Religions > Atheism > Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning? * 50519 responses
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
27 Jun 2006 09:10:21 PM |
| Object: |
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning? * 50519 responses |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13564172/?GT1=8211
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?
* 50519 responses
Yes, burning flags disrespects the country and veterans and
should be banned. 44%
No, this is just political posturing. The Constitution and the
First Amendment should not be modified for personal political gain.
56%
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning? * 50519 responses |
27 Jun 2006 11:49:27 PM |
|
|
In article <h6p3a2hrc5ckpcmh5h6d0kcmqoo3a4kqjk@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13564172/?GT1=8211
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?
* 50519 responses
Yes, burning flags disrespects the country and veterans and
should be banned. 44%
No, this is just political posturing. The Constitution and the
First Amendment should not be modified for personal political gain.
56%
No. And I'm glad it didn't pass the Senate, even if only by one vote.
The whole exercise was nothing more than a ploy to energize the base for
the Fall elections. Ditto for the anti-gay marriage amendment last week.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning? * 50519 responses |
03 Jul 2006 10:38:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:49:27 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <h6p3a2hrc5ckpcmh5h6d0kcmqoo3a4kqjk@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13564172/?GT1=8211
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?
* 50519 responses
Yes, burning flags disrespects the country and veterans and
should be banned. 44%
No, this is just political posturing. The Constitution and the
First Amendment should not be modified for personal political gain.
56%
No. And I'm glad it didn't pass the Senate, even if only by one vote.
The whole exercise was nothing more than a ploy to energize the base for
the Fall elections. Ditto for the anti-gay marriage amendment last week.
I know. It's quite pathetic.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hotel Charlie One" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning? * 50519 responses |
28 Jun 2006 07:43:27 AM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:h6p3a2hrc5ckpcmh5h6d0kcmqoo3a4kqjk@4ax.com:
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?
And from yesterday's Lew Rockwell
Murray Rothbard from 1995
The Flag Flap
by Murray N. Rothbard
There are many curious aspects to the latest flag fracas. There is the
absurdity of the proposed change in our basic constitutional framework
by treating such minor specifics as a flag law. There is the proposal
to outlaw "desecration" of the American flag. "Desecration" means "to
divest of a sacred character or office." Is the American flag, battle
emblem of the U.S. government, supposed to be "sacred"? Are we to make
a religion of statolatry? What sort of grotesque religion is that?
And what is "desecrate" supposed to mean? What specific acts are to be
outlawed? Burning seems to be the big problem, although the quantity of
flag-burning in the United States seems to be somewhere close to zero.
In fact, most flag burning occurs when patriotic groups such as the
American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars solemnly burn their
worn-out American flags in the prescribed manner.
But if burning the flag is to be banned, are we to clap numerous
American Legion or VFW people in the hoosegow? Oh, you say that intent
is the crucial point, and that you want to outlaw hippie types who burn
U.S. flags with a sneer and a curse. But how are the police supposed to
figure out intent, and make sure that the majesty of the law falls only
upon hippie-sneerers, and spares reverent, saluting Legionnaires?
But if the supporters of the proposed flag amendment are mired in
absurdity, the arguments of the opponents are in almost as bad a shape.
Civil libertarians have long placed their greatest stress on a sharp
difference between "speech" and "action," and the claim that the First
Amendment covers only speech and not actions (except, of course, for
the definite action of printing and distribution of a pamphlet or book,
which would come under the free press clause of the First Amendment).
But, as the flag amendment advocates point out, what kind of "speech"
is burning a flag? Isn't that most emphatically an action – and one
that cannot come under the free press rubric? The fallback position of
the civil libertarians, as per the majority decisions in the flag cases
by Mr. Justice Brennan, is that flag burning is "symbolic" speech, and
therefore, although an action, comes under the free speech protection.
But "symbolic speech" is just about as inane as the "desecration"
doctrine of the flag-law advocates. The speech/action distinction now
disappears altogether, and every action can be excused and protected on
the ground that it constitutes "symbolic speech."
Suppose, for example, that I were a white racist, and decided to get me
a gun and shoot a few blacks. But then I could say, that's OK because
that's only "symbolic speech," and political symbolic speech at that,
because I'm trying to make a political argument against our current
pro-black legislation.
