If you tuned into the  Sacramento CBS TV station Tuesday you were told there was “fallout” from a Christian flag being flown over the Manteca Civic Center during Holy Week.

It was so controversial that there wasn’t even a peep about it made during public comments at the Manteca City Council meeting that night.

The presumption of the TV segment was twofold.

First, the Christian flag was supposedly flown “in rebuttal” to the LBGTQ+ flag being flown from the same staff in June.

I

Second, some supposedly said it was mixing government and religion.

City Attorney Dave Nefouse — and current U.S. Supreme Courts — would disagree with the latter based on how the city crafted its flag policy.

During the news segment, it was noted the flag was the only other flag “officially” flown that was not either the national or state flag over city hall since the LGBTQ+ flag.

It was added there are no “official” plans to fly other flags.

That’s correct, but an important caveat was left out.

The council adopted flag policy empowers the city manager to decide on whether requests to fly  commemorative flags meet certain. As such the flag must represent a date, event, cause, nation, or people.

Since there have been no other requests, clearly there are no other potential flag raisings in the “official” queue.

By not making that clear, it cast a somewhat ominous cloud over the city’s intent. The city manager isn’t coming up with a list of flags to consider.

Instead, her role is to decide whether requests to fly certain flags fall within the parameters of the municipal policy.

As for the tit-for-tat angle, there is no evidence that it was what motivated the request.

Theo Pope was quoted as saying he did draw inspiration from the Pride flag flown when he made the request of the city.

The TV reporter said some members of the Manteca LGBTQ+ community that he spoke with “off-camera” said they felt the Christian flag was raised in rebuttal.

Yet, nothing was offered that gave weight to such a “feeling.”

That leaves you with the feeling that the issue was framed on the assumption that any flag that represents a faith community  — Christian or not — appearing on the same flagpole would constitute an attack on the LGBTQ+ community.

What was done at the base of flagpole each morning that the Christian flag flew did not contain a word of ill-will toward the LGBTQ+ community.

What was occurring was the offering of prayers for different city departments.

To be clear, the world needs a lot of work to step up universal understanding, tolerance, and acceptance.

Those are the cornerstone values reflected in the Manteca flag policy designed to celebrate and acknowledge those that make up the city.

Whipping out the victim card first is a nice way of dividing as opposed to unifying a community.

Let’s hope the Pride Flag again flies over city hall as well as the Christian flag.

At the same time it would be nice if other segments of the Manteca community make requests to fly flags that represent groups they are part of — Muslim, a specific military branch, Mexico, Scouting, Sikhs, Masons, Hindus, 4-H, Suffrage, Black Lives Matter, and such.

And if at the same time at the base of the flagpole when their particular flag is being flown it would be ideal to stage an event of some sort to share their culture or cause is reflected with the flag that is being flown.

Having a different flag flown each week would help underscore the city’s diversity and help remind us Manteca’s community fabric is strengthened when we are brought together.

The foundation of Manteca’s flag policy and the hope that it will highlight the wide array of people, beliefs, passions, and such within the city is based on Boston’s flag raising program.

The New England city’s flag-raising program was aimed at promoting diversity and tolerance among Boston’s different communities.

Ironically, the 9-0 Supreme Court decision that Manteca’s own flag policy is based on evolved around Boston’s rejection of the use of a city flag pole to display the Christian flag.

Instead of flying for seven days as Manteca’s flag policy allows, the flags were flown only during “events” that the requesting organization staged at the base of a flag pole.

From 2005 to 2017, Boston had approved all 284 applications to display flags at city hall before saying no to the Christians flag.

Most of the 284 were flags of foreign countries.

The applications that passed muster with the city included a flag  commemorating LGBT Pride in Boston.

The high court ruled Boston’s flag raising program was based on private speech and not government speech.

The court noted Boston’s “lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech.”

Clearly, anyone is free to take an affront to what flag is thrown based on what they believe it represents.

But it is the public square, if you will, meaning it is a free speech issue and not a question of separating church from religion.

The city clearly has a track record celebrating all faiths in a somewhat “vanilla” manner during the opening invocations for council meetings.

That has been the case since July 17, 2012 when the first Hindu prayer ever opened a Manteca City Council meeting.

It came after the council at the time dropped the long running practice of having the Manteca Ministerial Association — that for years consisted of just Christians — rotating those offering the invocation among its member pastors.

That Hindu invocation containing verses from the world’s oldest existing scripture was delivered by Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, first in Sanskrit and then translated in English.

At one point in the years to follow, a Wiccan also offered an opening invocation for a City Council meeting,

If the City of Manteca is guilty of anything it is simply having the courage to walk the fine constitutional line that enables diversified segments of the community to celebrate and share our differences.

