No Bong Hits for Jesus....

Cypress said:
What would the J-man himself have done?

Who knows? But Jesus seemed like a mellow and tolerant dude. He probably would have just walked over to the kids with the banner and talked to them. I don't think he would have punished them, just for a stupid banner.


;)
Click to expand...
He would not have minded the banner IMHO.

Jesus 'healed using cannabis'

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Monday January 6, 2003
The Guardian

Jesus was almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural texts published this month. The study suggests that Jesus and his disciples used the drug to carry out miraculous healings.
The anointing oil used by Jesus and his disciples contained an ingredient called kaneh-bosem which has since been identified as cannabis extract, according to an article by Chris Bennett in the drugs magazine, High Times, entitled Was Jesus a Stoner? The incense used by Jesus in ceremonies also contained a cannabis extract, suggests Mr Bennett, who quotes scholars to back his claims.

"There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic religion," Carl Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston University said.

Referring to the existence of cannabis in anointing oils used in ceremonies, he added: "Obviously the easy availability and long-established tradition of cannabis in early Judaism _ would inevitably have included it in the [Christian] mixtures."

Mr Bennett suggests those anointed with the oils used by Jesus were "literally drenched in this potent mixture _ Although most modern people choose to smoke or eat pot, when its active ingredients are transferred into an oil-based carrier, it can also be absorbed through the skin".

Quoting the New Testament, Mr Bennett argues that Jesus anointed his disciples with the oil and encouraged them to do the same with other followers. This could have been responsible for healing eye and skin diseases referred to in the Gospels.

"If cannabis was one of the main ingredients of the ancient anointing oil _ and receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ and his followers Christians, then persecuting those who use cannabis could be considered anti-Christ," Mr Bennett concludes.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,869273,00.html
 
The J-man was awesome!

He wouldn't have punished those kids for their banner.

And he wouldn't have invaded Iraq. ;)
 
Here's something else very interesting.

Students Visiting Bush Slip Him Torture Note
Students Are Part Of Presidential Scholars Program

POSTED: 7:18 am CDT June 26, 2007

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush met high school seniors from the Presidential Scholars program in the East Room of the White House on Monday.

And while they were there, one of the students took the opportunity to give the president a letter signed by 50 of them.

The handwritten letter urged a halt to "violations of the human rights" of terrorism suspects held by the United States.

The White House said Bush did not expect the letter but took a moment to read it and talk with a young woman who'd handed it to him.

Spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president let the student know that "the United States does not torture and that we value human rights."

The designation as a Presidential Scholar is one of the nation's highest honors for graduating high school students. The scholars travel to Washington each June for seminars, lectures and workshops.
Click to expand...
http://www.channel3000.com/politics/13569620/detail.html

What if the principal suspends the kids for offending the president?

Would the Supreme Court cut down their right to free speech too?
 
OK, just what was wrong with this decision, and Why???

The premise that the sign encourages criminal activity is wrong. So what if it does?

I live near the city of Nottingham where, in the middle of the city, on city council land, is a statue of Robin Hood. If the SCOTUS decision is to be transposed that statue would have to come down as it encourages theft and mugging.

Free speech isn't limited to those things people wish it to apply to, it applies completely.

To then restrict the notion of free speech in a place of education, where freedom of thought and expression are paramount, and the harm principle doesn't apply in the slightest, is deeply disturbing.
 
The principal, Deborah Morse, "thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one,"

The principal should be fired. If this banner encourages drug use, does the film Oceans 13 encourage casino robbery? Where are the righteously indignant morons protesting this film?
 
Jesus would want a bong hit, after all he's all knowing and wouldn't need the AMA to tell him that it would fight glacoma, and general pain, and make him want too many dorrito's.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
The principal, Deborah Morse, "thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one,"

The principal should be fired. If this banner encourages drug use, does the film Oceans 13 encourage casino robbery? Where are the righteously indignant morons protesting this film?
Click to expand...
The film was not created and displayed on the authority of a school trip. Time and place restrictions do apply.
 
The film was not created and displayed on the authority of a school trip. Time and place restrictions do apply.

Ok, then to be consistent, if a student went on a school trip with a t shirt promoting Oceans 13 he should take similar action.

Or even a kindergarten kid with a t shirt of Disney's Robin Hood.

Both promote illegal activities.

Does the principle think that this banner will encourage children to take drugs? Would a child see that banner and think... mmmmnnn I'd better get a bong on the go....
 
AnyOldIron II said:
The film was not created and displayed on the authority of a school trip. Time and place restrictions do apply.

Ok, then to be consistent, if a student went on a school trip with a t shirt promoting Oceans 13 he should take similar action.

Or even a kindergarten kid with a t shirt of Disney's Robin Hood.

Both promote illegal activities.

