Flag Desecration

[Turtle]

Shhh... they're voting right now. :eek2:

Perhaps contrary to the impression I have given, not only do I feel I know the Flag Rules better than most, I employ them more often.

 

The whole thing is in my opinion a waste of Congressional time better used to some real problems. How about a Constitutional Ammendment requiring health care for everyone who is sick?:shrug:

 

PS Did you know that the study of flags is known as vexillology?

[Turtle]

Resolution has failed 64 no to 36 yes.

 

PS Recount now has it failed at 66 to 34

[Turtle]

:eek2: I continued watching CSpan after the Senate vote & boy can they waste time! The Oregon Senators took their time discussing the Beavers baseball win & in fact most the Senators spoke after the vote on some entirely off-topic non-government concerns. Another monumental waste of time.

:) Back on the burning flag issue, if people want flag-burners arrested then they ought just to enforce their local fire ordinances. :shrug:

[TheBigDog]

Yup, it failed by one vote. It needed 67 to go to the states to continue the ratification process. It would then have needed 37 states to ratify it to become part of the Constitution. I have not seen any text indicating if there was a time limit for ratification. Some have them, some do not. ERA failed to get enough states to ratify even with the time exteneded twice. The 27th Amendment was actually part of the original bill of rights proposed in 1787, but was not ratified by 3/5ths of the states until 1992, 205 years later!

 

I imagine that this will come up again next year and the year after. And until then we can all worry about the other problems of the world. What is amazing to me is the form that freedom of speech takes. It is legal for a homeowners association to ban the flying of the US flag on your own property, but it is legal for you to burn it instead. Flying it out of patiotism is OK to ban, but burning for "free speech" is untouchable. The House this week passed a law that would prevent home owners associations from preventing people from flying a flag on their own property. I hope there are enough votes in the Senate. There should be, we only need 51.

 

Bill

[Turtle]

The House this week passed a law that would prevent home owners associations from preventing people from flying a flag on their own property. I hope there are enough votes in the Senate. There should be, we only need 51.

 

Bill

That's more like it. Not that we don't need a passle more work on these homeowner associations & their dirty tricks, but that's a start.

 

Long live the American Flag & my right to desecrate it!:eek2:

Long live the rights of property owners & the right to paint their house hot pink!:shrug:

[CraigD]

The common definition of “desecrate” can be phrased “to violate the sacredness of”. The common definition of “sacred” can be phrased “dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity”.

 

Though non-theistic usages of “sacred” are not uncommon, particularly in technical jargon (eg: "Register 7 is sacred to the interrupt handler"), I believe that for most people, the word has a mainly religious connotation.

 

Therefore, it’s my personal and inexpert conclusion that the current “flag desecration” debate in Congress – in particular the choice to use the word “desecrate” both in the popular language and the actual bill - is another of a long series of efforts intended to equate religion and government in the US by interest groups that can be fairly characterized as belonging to the Dominionism and Christian Reconstruction political/religious school of thought. Members of these groups have clearly stated their goals as being the transformation, via legal and non-violent means, of the US republic into a theocracy, with laws and a structure of government agreeable with the Old Testament of the Holy Bible, though opinions as to what such a structure would actually be vary from a hereditary monarchy to something approaching anarchy.

 

Though possibly well-intentioned, I believe that this political movement is wrong, and if successful, would result in a less perfect society. Of specific interest to hypographers, I believe that the movement is not supportive of Science, and would seek to replace the teaching of it with the teaching or Religion.

 

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the bill recently before the Senate, S.J.RES.12, and applaud its defeat.

 

Like most citizens of all nations, I’m respectful of the symbols of my state and nation, including their flags, and find disrespectful handling of them distasteful. Personally, I’m bothered by the disrespectful handing even of such a mundane object as a screwdriver! However, I believe that respect of the flag should remain, in the wording of the 10th Amendment, “reserved … to the people”.

[Boerseun]

Good points, Craig.

 

Respect isn't something you can forcibly get. Respect has to be earned.

 

In other words, if anybody treats the US flag disrespectfully, instead of making this person's actions legally wrong (force respect) the US govt. should rather ask itself "What are we doing wrong that this person has no respect for us?" and then start acting in such a way that it receives the respect it craves.

[Pyrotex]

The day they pass that amendment I'll burn a flag in protest - God Bless America, Land of the Free!!!

This issue came up about 8 or 10 years ago, and writers to the Houston Chronicle were all for a "flag-burning" law to protect us from them godless liberal yahoo commie hippie tree-hugging anti-war cowards that threatened our nation, our constitution, and our vital bodily fluids.

 

I wrote an op-ed piece that actually got published!! (my only one so far) In it I stated that I was FOR such a law banning flag burning, but only under TWO conditions: that any act of flag-burning HAD to IMMEDIATELY result in the ARREST and INCARCERATION of the flag-burner, no matter what. AND---CHEAP flag-burning kits must be publically available for sale in all convenience stores!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Then I waxed eloquent as how the next time our government did something really stupid, tens of thousands... nay, millions of concerned citizens could go the the nearest convenience store, buy a kit, publicly burn the American Flag in the kit, immediately get arrested, and clog the entire Justice System of America, overflowing the jails, the courts, the police cars, and bringing a major segment of the government to a screeching halt. HA!!!

