Supreme Court Justices React To Boston’s Refusal To Fly The Christian Flag

I disagree, but regardless of how either of us think it should work, the way it does work is that Boston isn't allowed to prohibit religions when it's prohibited other secular groups from flying their flags.

 

ISIS is considered a terrorist group. I think that per the law it is illegal to give any type of support to them. So no, I don't think they would be allowed. Not because of their religion, but because they are considered a terrorist group.

Note: I am not 100% sure that the above is correct. It stands to reason since the federal government will shut down any website/forum that encourages joining ISIS.

 

LINK: National Science Foundation (U.S.) (crwflags.com)

 

When that public forum is a city/county/state they absolutely can. That is the entire reason for the establishment clause

 

No, they can't. That's what SCOTUS was signalling, and how they're going to rule. Even the God-hating ACLU can grasp this simple concept. Why can't you?

 

So you would be OK if they hung an ISIS flag ?

Sorry, but their is no grey area here with me. Separation of church and state is an absolute.

 

Which legal nonprofit in Boston uses the ISIS flag?

If you can't name one, your post is silly and mute.

 

No its not.

It’s more about you being OK as long as its your “religion”, but not others.

 

This isn't about me. Why are you making this personal?

People who make things personal have already lost the argument.

If there is an organization which uses the ISIS flag, I'm sure they could fly it. However, your post is silly and mute because there is no legal organization which is using or wanting that flag to be flown.

Regardless, your posts not worth my time.

 

As discussed previously, ISIS is probably a special case, since they're an honest-to-goodness on-the-State-Department-list terrorist organization. It's not really a question of what I would be ok with anyways, it's a matter of what the law allows, and the law allows the Christian flag to be flown in the same place and same manner as the flags of those various secular organizations.

At least you added the "with me" this time. You understand that your preferred outcome here is not going to happen, right? That your preference is, in fact, at odds with First Amendment jurisprudence? That it's based on a misinterpretation if the Establishment Clause? You get that, right?

 

“You” is used in the “me” sense, not you personally

Ok, then the flag of Islam. Would you be ok if cities and states allowed the flag of Islam to be flown?

 

No. It’s a literal in the constitution.

 

As you might know, the literal text of the Constitution is not how it has been applied in modern jurisprudence. That's why we have infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms despite the Constitution literally saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Aside from that, the Establishment Clause says nothing about flying flags from city-owned flagpoles in its text. It's your misguided interpretation of the establishment clause that is seeking to apply it to something it doesn't mention.

Just to be clear though: you don't think your (wrong) literalist perspective is actually going to win in this case, do you? You understand you're on the losing side of the legal argument, right?

 

Separation of church and state is nowhere to be found “literally” in the constitution. Go ahead, search the constitution for that phrase. It is not in there. What they have done is interpreted it that way. So no, not literally. And for a case like this where they allow anyone to put a flag up, they cannot discriminate on the basis of religion.

Strictly speaking, yeah ISIS could fly a flag from the pole, but I’m pretty sure they could be turned down because terrorist organizations are not protected(nor are they a protected class of peoples) like religion is. They could probably say no to a giant penis on a flag as well and have no legal repercussions.

 

Even better...

 

I'll enjoy watching the Merry Atheistic Pranksters making Shurtleff and the justices squirm...

 

HURRAH!
IMO there should be NO public presence of any faith in, on or around any state building.
Such an act would be illegal in France and so it should be in all other self-identified secular places.

In the world of equality of gender, race, and faith, etc etc, No one aspect of any of these should be represented on a state building, be it a school, courthouse or capitol building.

There should be a strict division between faith and state in public places, including sidewalks, clothing which is closely associated with faith, shops or businesses.

In the name of equality, all persons should be seen and considered as equal.
What you do at home is your business. You can build a cathedral in your cellar if you want, but the state should not be seen to support ANY particular faith.

and therefore it puts an end to identification by faith and the inevitable faith based accusations, tropes and bigotry.

This issue is central to my understanding of secular. Either a place is, or it is not secular. And finally from what I know, the politics of the US his riddled with faith issues which have come to define patriotism, who is a good guy/us and them, social and political dominance, the consideration, phrasing and interpretation of law, and adds to division instead of community.

Sorry...I'll sit down again.

 

I spot a difference with flying the gay pride flag during some gay pride day / week / theme....
and flying some unofficial "Christian" flag whenever because you just woke up with that idea.

 

Boston routinely flies the gay pride flag on that flag pole. The justification being to celebrate the culture of their residents. Please explain why Christians shouldn’t get to fly theirs to celebrate their culture as well.

Why do gay people get this special privilege. Hey I just had a thought, there’s a straight pride flag too. Should they be forced to fly the straight pride flag since they flew the gay one?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_flag

I think that would look great flying at the Boston townhall. What do ya think?

 

There are literally hundreds of not thousands of Christian organizations that pay taxes lol

 

That’s hilarious given you didn’t seem to hold that view when they put that gay flag up huh. Rules for thee but not for me.

 

No, it is your interpretations that is wrong. The establishment clause is designed to keep church and state separate. So please explain how a religious flag is OK on a government building (all due respect HD). Is it because its your religion ?

 

That’s wholly incorrect. The establishment cause was never intended to keep the church out of government. It was intended to keep the government out of church. Hence why it says CONGRESS shall not create a law which discriminated against or supports a religion. It says NOTHING about the president, state legislatures, city halls, schools or anything else. It explicitly states CONGRESS ... and it doesn’t even say congress can’t have images of religious ideology within its halls.... it says CONGRESS cannot make a law establishing or prohibiting a religion.

We know it wasn’t because when it was passed churches had a MASSIVE role in government and continued to do so for decades. Hell many states had a state religion.

 

The lemon test clearly states that the state cannot promote religion

 

The Supreme Court has already explained how it is OK:

The DOJ understands it too:

Hell, even the city itself concedes that a public forum can't exclude religious speech:

This is the heart of the matter. It's the basis for your misinterpretation as well:

The above quotes are all pulled from Boston Christian Flag Opposition Falls Flat at Supreme Court (bloomberglaw.com)

I'm a flavor of Christian, but don't have any particular affinity for that flag, but my arguments here are about First Amendment jurisprudence as it stands today in America, not an attempt to advocate for my own views even if they were at odds with current caselaw, as you seem to be doing.