« Durbin Thoughts | Main | skippy »


June 22, 2005

Flag Burning

-- by Dave Johnson

House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment,

The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag...
Let's take a practical look at what this is going to mean. Just using the example of clothing, people wearing flag clothing for July 4 celebrations or at Republican Party rallies will not be bothered by this. But Republican accusations that Democrats are traitors means that people at Democratic Party rallies who stray even slightly from flag handling guidelines will be subjected to the Right's smear machine.

If you think this through, it will be used as another tool to smear Demcorats, and the only people who will be arrested will be protesting against the policies of Republicans in power.

And the wording itself: "Desecration," "blasphemous behavior; the act of depriving something of its sacred character; 'desecration of the Holy Sabbath' " and here, "An act of disrespect or impiety toward something regarded as sacred". Great, an amendment establishing the John Birch Society as the official religion of the United States. And how many Democrats voted for it? How many in the Senate will? Watch your backs.

Posted by Dave Johnson at June 22, 2005 2:42 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/388

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Flag Burning:

» Flag Burning Amendment from Mark in Mexico
The House of Representatives approved the flag burning amendment yesterday. I don't really have too many strong feelings about this. It was probably just a little show of patriotism for the homefolks, although about 130 representatives declined the o... [Read More]

Tracked on June 23, 2005 10:40 AM


Comments

The Flag Is Not Polluted
Mark Twain 1901

I am not finding fault with this use of our flag; for in order not to seem eccentric I have swung around, now, and joined the nation in the conviction that nothing can sully a flag. I was not properly reared, and had the illusion that a flag was a thing which must be sacredly guarded against shameful uses and unclean contacts, lest it suffer pollution; and so when it was sent out to the Philippines to float over a wanton war and a robbing expedition I supposed it was polluted, and in an ignorant moment I said so. But I stand corrected. I concede and acknowledge that it was only the government that sent it on such an errand that was polluted. Let us compromise on that. I am glad to have it that way. For our flag could not well stand pollution, never having been used to it, but it is different with the administration.

Posted by: Michael Miller at June 22, 2005 3:03 PM

Time for a 4th of July Flag Barbecue!

Posted by: Charles at June 22, 2005 4:28 PM

I'm perfectly OK with flag Burning, as long as it is your flag and you don't pose an arson danger. But are you going to be consistent Dave? Are you going to OK the desecration of the Koran?

Posted by: Pericles at June 22, 2005 6:26 PM

Consistent: I don't think the government should pass a constitutional amendent outlawing the harming of a Koran. I also oppose Islamic governments like Iran, which will kill a person for that.

Posted by: Dave Johnson at June 22, 2005 6:31 PM

Something that is truly sacred in character cannot be deprived of its sanctity. The Republicans are always on fire with indignation, and fired up, to strangle a certain form of free speech. The notion that some despairing American might take to protest, by burning a flag, is too much of an affront to them;--this of course--is always considered more of an affront than the war crimes and other corruption and assaults on liberty, that prompted the flag burner's act. When the government becomes as polluted as the present one, and its arrogant mendacity and high crimes become commonplace, it needs above all, this idolatry of the flag.

The object of this Flag Amendment aims at nothing sacred, nor is it defending the sacred. The object is intimidation. They want to elevate our national ensign to the same level as God; they want the flag to be designated as holy and impermeable. But the flag--our flag or anyone's flag--is just another of those things that belong to Caesar. But Republican hypocrites who wrap themselves in multiple layers of sanctimony, are the same kind of guys who have people arrested for trespassing at Bush's so-called public events, because somone was wearing the wrong kind of political button, or came with a disapproved bumper sticker on the car.

This often-proposed Flag Amendment has always been a betrayal of our right to dissent. These GOP goons would behave just as Dave Johnson warns us they will. They will become authorities on what use of the flag is in good fun, and what is, in their view, repugnant. These control freaks won't be satisfied with anything less.

Posted by: Copeland at June 22, 2005 7:27 PM

"But are you going to be consistent Dave? Are you going to OK the desecration of the Koran?"

Excuse me? Are you really drawing a parallel between the American flag and the Koran? You have GOT to be kidding.

Posted by: Terry at June 22, 2005 7:28 PM

No, I don't think the flag can be deprived of it's sactity either but like everything else it can most definately be undermined.I don't believe either that an ammendment to the constitution can save it from that.I mean the undermineing, it's so late and I'm tired.But it isn't just the burning I'm concerned about.It's the general lack of knowledge on how the poor old girl is supposed to be treated.At work I see it flying under a low hanging wall for lack of a better word, flying up against a concrete planter and getting all beat up and threadbare.No spotlight on it at night.That is a general lack of knowledge that to me shows disrespect almost as bad as burning.Don't we know better then that? I go out fairly often and unwind it from it's pole...since it flys so low even I at all of my 5' can reach it.I hear we should be getting a regular flag pole now and a spotlight but this one has flown in place for almost two years.On the one hand I do understand that it's a lovely thing to fly it but to fly it in the circumstances I'm talking about is a disgrace I think and I'm a good little dissenter.I dissent all the time but do believe in respecting that piece of cloth that gives me the right to do so.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 22, 2005 9:33 PM

Like I said it's late.

Posted by: Kay at June 22, 2005 9:34 PM

Once again they are attempting to use a document that was made to insure our rights to make ammendments to remove or restrict our rights. How do we get rid of these people when the news media has been bought and paid for and most of the voting machines have been built by republican supporters. There must be a way. I have been writing letters, making phone calls and signing petitions and am getting really tired of being ignored. Does anyone have some fresh ideas because I'm all out.

Posted by: Jane Algozzini at June 23, 2005 6:35 AM

you can only "desecrate" a "sacred" object. so a flag burning amendment is contrary to the establishment clause. so there.

Posted by: benjoya at June 23, 2005 7:45 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page