Jersey City’s Flagpole Is a Trap Door: Satan or Silence

Jersey City has a flag program that’s basically a public microphone bolted to City Hall. It works great until someone says something the City doesn’t “love.”

Now the City is stalling a Christian flag request while historically allowing all kinds of secular and cause-based flags. That’s not “caution.” That’s viewpoint discrimination with a press release waiting to happen. (lc.org)

What’s happening

According to Liberty Counsel, Jersey City denied a permit in August 2025 for the Children of Faith Parade to raise a Christian flag, then called decades of prior approvals an “administrative error.” They say the group will apply again for September 12, 2026, and they’ve already sent a demand letter dated January 27, 2026. (lc.org)

Separately, Jersey City’s own cultural site describes how a second flag is often flown under the U.S. flag and that these flags vary for commemorations and awareness months. (Jersey City Office of Cultural Affairs)

That’s the opening.

The law they can’t outrun

This entire fight runs through Shurtleff v. Boston: if a city runs its flagpole like an open forum for private speakers, it cannot exclude a religious viewpoint while allowing others. (lc.org)

So the operating logic becomes binary:

All flags, or no flags.
Satan or silence.

The Stevens Method applied

This is not “activism.” This is systems testing.

Step 1: Force the City to classify the flagpole

Make them choose, in writing:

• Public forum (then equal access is mandatory), or
• Government speech (then the program must be closed to private groups)

Either answer is usable. What matters is that the answer is on the record.

Step 2: File a parallel records attack

Run OPRA like an audit:

• Who approved what
• Under what criteria
• Who called whom
• And why the rules suddenly “changed” when religion showed up

Machine logs don’t blink. People do.

Step 3: Collision date

Request the same day as the favored applicant. If there’s one pole, the City has to explain why one group gets priority and the other gets “pending.”

The City’s procedural dodge: “Special Event Permits”

Jersey City’s Office of Cultural Affairs runs a Special Event Permit process for things like parades, festivals, park gatherings, and block parties. That page also says:

• Organizations “must be a non-profit or partner with a non-profit” and provide an IRS determination letter
• Organizations must have at least $1 million in general liability insurance (Jersey City Office of Cultural Affairs)

That’s important because it’s the classic move: re-label your flag request as an “event” to bury it under paperwork.

Your response stays simple:

Show the written policy that applies those requirements to prior third-party flag raisings at City Hall.
Then show proof it was applied equally.

If they can’t, it’s not a rule. It’s an excuse.

The three documents that create the record

This is the core stack. No fluff.

1. Flag-Raising Permit Application (with Exhibit A banner attached)
2. Cover Letter to Mayor + Clerk asking for decision date
3. OPRA Request targeting approvals, criteria, clergy comms, internal “optics,” and portal audit trails

And yes, the metadata matters—because delay is often the discrimination.

Why this becomes a PR fiasco

Because the City has only three outcomes:

1. Approve both → “City Hall flies Christian and Satanology banners”
2. Approve one → viewpoint discrimination story, clean lawsuit facts
3. Shut down program → “City ends flag program after religious dispute”

Pick your headline, Mayor.

(For reference: the Mayor and Clerk are listed on Jersey City’s 2026 council schedule notice.) (jerseycitynj.gov)

Call to Action

Want to run this play in your city—without stepping on legal rakes?

REVOLT Training teaches the exact system:

• Record creation
• Procedural leverage
• Public-records extraction
• And the “All or None” pressure model that makes officials pick a lane

If you want the templates and sequencing, get the FOI/OPRA engineering playbook and book System Failure Boot Camp.

Disclaimer:
Your beliefs aren’t my business. Your right to hold them is.
This case isn’t about religion. It’s about equal treatment under the law.