Flag Desecration

[Harry12345]

I know there's a lot of people over in America who think that flag desecration should be illegal. Since the First Amendment protects free speech in the USA, this would require a constitutional amendment. What do you guys think about this? Do you think the right to free speech includes burning or defacing 'Old Glory' in protest?

[rodyshusband]

Hi, Harry!

[Jac3510]

I never really understood how "speech" got extended to physical actions. I do think flag burning should be illegal. It's one thing to criticize your government. It's quite another to criticize the essence of your country. The pledge of allegience is not a pledge of allegience to the president, but to the nation as a whole. To burn the flag is not to protest the government and ask for its downfall, but it is, symbolically, to ask for the downfall of the nation herself.

Now, I'm sorry, but when you have men and women dying for your freedoms in protecting this country, while you have the right to criticize the government, it is morally abominable and should be illegal to protest the very thing those people were defending. Our soldiers aren't defending any given administration. They are defending the USA. The flag is not a symbol of the administration; it is a symbol of the USA.

[cslewislover]

That's interesting, Jac. I was wondering when someone would post like you, because it's been a while since I've read or heard anybody discuss it. I wondered what their rationale was. I've never interviewed anyone that burned the flag here in the US - well anywhere, for that matter - so I wouldn't know if they did it out of anger at the administration, or if they wanted the US toppled, or if they simply didn't like the design (lol).

To me, seeing people in other countries burn our flag means that they want our country to go away, basically. Any laws we have here wouldn't affect them, so it doesn't matter. If a college student, say, burned our flag here in the US, I wouldn't take it that they really wanted our country to fall or be overthrown. I find that really really hard to swallow. Even if they said that, I'd find it hard to believe that they meant it deep down.

I just can't get past the idea that the flag is simply a symbol of our country, and outdated, at that. To me it has nothing to do with the people that defend my country, it's just a piece of fabric designed in a certain way so that in war, if it's painted on a ship or something, you know who's side the ship is on. I believe that's how banners and flags began; a way to show which side one is on. I don't at all equate it with courage or any other acts that military people do--who are wonderful, by the way. It's just a piece of fabric to me that when waving, shows that I'm still in the USA. And I'm totally glad to be here. But if the government or people decided to change the symbol, to change the design, tomorrow, I would really care less.

*vicki runs to find some kind-of huge, tomato-proof shield*

[Jac3510]

*Grabs GIANT TOMATO . . . too heavy . . . . . . .*



A few things. 1) The flag isn't outdated. It's a symbol, and symbol's don't get outdated unless what they represent gets outdated. The question is, what does the flag symbolize? You correctly noted that it symbolizes the nation as a whole, not just the government.

2) Americans who burn the flag don't typically think of (1). They think of it as a protest against the gov't.

3) The free-speech laws protect dissent from the government, not from the nation. Thus, it should not be applied to flag-burning. In short, we should be able to outlaw it without a constitutional amendment.

4) Finally, people of other nations who burn our flad do think about (1), thus they know what they are saying.

All of this adds to why I think it should be illegal and is morally abominable. Frankly, if I had things my way, then every person caught burning a flag once should be fined heavily and forced to publically declare their allegience to the nation (not the government) so that they see the difference; on a second offense, they should be immediately exiled. If you want the nation to fall, you don't need to be here. For the millions, if not billions, of people who love the idea of America, I welcome them with open arms, even if they have a governmental philosophy I disagree with. But when they come, I thoroughly expect a PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

[cslewislover]

Phew . . . I'm glad it was too heavy.

What I meant by the flag being outdated is that flags in general are an old idea, and they aren't totally necessary for their original function. But I don't mean that in a big way at all. Symbols are cool. We need something to fly on all those flagpoles. Lol. I'm just having a bit of fun. Flags are good, it's just that we don't seem to need them to identify which side of a battle we're in anymore (maybe I'm wrong about that).

And I look at the flags of various countries, and it's boring. Most are ugly. My eyes gloss over.

[Jac3510]

You may have a point about the ugliness of a flag . . . maybe we could justify burning it if we thought it was ugly?!?

