House passes power to ban flag burning - On to Senate

[johndaigler]

I know this is a passion filled topic. But it's going to be brought here, so I thought I would start it with a plea for us to stay on the topic and shy away from pumped up rhetoric, name-calling, and all the other junk-posting that comes with emotion enwrapped threads.

 

Today the House passed a bill that would give Congress the right to ban flag-burning and include that amongst the list of things the Bill of Rights does not protect. It now goes to the Senate with the best chance ever of passing.

 

First, I have never felt the need to burn a flag - except as part of a retirement ceremony. My father and brother were US Army and I have family who were in Manhattan on 9/11, though luckily not near the Trade Towers. I also have a brother who works at the Pentagon - he was traveling that day. I also have a brother who was a Vietnam-era Conscientious Objector. Needless to say this topic has family history, as well.

 

IMHO, it is an unecessary infringement on a citizen's rights to ban flag burning. Since I have the right to own the flag, then it is certainly my right do with as I please. It is also my right to criticize my govt.

 

Raising the flag to a level where in conversation we also use the word desecration, for me, borders on raising it to the level of idolatrous. The flag is an important symbol, but it is not, and should not ever become, Sacred.

 

There's more to say, but I'll leave that till others have had their voice.

 

jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

[hops_scout]

Would you burn a Bald Eagle?

 

(question has relevance)

 

 

Then dont burn Old Glory.

[cubbingcarol]

I believe we should honor the U.S. flag and that it should be protected by whatever means the government sees fit. JMHO.

 

Carol

[dsteele]

Good topic and good discussion. I'm just going to relocate this thread. Please continue your discussion without interruption.

 

Unc.

[NJCubScouter]

I agree with JohnDaigler. I would not burn a U.S. flag in protest no matter how much I opposed one or more policies of the government. However, I think this amendment is a terrible idea. I do not think we should be making any more exceptions to the First Amendment than already exist. The First Amendment and the Bill of Rights exist not to protect actions that are popular with a majority -- those actions would not need constitutional protection -- but to protect those actions that are not popular. Flag burning is a means of expression, and it pretty much the least popular and in my view one of the least appropriate means of expression, but that is exactly why it needs to be protected. If we start passing exceptions to the First Amendment, I don't think there is any way the exceptions would stop with flag-burning.

[NJCubScouter]

Hops, with all respect, your bald eagle analogy really is not relevant. I would not burn a bald eagle, but the fact that it is a national symbol is pretty far down the reasons why I would not do so.

 

Absent the symbolism, a flag is simply a piece of cloth. Assuming it is your piece of cloth and you aren't going to set anything on fire, you can ignite a piece of cloth and nobody is going to care. It is only the recognition of a particular pattern of shapes and colors as the "American flag" that gives it any meaning, and which in turn makes protecting it (AND burning it) meaningful. None of this is true of a bald eagle, even if it were just a bird and not a national symbol. You wouldn't burn a robin or a sparrow either.

 

And your comment to JohnDaigler, "Don't burn Old Glory," misses the point as well. He wouldn't burn it, and I wouldn't, and I suspect almost everybody else in this forum wouldn't either. That's not the issue. The issue is whether some other person may do so without getting thrown in jail for it. Under the First Amendment as it currently exists, they may, and that is how it should be.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Both Abbie Hoffman and Barbara Bush used US flags as clothing, but only one was arrested for it. Try to guess which one before peeking:

 

http://www.nypress.com/18/23/news&columns/paulkrassner2.cfm

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/Rios061203.html

 

"Desecration", apart from being a religious term, appears to be related to the person's political opinions.

[NJCubScouter]

Well Merlyn, Barbara Bush did get arrested once, but I don't think it had anything to do with the flag, unless there was a flag pattern on her swizzle stick.

 

Oh, you mean Barbara Bush the mother, not Barbara Bush the daughter. My mistake.

