KING VOTES TO PROTECT AMERICAN FLAG [House Judiciary passed Amendment banning desecration]

Congressman Steve King ^ | May 27, 2005 | Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

[EternalVigilance]

In addition, all 50 state legislatures have petitioned Congress to approve a flag protection amendment and send it to them for ratification.

Ain't that amazing?

According to some here, those 50 legislative bodies, the expression of their states' electoral will, are made up of a bunch of Nazi freedom-haters.

Up until this thread, I was rather ambivalent about this issue, but now I think I'm leaning towards supporting the amendment.

[highball]

Enforced reverence for national symbols is the mark of a tolitarian government, not a democratic republic.

An excellent point, and one worth repeating. What these proposed amendments do to the Constitution is much more offensive than what a couple idiots do with their own flags.

[NJ_gent]

"IF they ban flag burning, I will personally burn a flag on television news."

I'll happily do the same. Banning flag burning damages this country far more than burning flags does.

[EternalVigilance]

Enforced reverence for national symbols is the mark of a tolitarian government, not a democratic republic.

If this amendment passed, you would still not have to reverence the flag. You could still despise it all you wish. You just wouldn't be legally allowed to desecrate it as a public act.

[EternalVigilance]

[highball]

Same thing - it's the love of a symbol greater than that for what the symbol represents.

[EternalVigilance]

[absolootezer0]

a couple times. over a campfire, with all of us standing in silence. i was told this is the proper way to dispose of a flag that had spent its life being prodly displayed and had become worn and slightly tattered.

[Modernman]

And if someone was to vandalize the Lincoln Memorial in the name of free speech?

I may have the right to burn my flag, but I certainly don't have the right to burn your flag.

[Stonewall Jackson]

I would love to see the exact wording of this proposed amendment.

[highball]

Yes, the picture is pretty (although I prefer the other one you posted above). What's the point?

Are you implying that I don't love my flag, because I love what it represents even more?

[EternalVigilance]

Read into it whatever you will.

I mean, after all, I just posted a symbol, right?

[RonF]

Then perhaps I should rephrase. Enforcing public respect and specific treatment for national symbols is the mark of a tolitarian government, not a democratic republic. So far, while we have a U.S. Flag Code that defines how one should treat the flag, there are no criminal penalties for violating it. There's no need to change that. I see no reason why anyone should not feel free to publicly desecrate the flag, anymore than people should not be free to publicly desecrate the Bible or a Qu'ran or a copy of the Vedas.

That would be odd, wouldn't it, that one couldn't burn a flag but one could burn a Bible?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Yes it would.

[RonF]

Actually, if you read the U.S. Flag Code (which prescribes how to treat the American flag but has no criminal penalties attached), American flag shirts are illegal. So is incorporating the American flag or parts thereof into any article of clothing, except for uniforms of patriotic organizations. The latter would include, for example, the Boy Scouts, police, the military, etc., but would not include football teams, etc. I would think that Olympic teams would be exempt from that, as they represent the United States directly.

Yes, legally defining "desecration" would enrich a lot of lawyers.

[RonF]

Allow the fools that hold this nation in low regard to light a beacon to themselves (as long as it's their flag) so that we may know them.

When I was in college and anti-hate-speech codes were proposed, I opposed them on the grounds that this way, we know who the assholes are.

[highball]

Exactly. Would you make it a crime for me to delete that symbol from my hard drive?

[RonF]

So, are these folks simply 'exercising free speech', or would you consider them a threat to the realities behind the symbol?

Both. But the first act is not the cause of the second. In fact, the first act actually aids in identifying them as a threat and thus makes it easier to defend those realities, which are far more important than the symbol.

[RonF]

From U.S. Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, Paragraph (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.

Here you go. This is it. The definition of "dignified" is up to you, as is the judgement of "when it is such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display". Unlike many urban legends you may have quoted to you, there is no requirement that it be done by the VFW or police or Boy Scouts, nor that it be done privately, nor that it be cut up before burning, etc., etc. Not that you made any such assertions, but those are common allegations that are untrue.

[newgeezer]

But the first act is not the cause of the second. In fact, the first act actually aids in identifying them as a threat and thus makes it easier to defend those realities, which are far more important than the symbol.

Exactly!