Constitution + Marijuana = ?

Something big has just happened in the fight over medical marijuana in California. Supporters of California's right to legalize weed for medical purposes have just advanced a new theory that has started to gain legal ground. This new theory is that the federal government's efforts to undermine California's legalization policies are in violation of the 10th Amendment, which states that rights not given to the federal government are delegated to the states and the people. Since the federal government routinely harasses the physicians who prescribe weed and raid medical marijuana facilities in California, they are potentially undermining California's constitutional right to pass and enforce its own laws. 

The major issue here surrounds California's system of regulation, which relies on doctor's recommendations, identification cards and medicinal providers to distinguish between medical and recreational users. By targeting and intimidating the physicians in this system, the U.S. Government is hindering California in the administration of its state laws, which is at least arguably a violation of the 10th amendment.

There have been a ton of constitutional arguments advanced before against the Controlled Substances Act, which comprehensively criminalized most recreational drugs in the U.S. However, this 10th amendment theory is one of the only theories to survive a motion to dismiss in district court. 

Hopefully this trial is going somewhere!!!!! 

Schools Generally Required to Allow GSA

A federal judge ruled that Okeechobee High School in Florida had to allow the establishment of a Gay-Straight Alliance Club because the Okeechobee County school district was governed by the federal Equal Access Act.

"That law bars federally funded secondary schools from denying equal access to student non-curricular clubs on the basis of religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the club members' speech."

This decision seems like the natural result of social progress. We live in a diverse country whose government and public institutions don't discriminate on the basis of differences that people have a legitimate and inalienable right to hold. To do otherwise would inevitably lead to the promotion of some values, viewpoints, subjective beliefs over others. This is also the basis of oppression at the hands of those temporally in powerful. That's why we have the first amendment in the first place, to ensure that people can live, think, and act in way that they choose for themselves.

What I find interesting about this case is the rational behind denying these students from founding a Gay-Straight Alliance. The school district argued that allowing a GSA to form would be, "contrary to its abstinence-only education program." Here's where the school district started to fuck up. They claimed that allowing a  GSA would under their attempt to "promote monogamous relationships in the context of marriage." It's not every day that conservatives do such a great job making themselves sound retarded that no additional work is required of me.  

Basically, the District refused to allow the GSA's establishment on the grounds that it would promote homosexuality, which in turn would promote homosexual behavior, which would then in turn promote homosexual sex. I must say, these are some impressive logic jumps for people who thought that abstinence-only eduction was a good idea in the first place. I would hope at this point people would be less likely to rely on that backwards type of thinking, but at least the judge, whose authority makes all the difference, had more sense than that.

Judge Moore said the district "has not clarified how dialogue promoting tolerance towards non-homosexual individuals is antithetical to principles of abstinence." He didn't go too far though. "The judge indicated that the school district's concern about the "premature sexualization" of adolescents was legitimate, but he doubted that the GSA was intended to promote that. The district could take steps to ensure that the club avoided sex education topics "reserved for instruction by qualified teachers in a classroom environment."

What is with all this "premature sexualization" stuff? On the one hand, it could be just another piece of conservative rhetoric designed as a powerful and legitimate sounding way of defending subjective, ideology-inspired beliefs, like homophobia. But look closely at this phrase. "Sexualization?" Teaching straight people that gay people exist is presupposed to "sexualize" them somehow? I guess that's true, insofar as this is an issue of sexual orientation. But at its most basic, this term is a coded way of communicating disgust for homosexuality and is part of an attempted pushback against the gradual (and inevitable) purging of these outdated modes of tought from mainstream society. And what is the first part of this phrase intended to convey? That to the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance would be introducing the majority of high school these students to the idea of homosexuality? Something tells me that these students are more familiar with the idea that not everyone is attracted to the same sex than these administrators are aware. Granted we went against reason and our better judgement and assumed, as these educators do, that their students didn't know what homosexuality was, when would be the appropriate time to make them aware of this?

Quotes from here.

Sneaky Christians with Good Lawyers

I found another case of religious freedom that went down in Williamsburg/James-City County, which is coincidentally where I go to school at William and Mary in Virginia. So here's the rundown.

A Christian prayer club called the Good News Club (GNC) wanted to hold its meetings at the local DJ Montague Elementary School. The school allowed them to use the facility, but as the Good News Club was not a school sponsored club, the school followed their established policy of charging the organization $12.50 per hour to use their facilities.

So from March to June of the 2007-2008 school year, GNC paid about $250.00 dollars for use of classrooms to hold their prayer meetings. When GNC found out that the school exempted some organizations from payment, they freaked out and claimed they too deserved exemption from fees.

The school's policy exempts the following groups from payment: 1) Any James City County Government agency. 2) all school sponsored groups and activities. 3) Organizations deemed "patriotic" under the Code of Virginia and the No Child Left Behind Act. 4) Specific events run by local charitable foundations 5) Activities sponsored by school partners where there is a written partnership agreement.

As you can see, the School covered its bases when it crafted this policy. In fact, it specified religious organizations as "other" groups which are not exempt from fees.

