A flag is 100% symbolic. Burning one says nothing more than, “I really don’t like/hate that country.” Insulting, I suppose, but ultimately no big deal.
Burning a book is trying to destroy an idea, which is a losing proposition in general, but highly damaging if successful. Think Library of Alexandria.
Flag burning affects me at a visceral level. It seems to be demeaning the sacrifices that many people have made. (Yes, I know that those sacrifices were made, in some small part, to allow for such a display, but I don’t have to like it.)
Book burning, to me, is just plain stupid. 'Course, if you want to buy a book and then burn it–have at it. Nobody loses but you. I’m pretty sure that the book you’re burning isn’t the only copy, and whatever was in that book is easily obtainable elsewhere.
Don’t try to burn my books, though. Or my flag, either.
To be honest, both scenarios evoke more of a “Wow, you’re a dumbass” reaction rather than a “OMG - you terrible person.” It really seems to be a misplaced and immature emotional reaction to what should be taken care of in a rational way instead. Either argue your point like a grownup, or don’t expect me to take your tantrum seriously.
However, as a booklover, it pains me more on a personal level to see books going (although to be fair, seeing books discarded or shredded to be recycled pains me also) than it does for a flag.
Also, as **iamthewalrus **said, flag burning reminds me of Anti-Vietnam demonstrations, and book burning makes me think of Nazis. Nazis make me more unhappy in general than anti-war hippies.
Well, you have to understand, when people burn a book, that book to them is as vile as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is to you. Of course you think it’s tasteless to burn books except the books that you hate. See what I’m getting at here?
When I think of flag burning, I don’t think of the Vietnam War. I think of Muslims burning the flag of Israel. That’s the image that I’ve seen over and over on the news. That image is more upsetting to me than the burning of any book. Interestingly, they riot when people burn their book, but they happily and publicly burn the flag of other peoples’ countries. This is just like what I’m talking about in the upper paragraph. They’re just looking at it one way, because for them, they’re right and everyone else is wrong.
Of course a bunch of middle class educated, left-leaning intellectuals like the people on this board are going to think the book burning is so much more reprehensible than the flag burning. Ask this question on a forum for US Marines, for instance, and see a very, very different set of answers.
Buring books - about the American flag. 
I don’t have a problem with either one (except maybe one).
I have fought for my nation and the flag represents my nation but I respect that someone might burn the nation’s flag as a statement that they disagree with my nation. My nation allows that. Hell, my nation encourages free speech and flag burning is free speech.
I don’t have a problem with burning books simply as a sign that you don’t agree with the ideas in those books. That is also free speech. I am assuming that there are many other copies of those books out there somewhere.
I disagree with burning books to limit the dissemination of information or opinion. That is wrong.
Back when I used to read lots of Science Fiction, I lived in a house with a fireplace and I would sometimes burn very badly written Science Fiction books, only because they were very badly written.
“this book sucks” flip into the fire.
Now I sell them back to the used book store.
The best part is, you would do that in the summer too, so come October the fireplace would have a pile of books in it. It made for a nice effect for visitors.
I don’t understand your point. I don’t condone either. I actually find flag burning to be offensive as hell, since it all too often is done as a form of hate speech.
Maybe I’m old fashioned. I take care of my flag. I’m also a left leaning intellectual who can’t throw away a book. When we had this topic for a Civics class, my students (19/20) voted “NO” on flag burning. They said violent acts shouldn’t be covered under the First Amendment. All of them thought flag burning was a form of hate speech that could (or is intended to) incite violence. Flag burning now is usually a way of disagreeing with a minority group.
Agreed; but dems is the rules.
*edit They were probably influenced by protesters burning the Mexican flag.
My fireplace (it has a screen) is occupied by books. I don’t have enough shelves. I got the idea from here.
Also: Equating the* Protocols* with Nazis burning the Torah or *All’s Quiet on the Western Front *is tasteless.
Doing either falls under First Amendment rights. Americans have a right to free speech, regardless of how dickish the message might be. In other countries, burning a flag could result in death or imprisonment, as can burning certain books. I’ll support our freedom to do either without repercussions.
This was a normal fireplace strewn with bad cheesy science fiction. It was classic.
I don’t think that that is what he said. He said that the book that they are burning is as offensive to them as Protocols is to you. He was trying to use a comparison to underline that point that the person burning the book finds the book deeply offensive - for whatever reason, good or bad, logical or illogical. He could have said “as offensive as dog poop on your shoe is to you”, but he used a better, more parallel example, assuming that there wouldn’t be a knee-jerk reaction.
Has anyone yet disagreed?
It’s another way of saying neither one enrages me. I might take issue with your politics or your reasons, but the act of burning doesn’t affect me one way or another, since it’s your legal right to do so.
OK, I have to add a caveat to my initial statement…
My son (age 12) is reading “Where the Red Fern Grows” in school this quarter. Given that we had to put down 2 of our own dogs in the past month, he’s not thrilled by the choice of subject matter. He’ll read the book because it’s assigned, but as soon as he’s done he wants to destroy every trace of it and pretend it never existed. So I told him it would be perfectly acceptable in this case if he wants to burn it.
I don’t think T. Slothrop has a fireplace anymore, but I’m sure he’d offer if he did.
If I were an author or a flag maker, I would be tickled pink to have as many people as possible burn my product. Once you buy something, you are entitled to behave as stupidly as you care to with it as long as no one else is harmed.
Fair enough. While I uphold the right to burn either, I agree with SSgtBaloo and others that there’s an implicit message that angers me in book-burning–symbolically, the burners seem to be saying that they wish to wipe that text out of existence. Not only do they dislike it, but nobody should read it. That message pisses me off some, even if I wouldn’t actually care for the specific book in question.
Of course it’s all about the symbolism of the act. Library of Alexandria aside, I assume that the texts we might see aflame today are in little danger of actually being lost to us.
I just like to point out that when someone burns the American flag, they are championing that which it stands for: the ability to speak your mind in protest against the government as well as setting stuff on fire.
When someone burns a book, they are typically not doing it for free speech purposes, but rather to show their contempt for the message within (at best; at worst, they are trying to silence it).
A thought that occurred to me the other day: If you are the sort to burn flags, remember that some of the cheaper ones are made from synthetic materials that melt when burned. Don’t be that guy who lights a flag on fire only to get sticky burning national symbolism stuck to their person.
Burning a flag is a statement of protest. Burning a book seems to imply that you cannot respond to the ideas therein, and would rather destroy them.
It is telling that no government has ever supported the burning of its flag, but has supported the burning of books owned by and written by its people.
