The Irony of Flag Burning

[liberal_patriot_md]

One of the most interesting things about the rhetoric around the US Flag Antidesecration Act, or whatever they want to call the proposed amendment to keep people from burning the flag, is that flag burning is an essential part of properly handling as US Flag. The proper method of disposal for a US flag when it is no longer serviceable is burning. It is said that there should be some form of ceremony attached to the respectful burning, but there is not a specific order of events for this event. The guidelines suggest that there should be the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and perhaps a small speech about what the flag represents. Then the flag is burned. Additional flags can be burned after that without the ceremony.

So this might be a crazy idea -- but has anyone thought about staging public flag burnings in protest of the proposed amendment and any other idiotic talk infringing on our basic freedoms of expression? Maybe we can also put on display all the many common ways that people desecrate the flag on a regular basis? For example: clothes, napkins, paper plates with flags on them are all in violation of proper flag handling.

Basically, I just want to point out the absurdity of singling flag burning for an amendment. So who's with me?

[smokey nj]

1. I remember seeing a picture of Chimpy autographing a flag......

that could be exhibit A.

[DanCa]

2. Can we burn the chimps picture instead?

Flag pretty fire bad.

[smokey nj]

6. Of course........

Do you think, if I dried it, I could burn the one that lines the litter box?

[DanCa]

13. sure let me take the one from my dart board down

Nah I liked where my last dart landed. Right in his temple. Kinda fitting since he's the pastor in chief.

[madeline_con]

3. "... there is not a specific order of events for this event ..."

Au, contraire. There are specific guidelines...

Flag Disposal Information and Flag Disposal Service

http://www.flagkeepers.org/FlagDisposal.asp



Flag Retirement Ceremony

http://www.flagkeepers.org/flagburningceremony.asp

[liberal_patriot_md]

21. Those are guidelines only, not official regulation

Section 8 of the United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1

§8. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

d. The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
g. The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
i. The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
j. No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
k. The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

I've included the parts I feel are pertinant to this discussion. All it asks for is that the flag is disposed in a dignified manner -- and I think a gathering where people speak about the importance of freedom of expression would be completely in compliance.

[cynatnite]

4. I find it ironic the government thinks it has a right...

to tell me what I can do with my personal property.

I should be able to burn my flag, sit on my flag, piss on my flag, fly my flag or whatever way I choose to express myself.

[MrBenchley]

5. Funny I thought the irony of flag burning

is that those who want to burn a flag and reject everything about America including its constitution then want to hypocritically claim protection under the thing they've expressed hatred for.

Flag burning is a hate crime no less than cross burning...the only diffrence is that flag burners hate everyone in America, not just a handful.

[theanarch]

9. no, for better or worse...

...flag burning is protected free speech; of course, there are any number of local/municipal ordinances that can be invoked to prosecute that have nothing to do with supression of speech (e.g. misdomeanors involving reckless behavior, creating a public hazard, etc). As a first amendment absolutist, i'd say the same applies to cross-burning, which IS intended to be a hate crime. If any flag-fetish law is to be passed, i'd suggest adopting the one Japan has: a Japanese citizen can burn as many Japanese flags as they wish; it's burning someone else's flag that's a crime. On the other hand, who is to say it's wrong to burn a US flag made-in-China (most of them are, y'know) as a protest of US trade policies, or to protest Chinese slave labor laws?

[MrBenchley]

11. It's a hate crime pure and simple, like cross burning

And again, it's hypocritical for the person who rejects America to then claim that he deserves special protection under America's rules. Fuck that noise, as we used to say in Brooklyn.

[uppityperson]

14. I see it as rejecting the administration's policies

whichever administration it is at the time. AND I find it much more offensive to wear a flaggie speedo, keep your genitals out of my flag.

[MrBenchley]

15. Yeah, but you'd be utterly mistaken...

The flag doesn't belong to any particular administration.

But hey, the far left is doing everything it can to torpedo the Democratic party....no surprise we've got yet another thread whooping for flag-burning.

[uppityperson]

16. I knkow it doesn't belong to any administration.

It can be used as a symbol, rejecting the stance of an administration. Are you seriously saying we are torpedoing the Democratic party by saying it is ok to burn a flag as a protest and don't like seeing genitals wrapped in it?

[MrBenchley]

17. But you want to burn it anyway...hokay.

"Are you seriously saying we are torpedoing the Democratic party by saying it is ok to burn a flag as a protest"
Yeah, I am. Do you really think voters around the country are sitting around hoping some self-styled "progressive" would light up a flag?

