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

I don't know what you're "HURRAH!"-ing for. It was pretty clear from the arguments that the interpretation you quoted is going to lose in this case. The government cannot create a public forum and then allow every 'speaker' that asks to participate except for religious ones. That's viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

 

I didn't suggest it could.
I clearly said every speaker should participate EXCEPT the religious ones BECAUSE in a secular state, religious conviction is not taken into account in civil matters.
My point being that a secular society IMO is more representative of real equality than one bogged down in religious argument. Civil law should be created with NO reference to faith.

I am not sure whether you think the USA is a secular country, but I am noting that it is not.
No biggie, just honest. I am sure it won't change whatever you call it.

 

America is pretty obviously a largely religious country, but our government is secular. But despite that secular nature of our government, our First Amendment doesn't allow the sort of banning of religious speakers that you (and grapeape) seem to be advocating for. It's clearly unconstitutional for governments (in America) to ban a person or organization from presenting their views in a public forum solely because they are of a religious nature.

 

What I am questioning is the secular nature of your government.
It isn't if laws are made with certain religious groups in mind.

Anyone can SPEAK but laws should not take any notice of them.

For example, a state congress decides to include halal meat in schools because of Muslim pressure.
Do you?
Or do you suggest they eat something else ?

 

Excuse me. You stated it’s ORIGINAL intent. Not what it has been warped to become.

 

Well the California scotus declared us a Christian nation.

 

Ok, I think I understand the point you are trying to make. Certainly, people with a more rigid definition of what constitutes a "secular" government are free to contend that America does not have one. Most Americans I think would describe our government as "secular" if given the choice between that and religious.

In this case I don't think anyone is suggesting that the laws "take any notice" of whichever flag is flying outside of Boston City Hall, just that all groups be allowed to fly their flags there free of viewpoint discrimination from the government bureaucrats in Boston.

American organizations, both private and public, have generally become quite accommodating of special dietary requests. I suspect many schools have halal options, as well as kosher, and vegetarian, and gluten-free and on and on and on.

 

And where did their "interpretation" come from ?

It came from their interpretation of the intent of the clause.....which was........The intent of those who wrote it !

 

I get this and tend to accept it but it is an example of when religion affects legislation. However I also see that if ALL tastes are catered for, including non religious issues, then it can be seen as legislation that respectes everyone equally.

Tricky, innit?

 

If that was the intent of those who wrote it, why didn’t they remove religion from the government sphere?

 

ummm, thats what they did.......

But that doesn't matter. Thats why the right in this country did everything they could to stack the court. It was about the fundamental change of the country to their version of it.

 

And how is that any different than the left using the court to fundamentally alter the ORIGINAL intent.

There is no possible way that one can read the Constitution and come to ANY conclusion other than the founders were singling out CONGRESS to not be able to make laws abolishing or establishing religion. Now the Libs may have packed the courts with people who were against that idea because we know they hate Christianity. But that doesn’t change the original intent.

 

Glad you were there to make sure we all knew what they meant.

 

It says and I quote:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

How do you read that and come to the conclusion that they were talking about ANYONE except for congress?

 

FFS man. Because CONGRESS wrote the first amendment ! Were talking about the first amendment that congress amended

 

Jesus tap dancing Christ. Then why did they use CONGRESS and not government? And why did they explicitly and ONLY stipulate that they can’t pass a law? If what they ACTUALLY meant is there can be no semblance of religion anywhere within government? Do you think the founders didn’t realize what they were writing down? Or too stupid to realize what they said isn’t want they meant?

 

HOLY CRAPBALLS

The first amendment says the "establishment" of religion. It is that word "establishment" that the lemon test address'. It bases that test on "the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion".

It cannot PROMOTE it !

 

Do you frequently refuse to answer questions while asking new questions which would have been answered had you simply used basic reading comprehension.

I have already stated I believe that flags on government property should be limited to government flags. That you direct quoted these remarks showcases and removed all doubt seems like a personal fault.

Would you like to try again with some integrity this time or are we past that?

 

Yes but it says CONGRESS cannot do so. Not the government. And ALL it says they can’t do is pass a law. How do you get ANYTHING other than that out of that text?

You’re trying to argue that when they said CONGRESS they actually meant any and all governmental bodies including those entities that take government funding as well as the employees thereof while they’re working.

And then you’re trying to say that when they said “cannot pass a law”, what they actually meant was “can have no involvement whatsoever with religion”

That’s preposterous and there is exactly ZERO justification in the text for that position. Whatsoever.

 

No no no. You don’t get to sit there and get bent out of shape over this and then when someone points out you didn’t get bent out of shape previously over a similar occurrence that more closely aligned with your position and then say, “well I disagreed with that too... I just didn’t mention it at the time.”

That’s so absurdly dishonest

 

Because thats how the SC interpreted it. I'm literally C/P the Lemon test from the SCOTUS

 

The Supreme Court has changed their positions time and again when new courts come in and out. You’re about to find that out with Roe V Wade... but I digress.

What you are doing is the logical fallacy of appealing to an expert. Just because they’re experts in a subject does not mean that they are correct. If one is incapable of defending the position they hold, then their position is incorrect and I don’t care if it’s the pope himself.

There is absolutely ZERO justification for your position in the constitution. None. Whatsoever.

If there is. Provide it.

 

Bent out of shape? Haha, that is ironic seeing your posts here. I guess your ability to determine the affect of others is only surpassed by your reading comprehension.

I have stated this position previously as it causes issues with the make believe crowd as they are so easily offended and demand inclusion while demanding others are excluded.

In other words a typical post from you?

 

You must note that Republicans stacked the courts with partisan ideologues so they can force their agenda against an unwilling populace. Had democrats done something similar to this they would have tried to preform an insurrection … oh wait.

The USSC has already shown it does not care about precedent or prior legal reasoning. They have an agenda to push and will remain illegitimate for the foreseeable future.

 

The irony dripping off of that post coming from a guy who believes it’s okay to discriminate against white people because of their white privilege could fill a lake.