Today, the Supreme Court further sullied its reputation through shear inconsistency. Remember this story from a while back? A then 18-year-old high school student in Juneau, Alaska, Joseph Frederick unveiled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” as cameras filmed the Olympic Torch passing through town. Joseph’s humorless principle, Deborah Morse, confiscated his banner and then suspended him for promoting drug use (as if illegal drugs are the only things you can smoke out of bongs). Frederick then sued the school for violating his first amendment right to free speech.
The case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court. And today, in a split decision, the Court ruled that, as a student, Frederick does not have the freedom to express anything that could be construed as an endorsement of drugs. The political left (myself included) is outraged by the further degradation of our personal freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In a rare showing of unity, the Religious Right is also upset by the decision because they believe Frederick’s right to promote religion! See gasmonso’s post about Rev. D. Jay Johnson for an example.
Here in lies the hypocrisy…
In another decision today, the Court ruled that taxpayers don’t have standing to sue to stop the White House’s from spending tax dollars on faith-based initiatives. The suite was brought by The Freedom From Religion Foundation and argued that the faith-based initiatives unfairly favor religious charities and amounts to a federal endorsement of religion.
While I take issue with a few aspects of both decisions, what I’d like to consider here is what the Supreme Court is saying about religious expression. The Court basically decided that it’s permissible for the government to endorse religion, but not for a student. Isn’t this the exact opposite of what the First Amendment of The Constitution of The United States of America dictates? One again, read the very first two clauses of the very first amendment in the Bill or Rights (which defines our freedoms), “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The first clause prohibits the government from endorsing religion and the second protects all citizens’ right to express their religious beliefs, no matter how unorthodox.
Related posts:
- Religion Expelled For Bullying Students
- Religious Right Steering US Towards Extremism
- Second Coming Gets Crucified In Divorce Court
- Iran from the Law
- Death Threats Over Intelligent Design
June 25th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
First of all, great to see a new article, hope you’re doing allright gasmonso.
Secondly, WTF?
I can see why the government would give some funding to churches and whatnot from a cultural standpoint, but from what I gather, their spending is way to high and, basically, unconstitutional.
Thirdly, yes reverse order
Why is “bong hits 4 jesus” (which I don’t even get) suddenly ‘promoting drugs’? And even if it is, it’s not like he’s saying “Cocaine here, free samples” AND, what’s does the principle have to do with what he does in his own private life? If it’s not during school, on school grounds, it’s not her business.
June 25th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Not trying to hijack the thread, but…
Neither the constitution, nor the bill of rights, nor any document ever produced by the government ‘defines our freedoms’, as you say. It’s a minor point, but one well worth stating that the freedoms we have we have without regard for the government. The constitution and subsequent bill of rights lay out both the powers that the government has and the power they expressly do not. It does not say, for example, that we have a right to freedom of speech. That is taken as a given. What it says is that the government may not abridge that right. That’s a minor difference in wording but a HUGE difference in meaning. The government does not have the power to give me rights.
I already have them.
And now back to our regularly scheduled comments.
June 25th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Thanks for the correction, Mike. You make an important point. Perhaps you’d be more comfortable if I had said “Defines our basic legal protections”? Anyway, you are absolutely right. Our rights are unalienable, as the founders put it. The constitution simply prohibits the government from restricting them, in theory.
June 25th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Indeed. Now if we could just get people to forget that pesky “endowed by our creator” part — or at least get them to just think they meant ‘Mom and Dad’…
Good to have you back…
June 25th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
ah great stuff, was about to send thi sin, but it’s better here
http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-32/1182711583163640.xml&storylist=louisiana
June 25th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Why should this be surprising? Since Bush, it seems that the only thing the three branches do is subvert the constitution and the bill of rights. That’s not true, though. They do, after all, eat and sleep as well.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Your country needs more Socialism; I am utterly convinced that the less money companies can make exploiting your freedoms, the better. I’m pretty everyone in your lower earning class would agree with me. (65% of the population?)
Your government is out of control, wasting Billions on war profiteering and political propoganda. You’re the richest country in the world; and yet here you all are, squabbling about the slight unfair spending of a few hundred thousand a year, tops? Sorry for the slight threadjack, but your government, and therefore country sucks the balls right now. Religious or not, you people deserve better than this…
June 25th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
“A system based onthe nessesity of a poor working class is clearly a flawed system”
June 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
It’s just the beginning, I’m really afraid that USA is turning to Egypt.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
The bong thing yet another example of government officials enforcing taboos on those who do not necessarily share those views. They tip toe around real issues, and sink their claws into anything that offends their delicate bible-belt bred sensibilities.