This isn't the first thread from the far left trying to whip up some flag-burning here...and I doubt it will be the last.

[uppityperson]

18. I am telling why I think people do it, not whipping it up.

Sorry if you see it this way, don't understand how you get my comments explaining why I think people do it to trying to whip up flag burning.

What do you think about wearing the flag? Is this desecration as bad as burning it?

[MrBenchley]

19. Guess you didn't read the OP...

or see the one whooping it up for "mass flag burnings" below.

[uppityperson]

20. Yes, taking your comments personally.

so, what about wearing the flag?

[liberal_patriot_md]

22. Someone has missed my point

While I mean it as prostest, I am not advocating the burning of flags in some kind of wild, disrespectful, mob-like fashion. What I am speaking on is that it is ironic that burning a flag (which some get so worked up about) is not necessarily desecrating it. In fact, it is how a flag is shown the highest honor when it is no longer serviceable.

The gathering I suggested would be a dignified ceremony where the virtues of this country are extolled to include freedom of expression. In some circles this mere act is considered a protest. The only difference would be that it would rather non-traditional and public. It would not be disrespectful and completely in keeping with the codified regulations.

I am just thinking that staging such an event would raise the hackles of some on the right (which is never a bad thing) though the entire process is in adherence with the published guidelines. It would shine light on the irony of banning flag-burning (even if it is limited to protests, which can still be dignified) when the US Code expressly stipulates that flags should be burned under certain circumstances. This would also highlight the absurdity of arguing about flag-burning when there are literally cities burning around the world in actions for which we are either directly or indirectly responsible.

This is what I meant, not a condoning of willy-nilly flag burning. One more thing, if you can't tell but my avatar is the US Army logo. I fought for this flag and I take it seriously. But in the end it's just a symbol and not what really makes this country great.

I apologize if I was unclear in my first post. I was at work and had to type in a hurry.

[MrBenchley]

33. Your point was "who's with me?"

And flag-burning would alienate pretty much everybody but the hardcore loonies of the left....who are out of touch with America NOW.

[uppityperson]

39. MrBenchley, am I one of those hardcore loonies of the left?

out of touch with America NOW?

And what about my continuing question about desecrating the flag by using it for clothing? Is that ok with you?

[MrBenchley]

40. Hey, one of us is pimping for flag-burning

and it ain't me.

[uppityperson]

43. Is wearing flag as clothing desecration?

[MrBenchley]

45. Wot causes pip in poultry?

[uppityperson]

47. Is wearing flag as clothing desecration?

[MrBenchley]

52. Why does the porridge bird lay his egg in the air?

[uppityperson]

55. get away from me you lepruchan! Guess you don't want to answer.

3 possible answers. Why do you not want to answer me? Confuse, confound, attack. Repeat talking points You are a Hate Criminal! but never, ever answer.

1.Because if it laid them in the bowl, people would confuse them for marshmallows and eat them, greatly reducing the ability for the species to reproduce and survive.

2. A good question that has confounded scientists for decades. Fortunately you have chosen to ask a person who is quite learned in the ways of the porridge-bird. Being a porridge-birdologist I can tell you why this 'monarch of the stratosphere' chooses to spread his bounty in the air. There are many reasons but the main reason is......ummmm....what was the question again?

3. It is a common misconception that the porridge-bird (fictius custardius) lays it's eggs in the air. Certainly, each spring, great flocks of porridge-birds swarm the countryside, raining down porridge, custard and (in extreme cases) yoghurt on unsuspecting passers by. Understandably, this has given rise to the idea that porridge-birds lay their eggs in mid-flight, which then hatch and cover the surrounding area in the aforementioned mess. The fact of the matter is, however, that the porridge-bird lays its eggs in small nests, built in the very tops of elm and oak trees. There, the young porridge-birds hatch from their eggs. The parents then scour the countryside, looking for porridge- and custard trees. (yes, porrdige grows on trees. Yoghurt, however, lives underwater) Once such a tree is spotted, the porridge-bird swoops down, and attempts to catch one of the many feral custards that live on the tree. Due to the nature and consistency of porridge much of the creature will fall from the porridge-birds' clutches before the bird can reach it's nest. This is why -even though porridge-birds do not really lay eggs in the air- it is advisable to take an umbrella along when you enter porridge-bird territory.
http://singlenesia.com/stuff/fivequestions

[MrBenchley]

60. How DID you ever guess?

Wonder if somebody had to tip you off.....

