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.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Carla · 61-69, F

So, not a flag that flys over the capitol, but one that flys with other civic entities, on the property?
Shocking news.
And it was shitty for the suit to have been brought.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Carla ...I believe the suit was brought by Christian organizations who had been excluded, but I have much more to do today than chase that down. lol

Carla · 61-69, F

@SomeMichGuy well I thought the suit was brought by those not wanting it there.
If these churches are community conscious, they not have been excluded.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@SomeMichGuy @Carla It was a Christian group that filed suit for being excluded.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@SomeMichGuy @Carla Now that group, Camp Constitution, clearly has a political agenda. They organize family camping outings to teach their view that the U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian teachings and promote free enterprise over socialism. But the Court rightly, IMHO, said if you create a public forum, as this particular flag pole has been designated and used, you can't exclude groups because you don't like what they are saying.

SomeMichGuy · M

@dancingtongue ...in part because that exclusion is a de facto violation of the Establishment clause.