# Desecrate THIS, fuckwads **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 28, 2006, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476 "2006-06-28T12:38:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/101 "2006-06-29T13:55:52Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Few so concisely, or powerfully; if there is anything the media age has given us, it’s knowledge of the power of the image. In any case, do you really believe that the motive behind banning flag-burning is unrelated to the viewpoint(s) it espouses? I find it very difficult to believe that this isn’t about silencing a particular message; the argument that there are other ways to express it is unpersuasive, since by banning _this_ form of expression we’re opening the door to banning other forms of expression we find unpatriotic and hurtful. And as it’s already been agreed that burning a flag to respectfully dispose of it would not be illegal, it seems to me that the ban would be _very specifically_ aimed at the message, not the act. That door was opened long ago when limits on speech were approved. But remember, a strict reading of the Constitution doesn’t protect freedom of “acts”, it protects freedom of “speech”. I personally consider the two linked, but they needn’t be. BTW, this isn’t really a “falg burning” amendment, it’s a “flag desecration” amendment. Burning it to disopose of it would still be allowed. > [@](#): > > Well no, because there’s already this, and as seems fairly obvious, this is a cynical bit of vote-buying so no more is “needed” at present. But what’s next? Let’s assume we do ban flag-burning; what flaming bandwagon do the nation’s teary-eyed patriots jump on the next time they want to stir up a vote or two? Constitution? Presidential caricatures? It doesn’t need to be realistic, after all; where _are_ all these flag-burnings that we’re apparently so worried about? It’s all stuff and nonsense, and because this proposed amendment is so pointless I see no reason to believe that it’ll be the end of it if it passes. People aren’t completely unreasonable, so I think that the more things like this that pass, the more resistance there will be for other restrictions. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/102 "2006-06-29T14:14:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That door was opened long ago when limits on speech were approved. But remember, a strict reading of the Constitution doesn’t protect freedom of “acts”, it protects freedom of “speech”. I personally consider the two linked, but they needn’t be. Well yeah, that’s the whole point, isn’t it. SCOTUS has apparently held that the constitution guarantees freedom of expression, so the law of the land as it stands is that the two _are_ linked. By positing a constitutional amendment, therefore, our legislators are therefore singling out one instance of what we currently consider to be speech. And it seems that you agree when you say: > [@](#): > > BTW, this isn’t really a “falg burning” amendment, it’s a “flag desecration” amendment. Burning it to disopose of it would still be allowed. Precisely my point; i.e., they are banning a specific _message_; not just an “act”. It seems to me that you are implicitly accepting that the amendment targets not just a mode, but a specific instance of expression, including symbolic acts. Given that, I find it quite hard to understand how you can believe that this is not a worrying development. Specter goes on about this being “worthless, hurtful speech.” Personally, I would find Ann Coulter’s declarations that half the country are traitors to be more hurtful than a flag-burning, since they’re directed at people. If we’re banning the message a flag desecration sends, why not ban her? What’s the difference? We’ve tacitly admitted it’s not the actual _flag_ we’re protecting, after all. If they were proposing banning allowing a flag to fall into disrepair, whether by intent or not, then this would be a different matter; then it would be much harder to argue that the legislators were targeting the message. But they aren’t; they are focusing on the _deliberate_ act of desecration. And I doubt you’d get nearly as much support for a flag negligence act. > [@](#): > > People aren’t completely unreasonable, so I think that the more things like this that pass, the more resistance there will be for other restrictions. That’s a bit of a wishy-washy dismissal, when you’re talking about monkeying with one of the rights the USA holds most dear. “Oh it’s all right; people will object when it _really_ matters”? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/103 "2006-06-29T14:23:50Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That door was opened long ago when limits on speech were approved. But remember, a strict reading of the Constitution doesn’t protect freedom of “acts”, it protects freedom of “speech”. Under that logic it doesn’t protect the written word either. This has been decided. Symbolic expression is free speech. Trying to pretend that flag burning isn’t speech is a legal and rhetorical dead end and no one with an IQ over 50 is going to buy it. > [@](#): > > I personally consider the two linked, but they needn’t be. Yes it does need to be, by anyone with a modicum of intellectial honesty. Not only that but SCOTUS already said it is. > [@](#): > > BTW, this isn’t really a “falg burning” amendment, it’s a “flag desecration” amendment. Burning it to disopose of it would still be allowed. What is the legal definition of “desecration?” How can you desecrate an image which isn’t “sacred” to begin with? What a bullshit distinction. It really only boils down to “you can’t think bad thoughts about America while you burn a piece of cloth withn some stripes on it.” It’s a morally indefensible proposal. People of good faith CANNOT disagree on this. There is a right side and a wrong side. It’s a thought crime no matter how you slice it. In order to support it you have to be an idiot (which is the majority), a fascist or a cynically pandering politician. Has any of these clowns yet figured out to define what a “flag” is, by the way? