Christian group has sued the city of Boston

[left-of-center2012]

A Christian group has sued the city of Boston in federal court, claiming the city’s refusal to fly a Christian flag on City Hall Plaza is a violation of the group’s constitutional rights.
Last year, according to court documents, Camp Constitution asked Boston officials for permission to raise a Christian flag on a city flagpole to go along with an event nearby, but was rebuffed.

“Government officials cannot single out a religious viewpoint for disfavored treatment ...” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a group suing on behalf of Camp Constitution. Camp Constitution describes itself as a Christian group with a goal to “enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage ...

In a 2017 letter rejecting the application to raise flag, Greg Rooney, commissioner of the Boston Property Management Department, said :

“The City of Boston maintains a policy and practice of respectfully refraining from flying non-secular flags on the City Hall flagpoles,” Rooney said in the letter.
“This policy and practice is consistent with well-established First Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting a local government from ‘respecting an establishment of religion.’
This policy and practice is also consistent with City’s legal authority to choose how a limited government resource, like the City Hall flagpoles, is used.”

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2018/07/christian_group_camp_constitution_is_suing_the_city_of_boston_over_flag

[Ohiogal]

1. Honestly ....

what part of "separation of church and state" don't they get???? We'll have to send them back to 9th grade Civics class.

[Fullduplexxx]

12. It could be that they feel they have a scotus that see's things their way

[bitterross]

14. You could be right.

The city will need to prove they've refused every other religion in the world a request to fly a flag now. Otherwise, this SCOTUS will say the singled out one religion.

Being somewhat flip here but not that far from the truth.

[TheBlackAdder]

15. Yep. They probably want to champion their case to the SCOTUS to make a name for themselves.

[Iggo]

22. The part about separation of church and state.

[Mariana]

57. They probably believe there is no such thing.

The Constitution doesn't say that, they might argue, and the courts have "misinterpreted" the First Amendment. Some churches do teach that the entire concept of "separation of church and state" is a fiction that was made up for the purpose of persecuting Christians.

[Wounded Bear]

2. More Talibangelical Dominionism...

Fly your fucking flag on your fucking church.

Bunch of whiny complainers.

[Solly Mack]

3. Warped-minded fucks.

Poor put upon pissants.

[dalton99a]

4. KKK Grand Wizard Chris Johnson showing off the same "Christian" flag:

Focus on the Family HQ in Colorado Springs - same bullshit flag:

[Merlot]

13. I took one look at that flag and thought "looks kkk"

Then I scroll down to this post.

Thanks.

[Takket]

5. This will be dismissed as soon as the judge reads it

Go read the first amendment jackasses.

[Blue_true]

7. The goal of the group is to get it to the Supreme Court and hope the rightwing court

agrees with them. You are going to see a lot of shit cases like this coming forward.

[smirkymonkey]

6. Oh, FFS! Not this shit again!

It is city hall, not a church. They have a policy of refraining from flying non-secular flags. And yes, that means Christian flags too. Why is that so hard for them to understand? They have no obligation to promote one religion over another or to promote any religion at all.

I am so sick of religious nutcases!

[Blue_true]

8. I wonder how that group would react if a Muslim group demanded to fly a flag? nt

[Archae]

9. They would have a fit.

"Oh that's different!"

[smirkymonkey]

10. They would completely lose their shit.

You can count on it.

[TheBlackAdder]

16. If this shit goes through, I'll buy them the flag for them to hoist up there.

.

Non-Christian organizations should force to fly their flags, including the Satanists and Scientologists.

FSM flags in every town!

.

[Blue_true]

20. I agree. If Courts rule that a Christian organization's flag can be flown on public land,

there should be no prohibition against a religious flag of any other religion. Christians and others disagree, but satanists claim religious practices, I disagree with those practices, but they are someone's religious beliefs. ALL religious organization's should absolutely oppose the flying of non state government, or federal government flags on public land, not doing so opens up a slippery slope that will become bad.

