Agnostic.com

4 4

LINK Did a public school in Texas figure out how to legally hoist a Christian flag? -- Friendly Atheist

Just because the decision is made by students doesn't necessarily mean it's not school-sponsored

Can a public high school fly a Christian flag outside the building if students are the ones who approve it? That question is being raised in Texas, prolonging a controversy that’s been going on for over seven years.

In 2017, LaPoynor High School, part of the LaPoynor Independent School District in LaRue, was raising three flags each day: an American flag, the Texas state flag, and a Christian flag (all-white with a red Christian cross on a blue background in the upper left corner).

(Follow article link to view photos/PDFs that accompany this article.)

The Freedom From Religion Foundation called it out at the time, saying in a letter that the promotion of religion had “an exclusionary effect, turning non-Christian and non-believing students into outsiders.”

It wasn’t just the flag, either. The District also promoted events like “See You At the Pole” and a (faith-based) Baccalaureate ceremony on its official Facebook page. As if to hammer home the point, the “See You At the Pole” post even included a picture of the three flags.

Not long after the district received the letter, the Christian flag came down… but it infuriated conservatives in the community, who responded by putting Christian flags on their cars…

Guess what? No one cared. As church/state separation advocates have argued for decades, the concern isn’t about individuals promoting their own faith, it’s about government institutions doing it. If every car in the parking lot had a flag, and every student carried a Bible in their backpack, no church/state separation group would raise an eyebrow.

But it seemed like the actual problem was resolved. The Christian flag had come down and was replaced with another pro-Texas one.

The controversy didn’t end there, though. The district soon came up with what it believed was a new way to get around the law. Instead of ordering the Christian flag to go up, district officials put the decision of what to place on the third flagpole in the hands of a student committee:

The group is made up of the student from each grade level with the highest grade-point average and meets on a monthly basis under the supervision of a district parent, according to Superintendent Marsha Mills.

The group has chosen different flags, including one for Breast Cancer Awareness Month and one with the district’s mascot. It raises money to purchase any new flags, Mills said. But the Christian flag seems to be a frequent choice.

So the Christian flag can fly as long as students want it to, and it’s only one of several flags that have gone up.

Does that make it legal?

Arguably no.

Consider that in a place like LaRue, with a heavily Christian population, it’s not like Muslims or Satanists or atheists would ever have the votes to add their flags to the mix. The method of outsourcing the decision to students doesn’t override the fact that certain groups can’t realistically be included in the mix. Rights are all about protection from the “tyranny of the majority.”

Also consider what wasn’t mentioned in a piece by Pooja Salhotra of the Texas Tribune: There’s reason to believe that the district formed the committee specifically so the Christian flag could fly… which, if true, would mean the Christian flag is still school sponsored.

When the Freedom From Religion Foundation was investigating this matter years ago, a public records request revealed that the name of the student committee was the “Flyers Freedom of Rights to Fly.” The awkward name is clearly an attempt to mock FFRF for questioning their intentions.

It’s possible someone could file a lawsuit over this, but the appetite to fight the Christian Nationalism in a place like this is bound to be small:

… back in East Texas, there does not appear to be enough concern over the flag for students to mount such a battle. Parents in the district say they are in support of the Christian flag and do not know of anyone who is upset about the religious symbol.

“I believe in Jesus Christ, and I would not let my children go to school somewhere that does not believe in Jesus Christ,” said Ashley Hamby Brauher, who has three children in the district. “I support the flag 100%.”

I have no clue how a public school is supposed to “believe in Jesus Christ,” but Ashley Hamby Brauher has apparently never heard of private Christian schools that would be a better fit for her brand of indoctrination.

In any case, there is a legal analogy that could explain the district’s theory. Some public school districts have included formal prayers during graduation ceremonies, even listing them in the programs. One district in South Carolina had to pay out over $400,000 in legal fees to the American Humanist Association for shoving Christianity into the events.

But knowing that wasn’t legal, other district have tried to place prayers in the hands of students. Some allowed them to vote for a graduation speaker who would presumably pray at the microphone. Some said school officials wouldn’t review any speeches made by students, giving them a very clear green light to proselytize from the stage. In those cases, the courts have allowed the workarounds.

Those situations, however, are one-off events. The flags outside the school are ongoing. So the district’s theory may not be entirely on solid ground.

They’re counting on the Supreme Court—and the ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which oversees Texas—to be on their side if anyone dares to challenge them.

snytiger6 9 Jan 29
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

Will it keep the Mexicans out???

