Federal Court Bans American Flag But Allows Mexican Flag At U.S. Public Schools

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#1
In a shocking decision, a federal court of appeals just ruled that a public school is allowed to ban the American flag.

Even worse, the Ninth Circuit allowed the display of the Mexican flag, but not the American flag.

How could this happen? How can a court rule that a foreign flag is acceptable but an American flag is not? ...

The court held that the American flag could be banned because the kids displaying the flag were threatened.

But shouldn't the school stop the threats rather than ban the flag?

This is a key First Amendment battle. Displaying the American flag is free speech, and we can't stifle patriotic free speech in the face of anti-American threats.

When the case is appealed, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) will file a key brief. Add your name to the brief.

Sign here: Committee to Protect the American Flag | American Heritage, American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

 

Anonimous

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2013
1,615
35
0
#2
This can happen for the same reason that anything considered to be moral speech is now considered to be hate speech. This is yet another feather in the cap of this administration. This is also why America will soon become a non-player in world affairs....and we haven't been for awhile.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#3
Honestly, I don't really care about this. Why does it even matter?
 

Anonimous

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2013
1,615
35
0
#4
Honestly, I don't really care about this. Why does it even matter?
How can you pull down strongholds of Satan if you don't even have the strength to turn off your TV?

- Leonard Ravenhill

I do like the quote.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#5
In a shocking decision, a federal court of appeals just ruled that a public school is allowed to ban the American flag.

Even worse, the Ninth Circuit allowed the display of the Mexican flag, but not the American flag.

How could this happen? How can a court rule that a foreign flag is acceptable but an American flag is not? ...

The court held that the American flag could be banned because the kids displaying the flag were threatened.

But shouldn't the school stop the threats rather than ban the flag?

This is a key First Amendment battle. Displaying the American flag is free speech, and we can't stifle patriotic free speech in the face of anti-American threats.

When the case is appealed, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) will file a key brief. Add your name to the brief.

Sign here: Committee to Protect the American Flag | American Heritage, American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

Here, fly this flag instead:

 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#6
A fair if somewhat unintuitive question. Let me see if I can explain.

Nations built on principles of democracy require a material stakeholder support and participation from its citizens along with a strong identification on the part of its citizens for the nation to realize its potential and achieve (and maintain) success.

Achieving the necessary support requires a strong sense of allegiance that Montesquieu called "vertu."

A nation founded on principles of democracy can only realize their potential and be successful in the long term if a material number of citizens are convinced that their political society is a common venture that to some degree affirms them as stakeholders with the understanding that their participation matters.

The alienation of deep inequalities, stark inegalitarianism, strong neglect and indifference, and a real failure to affirm allegiance when taken too far eventually results in stakeholders disassembling their own nation which weakens it to the point of vulnerability both externally and internally.

Historically, this ultimately results in the end of the nation's democracy.

For these reasons, and others, patriotism and cosmopolitanism are critical to our nation's long term success which requires a great deal from citizens than other forms of government demanding a greater solidarity towards compatriots than other nations.

We cannot achieve long lasting success without a strong common identification and, considering the despotic and totaltarian alternatives to democracy in our world, it is not in either our interest or the interest of humanity that we fail to do so.

That's why it's important NOT to ban the flag of OUR own nation while simultaneously permitting the flags of OTHER nations to be displayed by OUR nation's youth. It's self-defeating.


Right



Wrong:



Honestly, I don't really care about this. Why does it even matter?
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#7
A fair if somewhat unintuitive question. Let me see if I can explain.

Nations built on principles of democracy require a material stakeholder support and participation from its citizens along with a strong identification on the part of its citizens for the nation to realize its potential and achieve (and maintain) success.

Achieving the necessary support requires a strong sense of allegiance that Montesquieu called "vertu."

A nation founded on principles of democracy can only realize their potential and be successful in the long term if a material number of citizens are convinced that their political society is a common venture that to some degree affirms them as stakeholders with the understanding that their participation matters.