[ck4829]

25. Good question

[lpbk2713]

11. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Deal with it. It's a wicked pissah.

[no_hypocrisy]

17. Motion for dismissal: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

[rockfordfile]

18. Those people are un-American and just plain idiots.

[Vinca]

19. Separation of church and state . . . duh. Good luck Bible thumpers.

[Jim Lane]

21. It's not as clear-cut as everyone here seems to think.

The standard interpretation of the Establishment Clause is that government may not favor one religion over another, may not favor religion over nonreligion, and may not favor nonreligion over religion.

That last part comes into play here. This brief news article doesn't tell us much about the facts but includes this passage:

In the lawsuit, attorneys for Camp Constitution argue other flags representing countries and causes, including Portugal’s flag, which references Jesus Christ’s wounds, have been raised without issue.

The content of Portugal's flag doesn't move me much. The real issue is: If the city has a policy of flying, on a single occasion, the flag of a secular nonprofit organization or cause (maybe the United Way for its annual fund drive, the Red Cross after a Midwest tornado, etc.), can it then refuse to fly a comparable flag when the only basis for the distinction is that the flag it's rejecting is religious?

Here's an extreme example. A city has a taxpayer-funded fire department that puts out fires, whether or not the fire threatens a nearby building. It puts out fires at businesses, nonprofits (Planned Parenthood), etc. Can the city constitutionally refuse to put out a fire at a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple, because it doesn't want to aid religion? I doubt that any city would try this, but if it did, I think the practice would (and should) be held to violate the First Amendment.

According to the article, the City of Boston asserts that precedent is on its side with regard to flags. I haven't done any research and I don't know if courts have considered similar issues. I'm saying only that the analyses in this thread don't resolve the question in my mind.

[left-of-center2012]

23. I suspect all your points have been litigated

And lost.

Just a suspicion.

[mindem]

27. Flags

seem to be causing more trouble than they are worth, they are being used as weapons.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. The Constitution specifically prohibits the establishment of any religion.

The Constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit the establishment of any secular non-profit.

The Free Exercise Clause isn’t violated because the government isn’t prohibiting people from private worship.

I’ve never heard this argument that the constitution says treat secular governmental acts exactly the same as non-secular governmental acts. I guess Alabama can now set up a Christian department of motor vehicles. Don’t give them any ideas. Coming soon, I guess, with the new Trump court.

Displaying another country’s flag that happens to contain religious symbolism is a secular act as long as any specific flag is not chosen BECAUSE OF its religious symbolism.

Your extreme example of denial of government services based on religious grounds is just that, and extreme example. Denial of secular governmental services would be religious discrimination in the extreme and would run afoul of the free exercise clause.

[Jim Lane]

40. Calling it "extreme" doesn't answer the question

You write, "Denial of secular governmental services would be religious discrimination in the extreme...." With the fire department hypothetical and with the actual case, there is a proposed use of governmental resources in a way that helps a religious institution. Yes, putting out fires is more important than flying a flag, but it would be hard to pin a constitutional doctrine on that difference. Are you saying that "religious discrimination in the extreme" is barred but that religious discrimination in a minor matter is not extreme and is therefore OK? I'm really not understanding you.

You write, "I’ve never heard this argument that the constitution says treat secular governmental acts exactly the same as non-secular governmental acts." That's not my argument. The religious acts are left to private individuals and organizations. The issue for the government is how to use its resources, and the question is whether and to what extent the government may base that public decision on whether the private decision is religious in nature.

I still haven't done thorough legal research, but I couldn't resist going back to Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the first case in which the Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause applied to the states as well as to the federal government. There the plaintiff challenged a local school district rule that benefited nonpublic schools, 96% of which were parochial Catholic schools. The Supreme Court held that the rule was constitutional. The key point is that the vote was 5-4. If the Supreme Court divides that closely on an Establishment Clause question, it should give pause to people who think such questions are easy to answer.

