|
Friday, June 24, 2005
Nothing Says 'Loser' Like A Burning Flag
Nothing Says 'Loser' Like A Burning Flag
The US House of Representatives has passed a proposed Constitutional amendment that will prohibit one of the favorite activities of the hate-America crowd: trashing the American flag. The proposed amendment reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." If the measure passes the Senate by a two-thirds vote, then 38 states (3/4) must ratify it within seven years.
Until 1989, 48 states already had laws prohibiting the desecration of our national symbol. There was also a Federal law to the same effect passed in 1968. All of that was thrown out by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision saying that burning the flag is a kind of "free speech," thus protected by the First Amendment. The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is to amend the Constitution itself, and that may finally happen after several attempts. But is it really necessary?
Desecrating the most widely-recognised symbol of America, in my opinion, is not any kind of speech at all. The Supreme Court was wrong. It's the opposite: the end of speech, the end of debate, the end of principled opposition. Those who do so make it clear that there can be no compromise or argument with them. Once you think that burning or besmirching an American flag will make your point, your argument is already lost. If you can't express your point of view in words, it probably isn't worth consideration anyway. Anyone who burns an American flag is, in effect, symbolically setting fire to America. They're willing to seek our destruction in order to get their way. Trashing the American flag, the one symbol all Americans can claim as their own, is not merely unpatriotic... it's anti-patriotic.
Let them burn the American flag if they want to... just allow real Americans to defend it appropriately. They can make no clearer statement to the effect that they hate America and everything it stands for than that. Our flag, and our country, have been through a lot worse than having some hemp-smoking hippies declare their everlasting hatred of us. We should make it clear to them, in turn, that disrespecting the American flag will automatically lose the support of all true Americans for whatever their lost cause is. Causing harm to the flag only hurts them, not America.
There's no reason to change the Constitution to protect the flag. What we really need is a federal law giving Americans the right to rescue a flag from desecration by any means necessary, short of causing death or permanent injury. I wouldn't mind seeing a bunch of America-bashers interrupted in their flag burning by a gushing firehose or a string of firecrackers going off, would you?
Posted at Friday, June 24, 2005 by CavalierX
 | | | Name Father Howard T. Clark
June 24, 2005 02:20 PM PDT
I respectfully agree that we should have some lasting response to the Flag desicrators. Perhaps a punch to a vital spot below the belt! and a good dousing with Red, WHite & BLue paint from head to toe, back and front | |
| | | skye
June 24, 2005 07:49 PM PDT
Any person or organization abusing the Flag publicly will garner more opposition than comrads in their actions.
A not so silent majority has never been blind...
Father Clark it is good to see your post on Cav's blog!
| |
| | | ryan Tesch
June 24, 2005 07:56 PM PDT
I have to agree, what i love is something greater than a piece of cloth. If it is their hippie "free speech" to burn the flag it is my free speech to stop them. What could I burn to protest them? A doobie? | |
| | | skye
June 25, 2005 12:02 AM PDT
How about the "Pace Flag"? | |
| | | Name
June 25, 2005 08:11 AM PDT
Then no one should feel bad about burning the anti-america crowd protest signs and banners; free speech is for everyone, Right ?
| |
| | | Denise
June 25, 2005 05:04 PM PDT
Desecration of the Flag needs a Constitutional Amendment and one that I fully support. Once the flag has been desecrated in what ever manner the damage has been done. It totally diminishes and demeans all those that sacrificed their lives for what that symbol represents, and trust me when our men and women are on foriegn soil whether it is by their choice or not, that flag is home. As a citizen and a mother of son deployed in Afghanistan we need to protect, preserve and honor all that sacrificed the most. Personally I say give the 90 days in the county jail and one hell of a hefty fine, maybe at least they'll think twice. Why stoop to their level | |
| | | skye
June 26, 2005 12:30 AM PDT
Burning the flag ends free speech.
A person burning a flag has lost the capability to discuss alternative ideas in a coherent and logical debate. Much like the democratic party these days...
Bearing this in mind, one cannot help but notice the majority of flag burners are of the leftward persuasion. The patchouli smelling anti-everythings never have viable alternative solutions to their various issues.
Cav is right, flag burners are losers!
-------------------------------------
Then no one should feel bad about burning the anti-america crowd protest signs and banners; free speech is for everyone, Right ?
| |
| | | Reason76
July 6, 2005 02:07 PM PDT
Before we go off and ban flag burning, it would be wise to see what our founding fathers did with this "meaningless act" in the days of British colonialism.
The "first" American flag, after all, was created through the desecration of the British flag - by adding 13 stripes to it. And, the British flag was burnt in a form of civil disobedience to protest British rule.
While I personally would never burn the flag, nor do I condone it, selected speech should not be singled out and banned if it does not create imminent danger.
If we were to be seriously concerned with flag desecration, than I would love to start with restricting its use on clothing, knick-knacks, and the blatant disrespect shown to the flag by draping it and attatching it to cars. Whether you agree with that or not, check the US Flag code - all of that is prohibited.
| |
| | | JM
July 6, 2005 02:14 PM PDT
>The "first" American flag, after all,
>was created through the
>desecration of the British flag
Not really, but even if that were true, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand.
>the British flag was burnt in a
>form of civil disobedience to
>protest British rule
You might not have noticed, but America is no longer ruled by the British.
