In Molly Ivins recent column (TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006), she decided to see how many incidents of flag burning she could find mentioned in the media, in the last five years
I’ve only seen them burnt on television. Never in real life.
To me, the dumbest thing about this would be the futility of trying to enforce it. They’re going to have to write a clear definition of what constitutes a “flag” and as soon as they do that, all I have to do is burn something that falls just outside the definition. Can I burn a flag with 49 stars? How about a paper plate with the stars and stripes on it? What if I draw my own crude flag in crayon on a napkin? They’re either going to have to write a definition so narrow that it’s trivial to skirt or so broad and all-encompassing as to be ludicrous (my money would be on them doing the latter).
The problem of defining what a flag is really just highlights what the issue really is. It’s about the thought, not the act. It’s not really the symbol if you can’t agree on what the symbol actually is.
I burned one.
The last time Congress passed one of these “gather the faithful” anit-flag-burning laws.
I felt it was important, so I went out and burned a small American flag, and wept.
Didn’t help, though. For some the appearance of freedom is more important than the fact of it. I am not loyal to a symbol, I am loyal to an idea. I swore an oath to protect that idea against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That’s why I burned the flag. To protect the First Amendment from Congress, and the pseudo patriots that support the servants of wealth that run this country. Let me be more specific. It is the Republican Party, which beats these drums. Hate the fags, and honor a piece of cloth, support pointless militarist jingoism, despise anyone who is not in your church, despise all those who will not acknowlege your opinions as the only patriotic opinions. The party of inclusion. If you are willing to march along, they will include you, no matter how hate filled your agenda. And the Republican Party knows well that they can never speak a single word against any one of these splinter groups. Without them, the Republican Party would be a weak and unimportant minor political group.
If you are a Republican for any reason not listed above, you better get out and start burning paper elephants, or something. Because your part has become the party of jingoistic bigotry, in slow and relentless steps as you were protecting the sanctity of marriage.
Tris
Umm…I was responding to your comment “While I don’t understand how anyone could claim that burning the flag isn’t disrespectful…”. So I gave an instance where it wasn’t disrespectful, thus showing how someone could make the claim . Not sure what my “silly logic” was there.
Jesse Jackson said he would support the amendment if crosses were included. An excellent line.
Pardon me for believing people had the intelligence to understand what I meant. I was under the impression that since we were talking about flag burning within the context of a protest that I would not have to mention that many organizations consider burning the flag to be the proper way to dispose of it. In the future I will certainly do my best to cover all my bases. Thank you for your help.
Marc
Penn and Teller “burn” an american flag wrapped in the bill of rights during their act, when I saw them in vegas, to make a point on the riduclousness of the law. They then repeat the trick with a chinese flag wrapped in the chinese ‘bill of rights’ (i.e. non existant) to show that it is they are NOT in fact burning the flag. The point is well made IMO.
Yeah, because everyone on this Board is a former American Boy Scout. Nope, no furriners round these parts that might be interested in learning about this subject in detail. Not a one.
-Tcat
An honest, upright and patriotic thing to do. And you wouldn’t actually want to drink Budweiser anyway.
Shhh! You’re going to give my business plan away!
[ol]
[li]Pass Constitutional amendment banning flag burning[/li][li]Make “American” flags with 51 stars and 12 stripes[/li][li]Sell them to protesters for burning purposes[/li][li]Profit![/li][/ol]
Only by the Boy Scouts, and I wonder if the Admendment will make the Scouts all felons? :rolleyes:
It would still be acceptable, even required, to burn a worn-out flag to dispose of it. Only if political speech is the motivation would it be illegal. See, what these folks want to ban isn’t an action but an attitude.
Yes.
It’s also an effective way to “prime the pump” for an upcoming election – “My opponent hates America and voted against the anti-flag-burning amendment!”
Ah yes, another example of Haight crime.
As it happens, yes, I have, as a wee scout.
