# 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:** 8
**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 30, 2006, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/141 "2006-06-30T02:21:25Z")
I rest my case! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/142 "2006-06-30T04:42:25Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I was looking for a _legal_ definition, not an example of popular misusage. I am curious. Would you say that the numerous states that have statutes prohibiting the desecration of a corpse or the desecration of a cemetary are only applied if the body is that of a religious person? Only valid if the body has been interred in “holy” ground? Or is it possible to recognize that there is, indeed, a meaning of the term in law that is not explicitly used to distinguish the sacred from the profane? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/143 "2006-06-30T05:00:37Z")
United States Code; [TITLE 4](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sup_01_4_10_1.html) \> CHAPTER 1 - THE FLAG 8. Respect for flag… (d) **The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.** … … (i) **The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard.** Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown. (j) **No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.** …Why am I sure that none of this is desecration of the flag? CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/144 "2006-06-30T13:20:09Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > However, this little semanitc hijack is completely besides the main point. We’d be having the same substantive discussion if the amendment said “deface” instead of “desecrate”. The only issue I am disagreeing with here is whether banning flag “defacing” is immoral. If we all want to say that it violates or doesn’t violate our own subjective moral code, fine. Then we’re done. But if someone wants to claim that there is an objectively definable moral issue the compels us to allow flag desecration, then I’d like to see the source of that objectively defined moral principle. I think the “objectively defined moral principle” is an invisible pink dragon as others do. But I think you’ve got the only issue here wrong. We don’t need a moral basis to be outraged about this. The amendment posits that the flag - a symbol of American values - is more important than the values themselves. It’s defenseless. However much anybody tries to point out what a treasure “the flag” is, and how much honor it deserves, that treasurability and honor is wholly derived from what it meant to express - a government that values freedom above all else. Whether the senators really believe their own crap, or whether it’s a calculated ploy to swing to make the Bill of Rights teh big ev11, it’s despicable. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/145 "2006-06-30T13:26:33Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > United States Code; [TITLE 4](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sup_01_4_10_1.html) \> CHAPTER 1 - THE FLAG > 8. Respect for flag[INDENT]… > […]Why am I sure that none of this is desecration of the flag? > > CMC fnord! I wish it expressly specified that it also cannot be attached to a car antenna or otherwise mounted on a car so that the wind whips it into little tatters and the sun fades it nearly completely. ---
**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 30, 2006, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/146 "2006-06-30T13:38:37Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am curious. Would you say that the numerous states that have statutes prohibiting the desecration of a corpse or the desecration of a cemetary are only applied if the body is that of a religious person? Only valid if the body has been interred in “holy” ground? > > Or is it possible to recognize that there is, indeed, a meaning of the term in law that is not explicitly used to distinguish the sacred from the profane? I didn’t know such statutes used the word “desecration.” If they do, then there must be a legal definition. If there is no legal definition then I would say these are badly written statutes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/147 "2006-06-30T13:57:33Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I didn’t know such statutes used the word “desecration.” If they do, then there must be a legal definition. If there is no legal definition then I would say these are badly written statutes. Not that you’ll care when given the actual facts, but in case there’s someone reading who has more than a passing interest… There is no particular legal definition of ‘desecration’. If someone were to come into court and argue that he was not guilty of desecrating a corpse because the corpse was not interred in holy ground, or the corpse was not itself holy, the judge would (after a carefully concealed or not-so-carefully-concealed chuckle) explain to you that the court would use the dictionary defintion of the word, and that it included non-religious objects in its ambit. ---
**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 30, 2006, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/148 "2006-06-30T14:04:57Z")
And the judge would be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/149 "2006-06-30T14:08:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can the state legitimately prohibit the burning of a cross? …late to respond but, beyond what the other people said in response–i.e. prohibitted only if it is being used as an intimidation tactic against another individual–could be as a potential fire hazard. Trying to protect it as a symbol is pointless, particularly being it a religious symbol not even a state one. Which saying (and despite the SCOTUS ruling cited earlier in the thread) one can still envision state or even the federal government trying to do just that. But as said, I see no other answer for a secular, non-emotional government to approach the issue: Just ours is not to that point yet. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/150 "2006-06-30T14:11:38Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > And the judge would be wrong. Yup. Just like when he refuses to admit that he has no jursidiction over you because he sits in an admiralty court, which we know because the flag has a gold fringe, right? The judges and the legislature are all wrong. But you asked for a legal definition. It sures seems to me that when the community responsible for interpreting and enforcing the law has universal agreement on an issue (and you won’t, to my knowledge, find a single court decision along the lines of ‘descrating a corpse not a crime due to lack of holiness in corpse or ground’ anywhere) then you have a legal definition. It really doesn’t matter if you, personally, insist they’re wrong. The rest of the world – or, more accurately, the part of the world dedicated to interpreting and enforcing the law - is going to act one way. It seems prudent to admit that, at least from a practical standpoint, that THAT way is the ‘right’ definition. ---