For example: I respect the right of anyone to eat what they choose. If I were a vegan, and you a carnivore, that’s fine. If I became a legislator, it would be ethically wrong of me to try to force all the carnivores to refrain from eating meat just because I think it’s bad for them. Regardless of the research that points to the meat being bad, and the risks of eating meat, it’s their choice to eat it. It would be ethically wrong for them to try to force a vegan to eat a cheeseburger, or assault someone who is enjoying a steak.
The government is supposed to be there to help protect our rights and keep the bad guys off the streets. It’s sad to see that the main function of the government these days is to shove whatever the Dogma of the Day is down our collective throats.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Ok, half of that didn’t make sense, but I’m tired, so cut me some slack. Maybe I’m just hungry. :)
June 25th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I strongly disagree with the need for “more socialism” in America (off-topic anyway). Socialism is a failed experiment, how many times do we have to flirt with it? “You cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor”, it just brings everyone down.
We’ve got way too much socialism here in Canada, which mostly explains our severely lagging productivity and standard of living compared with the U.S. over the last 15 or so years.
As an example, our hugely expensive “free” health care system is a joke - 3 or 4 hour waits in out-patience is the norm, and many I know can’t even find a family doctor in the area. Give me some of my ridiculously high taxes back, and let me pay for my own health services.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
I strongly agree with Joel. No offense Shaze, but in my experience people promoting socialism lack a basic understanding of both economics and the human nature. While providing some social safeguards is certainly a good idea, full-blown socialism as political and economic system definitely isn’t. Communism is just another religion in my opinion.
On another note, bongs are definitely mainly used to smoke pot. While I agree that it isn’t really a big deal, it’s silly to deny the reality. Anyway, am I the only one to think it’s hilarious to consider the quote “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” as promoting religion? ;-)
June 26th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I agree with Joel 100%. Socialism should be a spice to sweeten the nutritious main course that is Capitalism. I think history has shown, over and over, that a society based on Socialism is a complete failure waiting to happen. People just are NOT wired that way. I think our basic system (the US) is just about right. If only the damn government wouldn’t keep getting out of its cage and stepping WAY beyond it’s limits. It is about time we put it back in.
Socialized medicine is a horrible thing to do to a populace. This coming from someone in the US without medical insurance. Our medical system, while horribly broken, is still better than socialized medicine.
Oh and to Deletedsoul, your terms are a little out of whack :) I am pretty sure a human trying to be a carnivore would die! We are omnivorous. Herbivorous humans are unhealthy in my opinion :) All things in moderation. Meat is good for you, as long as it isn’t tainted. Or eaten in excess. As for Vegans, I personally think they are a little off in the head, but as long as they don’t bother me while I am gnawing my steak, I don’t care how weird they are.
Oh, did I mention that socialism is the devil in anything other than VERY small doses?
June 26th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Come on, guys. Defending the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” thing, is retarded. You can’t tell me this kid was seriously trying to promote religion. It was just something he thought would be funny to see on TV. And hell yes, I thought it was great! And I smoke weed as well. But come on, they raised a stink about it, you got your laugh, now just quietly go the hell away. Claiming it was anything more than it was, i.e., claiming it’s a big conspiracy against our bill of rights, is just plain dishonest. And sadly, it’s stupidity like this, that gives ‘the right’ all the more ammo against us.
Seriously, come to your damn senses, folks.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Howdy all,
At the moment I am only going to offer an opinion on the first part of this article as I haven’t really looked into the second part. I think the main issue here is about the balance between decency and freedom of expression. I understand the point made above that this is merely a childish prank that someone found inappropriate and decided to (for better or worse) do something about. I would say that to a certain extent that is true. It does however give rise to the question on where the boundaries of decency and freedom of expression are and whether this young lads actions crossed that line.
Was the school overstepping its authority? I don’t know as I am not farmilar with the law in this particular area or whether he was on school property or time. All these things I believe would have a bearing on the answer to that question.
Should he have sued the school? Once again I don’t believe there to be enough information to make conclusive judgment.
All that being siad I would have hoped this situation could have been resolved without taking it as far as it has gone. With some schools taking such an uncompromising stance on some issues I can understand why someone may feel that sueing the school is the only way to make thier point or defend their actions. Until such time as instituations such as schools find methods of dealing with the issues that allow better and fairer conflict resolution I think we will continue to see what should be a small issue like this being blown out of proportion.