[uppityperson]

73. naw. eventually I catch on, not totally loonie

stubborn perhaps, and a bit loonie, but know how to google.

[uppityperson]

38. I get your point, trying to block free speech, protest it

Do it with dignity to show that a anti-flag desecration law is wrong.

[MrBenchley]

41. I get your point...you want to instigate a hate crime

and mask it behind bullshit "principle"...

[uppityperson]

44. Burning a flag with dignity to protest Constitutionl repression=hatecrime?

what about wearing speedo flags?

[MrBenchley]

46. Burning an American flag is a hate crime

no matter what pompous rationale you want to pretend exists.

[uppityperson]

48. !

http://www.esquilax.com/flag/

No, you can't throw those little flags away. The only "respectable" way to dispose of a worn or soiled flag is to give it a ceremonial and dignified retirement, preferably by burning it. Ironically, the American Legion and Boy Scouts burn thousands of flags every year in respectful retirement ceremonies. The only difference between their actions, and the actions of a long-haired hippie protestor are the thoughts in the minds of the two. Do you want to live in a country that arrests people for "anti-American thoughts?" I sure don't.

What about them speedos?

[Warren DeMontague]

28. No, the thread is recognizing that protecting speech-even unpopular speech

is the essence of what the flag represents. Destroying those freedoms, and taking a shit on the US Constitution in the process, to obstensibly "protect" the symbol which represents those freedoms is like walking into a restaurant and eating the menu instead of the meal.

Fortunately, enough of our Senators grasp that simple concept. Duh.

[MrBenchley]

35. Since the flag burner is rejecting those protections

along with everything else about America, it's hypocrtical in the extreme to claim it's a protected act. And it's the person who is burning the flag who's taking that shit no the Constitution.

But it's no more free speech than burning a cross is.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Nazis don't believe in America, either. But they're still entitled to free

speech. Shit, I came from a Jewish Family in the Chicago area, and I remember when the Nazis marched in Skokie. Assholes, pure and simple- but nevertheless, they were within their rights.

Didn't you ever take a civics class?

[MrBenchley]

61. But they're not entitled to hate crimes...

And they didn't set fire to any flags. It speaks volumes that the far left wants to commit offensive and heinous actions even Nazis shrink from--and to get a free pass for it out of the goodness of the rest of us. Fuck THAtT noise, as we used to say in Brooklyn.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Again, what are you talking about?

The supreme court disagrees with you- and there ARE NO purely speech based "hate crime" laws in the United States.

You really think burning an American flag is more "offensive and heinous" than marching with a bunch of swastikas through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors? And who the hell is burning all these American Flags, anyway? Even the Amendment's supporters admit that it's "not a real problem".

What people here -like the Supreme Court, and Like Sen. Inouye- are doing is standing up for the principle of free speech. Get it?

[MrBenchley]

65. Yeah, that's our far left...

Proud to be in bed with the American Nazi party....

"You really think burning an American flag is more "offensive and heinous" than marching with a bunch of swastikas through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors?"
Yeah, I do. And I wonder why somebody would be sitting around pimping for an action that's even in a class with that--unless they have no sense of human decency.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Yup. I'm from a Jewish family. I just love Nazis.

Actually, what I love is the principle of free speech. Something anathema to Nazis, control freaks, and fascists everywhere.

I think the answer to unpopular, unpleasant speech is MORE free speech. Let the Nazis march, so everyone can see what assholes they are.

I wonder why anyone would sit around "pimping" for taking a shit on the First Amendment- and then couching it in weak, self-righteous rhetoric.

[MrBenchley]

69. Actually, I wonder how desperately out of touch with reality

someone has to be to pretend that setting fire to anything is "speech"....by that measure, every arsonist is a novelist.

"I wonder why anyone would sit around "pimping" for taking a shit on the First Amendment"
So do I--and it's hard to see how setting a flag on fire is doing anything but shitting on the whole Constitution...and everything else American.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. There's no right to burn other people's flags.

And actually, I suspect that if people were burning flags in an area which had laws against open bonfires, they could be prosecuted for that.