The alienation of deep inequalities, stark inegalitarianism, strong neglect and indifference, and a real failure to affirm allegiance when taken too far eventually results in stakeholders disassembling their own nation which weakens it to the point of vulnerability both externally and internally.

Historically, this ultimately results in the end of the nation's democracy.

For these reasons, and others, patriotism and cosmopolitanism are critical to our nation's long term success which requires a great deal from citizens than other forms of government demanding a greater solidarity towards compatriots than other nations.

We cannot achieve long lasting success without a strong common identification and, considering the despotic and totaltarian alternatives to democracy in our world, it is not in either our interest or the interest of humanity that we fail to do so.

That's why it's important NOT to ban the flag of OUR own nation while simultaneously permitting the flags of OTHER nations to be displayed by OUR nation's youth. It's self-defeating.


Right



Wrong:

Why should I fight for babylon? This country hates God.
 

Misty77

Senior Member
Aug 30, 2013
1,746
45
0
#8
Why should I fight for babylon? This country hates God.
No, we don't. Those of us who are most vocal tend to lean in that direction. But we have such a significant portion of our population that identifies as Christian. Unfortunately, a lot of them are either misinformed about their responsibility to stand up or they are to discouraged to even try.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,026
722
113
#9
not mentioned in the OP:

a school in northern California that had had a history of altercations & violence among the student body on Cinco de Mayo due to strong racial divisions between white & latino groups told students that came to school on that specific day wearing American flag t-shirts to either turn their shirts inside out for the remainder of the day, or return home for the day.

a Federal court ruled that the schools need to protect the safety of the students outweighed the students right to free speech, after a group of parents sued the school system.

speech is not free when it incites violence.

to say that the court "banned the American flag" is completely deceptive.

link to the Associated Press article: Court: School can ban US flag shirts for safety
 
Last edited:

Misty77

Senior Member
Aug 30, 2013
1,746
45
0
#10
not mentioned in the OP:

a school in northern California that had had a history of altercations & violence among the student body on Cinco de Mayo due to strong racial divisions between white & latino groups told students that came to school on that specific day wearing American flag t-shirts to either turn their shirts inside out for the remainder of the day, or return home for the day.

a Federal court ruled that the schools need to protect the safety of the students outweighed the students right to free speech, after a group of parents sued the school system.

speech is not free when it incites violence.

to say that the court "banned the American flag" is completely deceptive.

link to the Associated Press article: Court: School can ban US flag shirts for safety
While I agree with you about a key part of the ban was left out of the article, our flag should NEVER be banned. Ever. Period.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,026
722
113
#11
from the official court ruling:

As Rodriguez was leaving his office before brunch break,
a Caucasian student approached him, and said, “You may
want to go out to the quad area. There might be some—there
might be some issues.” During the break, another student
called Rodriguez over to a group of Mexican students, said
that she was concerned about a group of students wearing the
American flag, and said that “there might be problems.”
Rodriguez understood her to mean that there might be a
physical altercation.
A group of Mexican students asked
Rodriguez why the Caucasian students “get to wear their flag
out when we [sic] don’t get to wear our [sic] flag?”
Boden directed Rodriguez to have the students either turn
their shirts inside out or take them off. The students refused
to do so.
Rodriguez met with the students and explained that he
was concerned for their safety. The students did not dispute
that their attire put them at risk of violence. Plaintiff D.M.
said that he was “willing to take on that responsibility” in
order to continue wearing his shirt. Two of the students, M.D.
and D.G., said they would have worn the flag clothing even
if they had known violence would be directed toward them.
School officials permitted M.D. and another student not
a party to this action to return to class, because Boden
considered their shirts, whose imagery was less “prominent,”
to be “less likely [to get them] singled out, targeted for any
possible recrimination,” and “significant[ly] differen[t] in
[terms of] what [he] saw as being potential for targeting.”

