Boston Illegally Rejected Request To Fly ‘Christian Flag,’ Supreme Court Rules

[Revmitchell]

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the city of Boston violated a group’s First Amendment rights by denying its request to fly a Christian flag at City Hall.

The U.S. high court delivered its opinion on Monday, overturning a lower court decision in favor of the city. The Supreme Court found that, contrary to arguments made by city attorneys, the city’s flag-waving program constituted an expression of private speech, not government speech, and therefore could not limit participants based on Establishment Clause concerns.

Boston Illegally Rejected Request To Fly ‘Christian Flag,’ Supreme Court Rules | The Daily Wire

 

[JonC]

I see good and bad in this.

It is good that there is a group so visible about it's faith (I don't care about flags, but they stood for their beliefs).

It is bad that the case was won essentially because the Christian flag should be no different from the LBGT flag.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Christians life should be their FLAG

 

[Van]

Atheists in government should not be allowed to disallow the practice of religion in the public square. A big error of SCOTUS was its decision to consider Theist views are religious, but Atheist views are not religious. Thus government schools can teach anti-Christian doctrine non-stop, but only privately funded schools can teach Christian views. Hopefully someone will bring a case where that decision can be reversed, also.

 

[Reformed1689]

Atheists in government should not be allowed to disallow the practice of religion in the public square. A big error of SCOTUS was its decision to consider Theist views are religious, but Atheist views are not religious. Thus government schools can teach anti-Christian doctrine non-stop, but only privately funded schools can teach Christian views. Hopefully someone will bring a case where that decision can be reversed, also.

Yes, there is a huge debate about what defines religion. Like you Van (yes Van and I agree sometimes), I agree that Atheism is indeed a religion in itself and should not be allowed to force its views on others if other religions are going to be suppressed.

The real problem is that the courts ignore what the intention of the Establishment Clause was. It was not to say there would not be a religious law or that we would be free from religion in this country. It was to keep there from being a national church such as the Church of England. It definitely was not to take God out of the public square. That is a perversion of our history.