Nah, I still don't think that cuts it. I do get what you are saying, though. I also get the humor, which I appreciate. I just happen to know a lot of military men (and women), and beyond my own love-of-country, I think their sacrifice alone is plenty of reason to outlaw flag desecration.

[Cross.eyed]

... and beyond my own love-of-country, I think their sacrifice alone is plenty of reason to outlaw flag desecration.

Same here, I've never personally seen anyone burn our flag and I hope I don't-I'm not at all sure how I would react to it.

Many peoplle have died in defense of this country and that is reason enough.

[cslewislover]

... and beyond my own love-of-country, I think their sacrifice alone is plenty of reason to outlaw flag desecration.

Same here, I've never personally seen anyone burn our flag and I hope I don't-I'm not at all sure how I would react to it.

Many people have died in defense of this country and that is reason enough.

Awws, you are probably not happy with me then. I don't know, but no matter how I try, I can't equate the flag with people and what they've done (I feel they've done it for me and others, not the flag). And Jac brought up the pledge of allegiance, which I have also never understood. I mean, when I say the pledge, in my mind I am pledging my allegiance to my country, not to a flag - even though that's what the words say. It makes no sense to me at all. The flag is not a body of persons or a country, so I don't know how I could pledge my allegiance to it. I think there are a lot of people that feel as I do, and a lot of people that feel as you and Jac do. It's different ways of thinking; it's interesting. I don't know why the pledge was written that way, putting something inbetween the person and the country, actually--a middle thing. I should research that, lol.

If anyone gets really upset with me, just pm me and I'll send you my photo. Then you can tape the photo onto one of those air-filled punching bag things they sell for kids, and you can punch it and kick it or whatever.

. . . where's Bav when you need him.

[Ngakunui]

As I'm convinced some of you are unaware of, burning the "Star Spangled Banner" is actually the proper way to dispose of it if it is damaged. It's actually considered respectful by the government, believe it or not.

At any rate, I think actually burning it to desecrate it should be legal. I believe that if citizens are not allowed to protest the government for grievances, it's going to get even worse than it already is. Besides, the state doesn't need another morale boost on stepping all over the constitution.

It may seem irrelevant at first, but outlawing "flag desecration" could very well help give them confidence enough to outlaw religions- ours most definitely included. And don't say there are too many "Christians" in the government to prevent that, because they aren't acting like it if you've payed close enough attention.

I'll leave it at that. If you don't like my opinion, don't try to "debate" with me. I'm reasoning this from what I've learned, and I'm not going to bicker like a child.

[zoegirl]

Th irony is of course that people are worried about losing freedom of expression when we are losing far more freedoms slowly through more control of the government.

[Jac3510]

CSLL - no one says you are pledging allegiance to a FLAG. The flag is a symbol of something else. Take the words "United States of America". What do those words mean in and of themselves? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They're just verbal sounds. In linguistics, though, we call them a sign (more specifically, a conventional sign). The power of a word is not in its utterance, but in what it points to. All words are like this. They are signs to an actual reality--that reality is called a reference, so all signs have a reference.

Now, the flag is only a sign (a conventional sign, like words). It points to a reference, in this case, the USA. It does NOT point to the current US Administration. It points to the essence of the nation itself. For example, every four years, someone runs for president. They don't say, "I want to run that administration." They say, "I want to run this country." The flag points to the country, not the admin.

Thus, to burn the flag is not just burning an old, outdated symbol. It is to say something about the REFERENCE, and the reference is the USA as an essence. For proof, again, think about when protesters in other countries burn our flag. They aren't asking for the downfall of the current admin. They want the nation itself to fall. That's why I think it should be illegal. It's treason.


Ngakunui - I can't speak for everyone else, but I am aware of the way the flag is honorably disposed of. I happen to have family in the military. I also agree that the best way to dispose of an old flag is to burn it. But the issue is not just flag burning, but flag DESECRATION. It's one thing to burn a flag to put it to rest. It's quite another to burn it in protest. You can clearly see the difference, especially in light of my above comments to CSLL.