(Rodriguez is the school's assistant principle, Boden is the principle) so it appears in fact, the Hispanic students were not allowed to wear shirts with a Mexican flag & not even every student wearing an American flag shirt on it was asked to remove or invert it, but only a few of those involved in the altercation.

the court ruling goes on to describe how a couple of students who had been involved in the altercation - the ones with the prominent American flag shirts, who refused to take them off and went home for the day, were threatened by some of the Hispanic students via text messages and a phone call. the school has a history of gang violence in addition to racial tension - their parents kept them at home for the next 2 days, fearing reprisal. it was these students' parents who sued the school system.

it was these students whose safety the school had acted to protect. their parents apparently didn't see it that way, but the court did.

here's the whole court ruling:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/27/11-17858.pdf

isn't it better to have the facts?

 
Last edited:

Misty77

Senior Member
Aug 30, 2013
1,746
45
0
#12
from the official court ruling:

As Rodriguez was leaving his office before brunch break,
a Caucasian student approached him, and said, “You may
want to go out to the quad area. There might be some—there
might be some issues.” During the break, another student
called Rodriguez over to a group of Mexican students, said
that she was concerned about a group of students wearing the
American flag, and said that “there might be problems.”
Rodriguez understood her to mean that there might be a
physical altercation.
A group of Mexican students asked
Rodriguez why the Caucasian students “get to wear their flag
out when we [sic] don’t get to wear our [sic] flag?”
Boden directed Rodriguez to have the students either turn
their shirts inside out or take them off. The students refused
to do so.
Rodriguez met with the students and explained that he
was concerned for their safety. The students did not dispute
that their attire put them at risk of violence. Plaintiff D.M.
said that he was “willing to take on that responsibility” in
order to continue wearing his shirt. Two of the students, M.D.
and D.G., said they would have worn the flag clothing even
if they had known violence would be directed toward them.
School officials permitted M.D. and another student not
a party to this action to return to class, because Boden
considered their shirts, whose imagery was less “prominent,”
to be “less likely [to get them] singled out, targeted for any
possible recrimination,” and “significant[ly] differen[t] in
[terms of] what [he] saw as being potential for targeting.”

(Rodriguez is the school's assistant principle, Boden is the principle) so it appears in fact, the Hispanic students were not allowed to wear shirts with a Mexican flag & not even every student wearing an American flag shirt on it was asked to remove or invert it, but only a few of those involved in the altercation.

the court ruling goes on to describe how a couple of students who had been involved in the altercation - the ones with the prominent American flag shirts, who refused to take them off and went home for the day, were threatened by some of the Hispanic students via text messages and a phone call. the school has a history of gang violence in addition to racial tension - their parents kept them at home for the next 2 days, fearing reprisal. it was these students' parents who sued the school system.

it was these students whose safety the school had acted to protect. their parents apparently didn't see it that way, but the court did.

here's the whole court ruling:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/27/11-17858.pdf

isn't it better to have the facts?

THis is a case that I have been following for quite some time, so I was already aware of the facts. In America, the American flag should never be banned; and we should not be giving in to threats of violence. The violent people need to be punished, not those exercising their freedom of speech. SCOTUS has already ruled that students do not lose their freedom of speech just because they enter the classroom. If T-shirts with pictures are allowed, then the American flag, a cross, or other non-hate-speech picture can be worn. If a student is given open forum to speak, then the student can speak about patriotism, God, or minecraft. If a student is allowed to choose a topic for an essay, then the student can choose to write about God, puppies, soldiers, or gay rights.

The ruling is unconstitutional.
 

kayem77

Senior Member
Feb 5, 2011
2,380
42
0
#13
I'm Mexican and I find this ridiculous. Every nation should have the right to display their nation's flag on public places.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#14
Increasingly yes; however, a strong Christian backbone remains that continues to seriously engage their nation and the world for God's kingdom in positive quantitative ways.

My church, for example, is currently engaged in fighting poverty, sex trafficking, etc... both inside and outside the U.S. while sending teams overseas to Africa, Latin America, and other nations to build schools, health clinics, low income housing, and churches. They do this in partnership with tens of thousands of local assemblies around the nation in cooperative associations and it adds up to a material amount of positive change both inside and outside the U.S. ultimately affecting millions of people's lives for the better.

