That’s going pretty deep for a definition. The reality, of vourse, is that it’s a religious word and that a secular object cannot be desecrated.
None of those apply to a flag.
I didn’t realize there was a depth limit. Can you tell us what it is?
The reality is that you’re wrong and your feigned inability to understand the secular meaning of the word is juvenile at best-- it reminds me of silly semantic games we used to play in 5th grade when we thought we were smart. But, not matter, most of the lawmakers understood its secular meaning even if it fell one vote short of passage.
Further, here is what the Thesarus says are synonyms:
A full 26 out of 29 are non-religious, and I’m being generous by saying “defile” is religious.
So, give us something on which your opinion is based. Perhaps a cite that is more than someone else’s opinion?
So we should call it the “flag-eating” amendment? What if I make a July 4th cake with a flag on the icing? Would it be then illegal to eat the cake?
I feel comfortable in predicting that the amendment will “Let them eat cake.” 
(I assume that you’re not serious, and no longer are contending that “desecrate” has no secular meaning.)
I don’t think that it is productive to take the definition of “desecrate”, then apply to it the multiple possible meanings of each word in its definition. It’s even less productive to use a list of synonyms as a definition. “Desecrate” has an extended, metaphorical meaning, in common use, which does not involve literally sacred things, just as “devour” has an extended, metaphorical meaning, which does not involve literally eating things, and those extended, metaphorical meanings overlap. However, words in legislation (including the Constitution of the US) tend to have more literal meanings.
I suspect that the Supreme Court, if it got around to defining “desecration”, would not limit it to purely sacred matters, partly because that might cause conflict with the First Amendment. However, in doing that, it would look at all the possible meanings of “sacred”, or all the possible near-synonyms of “desecration”: it will just look at what “desecration” might mean, bearing in mind that its central meaning involves an element of sacredness in what is being desecrated.
I don’t think that it is productive to take the definition of “desecrate”, then apply to it the multiple possible meanings of each word in its definition. It’s even less productive to use a list of synonyms as a definition. “Desecrate” has an extended, metaphorical meaning, in common use, which does not involve literally sacred things, just as “devour” has an extended, metaphorical meaning, which does not involve literally eating things, and those extended, metaphorical meanings overlap. However, words in legislation (including the Constitution of the US) tend to have more literal meanings.
I suspect that the Supreme Court, if it got around to defining “desecration”, would not limit it to purely sacred matters, partly because that might cause conflict with the First Amendment. However, in doing that, it would look at all the possible meanings of “sacred”, or all the possible near-synonyms of “desecration”: it will just look at what “desecration” might mean, bearing in mind that its central meaning involves an element of sacredness in what is being desecrated.
(Sorry – a slow connection, and my impatience, caused that double post – I’d be happy for a mod to delete one copy).
Just to keep everybody honest, are you taking that from the Black’s Law Dictionary, as Giles did? Apples and apples, please.
If not, Giles, could you please post any definition that Black’s Law Dictionary has for the word sacred?
Yes, and while **DtC **is correct in that the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the word, it will be up to Congress to define, by statute, which acts are considered desecration. The SCOTUS may ultimately offer guidelines, it will not actual define the word for us-- certainly not without reference to the history of the matter as seen in the legislative record. Until and unless the SCOTUS rules otherwise, the Congress’ defintion will stand. I suspect that if Congress included “flying the flag upside down” that SCOTUS might reject that, but if they include “pooping on the flag”, that will stand.
And since the flag is demostrably not a religious symbol, it would be odd indeed for the SCOTUS to interpret “desecrate” in a religious way when a non-religious interpretation is readily available.
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.
There are other kinds of moral codes?
When someone says that certain actions are “right” and that reasonable people can’t disagree about that, it certainly seems that that person thinks there are other kinds.
There’s no such thing as objectively defined moral principle, so that’s a senseless question. How about a cite that child molestation is objectively immoral?
You’re arguing against an assertion that no one has made. Any time anyone expresses a moral opinion about anything they’re expressing a subjective opinion. Who here has said otherwise?
Your entire line of argument here can be summed up as follows:
US: The flag burning amendment is immoral.
YOU: Well that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Well duh.
We’re actually talking about what’s WRONG, not what’s RIGHT, but people do this all the time without controversy. Would you have this kind of sophist objection to someone declaring that “all reasonable people have to agree that raping babies is wrong?”
Should all moral opinions have to be prefaced with an IMO? Is that not taken as a given?
No, and it’s not sophistry.
I actually do think there are some moral principles that rise to the level of absolutes when talking about a civil society. Reasonable people cannot disagree about whether or not citizens can commit violent acts against each other. In the context of a society such as ours, we can objectively say that such violence is “wrong”. That derives from the very definition of a civil society itself. Banning flag desecration does not rise to that level, and reasonable people can disagree. There is nothing inherent in our civil society that comples us, morally, to accept flag desecration.
This:
hardly has an “implicit” IMO in front of it-- it is stated as a moral absolute. Are you seriously going to tell us it wasn’t?
How about a cite that violence is objectively wrong? What distinguishes your absolutist declaration from mine?
You’re wrong. The defining principle of our society is that people are allowed to think and say whatever they want. Any attempt to abridge that freedom undermines the agreed upon moral basis for our society. Any disagreement about this is unreasonable. Even setting aside the “moral” aspect of the argument it can’t be argued rationally that telling people what they’re allowed to think about or not think about while they “desecrate” their own property is not a violation of our most “sacred” principle.
Of course it wasn’t. It never occurred to me that anyone would read it as anything but an opinion.
Well, Diogenes, it’s pretty clear that in addition to being a misanthrope, on many political issues you are also a rigid ideologue. You are so convinced you’re right that no amount of factual information that contradicts your opinions will change your mind. And you feel no compunction to support your opinions with anything but your own pronouncements. I think we’ve said all there is to say on this matter.
What “factual information” has contradicted my opinions?
The absurd little tangent we had to go off on because you couldn’t accept that “desecrate” has a non-religious as well as a religious meaing. That’s such a trivial point that is so obviously correct, and that I backed up with a dictionary defintion, yet you still insist on propping up your completely unsupported opinion.
I was looking for a legal definition, not an example of popular misusage.