Will it get rid of all Christian supremacists that infest the USA?

5

Solution: Hoist a flag with a picture of Muhammad (Pastrami Be Upon Him), and get the whole school shot up by a bunch Irate Insane Islamists.

7

Bullying 'others' is an integral part of the patriarchal narcissist dementia that religion promulgates.

6

I don't see how the students agreeing to violate church and state has anything to do with making it legal. If neo-nazis or white supremacists or communists all agree to do something that violated the law would that make it legal?

Seeing as taxation is taking money without consent, and therefore theft, the word legal is bullshit anyway

@Communistbitch Taxes are as old as history and have never negated law. You are saying that all of the history of the human race is bullshit and all laws are bullshit.
Consent to taxes is in the Constitution. It is called the 16th Amendment. In addition to the Sixteenth Amendment, the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with taxes anyway. With or without taxes the issue remains.

@Heraclitus

1773= Boston tea party.

1776= United States founded as a tax free nation.

no it started in 1848, written by Karl marx, a progressive income tax is necessary to bring a nation under communism. Also, central banking and public schools.

1913, 16th amendment passed

  1. The same year, federal reserve created

@Heraclitus also, since we're on the topic, God is as old as history and never negated religion. You were saying all of history of the human race is bullshit and all religion is bullshit.

Consent to religion is in the Bible

See how that works? Logical....dumbfuckery

@Heraclitus Thanks for trying to school this moron. I got sick of her bullshit and blocked her, but maybe you can get through to her. Good luck. 👌

@Communistbitch The Boston Tea Party is often mischaracterized as a "tax revolt". However, the revolt was more about having to pay for a government that didn't represent their local interests.

The back ground which most history books don't go into is that the East India Company was granted a royal monopoly, which meant that they could bring their tea into the American colonies untaxed, while small merchants had to pay a high tax on the tea they imported. Thus tea became a symbol for the unfairness of the way in which taxes were collected, as the East India Company had a voice in government, while smaller merchants did not. It was a case of the rich and powerful protecting others who were also rich and powerful.

Anyway, it wasn't tax revolt so much as it was a protest over how colonists were paying for a government that did not represent them or their concerns. Thus, the slogan "taxation without representation".

It has been generally accepted through most of history that taxes were needed to pay for an orderly society. One only has to look to Somalia to see a contrast of a country with low taxation and few laws and regulations, and most people would prefer to live in a society where people are taxed in order to meet the cost to maintain order.

@Communistbitch No even sure what your point is.
Yes, the Boston tea party was one of many revolts against taxes, because taxes already existed.
The USA did have local taxes in 1776, just not a federal income tax.
The Articles of Confederation was a complete failure and so the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) granted the federal government of the United States its power of taxation.
No, progessive tax did not start with Karl Marx in 1848 in Germany. Early examples can be traced back to at least the Roman Republic, where public taxes consisted of assessments on owned wealth and property.

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with taxes anyway. With or without taxes the issue remains.

@Heraclitus your failure to use any actual thinking or brain cells is noted. Why did karl marx write in his book to put the income tax as a way to submit a nation under communism? Yes, it requires you to think.

@Communistbitch That is a total strawman argument. That is not what I said at all. Not even close.
I was, as you know, denying your arguement that the world "legal" is B.S. just because of taxation. How in the world does taxation make the world "legal" B.S? Laws exist whether or not there is taxation. That is totally illogical. That is nonsense.

First of all, God is older than history and that does not negate religion in way. That is absurd. I never said or implied that.
I never said that all of human is B.S. or implied it. That is totally absurd. On the contrary I disagreed with you that it is all B.S.
I never said or implied that all of religion is B.S That is totally absurd of you.
You are being completely illogical.

@Communistbitch, @Redheadedgammy Thanks, but I am beginning to think I am simply wasting my time. She is not making much sense, not actually even defending her own argument, and is now accusing me of all sorts of things I never said or implied. I will probably have to block her, too, as she is beginning to reek of insanity. Morons, I can handle...they make more sense.

@Heraclitus so now you are a believer in God?

@Heraclitus you're the one not making sense, plus this red headed gammy bitch I can't read her comments, but she reads mine, coward bitch

@Heraclitus She is just here to stir up $hit and be a pain in the ass. Some people have tried to converse with her, but soon find out she's just a fraud and they stop trying. 😉

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:744880
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.