Salute the Flag, Burn the Flag
Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 09:45PM By one vote, the Senate rejected a constitutional amendment that would have given Congress the power to ban burning the American flag.
The following is a statement by President Bush:
By showing respect for our flag, we show reverence for the ideals that guide our Nation. And we show appreciation for the men and women who have served in defense of those ideals.
What makes burning an American flag offensive? Maybe it’s because the flag drapes the coffins of soldiers who’ve served under it. Maybe it’s because for hundreds of years men fought bravely for all the flag stands for. Maybe because we have such a rich history exemplified by the flag. Maybe it’s because the kind people who burn flags are also the kind of people who spit on soldiers returning from war, who run from civic duty and think being foul is being cool. Maybe it's because our enemies burn our flag.
Or, maybe it’s because no one NEEDS to burn a flag to have free speech any more than I need to punch someone in the face to say, “I hate your views”.
It’s a slap in the face of Lady Liberty to burn a flag, and it’s always done by those who are by their “speech” saying, “We hate America”, yet they are protected by what they say they hate. The irony is offensive.
As a nation, we’ve gotten far enough from 9/11 that we can be jerks again. Who burned a flag after 9/11? Jihadists. Instead, as a sign of solidarity, love, pride and unity, we flew our flags here in America to show the world and ourselves that WE LOVE AMERICA.
What is someone saying who burns the flag? There is some speech so foul that it is NOT protected or else there would be no obscenity and profanity laws to prohibit speech that is inappropriate. If burning the flag isn’t inappropriate speech, what is?
California Conservative Fix4RSO
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/567805
Amy Proctor
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (66)
You're right Amy, its not needed at all, and serves no purpose. The same people that support flag burning are probably the same people who oppose pictures of dead fetuses to protest abortion. But as a positive, I guess I can go to San Francisco and wipe my ass on their state flag as a mark of my disdain. I'm sure no liberals would object.
Amy’s analogy of the “physical” punch should help people see that “physical” destruction is anarchy and NOT speech. Words, written, drawn or spoken are SPEECH.
Burning anything on public streets (think cross burning) breaking a simple law in itself. Burning a symbol of someone’s basic life beliefs is a “hate crime” is it not?
---------------
QUICK EXAMPLE: RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) — Federal prosecutors are appealing a sentence that spared a cross-burner prison time, saying the judge improperly considered a black man’s obscene gesture as provocation.
Robert Nelson May was sentenced to probation and five months’ house arrest for burning a cross near the home of an interracial couple — far less than the sentencing guidelines, which recommend at least one year in prison.
-------------------
Burning a cross to insult and threaten a minority some how sounds the same as burning our flag to insult and threaten United States citizens.
Years of using our flag as a decoration instead of its own entity as federal guidance directs - settles to be part of the problem. NOW - 34 Senators and others can no longer understand the importance of our flag.
In my best NFL Films voice, "You make the call."
By that rhetoric, we should immediately attack every Islamic country just in case one might have a terrorist in it who may potentially be planning an attack on America.
Every US Soldier wears a full color American flag on their right sleeve in combat. Burn THAT, you miserable ingrates.
Sorry, Amy, those 34 senators will have some splainin' to do to their constituents (except the ones from Massachussetts, whatever their problem is).
That is exactly the point of the vote and you will continue to see this sort of doomed legislation coming from both parties. Same as the minimum wage vote of last week.
Gallup Poll 6/23-25/06
"Some people feel that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to make it illegal to burn or desecrate the American flag as a form of political dissent. Others say that the U.S. Constitution should not be amended to specifically prohibit flag burning or desecration. Do you think the U.S. Constitution should or should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag?" N=516, MoE ± 5 (Form B)
.
Should Be Amended - Should Not Be Amended - Unsure
45% - 54% - 2%
Just a thought to ponder on!
There's a world of difference between something being inadvisable or distasteful, and declaring something *illegal*. By all means maintain the social tabboo of flag burning, but we should be in the business of keeping the set of illegal things as small as possible. How else could you interpret "liberty"?
