Doesn’t the President have the ability to modify traditional customs in regards respect for the flag whenever he wants?
Perhaps “Most important in the world” is a bit of hyperbole. But I do truly believe that the Declaration is an inspired work, and possibly the best and most beautiful political speech I have ever seen or heard. The Constitution, for the flaws it has, is perhaps more important than the Magna Carta, simply because it was arrived at, not by force imposed, but by will of the people. That’s the key moment there.
Beyond that, perhaps it would be interesting to try to determine the most important document in the world, politically and religiously.
I suppose, as far as it goes, it would be, in rough order, Q, Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, and then either the Carta or Constitution.
Well, certainly that’s an interesting debate.
I’d respectfully suggest that it somewhat falls outside of this thread sadly. But I’d also note that whilst the Declaration of Independance is undeniably incredibly important to Americans specifically, I rather think that most of the rest of humanity perceives it as merely being a colloquial milestone in the history of North America and not being overly important elsewhere - especially outside of the English speaking world.
Certainly, the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates were ground breaking and probably had far greater influence down through the passage of history. But as for the Declaration of Independance? And it’s influence over all of humanity? The jury is really, really still out on that. And there’s something inherently uncomfortable in hearing an American announce that the Declaration of Independance is on such a par. It’s one of those etiquette things which, really, should be bestowed by someone other than an American for it not to be seen as some form of unrestrained conceit, if you know what I mean.
Where I work, our supervisors would have to sign the blotter once they read a department message.
Maybe we should have the politicians all sign off on a copy of the Constitution, so they won’t have excuses when they enact or enforce legilation and orders that violate it.
I love it when Libs jump on things like this. This and 13 words taken out of context in a speech. It makes laughably clear how hot their hatred is and how impotent they are to clash with him on anything of substance.
tee hee
Well, I apologize for it being uncomfortable.
I can understand why you would think so. It remains my personal opinion, though I am willing to debate it. But the point I was making is that the Constitution, which is held in such regard, not only by myself, but by many Americans, and, in fact, should be held so by American politicians, as it is the foundation of their causes, contains an amendment supporting freedom of speech.
Said amendment is considered the cornerstone of American thought and freedom.
Fella bilong Washington Massa Bush, he wants to alter that nigh-sacred First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
To prohibit one form of freedom of speech, the desecration of a flag.
And, by gum, he desecrates a flag. Now, it’s a minor desecration. Some people would do it without realizing it was one. But someone who is willing to alter the cornerstone of our society to +protect+ the flag?
That’s sodding hypocracy, that is. A flying middle finger.
Oh, get off it, E-Sabbath. It’s not a sacred relic of any sort whatsoever. It’s a flag. That’s all it is…a flag…a piece of cloth.
And, try to do the Tok Pisin a bit better next time, okay?
“There are fat housewives (and skinny ones too, I imagine) with screen printed T-shirts with “God Bless the USA” over a flag…”
last time i looked at a flag protection ordinance, it was broad enought to make those shirts, or at least spilling something on them, illegal. Since I think such laws would be silly even if they were well written, i’ll just note this for the next time Congress looks like its going nutso.
Monty, Monty, Monty. I support the freedom to do whatever the hell you want in this country of ours. Read me words. It’s BUSH who’s treating it as a sacred relic… then scribbling on it.
On the other hand, I respect what it stands for enough that I wouldn’t widdle on it. You can. You can wallpaper your house with it.
But I would like it if people who used it as a statement did so carefully and with thought. Pretty much the same way I wish all people would make statements. The mind is a tool, the voice is a tool, and political statements are fine tools. And people who use a fine tool as a sledgehammer tick me off. So do people who use, say, ratcheting screwdrivers to stir paint. You got a stirring stick. Use it. You’re gonna mess the screwdriver up.
And, as Telcontar so ably puts out, the ordinances are darn poorly written, too, such that any I have seen… and I’ve seen a few, would outlaw what he did.
So, we got Bush advocating hitting the foundation of the USA with a sledgehammer, then absent-mindedly using it to stir paint with.
If you’re going to mess with fundamental civil liberties, be careful! And don’t contradict yourself. Please?
And just to be sure we’re all on the same page: Burning a flag is strong political speech, saying, in essence, you are very unhappy with the way this country is directed, and wish it would change, and you wish everyone would know this.
Am I right or wrong there?
I do hope you aren’t suggesting I actually said something useful…
AFAIAC, he didn’t desecrate the flag enough. If Bush actually torched the flag and started screaming “DEATH to AMERICA” I might consider voting for him.
Out of idle curiosity, folks, exactly what are the penalties called for in that law regarding how to treat the flag?
I know that Monty really doesn’t want to hear from me.
But here is a History of Flag Laws.
The one that struck me the most was:
Actually, I already knew that there’s no penalty for it, Rico. It’s kind of pointless, really, for Congress to have passed it as a law. It’s just a guideline, a recommendation. Had the issue not been (and still is) so asininely politicized, Congress would’ve evidenced more intelligence had they merely made the thing a resolution.
So, to all the people griping about Bush “breaking the law” here: he’s not. Get over yourselves.
What would be really intelligent would be to declare that there’s no need for a flag!
…
Monty, you’re being willfully obtuse. No, really. Who said Bush was breaking a law?
He wants a law. Actually, an amendment to the Constitution. Which will outlaw desecrating the flag.
http://www.cfa-inc.org/about/flagamend3.htm
One previous suggestion would seem to make it a crime of a fine, or not more than one year in jail.
It doesn’t exist yet. But some people think it should. Bush being one of them. And yet he commits the act.
It’s like rain on your wedding day.
This debate is kind of pointless unless someone comes up with quote from W. saying he supports an anti-flag desecration amendment.
I’m an American and this was pretty much my exact reaction to that post, too. My eyes bugged out and my mind boggled. It’s rather embarassing being an American at times, when you realize the egotistical, assholish face that is often presented by Americans to the rest of the world. 
As to the issue at hand… I can’t stand Bush and there is a part of me that is very happy that he’s done something that a lot of people will get mad at him for… but I personally just don’t see the problem. I don’t understand the whole “oooh, ahhh, holy flag” mentality even a little bit. It’s a Piece Of Fabric. That’s all. Sure, it represents something, but the something that it represents is the thing you should be concerned with, not the bit of cloth. Just seems so incredibly silly to me. The flag isn’t important to me at all. It doesn’t even register on my radar. Sorry.
And since when has it been considered necessary that a random anti-Bush rant be cogent?
Regards,
Shodan
You are incorrect, E-Sabbath. There are those (Reeder, for one) who are saying that Bush has broken the law regarding how to treat the flag.
I reiterate: The necessity of flags appears to be, IMHO, a thing of the past. To heck with any flags whatsoever. Get rid of it and then that’s one less things the politicians can tell lies to us about.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/03/politics/main556821.shtml
Close enough for starters, I suppose. (Powell is noted as opposing… McCain co-sponsored it.)
And I apologize for engaging in a brief flight of hyperbole about the relative importance of the US Consitiution. “Most important political document?” “One of the most important political documents?” “Most important in American History” goes without saying…
I still stand by my opinion that the Declaration is inspired (Not saying by God, just the general meaning of inspired) and the most beautiful political speech I have ever heard.
That’s opinion.
And yes, I think that if Clinton (Any Dem) did it, Rush’d tear 'im apart. I’m not especially upset over Bush doing it, I just think he really should have thought about it, and his not thinking before doing it rather symbolizes… er. Something. Generally symbolic.