[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Well, if it isnt illegal then it should be.

btw, from what I've dug up. 'Should' means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

The way I see it, spirits and ghosts telling people how to display the flag of the United States of America isnt what I would consider a valid reason.

Now, if on the otherhand 'may' was used in the wording it would truly be considered an optional rule. But it doesnt, so they should take it down and display it IAW U.S. Code and seek professional help.

Well just to fan the flame a little: the Pledge of Allegiance does say say "one nation under God..." Therefore throwing in so-called free speech and its offshoot, Freedom of Religion implications... the perspective of a church banner - a spiritual or holy ghost agenda reflection over a 'temporal' political banner..."Old Glory", in this instance, is not entirely unreasonable on the establishment's own flagpole. The Supreme Court ruled in the 70's that having the flag stitched to the seat of one's pants was permissible freedom of speech. Sheriff Smith vs Valerie Goguen: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/415/415.US.566.72-1254.html And later dealt with outright flag-burning as an 'expressive form' of free speech Texas vs Johnson:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/491/397.html Clearly, upon a given pole, priority of allegiance is an expressive form of free speech in a political context; I, Aktung, concur with Justices Powell and Brennan (respectively). Case dismissed.