I couldn’t disagree with you more. An act of war? Gimme a break. It’s a piece of cloth. A piece of cloth that means very little or nothing to many people in this country. I have always felt that revering the flag borders on idol worship (“pledging allegiance” to a piece of cloth? Passing laws to protect it? Crazyness.) And to say that any citizen is within his rights to act as a member of an (until that moment) nonexistent militia is preposterous. Do you mean anyone can shoot somebody burning a flag? That is totally ridiculous.
And you lost me with your third paragraph. What are you talking about?
This is why we must define what burning the flag means. Historically a flag defines the sovereignty of a nation (state), while burning (or other) is a statement that this land is no longer under the sovereignty of the nation.
As for the 3rd paragraph, basically the flag burners are declaring that land no longer under the sovereignity of the US. If they choose to then fly a flag which defines them (either as foreign invaders or as rebels) they are a enemy force that should be entitled to GC protection. If they don’t chose to fly a flag (and more) they are not entitled to GC protection.
Nonexistent?!? According to federal code every able body male (and arguably female) citizen 17-45 is a member of the unorganized militia.
Again you fail to understand the difference between a police matter and a military one, hmmm this seems to be going around. I personally don’t like to see other flags flown in this country w/o the US flag flown along with it.
The Confederate flag is a bit different, as the CSA was conquered by the USA, and the flag of the CSA now ‘belongs’ to the USA.
But remember, this isn’t a flag burning amendment, it is a flag desecration amendment. How would your opinion differ if I wrote on the flag? Or said negative things about the flag in flowery, explicit prose?
Now as a general question:
Talking just about flag burning leads us to qualify everything we say about the subject with safety concerns. I’m sure most of us can agree that it’s not safe to burn a large piece of fabric in close quarters in a crowd. I think some politicians realize that when people hear “flag burning” it conjures imagery of a careless protester risking the safety of everyone around them - and I think they play on the emotional response to that imagery. Would the opinions of the amendment supporters change if burning was somehow magically not an issue? Would it be harder to hide in a cloak of patriotism if all we were talking about was writing or painting on the flag? Would support weaken if this was referred only as the “Flag Desecration Amendment” forevermore?
Certainly there are turns of phrase that could take away some of the support of this amendment. (Recall the “Death Tax.” Dems were upset about Repubs calling it that, now the news outlets rarely use the term “Estate Tax.” That was effective linguistic manipulation!) Where are the democratic spinners? Why are they not pegging this amendment with a snappy, possibly alliterative name? (Go for it, Dopers!)
[QUOTE=exastris]
But remember, this isn’t a flag burning amendment, it is a flag desecration amendment. How would your opinion differ if I wrote on the flag? Or said negative things about the flag in flowery, explicit prose?
QUOTE]
If you read my post, you would see I stated multiple times I don’t support an amendment.
I believe we have laws that could be enforced to stop idiots from burning the US flag. I believe it would be a complete waste of time to try and pass this amendment in any form. It is not really that important and they should spend all their time on real issues: Right off hand I would think
Getting our troops out of Iraq & Afghanistan
Improving the Economy
Reducing our dependence on foreign & domestic oil
Protecting our water & air instead of dismantling the protection in place.
Back to the flag: don’t burn it
As far as the confederate flag: If I were African American I would be extremely pissed that ignorant idiots still fly it.
Allow me to translate kanicbird’s post into colloquial English for you:
>Pappy Yoakum mode<“What the dang nat crappy? I’ll show that ping-nabbed what smooly aut smurfit is all about! Mundane noodle! Where’s my shotgun? Bing gibber dognabit!” >/Pappy Yoakum mode<
Hear, hear. It’s just more fetishism of an inanimate object. It stands for something that can’t be burned. I would have no problem burning a flag, a bible, the original constitution, or the mona lisa, because I can understand the difference between destroying an object and destroying an idea.
Time to get a little sappy I guess. I would not burn the flag, as I respect the ideals and promises it is supposed to represent. However, I would oppose a law forbidding it, as much as I disapprove of the idea someone would disrespect it. Freedom of speech means defending those I disagree with. Freedom of speech is one of the ideals the flag means to me. So, by making burning illegal, you are effectively desecrating the flag.
If and when I decide to burn a flag, this is what I will be saying:
“The things that this piece of cloth is supposed to stand for are revealed to me now to be naught but lies and false promises. The ideals which I ascribe to the country which flies this flag have been plundered and sundered, bare spires which rise in place of the mighty pillars that once held this country above all others. Tyranny and evil have subverted the aims and goals of the founders of this country, and duplicity and mendacity now hold sway over those who would truly live in “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. The rights, responsibilties, and respect which should be the due of all citizens of this country are gone, taken from us by benevolent oppressors with a shark’s smile. The country promised to me as a child has been taken from me, and I want it back. That those who would tread on me have now adopted this symbol as their own, I show my respect for them and their ideals in this action.”
Bo
I think what bothers me is that I can burn any religious item I want, and I can burn any flag I want of the other 191 countries on earth or the UN but I can’t burn the US flag.
It’s funny that there are a couple of issues that seem to unite Republicans and Democrats on this board. The flag burning amendment is just monumentally stupid enough that our collective IQ edge over the rest of the US (not to mention Congress) can overcome our political contentiousness. Makes me happy to enough to go frolic in a field of daisies.
As to the OP I would burn a flag only in protest of this amendment. I have the utmost contempt for anyone who amends the Constitution for frivolous reasons. It is not meant to reflect the momentary whims of each Congress. Even if an amendment were proposed for something I supported, like the rights of gays to marry I would oppose it on principle.
Yes yes yes, I read your post, no need to get testy. I’m not sure you read mine though. I am trying to ask you how you feel about flag descration, minus the burning. Are other forms as bad as burning? Or does burning hold a special place? As I read it you are okay with writing and speaking out against stuff, as that is freedom of speech, but burning a flag is not speech (yes, I know you don’t support the amendment).
I’m not trying to rip on you in any way, if that’s the impression you got. I’m trying to explore the difference between flag burning and other forms of desecration - both from the personal and political perspectives. When expressing onesself through writing and speech intersects with flag desecration, which one takes priority? Would you be okay with flag desecration if it didn’t involve burning?
If this ridiculous amendment gets ratified, I hope the subsequent law against “desecration” will be applied retroactively so that this unpatriotic American spends a looooong time in prison contemplating this blatant act of treason. (See link.) http://www.one.politicalpuzzle.org/archives/2004/09/bush_signs_amen.php