As I wrote in my post, I do agree with you that the Christian group's argument about the Portuguese flag carries no weight. I would agree with you even if the flag did, as they allege, depict the wounds of Christ. As a side note, they're wrong about that. According to Wikipedia, that explanation is a "pure myth" concocted hundreds of years after the design was created.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. Extreme as in no doubt unreasonable.

Withholding fire service would be punishing them for their religious beliefs or practices. Denying them the use of a Government owned flagpole is not punishing them.


And I am under no illusion that the Roberts court won’t bend rules to fit their Christian fascist agenda. But that doesn’t make it right. A lot of things are gonna change I think in the next 20 years. And that doesn’t make them right either.

If your argument only pertains to what the court is going to decide then yeah I agree with you. But I can’t believe I’m having the argument here that running up a Christian flag on a public pole is the same as receiving fire and ambulance service.

Whatever happened to the reasonable man argument?

[kcr]

39. You admit haven't done any research.

Yet you're convinced you have a clearer grasp on the first First Amendment as it applies to this issue than everyone else here.

[Jim Lane]

41. You've grossly misread my post.

What I actually wrote was that the question isn't clear-cut. That doesn't mean that I think I have a clearer grasp. It sorta means the opposite.

Based on what little I know, I could see this case going either way. If you've done the research that would show the precedents to be clear, I'd be interested in your findings. It's the sort of question that could recur, so there might be an authoritative precedent directly on point.

[kcr]

45. Nope. I've got the read of you. You haven't done any research.

Yet you maintain that you know better than I do that this question isn't clear-cut.

Why are you even interested in my findings? But then again why does a person who doesn't even care to do any research in the first place feel the need to school others? There's a big old internet out there for you to start with. Knock yourself out.

[Jim Lane]

46. Research update

As my later post (# 40) indicates, I've since looked at one decision, Everson. That's only one case, and an old one at that, but, as far as anything in this thread indicates, that's one more than you've looked at.

More to the point are the school cases mentioned by Ms. Toad in #31. I should have thought of them. I'm not well versed in the field, as she is, but I agree with her that the use of government buildings by faith groups might be analogous to the use of public flagpoles by faith groups.

You write:

Why are you even interested in my findings? But then again why does a person who doesn't even care to do any research in the first place feel the need to school others?

I don't know why you seem to be so hostile. I'm interested in your findings precisely because, as I keep saying, I don't think the question is clear-cut. If you know something that supports one side or the other, that would be worth knowing. I don't agree with the arguments raised by Hassin Bin Sober (#33 and #42) but I'm glad he chose to enter the discussion.

[yewberry]

55. I asked them that question.

I asked the folks at Camp Constitution if they were aware of any religious/ secular group ever having had their flag displayed at City Hall or at any of the other locations managed by City Hall (Plaza, Sam Adams Park, a few others.) The answer was no. They had footage of a Vatican flag displayed on Boston Common during the Pope's visit in '79, but not at any of the venues managed by City Hall.

And the flag of Portugal doesn't reference the wounds of Christ-- a small amount of research says that the red color is reference to citizens who've dies in defense of their country.

I don't think their case is actually valid.

[Jim Lane]

56. If there were no prior incidents then the City official's explanation was terrible

In #43 I wrote:

It would make sense for the City to say "We fly the flags of the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the City of Boston, and that's it. No other flags." If that's been the City's consistent practice, then this Christian group will lose.

Your comment suggests that that is in fact the case:

I asked the folks at Camp Constitution if they were aware of any religious/ secular group ever having had their flag displayed at City Hall or at any of the other locations managed by City Hall (Plaza, Sam Adams Park, a few others.) The answer was no.

