Flag Burning

You can't argue that it is a right for somebody to burn a flag and then deny him his rights if somebody beats him up in the commission of his deed.

Intrepid wrote:

You can't argue that it is a right for somebody to burn a flag and then deny him his rights if somebody beats him up in the commission of his deed.

Why not ? They're the one inciting violence.

CerealKiller wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

The cross-burning almost always takes place on somebody's private property and is just as much a threat to harm someone on that property as any terrorist threat. Not so with flag burning which takes place nearly always on public property as a protest to government actions, especially a war. Not the same thing.

Or is it just because you favor flag burning to cross burning ?

Someone could get hurt just as easily burning a flag as a cross.

But anyone that burns the flag in public as protest should not be able to press charges on anyone that beats him up in protest.

Should I choose to burn a flag and someone/s attempt to beat on me I will be carrying a gun and I will shoot to kill the bastard.

CerealKiller wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

You can't argue that it is a right for somebody to burn a flag and then deny him his rights if somebody beats him up in the commission of his deed.

Why not ? They're the one inciting violence.

I am saying that if it is a right to be able to burn a flag and also a right to be protected from physical violence and harm.... how can you allow one to be enforced and the other not? Motive notwithstanding.

If the burning of a flag had been used for years in the commission of crimes against, and as a means of intimidation of, a minority group, I would find it to be other than free speech and would be against it.

That is the objection to cross burning, since it is associated only with the lynching and intimidation of african americans.

Burn all the crosses you like in your own yard. Get some marshmellows, too. Burn all the flags you like in your own yard. Just don't do it to intimidate, harrass, or otherwise express hatred towrds another person.

The argument about "ripping a flag off a coffin..." doesn't apply because the flag doesn't belong to the person snatching it to burn.

dyslexia wrote:

Should I choose to burn a flag and someone/s attempt to beat on me I will be carrying a gun and I will shoot to kill the bastard.

You love your Constitutional Rights, doncha' dys?

Aren't there more important bills to pass and how much time are the Republicans wasting by trying to push this one through?

dyslexia wrote:

Should I choose to burn a flag and someone/s attempt to beat on me I will be carrying a gun and I will shoot to kill the bastard.

You love your Constitutional Rights, doncha' dys?

...George Herbert Walker Bush defeated opponent Michael Dukakis through the same jingoistic patrio-mumble that has dominated the ribald reign of George Walker Bush. Daddy Bush dared Michael Dukakis to say the Pledge of Allegiance as much as he did, and promised to support an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make it a crime to burn an American flag.

Just like Bush Senior, Since he occupied the White House, Bush Junior has vigorously sung "God Bless America" while supporting new laws to destroy the constitutional protection from governmental meddling in religion. Bush talks about waging a war between freedom and fear while locking up American citizens without a trial or lawyer and finding new ways to violate ordinary Americans' freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

Most recently, George W. Bush has spilled ink all over the American flag he insists that he is sworn to protect.

A little over a month ago, at a Republican political rally in Livonia, Michigan, George W. Bush signed his name as an autograph on the American flag. He did so not just once, but with several flags brought by his conservative fans solely for that purpose.

The funny thing is that George W. Bush has openly supported efforts by the Republican Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution that would outlaw not just flag burning, but any "physical desecration" of the American flag.

This is where I start to get confused. You see, when I look up the meaning of "desecrate" (the root word of "desecration"), I find that to desecrate means to do damage to something that is sacred in such a way that reduces the religious nature of it. So, in order for the "desecration" of the American flag to even be possible, it must first be ordained as sacred. Thus, we see that an amendment to the Constitution forbidding the "desecration" of the American flag actually establishes an official governmentally-sponsored religious worship of the flag.

I thought George W. Bush was a born again Christian. Surely, he would know that the Bible strictly forbids idolatry. Hmm...