Does the principle think that this banner will encourage children to take drugs? Would a child see that banner and think... mmmmnnn I'd better get a bong on the go....
Click to expand...

Ever heard of reductio ad absurdum, Any?

It's a type of logical fallacy you just used.
 
Ever heard of reductio ad absurdum, Any?

Of course... lol Showing the invalidity of a statement by demonstrating absurd consequences....

It's his favorite fallacy.

How is reductio per absurdum a fallacy?....
 
I'll expand....

If the judges are considering it not to be a breach of freedom of speech on the basis that it is encouraging illegal activities, to be consistent and not hypocritical, anything encouraging illegal activities should be prevented.

To that end, the 'glorification' of Robin Hood can be seen as encouraging theft, as can the film Ocean's 13, and thus should be banned.

This isn't a fallacy.

The judges are hamfistedly trying to apply the Harm Principle (see John Stuart Mill) as justification for this, to which end they would have to demonstrate empirically that this banner would encourage drug use, and that drug use falls under the Harm Principle...
 
It all comes down to the feeling by the Principal (and agreed to by the Judges,) that the kids were more or less advertising drug use. that should not be allowed at school functions. KUDOs to the judges.
 
Last edited:
AnyOldIron II said:
I'll expand....

If the judges are considering it not to be a breach of freedom of speech on the basis that it is encouraging illegal activities, to be consistent and not hypocritical, anything encouraging illegal activities should be prevented.

To that end, the 'glorification' of Robin Hood can be seen as encouraging theft, as can the film Ocean's 13, and thus should be banned.

This isn't a fallacy.

The judges are hamfistedly trying to apply the Harm Principle (see John Stuart Mill) as justification for this, to which end they would have to demonstrate empirically that this banner would encourage drug use, and that drug use falls under the Harm Principle...
Click to expand...
Reductio ad absurdum is not in itself a fallacy, however if the condition itself is an absurdity then it would be. They did not construct the T-Shirt specifically for the school sponsored event. Nor does the t-shirt promote an illegal activity as watching movies is not illegal.

This is a logical fallacy because the foundation is flawed from the beginning. One promotes an actual illegal activity, was constructed specifically for school sponsored event and used only as such. The other promotes watching a movie, which is not illegal, was not created for the school sponsored event, and wasn't only used in that manner.

This is an example of the "slippery slope" type arguments.

Dilbert gave a good example of the reductio that is most often used..

Dad: Why did you start smoking?
Kid: All my friends were doing it.
Dad: Would you jump off a cliff if all your friends did it?
Kid: Well, if all my friends jumped off a cliff and reported it to be fun and beneficial to life enjoyment I certainly would.
 
It all comes down to the feeling by the Principle (and agreed to by the Judges,) that the kids were more or less advertising drug use. that should not be allowed at school functions. KUDOs to the judges.

Comes down to a feeling? How can the supreme court of a land judge according to feeling? They should provide rational explanation.

If it is on the basis that it encourages illegal activities, then to not be hypocrits, they should approve principals banning, for example, Oceans 13 t shirts, or Robin Hood.

They should demonstrate empirically that this banner encourages use of cannabis, and that children will take up smoking it on the basis of this banner, and also they must demonstrate that cannabis falls under the Harm Principle, which is hard to do,...

This is a shocking decision
 
Reductio ad absurdum is not in itself a fallacy, however if the condition itself is an absurdity then it would be. They did not construct the T-Shirt specifically for the school sponsored event. Nor does the t-shirt promote an illegal activity as watching movies is not illegal.

So, if they had the banner already and just brought it along, that would be ok?

And are you claiming that the film Ocean's 13 doesn't glorify casino robbery? Is casino robbery not an illegal activity?

Watching movies isn't illegal, but casino robbery, which the film and thus the tshirt glorifies, is.....
 
AnyOldIron II said:
Reductio ad absurdum is not in itself a fallacy, however if the condition itself is an absurdity then it would be. They did not construct the T-Shirt specifically for the school sponsored event. Nor does the t-shirt promote an illegal activity as watching movies is not illegal.

So, if they had the banner already and just brought it along, that would be ok?

And are you claiming that the film Ocean's 13 doesn't glorify casino robbery? Is casino robbery not an illegal activity?

Watching movies isn't illegal, but casino robbery, which the film and thus the tshirt glorifies, is.....
Click to expand...
If such a banner were regularly a part of life, such as wearing clothes is, then it wouldn't be an issue.

The shirt promotes the movie, not the actions of those in the movie. This is the same type of inane argument that those who think Ozzy promotes suicide have. Another "slippery slope" absurdity that doesn't stand the test of reality.

The t-shirt was made to promote a legal activity, that of watching a movie, the banner could not be construed as supporting any such legal activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top