But if that's the case, then the official who responded to the request should've just said so. Instead, he answered in a way that led Ms. Toad and me to see the possibility of unconstitutional discrimination against religion:

A city spokeswoman declined to comment on specifics of the lawsuit. In a 2017 letter rejecting the application to raise flag, Greg Rooney, commissioner of the Boston Property Management Department, said Boston has a policy barring all religious flags.

“The City of Boston maintains a policy and practice of respectfully refraining from flying non-secular flags on the City Hall flagpoles,” Rooney said in the letter.

That makes me suspect that, even if the Camp Constitution people don't know the facts, there actually have been instances of secular non-governmental flags being flown.

As for this side issue of the flag of Portugal, my position (see #40) is that it's a national flag so it doesn't matter whether it depicts the wounds of Christ, but that, if anyone cares, the fact is that it does not depict those wounds. You're right about that. The incorrect interpretation of it, however, doesn't arise from the red color. If you look at the image of the flag, you'll see that it includes some small blue shields, each charged with five white circles in a saltire pattern of 2-1-2. The people who wanted the flag to be about religion saw this aspect as representing Christ's wounds -- two nails, a lance to the torso, and two more nails. The link I previously gave refutes that interpretation.

[ck4829]

24. For a second, I read the title and thought it would be something to do with poverty. But I am

Disappointed. Again.

[pamdb]

26. Flag

What the hell is a “Christian flag”?

[Lars39]

28. From wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Flag

"The Federal Council of Churches recommended that if the Christian Flag is to be used alongside a national flag, that the Christian Flag should receive the place of honor."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So tired of the push for a theocracy.

[LAS14]

35. What the heck is "The Federal Council of Churches???" nt

[Lars39]

36. Never heard of it before either.

I hope it’s just a national organization of churches, not a federal government agency.

[milestogo]

29. Jesus always emphasized how important flying the Christian flag was...

he even marched in parades with it.

[lpbk2713]

32. Carried protest signs written in English.

[LAS14]

37. Yeah. We gotta keep reminding ourselves!!!! (sarcasm....) nt

[SamKnause]

30. I am so sick of all these religious fucks.

They are all diseased.

Take you Christian Theocracy, Christian Taliban, and Christian ISIS flags and shove them up your ass !!!

Separation of Church and State !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't like the United States move to a country that better suits your dogma !!!

[Ms. Toad]

31. Extending the multitude of school cases, the Christian group is correct

Once you open a public school for community use, you must permit religious groups to use it because the government is not permitted to favor secular over religious use. I can't see any reason for a different outcome if s government chooses to open it's flagpole for community use. (I have not researched flagpoles, but I am well-versed on the use of public schools by faith groups.)

[Jim Lane]

43. I agree with you that it would depend on facts we don't have.

You write that the Christian group should win if the City chooses to open its flagpole for community use. That's why I mentioned secular organizations like the United Way.

It would make sense for the City to say "We fly the flags of the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the City of Boston, and that's it. No other flags." If that's been the City's consistent practice, then this Christian group will lose.

Alternatively, perhaps the City makes an exception if, for example, a foreign dignitary is visiting. If that's the only exception and it's applied consistently, then the Christian group will still lose. The City could fly the flag of Vatican City when the Pope is in town. As others have said in this thread, though, it couldn't discriminate among religions. If the President of Tunisia happens to show up, the City would have to accord him the same honor, even though the flag of Tunisia features Islamic symbolism.

Incidentally, Boston's municipal flag incorporates the motto "Sicut Patribus Sit Deus Nobis" -- meaning ""As God was with our fathers, so may He be with us." Maybe someone should get on their case about that.

[moriah]

44. What if they demand it be on the American Flag's staff?

The people who wrote the "Christian Flag Code" demand it not be elevated or placed to the right of any other flag.

Http://goo.gl/JDddsU -- poutrage article about Boston flying the transgender flag.

Obviously they fly the flags they hoist in these things in third place of honor -- America, State, then whatever they're honoring.