**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 30, 2006, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/151 "2006-06-30T14:26:24Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > And the judge would be wrong. Jesus, dude, it’s always depressing when you enter a thread in one of these moods. All sane discussion stops and it just turns into you stamping your foot while other people either meander off, take the mick out of you or gently try and tempt you down off your high horse. It’s fucking dull. Really; what is the point of this ludicrous hijack anyway? Is a flag desecration bill somehow all right because “desecration” doesn’t necessarily have religious connotations? Of course not. So why are you bothering, when not even the fricking dictionary agrees with you? What possible purpose does this line of argument have? You have the germ of a point, which is that implicit in the crime of desecration is that the desecrated object is sacred with respect to _something_; just not necessarily religion. But why would that be worse? Bad enough, surely, that we’re setting up a notion of nationalistic sacredness, regardless of what system of values we use. So why, for the love of God why are you banging away and insisting that sacred =\> religious, in contravention of just about any definition we can find? Is it just because you’ve said it and now can’t un-say it? What is the _point_? ---
**Author:** ![ululate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/59ef9b/32.png) [@ululate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ululate)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/152 "2006-06-30T14:26:31Z")
> [@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… …and what you found is not what I found in my Black’s Law Dictionary. “To violate sanctity of, to profane, or to put to unworthy use. Offense consists of defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover his action.” That’s not the second definition or anything; it’s the entire entry. (It’s also why the one for FLAG DESECRATION starts off as follows: _“Flagrant misuse of flag by such acts as mutilation, defacement, or burning.”_) ---
**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 30, 2006, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/153 "2006-06-30T14:32:42Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Jesus, dude, it’s always depressing when you enter a thread in one of these moods. All sane discussion stops and it just turns into you stamping your foot while other people either meander off, take the mick out of you or gently try and tempt you down off your high horse. It’s fucking dull. Really; what is the point of this ludicrous hijack anyway? Is a flag desecration bill somehow all right because “desecration” doesn’t necessarily have religious connotations? Of course not. So why are you bothering, when not even the fricking dictionary agrees with you? What possible purpose does this line of argument have? > > You have the germ of a point, which is that implicit in the crime of desecration is that the desecrated object is sacred with respect to _something_; just not necessarily religion. But why would that be worse? Bad enough, surely, that we’re setting up a notion of nationalistic sacredness, regardless of what system of values we use. So why, for the love of God why are you banging away and insisting that sacred =\> religious, in contravention of just about any definition we can find? Is it just because you’ve said it and now can’t un-say it? What is the _point_? I guess something about people trying to insert that kind of religious language into the Constitution just irks me. I agree that it’s not a very important point and that no judge would be very likely to agree with me. Defining the word “flag” is really a more slaient problem. ---
**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 30, 2006, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/154 "2006-06-30T14:36:33Z")
One more thing – when I started on this “desecration” tangent I didn’t know there was already precedent for that word being used in statutory language. Knowing that kind of takes the wind out of my sails. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/155 "2006-06-30T15:03:33Z")
Back to our regularly scheduled rant/debate: I have a question that can be answered regardless of what side of the debate you’re on – regardless of the constitutionality or legality of flag burning, are any of you “outraged” over it? If so, can you please expand on that? Me? I’m not much on symbolism in any way, shape, or form. I know it exists, but for me it is so far removed from what it actually stands for, that I cannot think of a single symbol whose destruction would bother me one iota. Not even if someone stole my wedding ring. It’s sentimental, but I don’t consider it an active component of what my marriage means to me. Anyone? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/156 "2006-06-30T15:22:07Z")
Well, yeah, I am. I started the thread, which, you know…it’s a pit thread. And I think I used the word ‘outrage’ in my last ignored post. The outrage is over how little thought it takes to realize that making the flag, as a symbol, is more important than what it’s a symbol _of_, is stupid, and yet it seems beyond 66 senators and the majority of Americans. It’d be like a religious Christian making cross desecration an _unforgiveable_ sin. The cross is symbol of the sacrifice that forgave all sin. That amendment is itself a desecration of the flag. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/157 "2006-06-30T15:27:45Z")
Oh, you meant outrage over flag desecration, not over the amendment. Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/158 "2006-06-30T15:29:27Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Well, yeah, I am. I started the thread, which, you know…it’s a pit thread. And I think I used the word ‘outrage’ in my last ignored post. > > The outrage is over how little thought it takes to realize that making the flag, as a symbol, is more important than what it’s a symbol _of_, is stupid, and yet it seems beyond 66 senators and the majority of Americans. > > It’d be like a religious Christian making cross desecration an _unforgiveable_ sin. The cross is symbol of the sacrifice that forgave all sin. > > That amendment is itself a desecration of the flag. It the same kind of all-or-nothing, extreme fundamentalist thinking that makes certain Muslim factions declare _fatwas_ on people over books or cartoons. And I believe that such thinking, from _any_ ideological group, is probably the single biggest problem facing humanity today. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/159 "2006-06-30T15:41:38Z")
> [@OneCentStamp](#): > > It the same kind of all-or-nothing, extreme fundamentalist thinking that makes certain Muslim factions declare _fatwas_ on people over books or cartoons. And I believe that such thinking, from _any_ ideological group, is probably the single biggest problem facing humanity today. But, at the same time, isn’t burning the flag a direct symbol that the burner has that kind of fundamentalist thinking? They’re so pissed off over an issue or policy or what have you that they’re willing to state that they despise the United States and wish to destroy it all over that issue. FTR: I agree with **bup** that this is just some member of the Senate trying to desperately build up support going into a tough election year, and think it’s a useless waste. But since it’s less of a useless waste to me than the $2 billion gone missing in Katrina aid, or Social Security, I’m not that riled by it. ---
**Author:** ![ululate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/59ef9b/32.png) [@ululate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ululate)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476/160 "2006-06-30T15:42:59Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > But, at the same time, isn’t burning the flag a direct symbol that the burner has that kind of fundamentalist thinking? They’re so pissed off over an issue or policy or what have you that they’re willing to state that they despise the United States and wish to destroy it all over that issue. That’s not necessarily what they’re stating. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecrate-this-fuckwads/362476.md?page=9)