 

As would be our right to do so. It would put the hands of the people firmly around the testicles of Big Brother Government. Don't you just love it???

[TheBigDog]

The primary intent of a law against flag burning is not to stop it from happening. It is to acknowledge as a society that we choose to honor our flag officially, and in some way beyond many other things.

 

In a specch from the Senate floor yesterday one of the Senators pounded home that last year there were only 4 reported flag burnings. It is a damn shame for those protestors that it is not against the law because this was the first time I heard about it. Had they been sighted and fined it may have made the news and brought thier cause some extra attention. Instead it is both legal and obscure.

 

I would also ask this question. Burning a flag is legal speech according to the Supreme Court. But burning a cross is a hate crime according to the same Supreme Court. It is illegal to burn a cigarette in many places, yet legal to burn a flag in those same places. What if I choose to protest cigarettes by burning one, is that "speech" protected, or is it just ignorance of the law? In my area I am not allowed to burn leaves- even in the most controlled way. What if I choose to burn them as a political statement, should I be exempted from the local ordinance because I am "speaking"?

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

Even the very symbol of freedom is subject to the whims of those who would use their freedom simply to **** on the symbol.

 

I know. Ain't freedom a *****?

 

But then again I guess nothing says it more clearly than a good symbolic burning - be it flag or cross. Enjoy your good company.

 

Unfortunately, being a jerk doesn't mean you don't have the right to free speech. Or maybe that's fortunate.

 

TFS

[i'd have used a stronger word that "jerk" but I already cursed once in this post...]

[pgrmdave]

It is illegal to burn a cigarette in many places, yet legal to burn a flag in those same places.

 

I doubt it. Burning large objects tends to be against the law. I have no problem with this, it's a public safty issue. I don't think that burning the flag should be specially protected any more than burning anything else. However, I don't think that the flag should be protected any more than any other symbol of our government (except the bald eagle, but that's a special case :hihi: )

[TheBigDog]

I know. Ain't freedom a *****?

It is knowing where to draw the line on in order to preserve civil society that is the real *****.

 

Anyone ever read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine? He is far more elequent than I.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

It is knowing where to draw the line on in order to preserve civil society that is the real *****.

 

Awww no. You're trying to change the subject.

 

Dictating what people can say and how they can say it may seem like "civil society" but it isn't. Dictating who can say what, and when may seem like "civil society" but it isn't.

 

It's polite society. And that's entirely different. Civil society doesn't mean "we are all civil to each other" it means we solve our problems without killing each other.

 

No one gets hurt when a flag gets burned. The destruction of symbols may not be nice, but it's not anathema to civil society.

 

And yes, I have read "Common Sense" but it's been more than ten years ago.

 

I propose a new amendment to the constitution.

 

"The right the people to be assholes shall not be abridged, but neither shall the right of the other people to dislike the assholes."

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

Awww no. You're trying to change the subject.

 

Dictating what people can say and how they can say it may seem like "civil society" but it isn't. Dictating who can say what, and when may seem like "civil society" but it isn't.

 

It's polite society. And that's entirely different. Civil society doesn't mean "we are all civil to each other" it means we solve our problems without killing each other.

 

No one gets hurt when a flag gets burned. The destruction of symbols may not be nice, but it's not anathema to civil society.

 

And yes, I have read "Common Sense" but it's been more than ten years ago.

 

I propose a new amendment to the constitution.

 

"The right the people to be assholes shall not be abridged, but neither shall the right of the other people to dislike the assholes."

 

TFS

Thus is created the "I am just an *******" defense.

[Pyrotex]

Thus is created the "I am just an *******" defense.

Hey! It has always worked for me! :hihi: :) :hihi:

[Turtle]

:hihi: You guys crack me up!:hihi: Nice to see a bit of humor injected into a clearly divisive issue.

:) I have a couple sources that I think bear on the issue. The first considers the whole panoply of victimless crimes:

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country by Peter McWilliams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams

:) The second deals with peoples response to authority & by extension symbols of authority:

Obedience to Authority; An Experimental View by Stanley Milgram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Milgram

:) Having ridiculous laws on the books is no proper justification to add more. The map is NOT the territory; the flag is NOT the nation. At least no one has contested our elected officials have better things to do with their time than dicker around such un-important issues.:)

[Pyrotex]

:hihi: You guys crack me up...Having ridiculous laws on the books is no proper justification to add more. The map is NOT the territory; the flag is NOT the nation....:

Turtle is right.

Yes, I know that triggers gasps of surprise and alarm, but no kidding, he's right. :)

 

There is no such thing as a "crime" against a symbol. A country's symbols SHOULD be respected, but that respect has to be earned. If we have government we respect and are proud of, we WILL be proud of our symbols. Those that don't respect the flag will earn our contempt and that is enough.

But if our government does outrageous and stupid things, then respect for its symbols will wane -- and there is NOTHING the government can do about it except clean up their act!

 

This is the 'natural law' of symbols, the 'free enterprise' of symbols, the 'laisse faire capitalism' of symbols. Their value rises and falls with the behavior of the government. If people are burning flags, the government should see this as a sign of its own failure.