These are very real "hands on" activities, paid for by the private donations of Christians, that we do all year long because we live in a nation in which we can.

Of course our nation is coming under increasing judgment for falling away from God into immorality, atheism, false religious systems, materialism, war mongering, etc... and that is expected to continue.

But this strong backbone of Christians has the freedom and the ability to continue making a serious difference in the world and that we purpose to continue doing. Living in a nation in which we can makes that possible. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition friend.

As for "fighting for Babylon", lots of people file for conscientious objector (CO) status which is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion. If your objection is sincere, I support you in claiming that status. Peace.


Why should I fight for babylon? This country hates God.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,026
722
113
#15
the flag was not banned.
from the ruling:


officials did not enforce a blanket ban on
American flag apparel, but instead allowed two students to
return to class when it became clear that their shirts were
unlikely to make them targets of violence. The school
distinguished among the students based on the perceived
threat level, and did not embargo all flag-related clothing.

it's apparent from reading the ruling that the Latino students had been prohibited from wearing Mexican flag shirts, even though the school was sanctioning a Cinco de Mayo celebration that day.
when do we hear about the lawsuit the Hispanic children's parents filed?

also from the ruling, addressing the free speech claim:

“conduct by the student, in class or out of it,
which for any reason— whether it stems from time, place, or
type of behavior—materially disrupts classwork or involves
substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of
course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of
freedom of speech.” Id. at 513. Under Tinker, schools may
prohibit speech that “might reasonably [lead] school
authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material
interference with school activities,” or that constitutes an
“actual or nascent [interference] with the schools’ work or . . .
collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to
be let alone.” Id. at 508, 514; see also Wynar, 728 F.3d at
1067 (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508, 514.). As we have
explained, “the First Amendment does not require school
officials to wait until disruption actually occurs before they
may act. In fact, they have a duty to prevent the occurrence of
disturbances.” Karp v. Becken, 477 F.2d 171, 175 (9th Cir.
1973) (footnote omitted). Indeed, in the school context, “the
level of disturbance required to justify official intervention is
relatively lower in a public school than it might be on a street
corner.” Id

are you saying it would have been better to wait until a fistfight broke out before taking any action at all?

a number of students involved in the altercation that were wearing shirts with American flags on them were sent back to class without being asked to do anything about their dress. there was no school-wide ban on the display of the flag either on that day or on any other (although statements in the ruling lead one to believe there was an embargo on the Mexican flag).
3 students who were personally involved in a near-violent dispute centering over their shirts, a least one of whom had been intimately involved the previous year in a similar dispute, were asked to either change their shirts or go home with an excused absence.

seems fair to me. actually, what the principal did seems more than fair, it seems wise.
Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
(Proverbs 26:20)

what was the principal's alternatives?

do nothing, after being warned several times that there was a dangerous situation developing, wait until a fight breaks out and then punish everyone involved in the violence?
send every Hispanic student offended by the group of Caucasian kids home?
cancel school and send everyone home?
take some sort of punitive action against either or both groups of students, even though none of them had so far broken any school policy?

what the principal did was ask the students who were the focus of the controversy to either do something temporarily to remove the offense, thus avoiding conflict, or take the rest of the day off school without it affecting their grades or attendance records.

i think your patriotic fervor is obscuring the facts of the case.

the reason that these Latino kids were upset was that in their own words:
why do the Caucasian kids "
get to wear their flag out when we don’t get to wear our flag?”
that statement wasn't challenged. those kids had a legitimate beef - why couldn't they wear a Mexican flag shirt?
they weren't going around threatening everyone in the school who was wearing an American flag. they weren't destroying flags. they were apparently being provoked by a group of white kids, some of whom had an established history of doing the same. the school officials did their best to stop a fight from happening, and i think that's the best we can ask them to do. they knew the history and attitudes of all the kids involved and acted in their best interests, without allowing a fight to break out, and without punishing anyone unjustly.