Anyone who considers such an argument far-fetched should ponder a
recent decision by a dotty leftist New York judge to the effect that it
is "unconstitutional" for the New York subway authorities to toss
beggars out of the subway stations. The jurist's argument held that
begging is "symbolic speech," and expressive argument for more help to
the poor. Fortunately, this argument was overturned on appeal, but
still "symbolic arguers" are everywhere in New York, clogging streets,
airports, and bus terminals.
There is no way, then, that flag laws can be declared unconstitutional
as violations of the First Amendment. The problem with flag laws has
nothing to do with free speech, and civil libertarians have gotten
caught in their own trap because they do in fact try to separate speech
and action, a separation that is artificial and cannot long be
maintained.
As in the case of all dilemmas caused by the free speech doctrine, the
entire problem can be resolved by focusing, not on a high-sounding but
untenable right to freedom of speech, but on the natural and integral
right to private property and its freedom of use. As even famed First
Amendment absolutist Justice Hugo Black pointed out, no one has the
free-speech right to burst into your home and harangue you about
politics.
"The right to freedom of speech" really means the right to hire a hall
and expound your views; the "right to freedom of press" (where, as we
have seen, speech and action clearly cannot be separated) means the
right to print a pamphlet and sell it. In short, free speech or free
press rights are a subset, albeit an important one, of the rights of
private property: the right to hire, to own, to sell.
Keeping our eye on property rights, the entire flag question is
resolved easily and instantly. Everyone has the right to buy or weave
and therefore own a piece of cloth in the shape and design of an
American flag (or in any other design) and to do with it what he will:
fly it, burn it, defile it, bury it, put it in the closet, wear it,
etc. Flag laws are unjustifiable laws in violation of the rights of
private property. (Constitutionally, there are many clauses in the
Constitution from which private property rights can be derived.)
On the other hand, no one has the right to come up and burn your flag,
or someone else's. That should be illegal, not because a flag is being
burned, but because the arsonist is burning your property without your
permission. He is violating your property rights.
Note the way in which the focus on property rights solves all recondite
issues. Perhaps conservatives, who proclaim themselves defenders of
property rights, will be moved to reconsider their support of its
invasion. On the other hand, perhaps liberals, scorners of property
rights, might be moved to consider that cleaving to them may be the
only way, in the long run, to insure freedom of speech and press.
Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and
State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, The
Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also
the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.
Copyright © 1995 Ludwig von Mises Institute
All rights reserved.
--
The actions of the disgraceful Clinton and Bush administrations
make it possible for me to say without shame that I deeply regret
the day I put the uniform of my country. The freedoms that I was
willing to protect with my life are gone. The America of our founders
is dead. All we are waiting for now is rigor mortis.
HotelCharlieOne
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning? * 50519 responses |
03 Jul 2006 10:43:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:43:27 GMT, Hotel Charlie One
<hotel_charlie_one@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:h6p3a2hrc5ckpcmh5h6d0kcmqoo3a4kqjk@4ax.com:
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?
And from yesterday's Lew Rockwell
Murray Rothbard from 1995
The Flag Flap
by Murray N. Rothbard
There are many curious aspects to the latest flag fracas. There is the
absurdity of the proposed change in our basic constitutional framework
by treating such minor specifics as a flag law. There is the proposal
to outlaw "desecration" of the American flag. "Desecration" means "to
divest of a sacred character or office." Is the American flag, battle
emblem of the U.S. government, supposed to be "sacred"? Are we to make
a religion of statolatry? What sort of grotesque religion is that?
[]
Copyright © 1995 Ludwig von Mises Institute
All rights reserved.
Interesting article.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flagburning? * 50519 responses |
27 Jun 2006 10:14:34 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13564172/?GT1=8211
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?
* 50519 responses
Yes, burning flags disrespects the country and veterans and
should be banned. 44%
No, this is just political posturing. The Constitution and the
First Amendment should not be modified for personal political gain.
56%
NO! As a person that swore an oath to up hold the Constitution of the
United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic, this amendment
is a domestic enemies amendment.
The First Amendment of the Constitution protects our right to free
speech. And even if I disagree with how a person expresses that speech,
I am duty bound to uphold their right to express that speech, even to my
death.
No matter if they walk on the flag, ***** on the flag, ***** on the flag
or drape it in a toilet, they have the right to express their views, and
no government amendment or law can take that away.
Those that would pass this domestic treason are nothing more then
domestic enemies of the United States. All service men, women and
veterans should fight against them, as you swore you would do.
