stercus tauri

I think the court's ruling speaks better on that than I could.

I'm not going to talk about it because that is not the topic here. If you want the court's rational, I would suggest you read the decision.

One person stood up for the Constitution and everyone else is upset? How sad is it the Constitution can be ignored by the majority? All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Looks like one, good person did the right thing and stood up for the Constitution.

You can read the ruling. Google is available at google.com to do your search.

What is a shame is that you would support the bullying of minority faiths to support a religion they don't believe with their tax money. How is that whole "treating others the way you want to be treated" working out for ya? Would you please give us an example how anyone's free exercise is limited in anyway by the taxpayer not displaying a Christian flag at a vets memorial to honor all vets of all faiths? You honestly can't see how this gives the appearance of the city endorsing a religion? Evidently the city attorney did along with the city council.

I would too. If there are two religious flags there, would you be OK with that? How about three? If all eleven were of other religions flags, would you be OK with that? What about the vets who were of faith #12 or of no faith? What about the tax payer that is agnostic? Is it fair to use his tax money to support a religious idea? He pays taxes for the work of government, not to promote a religious idea of any sort. If you have a firm grasp of the Constitution, then you would know this sort of action by the city is simply not allowed for it violates the establishment clause. Would you p

Would you please give us an example how anyone's free exercise is limited in anyway by the taxpayer not displaying a Christian flag at a vets memorial to honor all vets of all faiths? It is patently obvious how it gives the appearance of the city's endorsement of Christianity over all other religions. It is a leap of logic since it is not what I am saying and is a completely different topic, not to mention entirely a red herring. I have a question about your graphic. Would you be offended if people said "Allah Bless America" and wanted that as out national motto? I certainly would. I t

It is a huge leap of logic to equate the two. Please don't lie about my position. Thank you in advance. It doesn't matter if the memorial was approved by the voters. If it is unconstitutional, it is still not allowed, anymore than a majority of the voters approving a measure that would deny habeas corpus or would suspend the free press would both be wrong. The majority cannot take away a minority rights with a vote. No one is saying this is an anti-Christian thing. It is the only way to protect Christianity and all other faiths. If one religion gets the nod today, the next one tomorrow

I'm certain you are capable of reading the Supreme Court decision on that topic, which is far removed from the current topic.

We've got a young team with a lot of rebuilding to do. UGA will be fine and will handle the SEC like piece of paper in a few years.

What was it George Carlin said?

I would really appreciate if you would not resort to LYING in order to make you position look better. I never said anything about Arlington and you would be 100% WRONG about removing religious symbols from national cemeteries, a completely different issue. The markers at Arlington are PERSONAL markers for the individual buried there and are very much like dog tags since it marks that INDIVIDUAL'S faith. ALL faiths are allowed for each INDIVIDUAL or even NO RELIGIOUS MARKER if the family so chooses. Those sort of things are not only allowed but very appropriate since that is part of the governm

Acknowledging religion and using tax money to make it look like one religion is supported above others is a different matter. High five!

Here is one of the most recent but any case would do. Everson was about a local school board, not a "state" so I think it clear on its face. Same with Brown v Board of Ed of Topeka, KS, a city. "States" would include the municipalities and agencies created by the state, just like "Congress" includes all the Federal government. Cities cannot deny the people the liberties of the Constitution. City courts must be fair and all citizens can vote. Cities must allow free newspapers and the city police have to have search warrants. That's what the fourteenth amendment did when it made all the stuff on

America is also the the place where every man deserves to have his tax money support no religion because one day it might support a religion he finds utterly repugnant. We have liberty for everyone and that means even those people who are very few in number, but they get the same protection. If that one person is right, yes, we all do have to defer to his wishes.

Cities are included in the fourteenth amendment. Cities cannot deny the right of free speech, speedy trial, free press, the right to vote, jury of peers or anything else.

Yes, it does apply to cities. The fourteenth amendment made it apply to all government bodies in the nation.

It has the effect of law since it is the city giving the implied decree that one religion is being better than others since no other flags are there.

The part about "respecting an establishment of religion."

Doesn't matter if EVERYONE was in agreement. The Constitution says it cannot be done and not all citizens agreed, hence the phone call for complaint. Did you read that part in the newspaper article?

There was no Jewish flag. Or Muslim flag. Or any other religion's flag. Veterans come in all religions. Like the attorney for the city said, they would lose the lawsuit because the city cannot endorse any religion. That would be the whole "respecting an establishment of religion" when tax money is used to support one religion over another.

Sure I can. No city can do that with any religion because the Constitution doesn't allow it no matter what religion it is. There is no exception in the Constitution.

Can you show where that has happened before?

Not according to the EEOC as applying the US Constitution and all civil rights legislation. This has been tried before and the employee wins every time. No ethical code may restrict the exercise of Constitutional protections. The KKK example you gave would demonstrate the officer is questionable in applying the law to all people. That is a compelling reason and justifies the termination of employment. This is a case of a transit worker and his exercising free speech about a religion doesn't have a bearing on his job.

I sure would have objected and thankfully that's not allowed in the US because it is not right that any money extracted from the people go to support any religious idea.