I do not often comment upon political events but listening to the radio this morning set me off. I listen to a radio talk show hosted by a man named Jeff Bolton on KLIF 570 AM. He calls himself the Mayor of Commonsenseville but this time I felt he left his common sense at home. On his radio show he stated that he does not think that students at school should not have any rights to free speech regardless of the message. This was in response to the case before the Supreme Court over the Bong Hits for Jesus case. I e-mailed him my response.
Mr. Bolton,
I do not often disagree with you, but on this issue I believe that you are dangerously wrong. The problem is in looking at where our rights come from. Do they come from the state or are they inalienable "natural" rights.
If you believe as I do that free speech is an inalienable right then the state has no right to tell you, I, or a student at a school sanctioned event what can be said even if that message is offensive to someone else. The danger in allowing the government to regulate speech in our schools is that it teaches that our rights are not inalienable and are at the whim of the state. Once that toe hold is established it is not a far stretch to find other areas where the state can regulate that speech especially when you attach the almighty "tax dollar" to it. We have already come a long way from our founders intentions of a government founded upon common law and its precepts of limited government and personal freedom. What you are advocating is continuing down the path toward complete government control of our lives. I find that much more of a problem than some kid holding up a stupid sign.
The fundamentals of common law come down to two points; first do nothing to harm another person and second do what you say you are going to do. What this boy did, while offensive to my fundamental Christian beliefs, did not violate these two principals of common law. If the principal had looked at this situation in that kind of light, then none of this would be here in court today. If the principal had taken this boy aside and told him that although he had the right to say what he said, but what he said was stupid then that would have been the end of the matter. Instead the principal suspends the boy for 5 days for "violating" the "school speech policy" and then suspends him an additional 5 days for quoting Thomas Jefferson on free speech rights, all because what he said did not fit the state approved speech requirements. These actions have lead us to a number of court cases that have cost us a whole lot more money than this kid saying something stupid while on a school sanctioned event.
Thank you for reading this and I hope you rethink your position on this issue.
8 comments:
EAGLEWOOD,
You nailed it on the head. Bong Hits For Jesus is protected speach according to the 1st Amendment to the Contitution. It protects student rights of speach that we better hope stands because if they can sensor this speach, they can sensor conservative speach and Christian speach.
Woo Woo for Eaglewood nailing this one down and hitting a home run with it!
Well said.
I can't help but ask, though... what does the bible teach us about marijuana and intoxication?
Luke I understand the conundrum concerning this issue from a "drug" perspective. But it is not a drug issue in that it relates to a sign made by a student in Alaska to get himself on TV. The school says it is a drug issue, the Bush administration argued it is a drug issue, but the issue is, does a person (student) who is not on school property or on school time (the school was dismissed to see the Olympic torch pass by) have a constitutional right to say or print "Bong Hits For Jesus"? The government says because it was within 1000 feet of a school, the person gives up his or her right of free speech. This is one step from the hildabeast taking away all of our rights of free speech which is guaranteed to us in the first amendment. It could have said "President Bush is a Baby Killer" and I believe he had the same right to say it. Even worse, he could have said, "Global Warming is NOT Manmade". That in itself is the most inflammatory thing I think he could have said among the three and I would have agreed with the last one myself.
Luke, yes, I side-stepped your question, sorry.
It definitely opens a whole different can of worms when you through in the witchcraft part of the equation when discussing drugs and drug usage.
And an even bigger can when you bring in prescription drugs. My goodness, we can't get healed without them, can we? It is a bigger dupe than global warming and G-d's people buy it readily. G-d made what we need for this amazing body He created to heal, and it isn't synthetic chemicals that actually contribute to its destruction. So what is the child of G-d going to do with the legal drugs and drug pushers?
Love and shalom,
Serena
Well, it's been a while since I tried that stuff, but I can assure you that there were no witches involved in my experience.
And while I agree that Ephesians warns against excessive drinking, I don't think that people were just having a single swig of wine and then switching to water. It seems that there is no prohibition against drinking enough to get tipsy, as long as you are still filled with the spirit.
I'm thinking there is a reason that Jesus turned the dirty water into wine rather than clean cool water (which would have been nicely symbolic). Celebration and merriment augmented by moderate drinking seems to be biblically sanctioned, and perhaps even encouraged.
The austerity of puritanism has led many to reject faith... that is their own burden, but beware that you don't create your own prohibitions and call them God's.
So Eaglewood, did you ever get a reply?
Luke,
I would count it a pleasure to go get a drink with you sometime. The strongest I drink now is Diet Dr. Pepper, I used to drink Dr. Pepper until I found out I am diabetic. Now watching my carbs is a big thing and I stay away from any drink with elevated carbs.
I do have to admit I would like to order a martini shaken, not stirred, and then eat the olive. I do not think I could stomack the alcohol.
My birthfather was an alcoholic and out of deference to it being possibly being passed down from one generation to another, I absolutely have refused to touch the stuff. I call him my birthfather becasue during one of his many drunken sprees, he abandoned us and divorced my mom and married a prostitute all in the matter of two weeks. in 1967 you could get a quick divorce apparently.
Luke, I am so glad I have a great bud to chat with and discuss things with. Maybe I should tell eaglewood that We need to have an eaglewood get together in the Dallas area. I could show off my amazing figure to everyone and make everyone puke if they have had to much to drink.
Have a great one.
Well, I'm sure that he would be entirely enthusiastic about them having the free speech right to agree with what they are being taught. This sort of opinion hits home a bit with me because at 23, I am not all that much older than most high school students. I want to say to one of these jackasses, "do you know what it's like to be treated like a prisoner in your school, during a drug raid lockdown?!" Most of these people have no clue, it's easy to support because it'll never happen to them. Mine wasn't this bad, but then, I'm sure that he wouldn't have a problem with this image, unless it happened to his kids.
Post a Comment