But it's not the burning of the flag which folks are trying to legislate against- as has been pointed out time and again, that's the recommended method of respectful disposal for flags- it's the implied content of the speech communicated by burning one in protest. That's what pisses people off, that's what is considered offensive. That's what you think is worse than marching through Skokie with swastikas- Unless I am to assume that you would find the burning of any piece of cloth, under any circumstances, equally offensive. It's the symbolic message of burning the flag that is the problem. You know that, I know that. And if you're legislating against a message, then you're legislating against speech.

Capice?

[MrBenchley]

78. It's a hate crime pure and simple....

And setting fire to something is speech the way a punch in the nose is a song....

[Hippo_Tron]

51. The Supreme Court says otherwise

They have ruled in two seperate occasions, Texas v Johnson and U.S. v Eichman, that Flag Burning is protected speech. Also in Virginia v Black, the Supreme Court ruled that cross burning is protected speech in certain instances but not when it is used for intimidation.

But I agree with you that flag burning is childish and hypocritical.

[Bucky]

84. (Point #1) it's not "special" protection; it applies to all speech. (#2)

The freedoms that the flag represents apply everyone, even the hypocrits who denounce the very freedoms they enjoy. Sure, they're hypocrits--assuming that that's what they mean by burning the flag. But what if they mean something else by burning the flag. Some people could burn a flag and mean it to say "I think this country isn't living up to it's own values. Therefor the government itself has killed the freedoms it's founded on." I agree it's a stupid way to make that point, but again, do you want the government regulating the way that you make your points?

I'm proud to say that liberty is strong enough to listen to the dickweeds who hate liberty. If you try to silence people because you don't like their ideas, or start circling off ways to keep them from making their points in the way that they choose, then you start validating the views of those who say America isn't fully America anymore. There can and should never be any clause in the Constitution that says if you think the wrong way, or represent your case the wrong way, then you lose your rights as a citizen.

Burning the flag is dumb. Banning flag burning is dumber.

[madeline_con]

10. "... flag burners hate everyone in America ..."

I have to disagree. I have my own opinion about flag burning.

I find it unpatriotic and misplaced. I think those who burn it see it as a protest against a particular action or event the government had a hand in. I do not think it's a form of free speech, but disrespect for our country.


What we need are separate flags that represent different administrations (like the falg of the House of Windsor, for example) that we can burn to protest those we disagree with.

[MrBenchley]

12. The flag belongs to everyone in America

I don't see any reason to treat it any other way than as a hate crime. And burning a cross is not "protected free speech."

[Warren DeMontague]

27. It depends on whose cross you burn, and where you burn it.

It's against the law to threaten people. It's against the law to destroy other people's property.

There is no such thing as a purely speech based "hate crime" in this country, Benchley. You ought to know that.

[MrBenchley]

36. The KKK tried that horseshit argument too...

It didn't fly for them, and it doesn't fly for the far left and THEIR proposed hate crime.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Really? That's funny. Tell it to Sen. Inoyue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003090346_flag28.html

The amendment's opponents agreed that flag burning is repugnant but argued that U.S. soldiers died to preserve freedoms that include controversial political statements.

Flag burning "is obscene, painful and unpatriotic," Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, who lost an arm fighting in World War II, said in a floor speech Tuesday. "But I believe Americans gave their lives in the many wars to make certain that all Americans have a right to express themselves, even those who harbor hateful thoughts."

Now. Benchley, rather than swearing at me, why don't you find me an example of the KKK being prosecuted for a "hate crime" of burning a cross that didn't involve burning it on someone else's property or otherwise making threats at people.

I'll wait.

[MrBenchley]

63. Looks like I didn't need to tell him anything...

"why don't you find me an example of the KKK being prosecuted for a "hate crime" of burning a cross"
Yeah, this sums up our far left...they're actually climbing in bed with the KKK and hoping they can hide under the sheet.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Yeah. Just like saying the Nazis had a right to march means I'm a Nazi.

Wow. You REALLY don't get it, do you?

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Actually, the Nazis are the people who don't believe in free speech.

Decent people grasp that the First Amendment was put first for a reason.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. I'll err on the side of protecting unpopular speech

I think that's the best way to avoid fascism.

Fortunately the SCOTUS agrees with me.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[progdonkey]

26. "no less than cross burning"? Huh?!

You do know that cross burning was and is used as an instrument of terror, not as a means of desecrating the cross, right?

Burning the Flag as a form of desecration (as opposed to simply carrying out its proper disposal, hence the irony the OP was referring to, which seems to have gone over your head) is similar in no way whatsoever to cross burning.