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/104 "2006-06-29T15:08:55Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Under that logic it doesn’t protect the written word either. This has been decided. Symbolic expression is free speech. Trying to pretend that flag burning isn’t speech is a legal and rhetorical dead end and no one with an IQ over 50 is going to buy it. > > Yes it does need to be, by anyone with a modicum of intellectial honesty. Not only that but SCOTUS already said it is. > > What is the legal definition of “desecration?” How can you desecrate an image which isn’t “sacred” to begin with? What a bullshit distinction. It really only boils down to “you can’t think bad thoughts about America while you burn a piece of cloth withn some stripes on it.” > > It’s a morally indefensible proposal. People of good faith CANNOT disagree on this. There is a right side and a wrong side. It’s a thought crime no matter how you slice it. In order to support it you have to be an idiot (which is the majority), a fascist or a cynically pandering politician. > > Has any of these clowns yet figured out to define what a “flag” is, by the way? Right Fucking On. It boils down to a “patriotic-er than thou” pissing match. It’s got to do with people in high places who don’t want anyone to disagree with them. They want the idiots in our ranks to _really believe_ that burning a flag amounts to treason. It doesn’t. It couldn’t. And no amount of “But _I_ love my country and _I_ don’t believe in flag burning” is going to change that fact. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/105 "2006-06-29T15:21:02Z")
It’s simpler and more craven than that. Ever since 1988, when Atwater and Ailes got Bush’s Poppy to run a campaign that included deriding Dukakis for allegedly being “against the Pledge of Allegiance” (and arguably since McGovern wanted to end the Vietnam war that Nixon ended instead), the GOP electioneers have considered the implication that Democrats are unpatriotic to be an effective tactic. That hasn’t changed. That’s \*all \* this crap is about, even now - trying to get Democrats to go on record as “against the Flag” in an election year. [Quick summary:](http://atheism.about.com/od/flagburningdesecration/a/PoliticsFlag.htm) > [@](#): > > Dukakis vetoed a bill requiring public school teachers to lead classes in the Pledge of Allegiance. > > Some teachers objected on religious grounds and Dukakis’ advisors correctly informed him that the teachers had a solid constitutional case. > > This explanation was not very moving in election speeches, however, while the image of Vice President Bush leading crowds in reciting the Pledge was immediate, dramatic, and packed with emotion. Same pandering as usual here. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/106 "2006-06-29T15:38:44Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What is the legal definition of “desecration?” How can you desecrate an image which isn’t “sacred” to begin with? What a bullshit distinction. It really only boils down to “you can’t think bad thoughts about America while you burn a piece of cloth withn some stripes on it.” > > It’s a morally indefensible proposal. People of good faith CANNOT disagree on this. There is a right side and a wrong side. It’s a thought crime no matter how you slice it. In order to support it you have to be an idiot (which is the majority), a fascist or a cynically pandering politician. > > Has any of these clowns yet figured out to define what a “flag” is, by the way? This is a great summary of the situation, far better than I had attempted earlier. You are absolutely 100% on the mark here. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/107 "2006-06-29T15:51:58Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Under that logic it doesn’t protect the written word either. This has been decided. Symbolic expression is free speech. Trying to pretend that flag burning isn’t speech is a legal and rhetorical dead end and no one with an IQ over 50 is going to buy it. Uhm… why do you think the Founders also protected freedom of the press if it was so obvious that the written word would fall under freedom of speech. And I figured that out with my apparent IQ of 49! BTW, the SCOTUS decision declaring flag burning to be protected speech was decided by a 5-4 majority. Only an absolute moron would insist that 4 Supreme Court justices had an IQ less than 50. > [@](#): > > What is the legal definition of “desecration?” How can you desecrate an image which isn’t “sacred” to begin with? What a bullshit distinction. It really only boils down to “you can’t think bad thoughts about America while you burn a piece of cloth withn some stripes on it.” Well, now who’s falling back on cheap rhetoric? People commonly use words of a religious origin to describe non-religious actions or objects. Once again, that IQ of 49 comes in handy. [Flag Desecration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_burning) > [@](#): > > Flag desecration is a blanket term applied to various ways of intentionally defacing or dishonoring a flag, most often a national flag (though other flags may be defaced as well). Further, a constitutional amendment need not conern itself with the legal definition of that word. That’s for the subsequent staturory law to do. In fact, it would be highly unusual for an amendment to do so. Chalk up one more the IQ \< 50 crowd! > [@DtC](#): > > It’s a morally indefensible proposal. People of good faith CANNOT disagree on this. There is a right side and a wrong side. It’s a thought crime no matter how you slice it. In order to support it you have to be an idiot (which is the majority), a fascist or a cynically pandering politician. Well, we sure are lucky to have you around to tell us that! It’s not a thought crime since the thought itslef, when attached to other actions, is not a crime. Why don’t you use that vaunted IQ of yours to actually back up those sweeping statements you’re making with cites. And keep in mind that I’m not claiming this amendment is a good thing, only that it isn’t morally wrong and that reasonable people can disagree over the legal issues. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/108 "2006-06-29T16:13:25Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It’s a morally indefensible proposal. People of good faith CANNOT disagree on this. There is a right side and a wrong side. It’s a thought crime no matter how you slice it. In order to support it you have to be an idiot (which is the majority), a fascist or a cynically pandering politician. Diogenes the Self-Righteous. Come on mods, I know forced name changes are typically reserved for objectionable names, but the truthiness of this proposal can’t be denied! Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/109 "2006-06-29T16:47:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Uhm… why do you think the Founders also protected freedom of the press if it was so obvious that the written word would fall under freedom of speech. Give me a break. They wanted to be explicit that the press could operate without intereference or censorship from the government. Freedom of the press involves more than the _per se_ written word. It protects the dissemination of information to the people. You could call it redundant with free speech I suppose but I can’t believe you would seriously argue that “speech” does not include the written word or American Sign Language or semaphore or [ahem] symbolic expressions. > [@](#): > > And I figured that out with my apparent IQ of 49! BTW, the SCOTUS decision declaring flag burning to be protected speech was decided by a 5-4 majority. Only an absolute moron would insist that 4 Supreme Court justices had an IQ less than 50. Well I’m not so sure about Thomas but I would suggest that the dissenters in that case were being intellectally dishonest and that they were placing ideology above reason. > [@](#): > > Well, now who’s falling back on cheap rhetoric? People commonly use words of a religious origin to describe non-religious actions or objects. Once again, that IQ of 49 comes in handy. [Flag Desecration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_burning) I don’t care about how the word is “commonly used.” It’s _commonly_ used INCORRECTLY. A secular image cannot technically be “desecrated.” Common usage also does not equate to a LEGAL definition. > [@](#): > > Further, a constitutional amendment need not conern itself with the legal definition of that word. That’s for the subsequent staturory law to do. In fact, it would be highly unusual for an amendment to do so. Chalk up one more the IQ \< 50 crowd! Here is the text of the amendment: > [@](#): > > he Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. That’s all well and good but what power is it really giving to Congress? It says Congress can prohibit “physical desecration” but without defining “desecration,” it is unclear exactly what Congress is allowed to prohibit. To “desecrate” something means to violate the “sacred” character of an object or place. What is “sacred” about the flag? What “sacred” character is being violated by burning it? The concepts of sacredness and desecration are purely religious terms with no legal or secualr meaning. You can’t desecrate a secular object anymore than you can blaspheme one. you can’t make it illegal to violate the “sacred character” of an object until you define what’s “sacred” about it (and Congress can’t call any object “sacred” without violating the Establishment Clause). > [@](#): > > Well, we sure are lucky to have you around to tell us that! It’s not a thought crime since the thought itslef, when attached to other actions, is not a crime. So? The act itself is not a crime without the thought. Just because it’s only illegal think bad things about America while you burn a piece of stripey cloth doesn’t mean it’s still not a thought crime. A law that tells tells you when you are and are not allowed to think bad things about America is still a law that punishes thought. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you use that vaunted IQ of yours to actually back up those sweeping statements you’re making with cites. And keep in mind that I’m not claiming this amendment is a good thing, only that it isn’t morally wrong and that reasonable people can disagree over the legal issues. Cites for what exactly? My opinion? I didn’t realize that required a cite. Have I made any objective, factual claims that require cites? Let me know what they are and I’ll see what I can do. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/110 "2006-06-29T17:03:55Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I don’t care about how the word is “commonly used.” It’s _commonly_ used INCORRECTLY. A secular image cannot technically be “desecrated.” Common usage also does not equate to a LEGAL definition. Words cannot be “commonly used incorrectly”. That’s an oxymoron. Words mean exactly what people commonly think they mean. Any linguist will tell you that. > [@](#): > > That’s all well and good but what power is it really giving to Congress? It says Congress can prohibit “physical desecration” but without defining “desecration,” it is unclear exactly what Congress is allowed to prohibit. To “desecrate” something means to violate the “sacred” character of an object or place. What is “sacred” about the flag? What “sacred” character is being violated by burning it? The concepts of sacredness and desecration are purely religious terms with no legal or secualr meaning. You can’t desecrate a secular object anymore than you can blaspheme one. you can’t make it illegal to violate the “sacred character” of an object until you define what’s “sacred” about it (and Congress can’t call any object “sacred” without violating the Establishment Clause). You still don’t get it. Does the constitution defne what “cruel and unusual” means? No. Only on rare occasions (eg, “treason”) does the Constitution define the meaning of words it uses. If it did, we wouldn’t need laws. The Congress can and will define what “desecration” means in the context of this amendment, just as they will define what a “flag” is. This is civics 101, so I just don’t see what is so hard to grasp here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/111 "2006-06-29T17:12:42Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It’s a morally indefensible proposal. People of good faith CANNOT disagree on this. There is a right side and a wrong side. It’s a thought crime no matter how you slice it. In order to support it you have to be an idiot (which is the majority), a fascist or a cynically pandering politician. Well, there you have it. A view from the Tolerant Left. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/112 "2006-06-29T17:14:53Z")