That brings me to my next point to you, and this is the problem I have with people who think it should be legal. You believe it is a matter of protesting the government. To quote you:

I believe that if citizens are not allowed to protest the government for grievances

But the FLAG is not a governmental issue. It's a national issue. To burn the flag is not to protest your government. It is to protest you NATION. I have a severe problem with people protesting in ignorance. If you are going to protest, which i fully support your right to do so, I insist that you know what and how you are doing so. If you don't understand the symbolism of your protesting, then your protesting says far more about your ignorance than your cause, and you should be dismissed out of hand as uninformed. We are not obligated to listen to the protests of uninformed people, because clearly, uninformed people do not have the information necessary to come to a proper conclusion.

If you, or I, want to protest government grievances, we should do it in a manner that speaks to the government, NOT in a manner that calls for the downfall of the nation itself. It does no good to say, "But this is what I really meant!" Let me give you an example. Suppose I stood out in front of DC and shouted "DEATH TO THE PRESIDENT!" And then suppose, when you asked me why I was so mad at the president, I replied "Angry? I'm not angry at all, I love the guy!" When you ask me about my words, I reply, "No, no, you misunderstood. I don't mean 'death' in that way. I meant it as a compliment, meaning, I hope he is president for the next forty years!"

Obviously, I'd be stupid to say that, because that is just not what the word 'death' means. Likewise, you can say that you are not protesting the essence of the nation itself but only the government when you burn the flag, but that is not what the action means, regardless of how you intend it.

Bottom line: when a person desecrates the flag, they are saying they hate this nation fundamentally. Such people are a threat to national security and to every citizen's ability to exercise their rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, for a person who calls for the collapse of the nation (not just the government) is one who rejects that very nation that supports those rights. Such a person, then, should be removed from this country immediately for the safety of its citizens. Flag desecration should be illegal. It is not a matter of free speech. It spits in the face of people who have fought and died for the freedoms that you are condemning.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go say my pledge of allegiance.

edit: this really goes, btw, for any country. I, as an American citizen, should not be allowed to go to, say, Britain, and burn their flag. It is one thing to go there and express my opinion as to what is wrong with their government. It is quite another to go there and declare that the nation itself is fundamentally evil and should be destroyed. So, as much as I love America, this isn't about patriotism. This is about seeing this issue from a proper frame.

[ageofknowledge]

I think flag descration should be legal. First off it allows us to see who is disloyal enough to actually do that to our flag and identify them. Secondly, I'm all for liberty and freedom even if that means allowing people to sometimes do offensive things as it's worth protecting. Thirdly, there are many flags I want the freedom to desecrate at political rallys I attend including Iran, North Korea, Chinese, La Raza United, Nation of Islam, etc...

Old Glory, I hold high and proud and never let it touch the ground like any good patriot.

[cslewislover]

Here is a very brief history on the Pledge of Allegiance. As for the wording, it says that we are pledging our allegiance to the flag AND to the country for which it stands. Lol (it's not used here as a symbol for something else, or at least it's not used very well, since symbols stand in the place of something). Maybe it means that if a flag is painted or planted somewhere else, it's as if our country is there and we are pledged to it. I don't know. It's still bizarre to me; I would never write it like this myself.

"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Section 4 of the Flag Code states:

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.""

From: http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

[zoegirl]

I wonder, CSLL, if a flag meant more to countries than they do now. COnsider that the flag was *the* sigal duriung a war as well as on ships. It identified the platoon/army and the ships. LIke the coat of arms, it probably was much more meaningful *acroos the board* to all those in a nation. Whereas today the *need* for the flag in everydaylife or during transportation (on the seas, etc) perhaps hs decrease and therefore led us to a nonchalant attidute towards the flag. Ie, the flag no longer is no longer such *strong* identifier to everybody.

FOr instance, someone from 200 years ago would probably look at burning the flag as treason because the flag, to everyoe, really was *the* symbol for that group/county. Now it is akin to "protesting". Which seems a paradoxical concept..."I love the country that lets me voice my protest but I'm going to burn the very thing that represents taht very same country that allows me to do so". TO me, the protesters who resort to flag-burning seem lazy and poor communicators, for it certainyl gets nothing across than derision toward the one country that *allows* one to protest.