Every flag burner should be a human shield for one of our bravest in every war. See how fast they love those that protect their freedom!
Bah! This is a lost cause, everyone has forgotten. Those morons have left our Old Glory alone, undefended, on that Hill: Capitol Hill.
No man, no team, no battalion is to leave our standard unprotected! If one must retreat, never forget the standard! Leave no man behind, and take our precious Old Glory with you - or be damned!
Johnny, I'm with you! I dare these twits to go after that flag on YOUR sleeve! Tangle with the wrong people, I am so very proud to say! ;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121356.stm
**"I applaud these senators for taking a risky political position at a time when many of them are up for reelection. I love the flag, but I love the Constitution more."
My astonished response was:
"Silke, I cannot believe you made that last comment in your original entry. Why do NOT burning the flag and the Constitution have to be opposed? How is burning a flag free speech? I thought HATE SPEECH was a crime? Let’s be grown ups here and use our words. Instead of burning an inanimate object that represents everything good about the best country in the world, why not just use your lips and say, “I hate America.” ?
Were you opposed to the Mohammad cartoons?
Just wondering, but is flushing a Koran free speech? How about urinating in public? Why not?"
http://hooahwife.com
Amy,
I was not opposed to the Mohammad cartoons and I don’t know if the flushing of a Koran is considered free speech. I suppose it would depend on the circumstances. Urinating in public is a public health issue.
I think these comments are relevant to the discussion…
“The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.”
-- Collin Powell in a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, 5/18/99
As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia argued, altering the Constitution to ban attacks on the flag "dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered."
And Justice Anthony Kennedy (not known as a liberal) in joining the majority decision, said "It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt."
If they hate the American flag which represents the United States of America, by all means LEAVE! Why stay in a country that you despise so much? They are nothing but a drag on society and need to crawl back under a rock. Btw, Who moved the rock??
I am so furious at seeing Old Glory burned and left undefended and it should be heartwrenching for every single American to behold. That flag represents all of us. United we stand, Divided we fall.
Someone on Silke's site said:
**"Thank goodness for Democrats, not withstanding some notable absences, and a few good Republicans. What is going on with this Country? I can’t believe there were so many right wing nuts right under the surface. It only took a war and W to bring them out in droves. When you can’t trust your neighbors to act rationally….it’s kind of scary."
I'm proud to have as guests so many excellent right wing nut defenders of the truth on this blog. It's scary that people think like this, and there are many comments throughout the blogosphere echoed from the left. THAT is scary.
Amy,
Actually it’s Greta’s site and she has graciously allowed me to be a regular contributor. As for ***, I think it’s unfair of you to criticize her and speculate about her reasons for not commenting on your blog when she isn’t even participating in your discussion. I notice that on HooahWife you did not post the above comments.
If this is your idea of “reasonable” - in essence picking a fight on your own blog with someone who has no chance to respond (because she’s probably not aware that you commented about her) – then we have very different perspectives.
Oh, snap! *** was a regular here for months. We're too familar with her reasonings. People pull my comments all the time and post about them, so perhaps I wasn't tihnking. I'll delete authorship so as not to be unfair.
Thanks but I think the fair thing to do would be to post your comment on Hooah Wife so she actually has a chance to respond.
I’ll let you make that decision – a courtesy which you did not extend to either of us.
No man, no team, no battalion is to leave our standard unprotected! If one must retreat, never forget the standard! Leave no man behind, and take our precious Old Glory with you - or be damned!
It's why we are who we are and says more to the rest of the world.
**"Thank goodness for Democrats, not withstanding some notable absences, and a few good Republicans. What is going on with this Country? I can't believe there were so many right wing nuts right under the surface. It only took a war and W to bring them out in droves. When you can’t trust your neighbors to act rationally….it’s kind of scary."
Meg, your comments flabbergast me. Thank GOODNESS for Democrats who want to protect FLAG BURNING? What's going on with this country is that Democrats are a secular religion that promote the idea that ANYTHING besides religion and reverence is to be protected, discounting the fact that it was God-fearing patriots who've given their blood, sweat and tears who have safeguarded the constitution for them to misinterpret.
"Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The free exercise there of is attributed to religion, not speech. Kindergartners have to act out as a way of speaking, not normal adults. The constitution does NOT protect the EXERCISE of free speech as an act. I understand many disagree with this, but simply interpreting the 1st Amendment, one cannot conclude anything else. Even if cross-burning is legal in most states, it also is a FORM of speech, but is not speech itself.
What is happening to our country? People don't care anymore. The same disrespect for property and icons that has led to an increase in juvenile crime, graffiti (which is also a crime, since it's public property... and if a FLAG isn't public property, what is?) is the same disrespect that facilitates flag burning.
Terrorists burn the US flag. Enemies of the United States burn flags. I think that makes for good bedfellows.
Those right wing nuts are the reason there IS an America today, Meg. Who opposes tracking down terrorists money, phone calls and activities in order to catch them? DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS. Liberals have done everything they can to oppose the Patriot Act, thwart the capture of terrorists. They're behind the movement to protect terrorists at Gitmo and yet "out" CIA prisons abroad. How about we take the 50 terrorists at Gitmo who are 'so dangerous their home countries refuse to take them' and place them in YOUR basement? It is liberals who are willing to use more 9/11 style Americans as collateral damage in order to promote their feelings of superiority, thinking they're befriending the world when in reality they are inviting their enemies in to cut off our heads. Good job, libs.
What's wrong with American is godless liberalism. Before you insult Bush supporters, remember there are more of us than you.. 2 elections, more red states.
Godless liberals make excuses for our crime. They make excuses to kill babies. They refuse to respect human life. They treat humanity like a biological accident. But to their credit, they are not schocked, but rather encouraged, when humans act like biological accidents. Piss on all of them and everyone that looks like them. Liberals, for all of their talk of "tolerance", are the most intolerant, insulting bunch of them all.
So burning the flag is considered free speech? So what ISN'T considered free speech then? So now actions can be considered speech. Great. Up becomes down. Right becomes wrong. Life becomes death. Sounds about like the liberal agenda.
But no, he's not a "godless liberal." He takes no pleasure in seeing the flag burned as a "godless liberal" would. Silke, I see these people up close and personal weekly and the ones who actually do the burning are not the same as, say, you, who understand or appreciate this freedom of speech. You, I assume, would never burn a flag.
Is Collin Powell a “godless liberal?” The problem when you make such sweeping generalizations is that you can’t have a reasonable debate. By demonizing them you have already concluded they have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion. Do you realize that many of the discussions on your blog inevitably result in the same conclusion – it’s all the liberals’ fault. And now, thanks to Ann Coulter, we can call them “godless” and therefore evil.
I certainly don’t consider myself a liberal or a Democrat but if your blog represents what conservatives and Republicans think then I don’t know where I fit in.
As far as Colen Powel of whom you have quoted, his politics are well known to be Liberal in fact President George W. Bush is not as far right as many of you Liberals seem to think, there are many of his policies that have been more to the left than not, it is not based on Whether George W. Bush is a Conservative or a Liberal, it's that the Left hates George W. Bush so much that they are willingly blind to the fact that President George W. Bush wants to protect this Country and that is what bothers the Left. The left only wants to do a feel good attitude of a approach to make it look like they want to fight terrorism when in fact that the Left only want's a limited involvment in going after Terrorist. For example what did President Bill Clinton do, I mean other than playing hide the sausage with Monica Lewinski that is, all he did to fight Terrorist was to blow up an Asprin factory and then it was back to hanky panky as what was normal for him.
Liberals do not take defense of this country seriously.
Johnny,
I only have to read a paragraph to realize she’s not very accurate when it comes to the science in her book. This is how well Ann Coulter “understands” evolution…
“(Godless, 213-214) ’As I understand the concept behind survival of the fittest, the appendix doesn't do much for the theory of evolution either. How does a survival-of-the-fittest regime evolve an organ that kills the host organism? Why hasn't evolution evolved the appendix away? (Another sign that your scientific theory is in trouble: When your argument against an opposing theory also disproves your own.)’
