Comments on: FLAG BURNING NONSENSE

By: NoVA Scout

NoVA Scout — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 02:56:00 +0000

Nice post, Greg.

By: AWCheney

AWCheney — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:45:00 +0000

Greg, at the least the burning of the American flag should be construed as the destruction of American (not personal) property. This is really not a matter of “free speech.” In some ways it is akin to the “yelling fire in the movie theater” exception in that it is a very public show of contempt for our country and our history. Our children glean little of the rich early history of this country in school nowadays…the kind of history I learned which gave me such respect for the patriotic foundation upon which this country was set. This generation is largely dependent upon what we, as their parents, teach them with regard to respect for our history, our country, and the symbols thereof. Unfortunately, most aren’t giving their kids that. How many are really familiar with the symbolism attached to that flag? Perhaps, if its desecration bears consequences (even if only a misdemeanor), perhaps that might provide some incentive to learn why.

By: AWCheney

AWCheney — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:24:00 +0000

As I said James, I haven’t followed the specific legislation. If it was the prelude to an Amendment to the US Constitution, I also would be opposed, as I am opposed in general to amendments cluttering up that document when the issue either properly belongs to the States or in legislation.

By: Greg L

Greg L — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:22:00 +0000

Anke,

I certainly understand reverence to the flag, and would never support it’s desecration. I just think that the public outrage that would result is all of the sanction needed as a consequence of this despicable act.

I read a story about a POW in Vietnam who’s interrogator showed him photos of protestors burning the flag and asseted that America was wrong, and this was proof. His response was that this was proof America was right, because the government didn’t fear this form of political expression, as dumb as it was. His interrogator was infuriated at this, and effectively defeated by his response.

The more we legally allow unpopular speech, but battle it in the court of public opinion instead, the more we implement our founder’s vision of what this country should aspire to be. Don’t take that as a belief of mine that I think this is a good way to protest — I think it’s abominable and am outraged and disturbed by it — but I would rather suffer that outrage than prosecute someone by force of law for being an idiot in how they choose to express themselves.

By: James Young

James Young — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:55:00 +0000

For once, I can agree with the first commenter. The problem with your analysis is that the idiocy of the amendment is provoked by the idiocy of a Supreme Court confusing “actions” with “speech” in Texas v. Johnson. So long as the Supreme Court chooses to issue such foolish decisions (see, i.e., Dred Scott v. Sanford), the people are forced to react in the only way that they can. At least this time, people aren’t talking about a civil war to right the Supreme Court’s wrongs.

By: AWCheney

AWCheney — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:32:00 +0000

Not being familiar with the specific wording of the legislation, I can’t really form an opinion about that…BUT (isn’t there always a “but”), the burning of the American flag should bear some consequences. Consider how many brave patriots died defending the right to fly that flag; consider how many soldiers lost their lives literally protecting that flag on the battlefield throughout the history of this nation; and consider how few true symbols of patriotism still exist for our children (most can’t even recite the “Pledge of Allegiance” anymore). It’s perhaps one of the, if not THE (given that the Statue of Liberty has lost considerable meaning over the years), most important symbols of this country around the world. Why do you think that the burning of the American flag has so much meaning to people who hate us, and what we stand for? Should it have less meaning to us?