BURNING BUSH CREATES SMOKY ALLIANCE

Though sounding vaguely Old Testament, this nugget of human wisdom
does not, as I initially thought, date back to a time in the third
grade when I watched a guy I didn't know at all whip the snot out of
a bully I did know and considered, if not an enemy, at least someone
I wanted to stay away from lest I be just another of his victims.
Without knowing the victor, I considered him a friend as I watched in
utter disbelief and joy as the bully whimpered away, begging for mercy.

I later learned this organizing principle was an old Arab proverb.
Even later I learned, like so many things I thought I knew, that too was wrong.

Turns out this handy phrase is the work of a 4th century BC Indian
political theorist named Kautilya. I don't know if he had a first
name and, come to think of it, don't know if he didn't maybe come up
with this while watching someone pound on a bully at his school.

Whatever, it was a pretty smart thing to say back in the 4th century
BC and it's still true today. It explains things like NATO, why the
U.S. cozies up to Pakistan to fight Iraq who the U.S. considered an
ally when it fought Iran, why Canadian soldiers are dying in
Afghanistan and why, notwithstanding his total lack of appeal, I
prefer Stephane Dion to Stephen Harper. Okay, maybe that last one's a stretch.

What it doesn't explain is the fascinating alignment of powerful
interests playing itself out in the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

The Bush administration -- ever the busybody -- has butted in on a
legal case pitting student against teacher, rebellion against
authority. The Bushies, naturally, side with authority. Just as
naturally, the American Civil Liberties Union, sides with the
student. So far, not to beat a point to death, nature has run its course.

Where it gets weirder than a Hunter Thompson acid trip though is the
supporting cast of characters. There has been, ever since he became
president, a deep and abiding relationship between the Bush White
House and what is generally referred to as the religious right, those
many, many very conservative groups pushing a religious agenda and
wanting to blur the line between religion and the state at least
insofar as it furthers their cause.

An impressive number of them have come down on the side of the
student, the side of youthful rebellion.

"Why would that be?" I hear the few of you who have gotten this far ask.

In an act even the student himself has declared "meaningless", he
invoked, in his moment of rebellion, the name Jesus, as in Christ, as
in the son of God.

What happened is this. School was dismissed in Juneau, Alaska in 2002
so the kiddies could go watch a parade. The parade involved the
Olympic Torch passing through their town on the way to the Salt Lake
Olympics . When the television cameras approached, little Joey
Frederick, a high school senior, unfurled a 14-foot banner that read,
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus". Yes, Bong Hits 4 Jesus.

Joey said it was a nonsensical prank he thought might get him on TV.
He said he'd gotten the idea off a sticker he saw on a snowboard. See
how much this has to do with Whistler?

Joey's high school principal was appalled and embarrassed. Obviously,
Joey hadn't learned his lesson about drugs being a bad thing. Equally
obvious, the principal hadn't learned much about Joey's First
Amendment right to free speech. She tore down his sign, crumpled it
up, suspended him for 10 days and thought she'd taught him a lesson.

She had.

He sued her in federal court for violating his civil liberties. After
all, it wasn't a school-sponsored outing; school was dismissed. It
didn't take place on the school grounds or in a classroom; it
happened on a public street. Joey might not have understood the
boundaries of good taste but his principal didn't understand the
boundaries of authority.

Of course, that's something President Bush has trouble with as well.
Which is why his Justice Department(sic) joined the principal in her
appeal to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals held she'd not
only violated little Joey's First Amendment rights but she was liable
for damages as well.

So imagine everyone's surprise when groups like the Reverend Pat
Robertson's American Centre for Law and Justice, the Christian Legal
Society, the Liberty Legal Institute and other, historically
right-wing, Christian advocacy groups, filed briefs in support of
little Joey's right to religious freedom.

Now doubtless, those groups would not have involved themselves if
Joey's sign had been, say, a protest against the Olympics and said
something like, "Bong Hits 4 The IOC", in recognition of how stoned
members of the inner Olympic Family circle had to have been when
they took bribes from the Salt Lake people to toss them the Olympics .

But Joey's invocation of Jesus turned conventional wisdom -- and the
Kautilya principle -- on its head and suddenly, Joey's got a bunch of
new friends and the ACLU is scratching its head wondering what rabbit
hole it's jumped into this time.

All of which begs the question. In this time of increased
proselytizing against recreational drugs, in the Age of D.A.R.E and
medicinal marijuana, at a time when the West has liberated
Afghanistan from the fundamentalist rule of the Taliban and enabled
Afghani farmers to get back to what they do best, growing opium
poppies, the question arises: What would Jesus smoke?

Since the organized forces who lay claim to his legacy are willing to
publicly go to the wall against a valued friend to back some kid's
right to publicize Bong Hits 4 Jesus, it's important to ask ourselves
what Jesus would smoke. Okay, it's at least as important as asking
what Jesus would drive and that particular social movement seems to
have gotten some traction, so to speak.

Would Jesus come down on the side of pipes or papers, hookahs or hot
knives, pot or hash. Can't imagine he'd be the kind of stoner who'd
embroil himself in smoking crack, he seems like such a laid back,
turn the other cheek kind of guy.

And was the story of Moses and the burning bush really just a homily
for a pot-induced spirit quest in the middle of the desert? I know
many people who honestly believe they've talked to God under the
influence. They were under the influence; not God.

I don't know. But I do know religion, even more so than politics,
makes strange bedfellows. Hallelujah.