Jason shows once again why his writing is indispensible with this post about flag burning. In it, he explains in great detail why "an attack on a piece of cloth -- a piece of cloth that you don't even own -- is not an assault on America, or on you, or on the Sacred Idea of Freedom Itself."
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Apparently Bill Frist has decided that constitutional ammendments against flag-burning and gay marriage are vital to national well-being. Speaking on Faux News, Frist was asked:
HOST: Are gay marriage and flag burning the most important issues the Senate can be addressing in June of 2006?
Below…
My review of Shawn Otto's new book, Fool Me Twice
Fighting the Assault on Science in America, is up over at the relatively new sustainability-oriented blog/resource site, Planet 3.0. Here's how I start:
Shawn Otto is a big name in the campaign to restore science to its rightful place as a major…
I don't think Democrats should let the Palin fiasco overshadow a great convention: there were some great speeches, one of them by John Kerry. While Kerry did an awful job of responding to the swiftboating, that episode really does mask some of his strengths: he's a terrific debater, and a very…
Jon Rowe is guest blogging at Sandefur's place this week, which is great because I only have to go to one place to find both of their posts for a while. Already, Jon has a great post up about Harry Jaffa and his views of homosexuality, and Timothy has a follow-up to it extending one of the…
Don't our representatives have more important things to spend our tax funded hours on.... like maybe keepin them damn homos from gettin' hitched or keepin the damn hippies from smokin' them maryjewana cigarettes when they get a belly ache.
I mean come on, lets git some priorities.
WTF?
Not when it comes to wanting to cling on to power.
The silliness of a flag burning amendment becomes apparent when you start considering ways to circumvent the amendment.
For example, say Mr. Joe Nation burns a flag that was made with 49 stars, or 14 strips, or a dark, dark blug stipes, or 6 pointed stars or a square flag or a flag with red strips of 2" and blue stripes of 1".
None of these would satisfy a definition of the the Flag but the act of burning any of these pseudo-flags would likely generate the same reactions in a person that wants to outlaw flag descecration.
Geez, what if someone put beautiful gold buting and piping on the borders?
A flag descreation amendment is a terrible idea in so many ways.
What is the definition of "The Flag". First, does it have to have some exact dimensions? Do the colors have to match exactly? to what? where are they specified? If you take a picture of a "flag" and print the picture, is that a "flag". If you draw a good picture of a flag, is that a "flag"? What if you draw a not-so-good picture? What if a 10 year old draws a picture of a flag, doesn't like it and crumbles it up, has he desecrated a "flag"? And on and on. The problem is absence of understanding about the distinction between an idea and a symbol used to represent the idea. I used to teach high school math. I tried to get across the idea about the distinction between a number and a numeral. I would write the numeral "4â³ on the board and then erase it. And I would ask - have I destroyed the number "4â³? Same distinction here. The flag is a symbol (a numeral), it REPRESENTS an idea - the idea of a "free" society "with liberty and justice for all". If we destroy (erase) a "flag" have we destroyed the idea? (Certainly not as much as the actions of the administration are doing).
Let's all remember that the proper, respectful, way to dispose of an old American flag is burning. That makes anti-flag burning laws really about trying to suppress the ideas that might be being expressed by those burning of the flag in a protest (something I personally would not do), not the act of burning itself.
Thought crime anyone?
Bill --
I'm sorry you didn't appreciate my humor. I hope I'll do better next time.