The amendment doesn’t give Congress the power to define what “desecration” is. Only the Supreme Court can do that. Congress is not allowed to interpret the Constitution. The same thing applies to language like “cruel and unusual.” Theoretically, Congress could pass a law against “defacing,” or “burning” or “dishonoring” the flag and SCOTUS could rule on an appeal that none of those things amount desecration. (how does one “dishonor” the flag, by the way? Would that include, say, giving it the finger? How about losing at the Olympics?) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/113 "2006-06-29T17:18:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, there you have it. A view from the Tolerant Left. What am I being intolerant of? Am I preventing you from speaking? Tolerating the right of other people to express their opinions does not obligate me to respect the opinions themselves. You have an erroneous idea of what tolerance means. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/114 "2006-06-29T17:22:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, there you have it. A view from the Tolerant Left. You condemn him for not being tolerant of intolerance? And that’s the \*only \* reply you have to any of the comments made about your thoughts in this discussion? :rolleyes: Sad wanker. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/115 "2006-06-29T17:34:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Words cannot be “commonly used incorrectly”. That’s an oxymoron. Words mean exactly what people commonly think they mean. Any linguist will tell you that. > > You still don’t get it. Does the constitution defne what “cruel and unusual” means? No. Only on rare occasions (eg, “treason”) does the Constitution define the meaning of words it uses. If it did, we wouldn’t need laws. The Congress can and will define what “desecration” means in the context of this amendment, just as they will define what a “flag” is. This is civics 101, so I just don’t see what is so hard to grasp here. I pull my trusty _Black’s Law Dictionary_ off the shelf, to get an idea of what a lawyer might understand by descecrate, and I find: > [@](#): > > **desecrate,** vb. To divest (a thing) of its sacred character; to defile or profane (a sacred thing) So if you are desecrating a flag, the flag must be (before desecration at least) sacred. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/116 "2006-06-29T17:45:54Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The amendment doesn’t give Congress the power to define what “desecration” is. Only the Supreme Court can do that. Congress is not allowed to interpret the Constitution. The same thing applies to language like “cruel and unusual.” > > Theoretically, Congress could pass a law against “defacing,” or “burning” or “dishonoring” the flag and SCOTUS could rule on an appeal that none of those things amount desecration. > > (how does one “dishonor” the flag, by the way? Would that include, say, giving it the finger? How about losing at the Olympics?) …or having your way with it without promise of marriage. At which point you smack it across the stars with a glove and propose a duel. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/117 "2006-06-29T17:57:36Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > So? The act itself is not a crime without the thought. Just because it’s only illegal think bad things about America while you burn a piece of stripey cloth doesn’t mean it’s still not a thought crime. A law that tells tells you when you are and are not allowed to think bad things about America is still a law that punishes thought. Not to mention the fact that they can’t prove WHAT THE FUCK you were thinking when you burned it. If you don’t admit you’re pissed off at the administration, and tell them you were disposing of it properly, as designated by flag etiquette, how the fuck can they prove you weren’t? Beyond the free speech issues, it’s just fucking stupid and unenforceable. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/118 "2006-06-29T17:58:57Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What am I being intolerant of? Am I preventing you from speaking? Tolerating the right of other people to express their opinions does not obligate me to respect the opinions themselves. You have an erroneous idea of what tolerance means. I guess I do. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/119 "2006-06-29T17:59:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@bup](#): > > > > Nobody expects senators to really vote honestly on a matter that only has symbolic value. It’s like when they act religious. It’s all bullshit. Get over it. > > No, no chance that they honestly felt that this measure had merit. You quoted me out of context. I’ll do the same! > [@Bricker](#): > > this measure had merit. Aha! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/120 "2006-06-29T18:32:49Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > I pull my trusty _Black’s Law Dictionary_ off the shelf, to get an idea of what a lawyer might understand by descecrate, and I find: > > So if you are desecrating a flag, the flag must be (before desecration at least) sacred. What makes you think that [sacred](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacred) has only a religious meaning (emphasis addded): > [@](#): > > 1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity. > 2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha. > 3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine. > \*\*4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President. > 4. Worthy of respect; venerable.\*\* > 5. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476.md?page=7)