 

Honestly though Merlyn, I am concerned that points like "who is desecrating the flag" may distract from the real issue here. I don't think the real issue is how one defines desecration or consistency or fairness or vagueness or chilling effect or any of those First Amendment-y issues. I think the issue is that the person who IS trying to send a message that he hates America, and America should burn and be overthrown and whatever, and is burning the flag as a symbol of this message, should continue to be constitutionally protected in doing so.

[johndaigler]

So far, so good. Thanks to everyone for your great thinking and decent treatment of each other.

 

jd

 

BTW, this as proposed would be a Constitutional Amendment and if the Senate passes it, then the process would continue on to the states for ratification.

[FScouter]

Gee, I had no idea our country had a problem with flag-burning. What are we trying to fix with this law? If there are those that don't like our country such that they feel compelled to protest in this manner, will a law against it fix the problems that lead to protest?

 

If burning a flag makes a political statement of protest, I'd expect a surge of burnings after a law is passed.

[hendrickms24]

Its going to be a sad day if they pass this law! Does this mean that all United States Flags are Government property? I see citizens of this country show that they are great Americans by flying flags that are torn all away down to the Union! Is this any worse then burning a US flag? NO but that their right to do so.

 

Mark Maranto

 

[ehcalum]

I would support the bill. Why? Because I believe in everyone should have a voice and that protest is a good thing. Burning a flag doesn't necassarily mean you hate the US but you are not happy with what their doing. My mother and her friends protested the Vietnam War, marched Washington and burned flags. They did this to protest and unjust war (like whats going on now imo). Its expression and a person should not be censored on his or her expression. Sides the flag is abused already. Just look at car dealerships, fast food joints and the like. Flags there are 3, 4, 5x the size of your standard flags and just destroy the meaning of the flag. Why not propose a flag display restriction bill while we're at it.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am so torn on this issue. On one regard, the American flag is the symbol of the country and represents the people who died defending it and allowing us to live the life we know and sometimes take for granted. Then again, as a symbol, it is just a piece of cloth and doesnt have any magical powers, and one could make the argument that the reason so many died for the American flag was to protect our way of life, which includes the right to burn that flag in protest. I think there is n alterntive, but I am unsure it can work.

 

Flag burners have one goal, to inflame (no pun intended)the observers. Flag burners burn the flag to attract attention to themsleves and their cause. The best thing to do is to ignore them. A group sends out a press release that there will be a flag burning at 10:00 AM on the capital steps, the networks and all show up and a great hoopla is made, flags are burned and people incensed. What if instead of getting upset, the observers merely turned their backs and walked away. Those of you who watch football know that "streakers" and others who run on the field are rarely if ever televised becasue the networks dont want to give covereage to that person because they know if they do, such activities will increase, perhaps they should do the same with flag burners. Cover the event, just dont show a flag burning or make reference to it.

 

When burning a flag wont get attention, it will stop. The quesiton is, can we control ourselves to walk away and allow this to happen?

[Rooster7]

To me, concerning this issue, there is no reason to be conflicted.

 

1) The law is not being created to outlaw people who hate the United States and/or folks who want to make a political statement. These people are free to be as hateful as they want to be.

2) I dont see it as being a slippery slope. Those who champion free speech, no matter the form or message, would have you believe that this is just the beginning. Im not buying it.

3) For many in this country, the law will provide satisfaction for those who have seen sons and fathers die to preserve that flag and the way of life it represents. For others, perhaps its just common sense to protect the flag that we pledge our allegiance to.

4) The people who will fight this law the most, are those politically spiteful ideologues who love to inflict anguish and distress on those who truly love this country.

 

Great law- I hope it passes.

 

[GernBlansten]

Good discussion. I'm really surprised by the all the opinions against the amendment especially on this board.

Our Constitution is a near perfect document, a testiment to the intelligence of our founding fathers. It has stood the test of time and war with few changes. This ammendment just dilutes the sanctity of that document. We don't have a flag burning crisis in the US. Sure some do it, but they reap the attention they sow with it.