Burning the Flag as a form of protest is not hypocritical, but just stupid: the beauty of the Flag and what it stands for is that the worse you treat it in trying to desecrate, the stronger its symbolism is.

When someone desecrates the Flag, he is desecrating the thing which symbolizes his right to do that in the first place: it's not hypocrisy, but pointless stupidity. The hypocrisy comes from the idiots on the Right who get all up in arms that someone would express his hatred of the US government by burning a piece of cloth with a meaningful, though still symbolic pattern on it (and again, not noting the irony that burning the Flag is the lawful way to dispose of a soiled one, which I'll repeat for you, was the the OP's point), yet they don't have a problem with people wearing boxers with that same pattern and soiling that piece of cloth with their ball sweat and skid marks.

[MrBenchley]

42. They're exactly the same act...

They represent an attempt by a tiny demented fringe group to make noise and call attention to their rancid creed.

[progdonkey]

75. Cross Burning is an act of terror...

Cross Burning is just the Klan's way to "make noise" and get "attention"? What a way to fucking belittle the terror that the sight of a burning cross instilled in blacks (and those whites who aided blacks, or were suspected of doing so, who've been targeted by the Klan and/or other racist organizations).

Burning the Flag is just a visual statement of "Fuck the USA." There's is no terror element to it--yes, terrorists may burn a US flag, but the burning itself is not supposed to intimidate, only to visually express their hatred.

No racist groups ever left a burning US Flag on the lawns of "niggers" and "nigger lovers" as a threat of "leave now or die," or used burning US Flags in their ceremonies before they went out to find a black man to lynch.

I honestly can't see how someone could ever think cross burning and flag burning are even in the same solar system. One's an instrument of terror, the other's a way to visually express one's anger--stupidly and pointlessly,yes, but merely an expression nonetheless.

If someone left a burning cross on my lawn, I'd be fucking scared shitless. If someone left a burning flag on my lawn, I'd grab the hose to put it out thinking, "Well, that was stupid."

[NYC Liberal]

49. Oh really?

Who says that people who burn a flag in protest "reject everything about America including its constitution"? Broad brush much? Instead, there are many people who burn the flag as a protest to the actions of the government. It's a powerful message, that is why it's done.


If you don't like FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, than I'd suggest maybe it's not the *protestors* who "reject everything about America including its constitution"...

[MrBenchley]

53. Really....

"Who says that people who burn a flag in protest "reject everything about America including its constitution"? "
What else does it mean? The flag doesn't represent one political party, or a particular issue, or any such rubbish. It represents everything about America.

"there are many people who burn the flag as a protest to the actions of the government"
Really? Where?

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Right. Particularly the concept of free speech. Even unpopular speech.

You don't destroy the reality to protect the symbol which represents it.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

80. I agree that flag burning is a sick, twisted bid for attention.

But the problem with banning it is that a ban actually gives flag-burners MORE attention.

They get to be taken to jail on television and all that. They get to pretend they're political prisoners.

Why pass a law that will only encourage those idiots?

[cboy4]

7. I would be in favor of mass flag burnings if the amendment were to

pass, absolutely.

I think acting beforehand could be a tactical mistake, helping to sway very conservative senators like Elizabeth Dole and Mitch McConnell who voted no to change their minds to "yes."

[TahitiNut]

8. The reason it's been originally done in protest is that it's symbolic of

... disposing of a flag that's been 'soiled' by the acts of our government. As a form of protest, it ritually consecrates the flag and points a finger at politicians who've descrated it.

Thus, it's clear to me that the attempt by our "bought and paid for" government to ban this form of protest is because it's them to whom the finger of protest is pointing. What more specific form of protest would government politicians attempt to stifle than that protest aimed at them??

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. Personally, I think we have more to worry about in this Country than

flag burning. For instance, the Congress critters have voted themselves a raise every year for the past 8 years while refusing to raise the minimum wage. So those Congress creeps who have benefits and pensions paid for by the working poor in this Country can go cheney themselves on their precious flag burning amendment! A$$holes!

[OneBlueSky]

24. which makes "flag burning" essentially a thought crime . . .

American Legion commander burns an old, damaged flag with "respect in his heart" and good thoughts in his mind . . . no crime . . .

anti-war demonstrator burns very same old, damaged flag with "not so good thoughts in his mind" (as determined by whomever) . . . crime . . .

it all depends on what the burner is thinking when committing the act . . .

