It would seem that the Senate is close to passing an amendment to prohibit desecration of Old Glory. In my humble opinion, this is good news. Certain things shouldn’t be open to desecration. Symbols of our country, such as the flag, should be respected. I wear a flag on my uniform every day. It is the only thing on my ACU’s that’s in full-color, and there’s a good reason for that.
Is this what we want?
The people who are in favor of burning the flag insist that it is a free speech issue. I respectfully disagree. The flag of the United States represents our nation, and all that we stand for. Would the Founders have approved this? I doubt it. I doubt also that they would have approved of burning the British flag. The flag is a symbol of all that is America, for good or ill. I think some protesters within our borders would want to do this simply for the “shock value”. Do they think that burning the flag would lend creedence to their arguement? That people would stand up and listen to what they had to say? I don’t think so. If this is their case, it only cheapens whatever point they wish to convey. When I think of flag burning, I think of Islamofascists and their ilk.
The flag represents freedom, democracy, and hope through out the world. When you think of the American flag, what do you think of? Do you think that any other flag in the world conveys the same message?
Flag day was on the 14th of June. I don’t think I’ll see a “Flag Burning Day” on the calendar anytime soon.
Said Bat Guano @ 12:20 pm | Permalink
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Flag amendment faces close Senate vote
A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration faced a close Senate vote Tuesday, with supporter
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — 6/27/2006 @ 3:18 pm
Well I agree with you. I don’t see a flag burning day coming up any time soon either so why do we need an amendment?
As for that picture of a bunch of foreigners burning the American flag, all the amendments in the world won’t stop that. It wouldn’t be against the law in their country.
The flag is a symbol of our country and part of what makes our country is our freedom of speech. Passing an amendment that outlaws the desecretion of the flag would in itself desecrate the flag. Besdies it is awfully strange to say that you can’t burn a the symbol in protest against the government yet on the other hand you can continue to criticize your government, the symbolic head of the country. How long before it comes to pass that we have an amendment prohibiting that?
Comment by Carol — 6/27/2006 @ 6:42 pm
The bill didn’t pass so it’s now up to some loyal american to follow the flag burners home and remove their head. They love Islam so should not object to one quick slice across the neck.
Comment by Scrapiron — 6/27/2006 @ 10:46 pm
They were showing some flag burning morons on T.V. this morning.
This one girl was grinning gleefully as she torched my flag. Put me off breakfast it did.
Comment by Jenn — 6/28/2006 @ 1:17 pm
I don’t know why my comment didn’t come out the first time, but I’ll try again.
I posted about the flag burning debate a few days ago. I’m sure a lot of bloggers did.
Based on a book I read about the history of the United States flag, I think it is unlikely that the Founders would have wanted flag burning outlawed, though I’ve seen a rumor on a couple of sites saying that they did. Aside from the First Amendment issue, the extreme reverence that Americans today attach to the flag simply did not exist when the Constitution was written. That reverence would not appear until around the time of the Civil War.
Comment by Kylopod — 6/29/2006 @ 12:45 pm
The strength of this country rests on its ability to withstand dissent, but I wouldn’t expect any right-winger to understand that. Also, you don’t think the Founding Fathers would have approved the burning of the British flag? THEY WERE TRAITORS TO THE CROWN. But maybe you’re right, an amendment may be in order. There are so many anti-American flag desecraters living on my street that I can barely get out of the driveway. The smoke gags me and the ash buildup is a public nuisance. THERE OUTTA BE A LAW.
Comment by Kuto — 7/1/2006 @ 10:14 pm
No, the strength of this nation doesn’t depend on “dissent” which includes the words of the Revolutionary Communist Party who wish to destroy everything we love and cherish. That kind of “dissent” belongs in Russia.
Comment by Cao — 7/3/2006 @ 8:27 am
The strength of our nation depends on the right to dissent. And that means any dissent. The Constitution does not make any distinction between good and bad dissenting opinions. All are protected under the First Amendment. Suppressing dissent is in fact a primary feature of the Communist nations you so despise, and the fact that we’re not like that (ideally) is one of the main reasons we are better than they.
Comment by Kylopod — 7/4/2006 @ 9:18 am
That’s where you’re wrong. Look at your history…treason is an offense which should be met with the firing squad or hanging…and in some states (at least one that I’m aware of) the firing squad could still apply.
David Limbaugh is rather gentle with his criticism of the far left and their sentiments toward dissent:
the far left has a limited comprehension of the role of dissent, the concept of patriotism and their ostensible interrelationship.
Liberals confuse the right to dissent with the act of dissenting. My liberal friend Alan Colmes recently said, “I think protesting is actually very pro-American. It’s what a democracy really is.”
No, Alan, protesting against America is not “very pro-American.” Being pro-America is pro-American. Defending one’s right to protest is celebrating America’s freedoms. But the act of dissing America while exercising those freedoms is not pro-American.