As for the issue of where the boundaries lie between decency and expression, I doubt it can be easily solved through legislation. As time goes on peoples opinions and thoughts on the matter will continue to change. I certainly lean more towards the freedom side as I am not easily offended and believe that people should be more tolerant and take a joke for what it is. (A joke for those who where wondering) So the soloution is dialog and better methods of sorting it out.
I think everybody involved in this one has gone overboard on this one.
Cheers
Simon Bond
June 27th, 2007 at 11:20 am
”in a split decision, the Court ruled that, as a student, Frederick does not have the freedom to express anything that could be construed as an endorsement of drugs.”
Wow. So since my wife and I are going to home school our son, this means I can curtail alot of his speech.
If I construe “i’m thirsty” as meaning that he wants to try acid I got the gub’nent behind me!
woo hooo!
Stuff ‘em in a berrel and feed them through the bunghole!
June 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
You guys seriously undermind the judicial system. Students do not have the right to free speech when it regards specific applied policies by the school district, nor do they have the right to advocate the use of illegal drugs, one of the major reasons that Roberts cited in his opinion.
Perhaps if you read in detail the full decision you would realize the effect of the cases.
Second as to the home schooled comment, that’s far out-reached and just plain rediculous. Making remarks like that makes you like a joke.
Seriously get a grip, go to law school if you can get in, and maybe you can understand just why decisions like this are made.
Idiots.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
You know, anonymity brings out the worst in some people. Apparently, we are ‘idiots’ simply because we disagree with Andrei Varney and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court.
Since Andrei Varney read the “full decision”, undoubtedly, the minority opinion was read as well:
Apparently, Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg are all ‘idiots’ who need to ‘get a grip’ in Andrei Varney’s view.
These three ‘idiots’ go on to point out what many of us made, that the statement isn’t even a pro-drug one, it is a nonsensical one intended for humorous effect:
Andrei Varney is correct on one point though, some are seriously undermining the judicial system. I just happen to think that it’s Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Alito.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
WOW…I am new to this site but DAMN, it seems like this Sidfaiwu guy just put the intellectual smackdown on you!!
June 27th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I told you I shouldn’t be commenting when I’m tired.:)
June 27th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Yeah, while most of us simply avoid feeding the troll, Sid usually strikes them down with sword of knowledge and the shield of rethoric.
Also, Law-school…haha…I’m allready working on a REAL education, that actually get society somewhere.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
I wasn’t referring to everyone as idiots, just the person who made the comment about homeschooling his child, and his comment about acid…
Also, I thought I would let you know that I clerk for a judge on the U.S. District Court of Eastern Wisconsin, my next clerkship will be for a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
And wow, I am seriously loving the Supreme Court today. This part of the year is always filled with interesting decisions…Kudos to the United States Supreme Court!
June 28th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Oh…has anyone taken a look at Panetti v. Quarterman? All three of the justices of whom I would side with in regards to jurisprudence dissented…
Interesting…
July 8th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
First of all, let me say that I’m pretty liberal when it comes to constitutional issues like this.
I don’t care about what people do with respect to drugs, so long as it doesn’t affect me (don’t make me a burger with animal semen or run in to me when you’re high as a kite). Further, I don’t care what religion, if any, you practice. And again, don’t force it on me; I have my own beliefs and I won’t force them on you.
But the fact of the matter is that, in this case, _Congress_ has enacted no laws establishing one state church. The president and SCOTUS are walking a fine line, however, since the constitution’s _intent_, clearly, is to prevent _government_ endorsement of religion. Executive orders are that, not laws in the traditional sense and certainly outside of provisions regarding _Congress_. What do you do when the courts aren’t trustworthy?
As I’m sure you’re all aware, congress represents but one branch or our {broken} government; the courts (who are also at fault, as well as the executive (over which our court jester of a president presides) the remainder. What kills me, and always has, is that two of the branches are (directly) beholden to the people, yet in most cases the courts are appointees of politicos with, in the case of SCOTUS, lifetime terms and no reasonable way to unseat them.
Bush is perhaps the luckiest of presidents to run this country (into the ground). I have told my father time and time again how I can’t wait for his generation to die off and leave their governmental posts, so that my generation might have a chance to right so many wrongs. Yet Dubya has run us so far backward, and stacked the SCOTUS deck so greatly that we’ll likely never recover; the selection of the far-right-wing and young Roberts for chief justice will have ramifications so far into the future I have lost all hope.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I agree with your point…Robers is far too young to be sitting as chief justice, and his decisions or opinions will have heavy ramifications on the future.
However, I do have to congratulate Bush on such a clever appointment.