Coulter has hit the nail squarely here: going by her "understanding" of the matter is her problem. She does not understand it. Consider Nesse & Williams (Nesse, Randolph, and George C. Williams. 1998. "Evolution and the Origins of Disease." Scientific American 279 (November): 86-93.1998, 92):
‘The path of natural selection can even lead to a potentially fatal cul-de-sac, as in the case of the appendix, that vestige of a cavity that our ancestors employed in digestion. Because it no longer performs that function, and as it can kill when infected, the expectation might be that natural selection would have eliminated it. The reality is more complex. Appendicitis results when inflammation causes swelling, which compresses the artery supplying blood to the appendix. Blood flow protects against bacterial growth, so any reduction aids infection, which creates more swelling. If the blood supply is cut off completely, bacteria have free rein until the appendix bursts. A slender appendix is especially susceptible to this chain of events, so appendicitis may, paradoxically, apply the selective pressure that maintains a large appendix. Far from arguing that everything in the body is perfect, an evolutionary analysis reveals that we live with some very unfortunate legacies and that some vulnerabilities may even be actively maintained by the force of natural selection.’
Such "scorched earth" approaches to our biology are turning out to be rather significant, most notably in the case of sickle cell anemia, where selection kept the dangerous gene for it in play because it peripherally slowed down the killing power of malaria.”
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm
Ann Coulter’s claim that the human appendix actually disproves evolution reveals a complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Vestigial structures are remnants from our primate ancestors and provide strong evidence for descent with modification. From an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense. If anything, vestigial structures argue against intelligent design. Many organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection modifies previously existing traits.
Sorry for getting off topic, Amy!
"Ann Coulter’s claim that the human appendix actually disproves evolution reveals a complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory."
With all due respect, you say that about everyone. Have you ever been to this blog?
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/
Radar goes into detail supporting creationism and discussing evolution at the level you are comfortable with. You might want to check him out. He has strayed into some political issues but scroll down his page and you'll see a plethora of excellent commentary and debate over evolution.
I suppose I do make sweeping generalizations. I have always been happy that GEN Powell never ran for President because I couldn't vote for him. His social stances in particular are too left for me. I could never support a pro-choice candidate.
One paragraph is not a fair sample, then again, I hold no hope of pursuading you since evolution is a religious belief for you.
Amy, you're not sweeping, you're right. Bummer. It sucks to be right when all that's left is, left. ;)
If ya can't stand the heat, get out of the primordial swamp!
At least be honest - no amount of scientific evidence will ever dissuade you. You’re welcome to pick any paragraph you want from Coulter’s section on evolution. If it’s anything like the one I picked, then she’s got a pretty weak argument. She’s certainly welcome to her opinions about evolution but she should at least get the facts right.
Amy,
I looked at the website you provided. It was very interesting and I’m sure I will be looking at it more in the future. I found this particularly interesting…
“Abiogenesis:
The question of how life may have come from non-life is not a part of evolutionary science today. While it is being studied by many, the main concern of evolutionary scientists is how simpler life might evolve into more complex life. The matter of abiogenesis may be crucial metaphysically but the evolutionary scientist is not under any mandate to address this issue. This is a concession on my part that I wanted to repeat for the sake of posterity.
Natural Selection:
I do not believe that natural selection is in any way a part of the theoretical path from non-life to life. I do, however, believe that natural selection would have to be integral to any path from simple to complex life. I also agree that natural selection operates without any controlling intelligence, that is, it is not directed by God, man or beast but is an observed operation by which the more suitable characteristics within a gene pool are, by being more likely to survive and reproduce, selected as traits that will be passed on to succeeding generations. No probabalistic model attempting to reproduce evolution can be taken seriously without including the operation of natural selection.”
Do you agree with these statements?
Sorry again for being off topic!
Even so, if the science of evolution were so complete in its intricate explanations of how we got here, it should be able to leave some explanation of how something could be formed from nothing. In other words, it seems a cop out to say "man evolved from this and that in this manner" but not address how the "this and that" came to be in the first place.