It is, after all, what makes Manteca what it is — Manteca.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com

If you tuned into the  Sacramento CVBS TV station Tuesday you were told there was “fallout” from a Christian flag being flown over the Manteca Civic Center during Holy Week.

It was so controversial that there wasn’t even a peep about it made during public comments at the Manteca City Council meeting that night.

The presumption of the TV segment was twofold.

First, the Christian flag was supposedly flown “in rebuttal” to the LBGTQ+ flag being flown from the same staff in June.

Second, some supposedly said it was mixing government and religion.

City Attorney Dave Nefouse — and current U.S. Supreme Courts — would disagree with the latter based on how the city crafted its flag policy.

During the news segment, it was noted the flag was the only other flag “officially” flown that was not either the national or state flag over city hall since the LGBTQ+ flag.

It was added there are no “official” plans to fly other flags.

That’s correct, but an important caveat was left out.

The council adopted flag policy empowers the city manager to decide on whether requests to fly  commemorative flags meet certain. As such the flag must represent a date, event, cause, nation, or people.

Since there have been no other requests, clearly there are no other potential flag raisings in the “official” queue.

By not making that clear, it cast a somewhat ominous cloud over the city’s intent. The city manager isn’t coming up with a list of flags to consider.

Instead, her role is to decide whether requests to fly certain flags fall within the parameters of the municipal policy.

As for the tit-for-tat angle, there is no evidence that it was what motivated the request.

Theo Pope was quoted as saying he did draw inspiration from the Pride flag flown when he made the request of the city.

The TV reporter said some members of the Manteca LGBTQ+ community that he spoke with “off-camera” said they felt the Christian flag was raised in rebuttal.

Yet, nothing was offered that gave weight to such “feeling.”

That leaves you with the feeling that the issue was framed on the assumption that any flag that represents a faith community  — Christian or not — appearing on the same flagpole would constitute an attack on the LGBTQ+ community.

What was done at the base of flagpole each morning that the Christian flag flew did not contain a word of ill-will toward the LGBTQ+ community.

What was occurring was the offering of prayers for different city departments.

To be clear, the world needs a lot of work to step up universal understanding, tolerance, and acceptance.

Those are the cornerstone values reflected in the Manteca flag policy designed to celebrate and acknowledge those that make up the city.

Whipping out the victim card first is a nice way of dividing as opposed to unifying a community.

Let’s hope the Pride Flag again flies over city hall as well as the Christian flag.

At the same time it would be nice if other segments of the Manteca community make requests to fly flags that represent groups they are part of — Muslim, a specific military branch, Mexico, Scouting, Sikhs, Masons, Hindus, 4-H, Suffrage, Black Lives Matter, and such.

And if at the same time at the base of the flagpole when their particular flag is being flown it would be ideal to stage an event of some sort to share their culture or cause is reflected with the flag that is being flown.

Having a different flag flown each week would help underscore the city’s diversity and help remind us Manteca’s community fabric is strengthened when we are brought together.

The foundation of Manteca’s flag policy and the hope that it will highlight the wide array of people, beliefs, passions, and such within the city is based on Boston’s flag raising program.

The New England city’s flag-raising program was aimed at promoting diversity and tolerance among Boston’s different communities.

Ironically, the 9-0 Supreme Court decision that Manteca’s own flag policy is based on evolved around Boston’s rejection of the use of a city flag pole to display the Christian flag.

Instead of flying for seven days as Manteca’s flag policy allows, the flags were flown only during “events” that the requesting organization staged at the base of a flag pole.

From 2005 to 2017, Boston had approved all 284 applications to display flags at city hall before saying no to the Christians flag.

Most of the 284 were flags of foreign countries.

The applications that passed muster with the city included a flag  commemorating LGBT Pride in Boston.

The high court ruled Boston’s flag raising program was based on private speech and not government speech.

The court noted Boston’s "lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech.”

Clearly, anyone is free to take an affront to what flag is thrown based on what they believe it represents.

But it is the public square, if you will, meaning it is a free speech issue and not a question of separating church from religion.

The city clearly has a track record celebrating all faiths in a somewhat “vanilla” manner during the opening invocations for council meetings.

That has been the case since July 17, 2012 when the first Hindu prayer ever opened a Manteca City Council meeting.

It came after the council at the time dropped the long running practice of having the Manteca Ministerial Association — that for years consisted of just Christians — rotated those offering the invocation among its member pastors.

That Hindu invocation containing verses from the world’s oldest existing scripture was delivered by Hindu statesman Rajan Zed first in Sanskrit and then translated in English.

At one point in the years to follow, a Wiccan also offered an opening invocation for a City Council meeting,

If the City of Manteca is guilty of anything it is simply having the courage to walk the fine constitutional line that enables diversified segments of the community to celebrate and share our differences.

It is, after all, what makes Manteca what it is — Manteca.

 This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com