Some of you may have read recent news reports related to a “flag issue” taking place in Boston, MA. If you haven’t, here is an article about the dispute.
According to the article, the challenge has gone all the way to the Supreme Court and they are scheduled to hear the case today (1/18/22), with a possible decision by the end of June.
In my opinion, this is just one more example of Christians trying to overstep their bounds.
Yes, the Constitution talks about freedom of religion, but this doesn’t translate to “religion” entering into every facet of public life. It means those who are “religious” have freedom to worship without governmental intrusion or obstruction.
Interestingly, the Biden administration is in support of the action, as is the ACLU — which has presented a brief that states: “The city (cannot) designate its flagpole a public forum for private speech and then deny access to an otherwise eligible speaker based on viewpoint.”
On the other hand, Boston officials contend that the flags on the city’s flag poles are a form of government speech and the city has a right to avoid raising a faith group’s flag as it would then be conveying a religious message. (I AGREE!)
This argument has won in the lower courts but in September, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case and clarify what counts as government speech.
From my non-religious point of view, I see this as simply one more effort to make in-roads towards meeting the goal of the Christian Nationalists. Minor, yes, in that it’s a “city” issue. But Major in that the decision made by the Supreme Court may very well demonstrate the bias many of us believe exists among its members, as well as portend future actions by this group that involve religious issues.
Nan's Notebook 
Flag fight.
Counter it the only way you can — with a Beelzebub flag.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If the Christian flag is allowed, there’s no consistent way to reject a Satanist flag. Every argument that applies in the one case applies in the other.
LikeLiked by 4 people
AGREE!! And if the Supreme Court supports Camp Constitution, then I hope the Satanists do their thing!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Exactly.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Or a flag of Satan taking a massive 💩 on Jesus. That’ll wake em up! Freedom of my religion of satanism, baby!
LikeLiked by 5 people
Where have you been?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Drinking the blood of infants in pizza parlor basrmeu with Tom Hanks and Hillary Clinton
LikeLiked by 3 people
Been there, done that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s the spirit!
LikeLiked by 1 person
All Christians should welcome a flag depicting the Satanic beturding of their Messiah. It’s far less horrific than crucifixion, and we all know how they wallow sadistically in depictions of that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You called?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nan, your non-religious point of view is on point. There is an article in today’s Secular Coalition of America. Over-stepping, indeed, and the SC continues to allow the seemingly least important appeals to go before the bench. Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas ruled in favor of The Good News Club a few years back, allowing Christians to hold functions in local schools while contributing zip to the school or to children’s education.
Lying and duplicity are the main features of Christianity. I need to do a little research and see how many if any of the Associate Justices belong to the Federalist Society and if they are on the board of the Council on National Policy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed, Nan
LikeLiked by 1 person
FFRF mail:
That the high court agreed to take the case, even though the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in Boston’s favor, signals that at least four justices seek to overturn the appeals court findings.
I’m glad the Justices are free from political and religious bias. /s
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good one, Nan,
From the article, “the city is guilty of religious discrimination.” Well, yes. So is the constitution. So must the court (if they can, given who they now are).
I saw one guy here in central TX had a flag pole in his yard. He flew a religions flag above the USA flag on the same pole. To me, that is his right. But he is wrong. It’s his land and his pole. It is his free speech. First Amendment and done. As for me…
I see it as an intentional violation of flag etiquette (he also flies a USMC flag, so he knows better). To me, it is an insult to the American flag to do that. In his mind, his religion trumps our country, all other religions, and our freedoms (not to mention his Marine training). I have at least one senator who agrees with him (Cruz).
I stand with Boston. I think all atheists/skeptics/etc. agree with the principle of separation of church and state. I want to think that most Americans, religious or not, agree with that.
What is wrong with these people?
LikeLiked by 3 people
What is wrong with these people? In one word … religion. In particular, Christianity.
The “church’s” indoctrination has been fierce since day one and unfortunately, it has never let up.
LikeLiked by 4 people
My question: Has the City of Boston ever flown a religious flag at any time in the past since the time they started flying such flags? If there is precedent, then they should fly such a flag under limited circumstances based on how long such flags are allowed to be flown.
But it sounds to me like no such flag has ever been flown, which can be interpreted to means they are following a policy of separating state and church, as per the Constitution of the USA.
The crux of the matter for me is, how does one define religious discrimination/persecution? Is flying a flag, or refusing to fly a flag, in any way promoting a certain religion, or denying someone the ability to practise their religion? If an entity is allowed to promote one religion over and above any other religion, that is reverse discrimination.
Alternately if there is no pattern of allowing certain religions to fly flags while denying every religion from flying flags, where is the discrimination/persecution?
In my mind, allowing one religion access to a flagpole means allowing access to every religion, and knowing what most religious people are like, they will want to dominate the use of the flagpoles from New Year’s Day straight through to New Year’s Eve. And that will be discriminating against every group who is denied access to a flagpole.
And then there is the Supreme Court, which in its present incarnation has a definite conservative leaning, while supposedly never supposed to have a bias. In my mind this is an illegitimate body, and really should have no business even considering a case such as this. Their willingness to take the case on suggests that they want to make a statement, NOT TRY A CASE ON ITS OWN MERITS. and if they decide this case against the City of Boston, they are setting precedent for anyone to take any frivolous case in front of them. This is unreasonable, the Supreme Court must have priorities or it may as well be no more “Supreme” than the lowest court in the land.
This whole thing seems to me to be about more than the division of Church and State. It is about POWER. And we all know who needs to have that power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My apologies, Nan, for using so much space, but I felt many facets of this needed more clarification. If I failed, that is on me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No apology necessary. You offered some thoughtful thoughts. 😉
LikeLike
🤔
LikeLike