Talk:City of Boerne v. Flores

message: I changed the recent edit so that the first reference to Katzenbach v. Morgan, and not the second, is eliminated.  It seems a great deal more appropriate to refer to Katzenbach in the section dealing with legal doctrine rather than in the section dealing with the background facts of this case.  Also, if the second reference and not the first were eliminated, all this article would contain would be a passing mention of Katzenbach.  This, I think, would be an egregious omission given the doctrinal importance of Katzenbach.   Hydriotaphia 16:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Start of talk

message: I'm confused, who won?
Hanz ofbyotch (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result / Outcome 

message: The article states, “Yet another [effect] was that it had First Amendment consequences too, in that it spelled the end for any legislative attempts to overturn Employment Division v. Smith.” However, this seems to be contradicted by the statement, “However, in 2000, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, in which it used the Spending Clause to require that, for localities that receive federal funding, land use laws accommodate religious freedom, essentially, as if RFRA had been constitutional.”  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.221.232 (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Why does this article present the case as a legal matter, when in fact it was simply a recurrance of well-established anti-catholic hysteria among the anglo-saxon protestant elite that controls the USA? They panicked because catholics were growing and thought the Pope will replace the President.
The fact the anglo-saxon elite hid an anti-catcholic church demolition under the disguise of a court case is nothing different from the mock trial of Mary, Queen of Scots, that is, pure justizmorde. In the USA so-called "freedom of religion" applies to everybody (including the hubbardite fiscal scam) but the Church of Rome. The article should focus on these issues! 82.131.210.163 (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About as much a court case as the murder of Mary, the Queen of Scots. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on City of Boerne v. Flores. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6ehZI7PeC?url=http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1769-1810.pdf to http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1769-1810.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How was this any different than 42 USC 1983, given that religion hinges on the clauses of the first amendment? For purposes of concrete understanding, I'm not quite sure what it was this particular statute attempted to do that wouldn't be redundant in the fist place.66.90.153.184 (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Question of distinction