This is simply an unprofessional observation, but I've spent hours watching those incredible TLC and Discovery Channel "documentaries" about the Neanderthals and primitive man. Talk about depressing.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/index.html
Whole scenarios are built around a skull supposedly millions of years old, and from it is determined how these early relatives mated, hunted, felt.... what a crock. I'll have to look some of them up and post links.
BACK TO FLAG ISSUES.... the Senate was voting to was voting to amend the constitution. People act as if its unconstitutional to amend. The Constitution has been amended 27 times and as recently as 1992. There is nothing unconstitutional about amending the constitution.
So if Scalia or any other conservative judge says that flag burning is unconstitutional, keep in mind they also say it is WRONG and DISGUSTING, so why not amend the constitution? What if it had never been amended to give blacks the right to vote? Or giving States specific rights? What if the constitution had not been amended to abolish slavery? Even the prohibition of alcohol was an amendment of the US Constitution, and it was repelled in another amendment.
So Silke you can say you love the Constitution more than the flag, but that doesn't mean you should. The Constitution clearly changes.
>”Even so, if the science of evolution were so complete in its intricate explanations of how we got here, it should be able to leave some explanation of how something could be formed from nothing.”
I guess that answers my question on whether you agree with a website you yourself referred me to.
>”Whole scenarios are built around a skull supposedly millions of years old, and from it is determined how these early relatives mated, hunted, felt.... what a crock.”
Bones are never considered in isolation, they are compared with other bones from more complete skeletons. The ability to deduce much about a fossil from a single tooth or bone was made famous by anatomist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier. In 1804, for example, he announced that a French fossil was an opossum (then unknown from France) on the basis of only its teeth. Incidentally, Cuvier was a creationist.
Now back to the original topic…
>”So if Scalia or any other conservative judge says that flag burning is unconstitutional, keep in mind they also say it is WRONG and DISGUSTING, so why not amend the constitution?”
An excellent point, Amy. And it goes to the heart of the matter. I do not believe this issue rises to the level that it requires an amendment to our Constitution. Abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote – these were valid reasons. Keep in mind, most of these amendments expanded peoples’ rights. Yet this amendment would essentially limit freedom and alter the 1st Amendment for something that happens rarely. It mocks the very reasons we honor the flag.
You’re right, dishonoring the flag is wrong, but I don’t favor amending the Constitution to prevent it.
As for how life started…right again – science cannot say for sure how life began. One day we may know, but right now we don’t. Even the site Amy referred to above (a creationist website) admits that abiogenesis (the study of how life began) is a separate part of science. Evolution attempts to explain how life progressed once life had already started.
"An excellent point, Amy. And it goes to the heart of the matter. I do not believe this issue rises to the level that it requires an amendment to our Constitution. Abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote – these were valid reasons."
Does repealing prohibition rise to the level of amending the constitution? How about instituting prohibition itself? They are far less significant, we can probably all agree, than flag burning, ending slavery, etc.
This is what "living, breathing" document means. It can be amended when there seems to be a need or desire for it. Flag burning certainly bears the severity of passion to at least warrant a constitutional vote.
"Whole scenarios are built around a skull supposedly millions of years old, and from it is determined how these early relatives mated, hunted, felt.... what a crock."
The way we are GIVEN the facts is with so much imagination that THEN the facts can be woven together to provide some, fake truth.
Crock is dead spot on. Without the imagination, science is left with nothing.
Sheesh, and scientists think faith is stupid? Wow, all that money for a glorious education and you get ... imagination.
I'd rather spend my $9.50 on The Waterboy! Fake, Fake, oh yeah, FAKE! ;)
Laugh, SOMEBODY!!! ;)
As far as adding an amendment to the Constitution in protecting Our Flag, I am for it, I have to be if I wan't to be able to feel like I am a part of this great Country, I have to want to be able to so that if I want to honor those Soldiers who have fought for our freedoms. I do that in honor and in memory of our Soldiers, they are worth every bit of that and then some.