Number 1, it is trespassing to burn something on someone else's property. It is also not okay to take someone else to your property and burn something, that is kidnapping.
To have offense because someone burns a symbol of your country or religion is tantamount to them putting a chip on there shoulder., if you take deep offense to it and react.
Burning a cross is linked to hate of a minority because of past actions of specfic groups. One day it may be legal again.
Burning a flag is a protest to a government. I even believe it can be considered patriotic!
There are strong religions connotations to burning the cross whether at a private meeting out in some forest clearing or on someone's lawn (which has been pointed out, is bascially also vandalism). It's basically been perceived as trying to terrorize a race, not just one person or family.
Burning the flag does not terrorize anyone and is only a political statement (an emotional one, to be sure). One that has been done before, pervasively during the Vietnam War and has an amorphous meaning that is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't do it -- it's lost it's effectiveness for one thing because so many are now desensitized to it. Jasper Johns, the great American pop/abstract painter did a series of famous American flags. One was a flag that was shades of white, like all the meaning of the red and blue had been bleached out and made meaningless. By whom? Aha -- that's where one waits for volunteers to step forward and show themselves. Often all they show is their pettiness and lack of understanding of true patriotism.
This question can never be resolved, because everybody has a different interpretation of what it means. It's somewhat similar to setting the standards for "what is pornography?". You'll get ten different answers - all reasonable to somebody. c.i.
Therefore, it is choice and everyone has equal rights in choice without retribution for their actions!
I would say that if I were in a foreign country, particularly SOME foreign countries, and there was a mob burning the Stars & Stripes... I would be afraid, I would be very afraid. I would be terrified.
No one will accuse contributors here of not giving this issue a good once over.
It was my first party; thank you for coming.
I greatly enjoyed the discourse.
fishin', your view of this subject mirrors mine, and I thank you for taking the COM (is that the military term, when the person, who is supposed to be directing things goes AWOL?) , whilst I was absent.
All contributors: Humble and sincere thanks for sharing your views. Though my baseline opinion remains, I will always look upon this subject with increased sensitivity, and enhanced understanding of the opposing viewpoint due to your passionate opinions. Hope someone else benefitted in some way.
LG, I'm sorry if I squashed your forum. Didn't mean to. It's one of those subjects that has many different attitudes based on one's own experience. I don't think there necessarily has to be any consensus, because many of the response will be very emotional - somewhat similar to politics and religion. It's a good subject, and I hope more people will participate. c.i.
c.i.--
Not all all!
I think your comment is right on the mark! I didn't expect there to be a concensus, just a vigorous sharing of information and opinion--and I wasn't disappointed.
You were right. This is an emotional issue. And, I appreciate your comments.
I just think I've explained my view ad nauseum, and I thought the opposing view was thoughtfully and passionately shared, as well.
You are no forum squasher!
I wonder how many countries now have American flag burning demonstrations? Also, I wonder if there's been an increase in American flag burning during the past two years? c.i.
I think all of the Islamic-based countries have been burning flags and effigies of various presidents over the last two years, but I don't know where you'd find out for sure.
Lash -- I KNEW we'd agree on something! There are plenty of places that have just about lost their ability to attract tourists, at least, this tourist!
Well, I attended some demonstrations in the late 60's with a lot of flags burning - mostly US-flags, and done mostly by US-citizens. (However, only the Germans for arrested for that.)
As said in the link I gave some pages above, flag burning is criminal in Germany, but will be observed only, if the foreign state wants it.
I have no eveidence that such was done the last few years in all cases - perhaps by some US-American consuls.
I little bit out of the thread (but really only a bit):
members of the Scottish Parliament made the proposal to prosecute people for making the sign of the cross at football matches
Church in religious gesture warning
Dahlia Lithwick on the legal issues and cases pertaining to the confederate flag...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076553/
The sign of the cross, Walter? You mean the conventional Catholic gesture? That sounds a bit extreme.
Some of the teams in Scotland are considered "Catholic" teams -- like Hibernians and Hearts, whereas Rangers are very Protestant based on how they got started and their fan base. If you wanted to offend the Catholic teams and their fans by constantly genuflecting to mock them (which I think is what was happening) it could be considered a pretty nasty, in-your-face gesture.
Also, since team members may genuflect before a tough play, like a corner kick or a penalty kick, it's also showing that they need to be "saying their prayers."
That clarifies it, Pifka.
"Do you click your thumb at me, sir?" "I do click my thumb, sir."
This Scottish example puts an interesting light on the issue. In the football case, the religious component is relevant only in the sense that it is more likely to cause offence, religious symbols being ususally more sacred than other symbols. So it is a better 'get them riled up' method than, say, peeing on the opposition's mascot. The gesture made is really the same as in the Romeo and Juliet quote above, essentially "Up yours, Catholics!" or "Up yours, Capulets!"
Flag burning, I think, ought to be considered in a similar way. The intention is to cause offense, though in this case, to cause political offence with a gesture that 'disrespects' (hate that new verb) a reigning power structure. Again, "Up Yours, America!"
The religious component of the cross in a cross-burning (such as the case coming before the Supreme Court - done to a black family) confuses what is going on in the act, much as it does in the football example. If a cross burning was committed as a protest against, say, liberal squeemishness, then the gesture would mean "Up yours, politically correct ninnies!"
But I contend that the cross burning cases are entirely dissimilar in gestural meaning, and the element of threat is unique in these cases.
I understand that under current US law, this threat may not rise to the level of immediacy which would permit constraint constitutionally, but that line is to some degree malleable.
Just clarifying my own thinking here.
Completely agree, Blatham. Flag burning is a symbol intended to shock and call attention to perceived injustices. Cross burning is also to shock but the real intent is to intimidate and instill fear in a minority.
I also believe we've become very sensitive to flag burning because of it being done in foreign countries, supposting many things but now terrorism. It wouldn't be prudent at this time for someone to protest something when the intent has become so blurred. A law against it? Over-reacting.
Well, I don't want one against flag-burning, or maybe I'll feel like burning a flag in protest.
I feel a grave injustice has been done to Black Americans and the cross-burning is the continued pouring of salt into a wound. I think it is a nasty lie what the KKK are now saying. They've figured a way to justify it that might appeal to some Christian sensibilities. Evil. I think. Truly evil to be such wicked liars.