I never recanted my oath of service. Did you?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 a=45, m=23, f=20
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning? * 50519 responses |
03 Jul 2006 10:37:52 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:14:34 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13564172/?GT1=8211
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?
* 50519 responses
Yes, burning flags disrespects the country and veterans and
should be banned. 44%
No, this is just political posturing. The Constitution and the
First Amendment should not be modified for personal political gain.
56%
NO! As a person that swore an oath to up hold the Constitution of the
United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic, this amendment
is a domestic enemies amendment.
Correct. Sad when your own gov't qualifies as a domestic enemy.
The First Amendment of the Constitution protects our right to free
speech. And even if I disagree with how a person expresses that speech,
I am duty bound to uphold their right to express that speech, even to my
death.
No matter if they walk on the flag, ***** on the flag, ***** on the flag
or drape it in a toilet, they have the right to express their views, and
no government amendment or law can take that away.
Exactly.
Those that would pass this domestic treason are nothing more then
domestic enemies of the United States. All service men, women and
veterans should fight against them, as you swore you would do.
I never recanted my oath of service. Did you?
I was never relieved of my oath of service.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning? * 50519 responses |
28 Jun 2006 10:59:10 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13564172/?GT1=8211
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?
* 50519 responses
Yes, burning flags disrespects the country and veterans and
should be banned. 44%
No, this is just political posturing. The Constitution and the
First Amendment should not be modified for personal political gain.
56%
To pass a law or amendment to ban flag burning would destroy everything
that the flag represents. The flag is a symbol. Symbols are nothing,
they are unimportant. What is important is what the symbols represent.
And the fact is that a symbol can mean different things to different
people at different times. Ordinarily, when a person looks at the US
flag, they think of freedom and democracy. Anyone who believes that it
means the same thing to someone who is burning it is a fool. When a
person burns a US flag, for that person at that moment, the flag is
most likely representing oppression and corruption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning? * 50519 responses |
28 Jun 2006 11:59:37 AM |
|
|
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1151510350.553269.225310@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13564172/?GT1=8211
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?
* 50519 responses
Yes, burning flags disrespects the country and veterans and
should be banned. 44%
No, this is just political posturing. The Constitution and the
First Amendment should not be modified for personal political gain.
56%
To pass a law or amendment to ban flag burning would destroy everything
that the flag represents. The flag is a symbol. Symbols are nothing,
they are unimportant. What is important is what the symbols represent.
And the fact is that a symbol can mean different things to different
people at different times. Ordinarily, when a person looks at the US
flag, they think of freedom and democracy. Anyone who believes that it
means the same thing to someone who is burning it is a fool. When a
person burns a US flag, for that person at that moment, the flag is
most likely representing oppression and corruption.
I quite agree. The notion of burning the flag, while not a pleasant one
for me, is nonetheless part of the price of freedom. Freedom isn't free
but by that I mean that with freedom come responsibilities. Being
responsible means in this case to recognize that the flag is an icon and
nothing more.
I once worked for a college and I quickly realized that one could burn all
the building to the ground, destroy alll records, and in short remove the
campus frm existence. The school would continue on because it is an ideal.
Same with the US.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning? * 50519 responses |
03 Jul 2006 11:04:57 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jun 2006 08:59:10 -0700, "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13564172/?GT1=8211
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?
* 50519 responses
Yes, burning flags disrespects the country and veterans and
should be banned. 44%
No, this is just political posturing. The Constitution and the
First Amendment should not be modified for personal political gain.
56%
To pass a law or amendment to ban flag burning would destroy everything
that the flag represents.
Yes.
The flag is a symbol. Symbols are nothing,
they are unimportant. What is important is what the symbols represent.
Indeed.
And the fact is that a symbol can mean different things to different
people at different times. Ordinarily, when a person looks at the US
flag, they think of freedom and democracy.
That's the advertised version, yes.
I haven't thought that for years-even more so since the Bush 2 coup.
/musing
I wonder how the slaves viewed it?
Or the freed slaves under US apartheid?
Before the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Before 1967's Loving vs. the state of Virginia?
Or the homosexuals and lesbians who are in a combination time frame of
effective apartheid and prior to 1967?
Anyone who believes that it
means the same thing to someone who is burning it is a fool. When a
person burns a US flag, for that person at that moment, the flag is
most likely representing oppression and corruption.
Especially now that Shrub's brought 'morality' into the ***** house.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