[liberal_patriot_md]

25. Bingo -- That was my point

And a dignified flag burning can be a protest as much as an undignified one can be.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I think anyone who burns an American flag is an asshole.

But I think anyone who desecrates the US Constitution's bedrock, sacrosanct principles- like the freedom of unpopular speech by even, yes, assholes-- is a far bigger asshole.

But I don't think actually burning flags is a particularly good way to make that point. I think it just plays into the hands of the yahoos.

[liberal_patriot_md]

30. always an asshole?

Even when the said flag burning is done to properly dispose of an unserviceable flag in accordance with the US code?

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Look, I'm capable of distinguishing meaning from symbolic speech

calling someone an asshole is symbolic speech, as well.

My point is, it's ludicrous to deface the US Constitution- and the principles it embodies- to obstensibly protect the symbol which is supposed to represent those freedoms. Freedom of speech is only as good as the right of the most noxious, offensive voice to be heard. I'm pretty solid on the first amendment.

But the symbolic speech embodied in symbolically burning an american flag? Yeah, I think that's the kind of thing an asshole would say. Doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it. All I have to do is turn on the AM radio and I can hear speech by assholes.

[Hekate]

32. It's the proper disposal for tattered, faded, out-dated, and soiled...

...flags. After Hawaii and Alaska became states, my Girl Scout summer camp ceremoniously burned the old flag that had too-few stars.

A lot of flags get put up and then forgotten, and become rags after a year or two. After 9-11 an awful lot of people got car-flags and then drove around with them until they were in shreds.

I'm sure when they were finally removed, they went in the trash. For people who actually understand flag protocol, this is extremely disrepectful.

All of those flags are supposed to be gathered up and respectfully burned, not thrown away. :patriot:

Which brings us back to the stupid proposed Amendment. The average person in this country really seems to know diddly-squat about flag protocol in the first place, so it is easy for opportunistic, jingoistic politicians to blather on about desecration of the flag...

Hekate

[Bucky]

81. What should one do w/a tattered, faded, out-dated and soiled Constitution?

Oops, please note the following correction.
The proper question should read "What should one do w/a tattered, faded, out-dated and soiled administration??

[treestar]

34. All such a stupid waste of time

This is a free country, for God's sake. What a clear violation of the First Amendment.

They really have nothing better to do? I guess the terrorists are all dead now and we have no problems with the environment or economy or anything else, for them to have time for this ridiculous bill.

[misternormal]

37. Flag burning...

... I don't think the issue is the actual burning of the flag perse... It is more the circumstances under which it is burned...

The proper disposal of the flag will not change even if this absurd amendment is passed.

As far as the flags on napkins and the like... These are "depictions" of the flag, not the flag itself...

This whole argument is in my opinion a waste of time...

The flag is a piece of cloth... nothing more.

[rasputin1952]

50. Title 36; Chapter 10 The Flag Code, is a wealth of information about

the Flag and many of our other aspects of some of our Icons.

While some might find the "reverence" given to the Flag and many other aspects to be arcane, I find them as something to be looked up to. The dreams and aspirations of countless Americans are a part of these items, and for the GOP or the neo-cons to abuse the very items they say they are so partial to disgusts me to no end.

http://www.hospitality-1st.com/PressNews/FlagCode.html

I see more "R"'s mess up on these rules than any other group of people in this nation.

One more thing, if someone wants to be sure that their message will not be heard, and they wish to be met with scorn and indignation; burning the Flag is a darn good way to make sure that happens. This is why there have been only a handful of "Flag Burnings" over the past dozen or so years.

[B Calm]

54. Don't go burning flags &give them a reason to continue this wedge issue.

[KyuzoGator]

74. This thread has taught me the definition of "hate crime":

Anything that makes Mr. Benchley upset.

[uppityperson]

76. !

:toast: and not answer beyond that. Thank you so much. :rofl:

[Ariana Celeste]

82. ...

:spray:

[walldude]

83. Mr Benchley... that explains why I'm seeing half a conversation

and the rest is IGNORED!

As far as "flag burning" a total of exactly 4 flags were burned last year. Up 33% from the year before (a total of 3) why the fuck is this even an issue. The world is crumbling and burning around us and our elected officials are debating flag burning and gay marrige. Pathetic.

[Ken Burch]

79. What I've never understood is this....

why don't they just pass a law requiring flags to be made of flameproof material(as in the Doonesbury cartoon)?