It is not the act of dissenting that makes this country great. There is nothing noble in trashing America and her leaders on foreign soil, especially as we prepare for war against a foreign country. It is disgraceful. Anti-war protestors are not exhibiting their patriotism when they dissent; they are exercising their freedoms – and there’s a big difference.
The right to dissent – included in the First Amendment – is part of what makes America great (but far from the only thing). That right carries with it a duty of responsibility and a measure of accountability, such as incurring the scorn of the many who do love this country. You may dissent to your heart’s content, but the substance of your statements will not be exempted from scrutiny merely because you are exercising rights we consider sacred in America. You are not fooling many people by wrapping yourself in the flag of dissent, trying to pretend that it, too, is red, white and blue.
Patriotism is not about worshipping dissent. It is about love of country. Since when are expressions of contempt considered outpourings of love? It is about appreciating America’s uniqueness, including her unparalleled freedoms, not about casually dismissing America’s sovereignty in favor of one worldism or love poems about “our common humanity.”
Patriotism is not “talking across national boundaries” as part of “a global debate about this war,” as the Nation’s Bruce Shapiro lamely characterized Hollywood’s anti-war drumbeat. Nor is it “pledg(ing) to make common cause with the people of the world to bring about justice, freedom and peace,” as Hollywood leftists and others did in their “Not in Our Name” diatribe.
It is not patriotic for anti-war protestors to burn and rip up flags, flowers and patriotic signs that residents had erected on a fence along Whittier Boulevard in California to commemorate those lost when this nation was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. And it’s not patriotic for anti-war types to try to censor the unmistakably patriotic song of country star Darryl Worley about 9-11, “Have You Forgotten?”
By no means are all those opposed to war against Iraq being unreasonable. But those extreme leftist anti-war protestors are different. They have every right to belittle this nation as it prepares for war, but they shouldn’t expect to be exalted for it.
Comment by Cao — 7/4/2006 @ 1:02 pm
and as David Horowitz has said:
Lack of patriotism is manifest when you make your own people your enemy, as Sheehan and her supporters clearly have. And that morally speaking is treason.
I leave the legal issue of whether to prosecute treason as treason to the superior legal minds in this discussion.
Comment by Cao — 7/4/2006 @ 1:06 pm
In theory, treason is an executable offense, but I’m glad our country has moved away from such excesses. We simply are not going back to the days when the state could kill people who didn’t themselves kill.
The Constitution defines treason very specifically, and for good reason. The Founders were aware of how easily the concept could be abused. In our country, it has to be an “overt act.” Merely expressing an opinion doesn’t count, and shouldn’t. Neither of the two dissenting opinions in the 1989 Supreme Court case brought up treason, nor is it conceivable that they or any other justices would have done so.
Your analysis lumps together two things that shouldn’t be confused: “dissing America” and criticizing the people in power. Colmes was celebrating the latter, not the former.
I love America. And one of the reasons I do is that it understands freedom of speech more broadly than many other democracies in the world do. I think it’s wrong, for example, that the Holocaust denier David Irving was prosecuted for his views. That’s a typical European mode of thinking. As a Jew, I feel more comfortable living under a government that ignores Holocaust denial. We cause far more problems by seeking to quash views we hate than by simply ignoring them.
Celebrating the right to dissent doesn’t mean celebrating every individual dissenting opinion. If you want to disagree with anti-war protesters, that’s fine. If you want to quarrel with some of their methods, that’s also fine. But you don’t have to shut them up. That would be truly un-American.
It reminds me of a joke I used to hear back in the ’80s. An American says to a Russian, “The great thing about America is that you’re allowed to curse Ronald Reagan.” The Russian replies, “What’s so great about that? In Russia, you’re also allowed to curse Ronald Reagan!”
Comment by Kylopod — 7/5/2006 @ 10:43 am
You’re splitting hairs, making this into a game of semantics, my dear chap. These people standing outside Rumsfeld’s house…Code Pink, International ANSWER, and the rest…most certainly are committing “OVERT ACTS”…Code Pink gave $600,000 to the terrorists in Fallujah, for crying out loud. The Revolutionary Communist Party is holding “The World Can’t Wait” signs…but they’re saying the world can’t wait until the United States as we know it is destroyed. I consider all of these things including flag burning to be “overt acts”.
Comment by Cao — 7/5/2006 @ 3:13 pm
You know Cao you were really doing good when you confined yourself to pointing out the difference between exercising a right and patriotism. However, burning a flag is hardly an overt act of treason. The flag is not to be worshipped. Giving humanitarian supplies to Iraqi civilians is certainly not treason. We are there to help them remember? We aren’t at war with the citizenry. Under your concept of treason the government itself would be guilty.
Comment by Carol — 7/7/2006 @ 3:23 pm
I consider all of these things including flag burning to be “overt acts”.
You’re entitled to your opinion. However, most constitutional scholars would strongly disagree.
Comment by Kylopod — 7/8/2006 @ 8:22 pm