So the Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia, on behalf of the GNC, filed for an injunction to force the school to waive the fees. To gain this injunction, the GNC had to prove that paying the $250.00 dollars the school charged in fees caused "irreparable harm." Plaintiffs claimed they suffered irreparable harm of two types, financial and constitutional. Here we go...

This is where the GNC starts to bullshit. First of all, it costs $350.00 just to file the motion, which is 100 dollars MORE than the fee that is supposedly causing them "irreparable harm."

But the court ultimately agreed with the Christians' argument that such fees constituted a violation of their religious freedoms, because the school's decision to charge them was based solely on the fact that they were a religious group, which violates the establishment clause in the 1st amendment.

The Judge reasoned that the school's policy empowered the superintendent to choose which organizations would be exempted without setting forth any concrete standards about how to do so.

In a press release, The Liberty Counsel, the Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia's parent organization, said, "after-school Good News Clubs teach children respect, good citizenship, moral values and character development from a biblical perspective." I think that this decision is ok, and actually the sign of a healthy religious environment in this country, so long as this club is not a smokescreen for teaching kids that abortion is wrong, God endorses the Iraq War, and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. A lot of the Liberty Counsel's work does focus on these perverse objectives, but this seems like a case of genuine freedom to practice religion.

Court decisions should strike a balance between the rights of individuals to express their religion, and the rights of other individuals to be protected from the excesses of these expressions.

As a matter of law, this case seems pretty clear cut. The school's policy is designed to exempt organizations that facilitate the growth of students' character, moral competency, and understanding of the world. In my opinion, religion is not the best way to facilitate that type of growth. However, it's a completely subjective matter of opinion and personal viewpoint what constitutes good morals and an accurate understanding of the world.

Sneaky Christians with Bad Lawyers

Every rationally minded individual should rejoice at the verdict of Association of Christian Schools International vs. University of California. Basically, the court upheld UC's right to refuse classes taught from a religious perspective, such as biology classes that teach intelligent design. As if this wasn't good news enough, wait until you hear one of the reasons why these creationists failed. There were basically two legal issues that the Christian Schools were suing over. The first was whether the text of UC's policies in itself represented a denial of these students' freedom of religious expression. The second issue was whether the application of these policies in practice violated students' religious freedom. Well the Christians were so sure that they would win on the issue of the application of these policies that they focused their entire defense on proving that the text of UC's policies, as written, caused a violation of freedom. This basically destroyed their case, because when the trial came down the second issue, the Christians were completely unprepared and weren't even able to provide sufficient evidence that wrongdoing had even occurred.

Christians, get some better lawyers. Course I think we know which side of the isle most lawyers are on. The Devil's.

Creationist Thinktank Propoganda

"The Institute for Creation Research has a project called RATE, whose intent was to overturn radiometric absolute dating methods as evidence for an old age of the earth. One of the arguments that they made was that diamonds contain significant levels of the radioactive carbon 14 (14C) isotope, indicating that they cannot be older than about 50,000 years old, and thus point to a young age of the earth." -Panda's Thumb

"Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" and they claim that "the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth." -ICR's homepage for RATE

So let me get this straight. The Institute for Creation Research, a pro-intelligent design thinktank, has just spent 8 years trying to prove that diamonds have only existed for 50,000 years? I guess there's nothing wrong with that. Then they tried to suggest, provided their research in fact proved that diamonds are only 50,000 years old, that this "incredible physical evidence" constituted proof that God created the earth. Talk about a non sequitur! Even if diamonds did turn out to be only 50,000 years old, why in the name of God would that God created the earth? Here's the "logic." If diamonds are only 50,000 years old, they posit, then the earth is probably around the same age. The earth has existed for thousands, not billions, of years, they assert.

For the love of God.

Great Blog

I found a great new blog today. It's called the Panda's Thumb, and it is basically a better and expanded version of all my posts on science and religion. This blog has detailed information on every development in the debate over evolution/creationism. This blog is so good. I feel like a priest in a playground.

Sneaky Christians

Although the decision was handed down on August 8th, it took me an additional 6 days to find a violin small enough for this one. In Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns, a California federal district court upheld the University of California's refusal to recognize certain high school courses offered by Christian schools in making admissions decisions. This coalition of Christians challenged the University of California's policy to reject courses that are taught from a religious viewpoint. They claimed that Christian values were being unfairly discriminated against, and they invoked the religious-establishment clause in the constitution.

Thank the black empty sky that the court had enough sense to hand down this decision. Although given the argument in question, it would be hard not to do so. One the dumb hand, religious people should be free to express themselves. On the other hand, California's public universities should be able to make their own decisions about what they will accept and credit in their own institutions.

Let's be real here. These "Christian" courses are just that- they teach religion. They boast titles such as, "Christianity's Influence on American History”, an English course titled “Christianity and Morality in American Literature” and a government course titled “Special Providence: American Government”.When these courses actually do touch upon academic topics, they teach them in the context of religion for the purpose of religious study. If you want to learn in this way, that's fine, but don't expect a public facility of higher education to accept and endorse it.