There may be reasons Boston refuses to fly a non-secular flag that are more to do with where to put it to make everyone happy, and why it may be a long-standing policy only getting press after pride flags were flown.

In fact, the US flag code recognizes the conflict with national and religious flags by the note about the US flag's superiority "except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy".

It's just not a good idea. If they accept the position of least honor, they're betraying the principles upon which the flag they want to fly are based around.

[Ms. Toad]

47. Boston doesn't have to make them happy,

it only has to treat them the same way they treat secular groups. If they aren't happy with the same flagpole/height as other groups are given, they don't have a leg to stand on.

If their beef is that they don't get special rights, their case is a loser. On the other hand, if they are truly being denied the same opportunities that are given to secular groups, they may well have a winner.

[moriah]

49. Hmmm. Ya know, that might make it worth it to let them fly it, if....

... they agree that the US flag gets highest honors. Just to make them betray the principle it stands for, and let any other religion hoist a flag, too. If they agree religion is subordinate to government.

But it still defeats the actual intent behind the people who developed such a flag, and the current use of it in churches.

https://www.umcdiscipleship.org/resources/should-we-have-flags-in-the-church-the-christian-flag-and-the-american-flag

Also, it should probably be noted that if Camp Constitution had made their own flag, even if it incorporated Christian symbols, it'd not create difficulties and would be open and shut "sure you can fly the flag of your group". This isn't the flag of an organization, non-profit, or a flag to show identity pride. It's a flag that was created to represent an allegiance to Jesus Christ above all things, and, if treated as its creators intended, would never be requested to be hoisted in such a ceremony on the lowest pole of honor.

If they want to disrespect the Christian flag, sure, fine. Better than the buttfloss American flag bikinis insofar as a way to desecrate a valued symbol by forgetting it's supposed to be treated with utmost reverence.

[Ms. Toad]

53. But you're not addressing constitutional issues - you're addressing issues of faith.

The government has to keep its fingers out of that mess.

[moriah]

54. As I said, I'm okay with them desecrating their own flag.

It'd actually be ironic, or at least an admission of church not being superior to state outside of church walls.

And of course they better then allow every other faith flag their day to fly, without fuss.

I'm just overly frustrated with people who are so into flags they forget they're supposed to be special and sacred. The photodocumentary "Tattered" highlighted just how many people have forgotten respect and veneration of the American flag in their rush of faux-patriotism since 9/11.

And growing up Baptist, I remember all too well how much emphasis was placed on the Christian Flag only being flown in the highest position of honor, or not flown at all, because otherwise it was an insult to God. So this silly group trying to do the same damn thing just.... argh! Hypocrisy is a pet peeve.

[LAS14]

34. If this doesn't get thrown out as frivolous, what's the meaning of the term???

Can we tell from this story if it has passed that stage?

tia
las

[Ms. Toad]

48. Are you aware that a public school that opens its doors to community activities

can't refuse to let allow churches to hold services there?

The First Amendment requries goverment to be neutral toward religion, which means it cannot prohibit to a religious organization oportunities made available to secular ones.

I don't know if this particular case willl win or not - but it is not frivolous.

[standingtall]

50. Should be frivolous because there are no Christian flags in the Christian bible

The word itself is nowhere in the New Testament and the 4 times it is used in the Old Testament it means a Reed or Sea Weed. Not some clothe symbol on a pole.

[Ms. Toad]

52. You know that is totally irrelevant in a First Amendment case, right?

The government does not get to be the arbiter of Christian doctrine, or of who is being faithful. Its obligation is to neither promote, nor be hostile to, faith organizations.

[Blaukraut]

38. If the court rules in their favor, I hope City Hall takes removes the flag pole altogether

No flags, no issues.

[kimbutgar]

51. So they are setting this for their christofascist supreme court ruling

[area51]

58. It reminds me a wee bit of the "Stainless Banner".

http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/thisday/gahistory/05/01/new-confederate-flag