>selected speech should not be
>singled out and banned
Flag burning is not speech. Do you read articles before commenting on them? | |
| | | Reason76
July 6, 2005 04:12 PM PDT
Basically, my point with the burning of the British flag was that one of the basic acts of disobedience that helped to give birth to this country is the burning of the flag.
As to my claim about the defacement of the British flag, not only is it true, but it strikes at the heart of the issue. You may see flag defacement as a terrible wrong, but it was through acts of defiance and protest such as the defacement of the British flag, that our country rebelled and was formed.
And you're right, speech is not burning a flag. However, by that narrow definition (which I assume means spoken words), placards at rallies or protest marches are not speech, nor is the freedom to wear clothing with phrases on it (Cohen v. California 1971 - quite the interesting SC case). Speech is any form of expression that, as I said before, does not create a "Clear and present dange."
While I may not agree with flag burning, nor with KKK members to stand on a street corner near my house with signs, nor with Liberals bashing soldiers for "war crimes," it is a vital part of our country's history to have civil discourse. Oh, and please do not think this condones cross burning - that is a CLEAR form of intimidation as our courts have stated, and is speech that creates a dangerous situation.
I would hope that you do not resort to insulting my disagreement with your views as ignorance of what was written before me. To say that I do not understand what "speech" is in the first amendment is just petty. As I wrote above, speech, as defined by our courts, is not limited to verbal discourse.
As I often do when confronted with an issue that on first reaction I find to be offensive, imagine if it were your own ability to speak your mind - whether through a lecture, protest march, placard, or any other sort of expression - that was curtailed.
Finally, I also note that you have said nothing with regard to the various items the flag has been reproduced on in clear violation of the US Flag Code, and of the clear violation of that code in the display of the flag on everyday civilian vehicles. | |
| | | JM
July 6, 2005 04:54 PM PDT
>As to my claim about the
>defacement of the British flag, not
>only is it true, but it strikes at the
>heart of the issue.
Not really, since the British flag was burned by people who felt they were no longer British, and were subjugated by a foreign ruler. You burn the flag of a country you declare to be your enemy.
>However, by that narrow
>definition (which I assume means
>spoken words)
Once again, you should read articles before commenting on them. Burning the flag indicates the end of speech and debate.
>I would hope that you do not
>resort to insulting my
>disagreement with your views as
>ignorance of what was written
>before me.
If you had read the article, you would clearly see that I did not support the amendment to ban flag burning.
>imagine if it were your own ability
>to speak your mind - whether
>through a lecture, protest march,
>placard, or any other sort of
>expression - that was curtailed.
I find that I'm usually able to make my point known without resorting to desecrating the symbol of my own country.
>Finally, I also note that you have
>said nothing with regard to the
>various items the flag has been
>reproduced on in clear violation of
>the US Flag Code
Wearing a flag is not declaring an end to rational debate. In most cases, it's proudly displaying one's allegiance. | |
| | | Reason76
July 6, 2005 05:33 PM PDT
It may be proudly displaying one's allegience, but it is still against the US Flag Code.
This is where I find issue with the anti-flag burning crowd. To decide that only a portion of the US Flag Code shoud be enforced and/or altered is just meaningless.
Also, the idea of allowing someone to "rescue" the flag from someone burning it is tantamount to legalizing a form of assault. What would you say to the judge, where the person to suffer a broken arm or a concussion in the process of your saving the flag?
Defending a symbol of our country is honorable, but so is recognizing the guiding principles and laws of our nation that allow for people of all viewpoints, faiths, backgrounds, creeds, etc... to receive the same protections and rights.
Also, the idea that because someone did not see themselves as British allows them to burn the flag in the Colonies? What if someone, disenchanted with the government, burned the flag in a ranch in New Hampshire prior to attempting to form his own nation? Is that acceptable? Or someone that does not see themselves as American due to the war in Iraq and they burn the flag in protest?
Like it or not, the desecration of a flag as a form of protest is a part of this country's history. | |
| | | JM
July 6, 2005 06:29 PM PDT
>It may be proudly displaying
>one's allegience, but it is still
>against the US Flag Code.
What sort of person equates desecration with display, I don't know.
>What would you say to the judge,
>where the person to suffer a
>broken arm or a concussion in the
>process of your saving the flag?
Probably, "What's the reward?"
>What if someone, disenchanted
>with the government, burned the
>flag in a ranch in New Hampshire
>prior to attempting to form his
>own nation?
Hope he has a lot of guns. Rebellion is illegal.
>Or someone that does not see
>themselves as American due to
>the war in Iraq and they burn the
>flag in protest?
Hope he has a plane ticket. I don't mind if someone renounces his US citizenship. Means he can't vote in my elections.
>Like it or not, the desecration of a
>flag as a form of protest is a part
>of this country's history.
It should BE history. As Liberals are fond of pointing out, there are things in our history we aren't too proud of. That's one of them. | |
| | | Dee
June 26, 2006 04:37 PM PDT
How large of an issue is this that we have to spend so much time in congress and discussing this issue? I personally have never seen anyone burn an american flag, except on tv. But if I did see it personally, I would assume that the poeple are protesting the leaders of the country, not the country itself that the flag represents. Did the protesters at Tieneman square in CHINA hate their country or their leaders when they burned thier flags? If burning a flag is so bad, why did we not condemn the Chinese protesters when they did it. They were making a point by doing it. Also, I thought that burning a flag was respectful if the flag touches the ground. Now what are you supposed to do, have it dry cleaned? I am confused, what if I drop a flag, will I be arrested for doing the right thing? --------------OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!
| |
|
|