 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,026
722
113
#16
THis is a case that I have been following for quite some time, so I was already aware of the facts.

well you wouldn't have gotten them from reading this thread until i got here! and really, that's all i wanted to establish.


  • there was no "ban on the American flag."
  • in fact, the Mexican flag was apparently banned at the school.
  • the only kids asked to change their shirts were a small number who were involved in an escalating confrontation centered around the Latino kids not being able to wear similar shirts with a Mexican flag. it was not a spontaneous altercation but one that had been developing all morning among the students.
  • the court did not rule that "the flag could be banned" - the court ruled that the school acted honorably in seeking to prevent a specific, small number of students from being attacked or otherwise involved in a violent dispute.
  • the appeals court ruling followed established precedent for schools and added no new precedent.

 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,485
45
0
#17
not mentioned in the OP:

a school in northern California that had had a history of altercations & violence among the student body on Cinco de Mayo due to strong racial divisions between white & latino groups told students that came to school on that specific day wearing American flag t-shirts to either turn their shirts inside out for the remainder of the day, or return home for the day.

a Federal court ruled that the schools need to protect the safety of the students outweighed the students right to free speech, after a group of parents sued the school system.

speech is not free when it incites violence.

to say that the court "banned the American flag" is completely deceptive.

link to the Associated Press article: Court: School can ban US flag shirts for safety
Wow when the story isnt twisted towards some fearmongering the government is evil objective...it actually makes sense. .
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,485
45
0
#18
While I agree with you about a key part of the ban was left out of the article, our flag should NEVER be banned. Ever. Period.
You realize ts just a piece of cloth...its not like I forget Im an american without seeing it.
 

Misty77

Senior Member
Aug 30, 2013
1,746
45
0
#19
You realize ts just a piece of cloth...its not like I forget Im an american without seeing it.
That's not the point. There are somethings that are supposed to be sacred, or revered for what they mean.

Also, it sets some really dangerous legal precedence by allowing another nation's flag while banning ours.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#20
You're not listing your sources posthuman. Specifically, I want to see the Morgan Hill Unified School District dress code that affirms your assertions that clothing with the Mexican flag on it is banned from campus.

Here is a proper source. It's the actual ninth district court ruling:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/27/11-17858.pdf

Not in the ruling that the federal court acknowledged that the public school was hosting what amounts to a Mexican drinking holiday over Mexico's historical military victory of the French on campus and Hispanic gangs with allegiance to Mexico and not the U.S. were attacking pro-American kids. And I quote:

"A group of Mexican students had been walking around with the Mexican flag, and in response to the white students’ flag-raising, one Mexican student shouted “f*** them white boys, f*** them white boys.” When Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez told the student to stop using profane language, the student said, “But Rodriguez, they are racist. They are being racist. F*** them white boys. Let’s f*** them up.”

"Another Mexican in the words of the district court, 'shoved a Mexican flag at him and said something in Spanish expressing anger at [M.D.’s] clothing [a t-shirt with a U.S. flag on it]."

"As the district court noted, the students offered no evidence 'demonstrating that students wearing the colors of the Mexican flag were targeted for violence.'”

Not racist, patriotic. There's a difference. The Mexicans were being racist anti-Americans by carrying a Mexican flag around on a U.S. public high school and shoving it on American kids who aren't from Mexico. Of course patriotic Americans reacted by showing their loyalty to the U.S. in a non-violent manner. I would have too. The threats of violence were all from the racist anti-American Mexicans.

In my opinion, the school administration should have been stopping the threats, even if it meant canceling all Mexican holiday celebrations on campus, rather than banning clothing with the American flag during those Mexican holidays which are on U.S. public property not Mexico's property. They violated their own policy against national origin of the AMERICAN kids and they did so on U.S. public property in the United States. The American flag and the Mexican flag are NOT on equal footing on U.S. public property in the United States for the very important reasons I cited in post #6 of this discussion.