Ah, for the old days when nuance meant something
This is the headline in USA Today:
[b]Supreme Court to Boston: Christian flag
must fly on City Hall flagpole[/b]
Enough to stoke the religious/secular fires and for that algorithm to boost readership by pushing conflict and extreme positions. Then if you bother to read the story you find that the flag pole in question is a public one for non-profits to promote what they do for the city by flying their flags, and only Christian ones have been excluded. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment free speech rights trump separation of church & state when it is not an official government religious statement. Let's emphasize the [b][i]UNANIMOUS [/i][/b] part of that. How many things are going to get an unanimous verdict out of this divided Supreme Court? But the headline twists it into a baiting headline, as if the Supreme Court had declared we are a Christian nation afterall.
[b]Supreme Court to Boston: Christian flag
must fly on City Hall flagpole[/b]
Enough to stoke the religious/secular fires and for that algorithm to boost readership by pushing conflict and extreme positions. Then if you bother to read the story you find that the flag pole in question is a public one for non-profits to promote what they do for the city by flying their flags, and only Christian ones have been excluded. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment free speech rights trump separation of church & state when it is not an official government religious statement. Let's emphasize the [b][i]UNANIMOUS [/i][/b] part of that. How many things are going to get an unanimous verdict out of this divided Supreme Court? But the headline twists it into a baiting headline, as if the Supreme Court had declared we are a Christian nation afterall.
80-89, M