And do you know why people burn flags as protest? It’s the same reason. You burn a flag when it has become so soiled that it can no longer serve honorably.
People burn a flag in protest, because they feel that the flag has been so soiled, metaphorically, by the actions of our nation, that it can no longer serve honorably as a symbol of our country’s ideals.
Yes, I have seen it many times - Canadian, Quebec, US, South African and Israeli flags up in smoke.
I have personally been involved in four such incendiary incidents: twice burning South African flags (this was pre-majority rule and the new South African flag), once an American flag (protest over cruise missle testing on Canadian soil) and one Israeli flag (protesting invasion of Lebanon). I would have been involved in a fifth incident, the torching of the Chinese flag, but my bus was delayed by an accident (demonstration against the suppression of the protests in Tiananmen square).
I find that an attack on the symbol (flag) of a country that has acted in an outrageous fashion to be to be an appropriate, essentially non-violent, gesture of defiance against the actions of such country - morally superior than, for example, attempting to blow up part of their infrastructure, and infinitely preferable to attacking their citizens. As to its effectiveness, it works best when burning the American or Chinese flag, the message that we are mightly pissed off at them is loud and clear. Other countries, not so much… my guess is that they are a little more secure about their national images, or that they don’t care in the first place (note to self, consider burning Indonesian and British flags, respectively - as a test of national character if nothing else).
The best way to prevent flag burning? Don’t do outrageous things that piss other people off. Don’t bomb them, don’t invade them, don’t mistreat groups within your own borders, don’t mistreat people outside of your borders.
One of the things that amazes me about people who get all annoyed by flag burning is how often they are believers in one of the three Abrahamic religions… who are supposedly not supposed to be worshipping idols… not even red white and/or blue ones…
Flag burning is, at worst, distasteful… the actions that are being protested against are usually much worse.
Penn and Teller also “burned” an American flag on a West Wing episode on TV.
Passing a flag-burning amendment at the moment is a little like Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Our country has so many things wrong with it right now, but by damn, we mustn’t burn that flag!
Oh, the irony…
I’m much more interested in knowing whether that star-spangled banner yet waves o’er the land of the free…
Hell yeah! I’ve always said-if they ever decide to pass a flag burning amendment, I’m going to go out, buy a bunch of flags, and set them ablaze!
Of course, the proposed amendment in question doesn’t say anything about burning the flag. It says, in its entirety:
Whatever the hell “physical descecration” means. I mean what a patently nonsensical phrase that is. Desecration is inherentily about ideas, emotions, attitudes, reactions. How that can be “Physical” is beyond me. We’ve already seen in this thread how the same physical act, the burning of a flag, can depending upon the context; the attitudes, the thoughts, the expression of ideas; be honorific (e.g., the Boy Scouts) or desecration (presumably the protestors). Is one act physical and the other not? No; the difference is in the idea. This phrase wants to pretend that it can be objectively determined what is prohibited and what is not, and that it will not limit free speech. It does just the opposite- it must be determined what the thoughts and ideas that are being expressed are to determine if an act involving a flag are desecration, and believe you me there aren’t going to be objective criteria for that: Is drawing a swastika on a flag desecration? What about a cross? What about putting a picture of Osama Bin Laden on the flag? Or George Bush? Or Michael Moore? How about merely displaying the flag next to those things? You’re going to find people for each of those things who think thhey are clear acts of Desecration , and number of people who find it just the opposite.
That’s what angers me most about this amendment- it’s a broad attack on free speech that is done so cavalerly. They could have easily written an ammendment that says “The Congress shall have the power to punish the delibrate destruction or altering of the flag of the United States” (which I would still oppose), but no, this amendment requires the evaluation of the attitutes and ideas towards the flag and the United States, and if those ideas and attitudes involve the disresepect, dissent, dishonorment towards the same, as it is expressed in an act involving the flag, those ideas and attitudes are to be be punished.
And there are those who are ready to put this fucking thing in the Constitution.