating women as property with no real rights, and denied people basic human rights. They also supported and harbored those that murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11.
You're comparing them to a government agency that enforces our nations laws that prohibit your recreational use of drugs.
The moral depravity of your statement is appalling.
It is people like you that are the worst enemy of the legalization of Marijuana.
If you feel insulted it can only be that you identified with some misguided group I have righteously chastised in my service to the Lord.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Christ, afterall, is the Prince of Peace.
You repeatedly support the tyranny of the majority in your statements proving that you are not a Republican. The law of the land is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They limit the powers of the government to those which are enumerated and control over dietary law is not an enumerated power because it has always been the purview of the church, not the state. The DEA, regardless of actions, is a murderous abomination masked in mystery and black armor sucking off the teat of a harlot. It is responsible for more death than the inquisition. It is a duty for freedom loving Republicans to prevent government from imposing upon individuals, through force and coercion, arbitrary puritanical beliefs particularly when they are contrary to established religious facts, beliefs and scripture. Only in this way can we assure the freedom of religion envisioned in this nations’ founding.
Bear in mind this sacred principle, that
though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail,
that will to be rightful must be reasonable;
that the minority possess their equal rights,
which equal law must protect,
and to violate would be oppression."
--Thomas Jefferson
Actually I never said I felt insulted by that group. I said that the kid in with his sign were offensive.
The kid doesn't appear to have any association with that group, not does there really appear to be much of a group.
I couldn't find an actual organized sect. More of just a few people here in there trying to rationalize things.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
The battle is a battle of the spirit, but it still takes place in this world. While the other people of this world aren't the main enemies with which we wrestle, that doesn't mean we are called to just agree with everyone and not make anyone feel bad about their actions.
Christians are called to do Gods will. We are called to follow Christ.
If you were paying attention to what I said you will notice I never said that smoking pot was completely incompatible with being a Christian. I said that the claims that it is a sacrament or that the bible call us to smoke pot are bogus.
Pot is a plant. It is not evil. If smoking it causes you to sin, then you should not smoke it. It's really that simple.
But why stop at verse 12 of Ephesians 6.
Ephesians 6: 13-19
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
When you quote more than that one verse it sure doesn't sound like we are supposed to sit quietly and try not to offend.
You repeatedly support the tyranny of the majority in your statements proving that you are not a Republican.
No sir, I'm a Republican, I'm just not an anarchist. I don't go around screaming about how law enforcement officers are terrorists because they enforce laws that don't allow me to use particular drugs recreationally. Laws that were not passed by edict, but by a representative government.
I agree that the federal government has stretched it's authority beyond what I think that the commerce clause was meant to do. However, banning the recreational use of drugs is not infringing on our inalienable rights.
I've said that I would support the legalization of marijuana as long as there is a reasonable way to determine if someone is impaired by it so that grossly irresponsible behavior that endangers others can be policed in an objective manner.
As for highly addictive drugs, I think they should remain illegal. Why? Because very, very few people can use them more than rarely without their actions ending up having a detrimental effects on others. Because of the highly addictive nature of the drugs, too many people slip over the edge from the occasional recreational use (which in itself can have adverse effects on others) to habitual abuse through which those people quickly become a burden on society.
The law of the land is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
More accurately the define our government, and the law of the land must fall within the authority vested in the government by the people, through the constitution.
I don't think I'm contradicting you with that, but rather adding to what you said.
They limit the powers of the government to those which are enumerated and control over dietary law is not an enumerated power...
I would agree that the federal government's authority should be limited to importation and exportation across the US border, and regulating interstate commerce involving these drugs, but not commerce within the states, and definitely not production or possession.
However, that just leaves it up to the states themselves, most of which have their own "draconian" drug laws, though several states appear willing to decriminalize Marijuana to some extent.
...because it has always been the purview of the church, not the state.
That's a load of crap. They merely wanted to leave such issue to the states.
The people limited the power of the federal government because they feared it becoming to powerful and oppressive, and I would agree that it has become far more powerful and oppressive than they wanted it to become.
Their intent was to leave regulation if deemed necessary to the states so that people had more say in what effects them, and if they chose to do so, they could leave a state that did not match their beliefs and go to one more suited to them.
So what went wrong? Over time, the people decided to elect more and more federalists to government.
So now we have a legislature where state's rights are nearly forgotten, and a supreme court with justices that either support the reinterpretation of the constitution that has allowed the federal government to expand itself without amendment, or they feel bound by prior decisions and are unwilling shake our current government to it's core.
So what can we do about this?
Well spouting hyperbole about DEA terrorists and making yourself sound like a irresponsible anarchist is a good way to get people to believe that a strong government is necessary to protect them. It's a horrible way to support small government.
There is a lot of truth to accusations that much of the Republican party has pushed big government when it comes to "moral" issues. Some are learning that asking the government to regulate things is something that should be done with great care. Others still seem to thing that they can bring salvation to the world through government regulation, which if you think about it is absurd.
The reason to regulate or not regulate drugs, isn't religious. The question is does the harm that drug use does far outweigh any positive aspects. I do consider recreation a positive aspect, because recreation is something free people reward themselves with. However, when you are part of a society, you don't have an absolute right to just do whatever you please. I believe in a small federal government, but not no government. I don't expect that the government will make all the decisions I want them to make, but name calling isn't a very effective way to change laws I don't like.
Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson
Good words to live by. However, there is a difference between rights and privileges. Recreational use of drugs isn't a right.
The way that some in the government have at times prosecuted the war on drugs has included some violations of other rights in my opinion, and we do need to fight to retain our rights. The property seizure laws are one good example.
At the same time, most people don't have a whole lot of sympathy for people who are complaining simply because they chose to break the law, and then got caught.
If you want to be taken seriously, try explaining the issues rather than going on a rant and attacking anyone that doesn't instantly agree with you.
"Christians are called to do God's will."
JUST DO IT!
GOD MADE HERB
GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
GOD GAVE IT TO MAN
Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.
Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:29
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
All those who seek the eradication of a gift from God or
persecute those who possess, propagate or protect that gift
act adversely to the will of God as expressed in the word.
ROM 14:2-4
For one believeth that he may eat all things:
but he that is weak, let him eat herbs.
Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not:
and he that eateth not, let him not judge him that eateth.
For God hath taken him to him.
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?
To his own lord he standeth or falleth. And he shall stand:
for God is able to make him stand.
The black armor of the DEAman is not the armor of God.
The whole armor of God is the entire word. The DEAmen
are adversaries of peace, warriors of a false purity which
by the will of God will never be attained and as long as
they exist they reign supreme in a hell on earth of their
own creation. Knowing well that they cannot and will not
be triumphant they selectively persecute for the sake of
terrorizing the rest of THE PEOPLE into falling in step
with their heresy of the 'evil weed'.
Peter 3:13-14 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
The real heart of the issue is the heresy of the 'evil weed.'
and how it facilitates the witch hunt phenomena. Anyone
can purchase an evil substance, plant it on a person's
property and inform the authorities by screaming 'WITCH!'
In the news now you have a woman beating cop that threatened
her if she talked he would plant drugs on her and her
family and put them away. Just look at Tulia.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=wodlist
There are
endless counts of officers being caught buying drugs when
it is not possible for them to use them because they are
tested. What else are they purchasing them for? Who knows
how many innocent people are in prison? Everyone should
demand the release of all imprisoned for mere possession of
a substance.
Its not a matter of legal or not on the kids part. Its a matter of legal or not on the principles part. Does the principle have the right to suspend the kid for not taking down the sign. The sign is not on school property and the kid was allowed to be out of school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.