I am wondering how a protest of burning a flag would be recieved by members of this group. I was originally going to try to do something like this when Bush gets his patriot act permanently passed but as the vote to make a constitutional amendment to prohibit the flag from being burned is about to go up the time now seems relevant. There are a couple things for me to consider. One is that NH already has a law against flag burning, but the Supreme Court has held that flag burning is a free speech issue. Therefore the law on the books in NH is illegal and invalid. I would like to associate the flag burning with a freedom of speech debate so it could be well recieved. If there is support for this I would like to do a non-violent protest like the manicure and russells TSA thing to show a law is wrong and should not or can not be enforced. I would try to go about being arrested for burning the flag, however I would plead not guilty. I will be going away to europe for law classes, one being taught by justice Kennedy, for the month of july so I would not be able to do this until early august. But this is enough time to send out letters to people to try and gain support. I would like to know if people believe this to be a positive thing or a negative thing for nhfree.com I would waive a NH flag while burning the american one and take peoples other ideas into consideration. Please leave feedback so I can make an informed decision as to whether this would help or hurt our cause. I believe the publicity would be high, and free speech is a good cause, but I also see how people would see it as wrong. Any feedback recommended. Thank You, Dan Hynes
Quote from: danhynes on June 23, 2005, 12:45 AM NHFT
I am wondering how a protest of burning a flag would be recieved by members of this group.
First, I thank you for your concern about how such an event would be perceived, and how it would be received. I have great reverence for the flag, because of what it represents.
I believe flags are pieces of cloth, but "The Flag" is an ideal. It stands for what American should be, not necessarily what it has become.
I believe that burning a flag is a constitutional right. I also believe that I'd probably punch square in the nose anyone I saw burning an American flag for political purposes. Feel free to cite me for a failing of objective rationality; I plead guilty.
My feelings are that: "feelings". I admit that I'm swayed by the intent of the flag-burner. I'd be first to flick my Bic to protest being told I couldn't burn a piece of cloth that I owned. But when I see flags being burned out of intentional disrespect, when that flag represents the ideals that allow political protest, especially when the "protest" is against anything American, then my blood does begin to boil.
NB: UN flags are fair game. ;-)
Kevin
I respect your right to do as you please however I disagree with burning the US flag.? It is a symbol of freedom and not the current government.? I would support the burning of a UN flag.
In regards to the Confederate Flag, I have to disagree with you in that it is not a symbol of slavery as the public school history books would have you believe.? Here are some facts to back up my statement.
The people who followed this flag never wanted to overthrow the American government. They wanted to establish their own government, as their fathers had done in the first revolution.
Those knowledgeable of the reasons for secession and the ensuing War Between the States realize that the slavery was not the consideration, but because of unfair tariffs levied against southern businesses by the northern-sympathetic congress. The battle flag became the symbol and rallying point of the southern forces when the north invaded to force us back into the union.
Gov. Zell Miller of Georgia says the current flag "exhibits pride in slavery." As a professor of history, he should know that 90% of the soldiers in the Confederate Army didn't own any slaves and that Lincoln, between 1861 and 1862, didn't free any slaves in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, or Washington D.C.; places where he had the power to do so.
Both Blacks and Whites served under the banner which some would now banish.
3,000 armed Blacks were with Stonewall Jackson in Frederick, Maryland, in September 1862. They served in an integrated southern army struggling for an independent nation.
To the estimated 93,000 blacks who served the Southern cause during the war, the battle flag represented their hope for freedom in a free and independent nation.
The truth is that Black Yankee regiments were segregated units and generally ostracized by the regular and volunteer forces. However, Blacks in the Confederate Army were integrated in existing regiments, treated with dignity and respect, served along side and received the same accommodations as their white counterparts.
I believe that if I own a flag of any kind, it is mine to do with as I please, including burning it. ?
I also understand that the flag is an histerical symbol to most of the population and, believe, burning them would get us lots of negative attention.
If I were going to consider doing it, I would have a bunch of pre-1860 flags on hand, and burn only post 1860 flags and/or representations of them, leaving the pre-1860 flags pristeen, to use as an object lesson about how the United States that most people think they live in, began dissolving around that time.
Even this is too deep for most to understand. I don't think burning US flags is a good idea.
We can burn oversizerepresentations of the patriot act, national id cards, tax forms and, perhaps an effigy of George Bush, dressed as George III, and get plenty of attention without alienating ourselves, from any, but, the most sensitive.
And, of course, we can double up on burning U.N. flags ;D
Quote from: KBCraig on June 23, 2005, 03:03 AM NHFT
Quote from: danhynes on June 23, 2005, 12:45 AM NHFT
I am wondering how a protest of burning a flag would be recieved by members of this group.
First, I thank you for your concern about how such an event would be perceived, and how it would be received. I have great reverence for the flag, because of what it represents.
I believe flags are pieces of cloth, but "The Flag" is an ideal. It stands for what American should be, not necessarily what it has become.
I believe that burning a flag is a constitutional right. I also believe that I'd probably punch square in the nose anyone I saw burning an American flag for political purposes. Feel free to cite me for a failing of objective rationality; I plead guilty.
My feelings are that: "feelings". I admit that I'm swayed by the intent of the flag-burner. I'd be first to flick my Bic to protest being told I couldn't burn a piece of cloth that I owned. But when I see flags being burned out of intentional disrespect, when that flag represents the ideals that allow political protest, especially when the "protest" is against anything American, then my blood does begin to boil.
NB: UN flags are fair game. ;-)
Kevin
Finally! We see eye to eye on something! ;D
The Government Wants You To Desecrate the Flag
by James Leroy Wilson
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-jl/wilson-james27.html
Unbelievable. Of course, when I say "unbelievable" that should not be taken literally. Anything politicians do and say is believable. Their willful ignorance and pettiness know no bounds. But still.
According to USA Today last week:
Scenes of foreigners burning American flags may be common on TV, but such desecration is rare in this country. The Citizens Flag Alliance, an advocacy group that supports a constitutional amendment, reports a decline in flag desecration incidents, with only one this year.
You wouldn?t know that by Congress. On Wednesday, the House passed a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. USA Today's report says the Senate is within one or two votes. If it passes the Senate, it will require ratification of three-quarters of the states to become part of the Constitution. Presumably a cinch, because "[e]very state legislature has passed resolutions urging Congress to send them a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration."
All this for declining incidents ? for just one incident this year?
I confess, however, that in one sense I am kind of sympathetic. The cause of the controversy, 1989?s Texas v. Johnson Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law against flag desecration, was wrongly decided. This is true regardless of whether flag desecration constitutes "speech" or not. It is also true even though the law, creating a "crime" where there is no force or fraud, is wrong on moral grounds.
The reason Texas v. Johnson is wrong is that the Supreme Court?s position that the 14th Amendment applies First Amendment guarantees against the states is fallacious. First, the 14th Amendment doesn?t say such a thing. Second, police powers to "keep order" are necessarily local powers. A word or action that might instigate a riot in one part of the country, may not have any effect in another. As a libertarian, I believe in the right to "desecrate" the American flag. But federalism and decentralization is a necessary libertarian tenet: what the Sovereign giveth, the Sovereign taketh away. To protect the individual, then, sovereignty must be as small and close to the people as possible. Broad Supreme Court rulings proclaiming non-existent "rights" violate that tenet. A flag desecration law in Texas, where I don?t live, shouldn?t be any more my business or problem than a similar law in Nova Scotia, Nigeria or Mars.
And the record indicates that Supreme Court decisions such as Johnson are not really about expanding individual liberty, but rather about eviscerating states? rights and local government. Gonzales v. Raich, the recent decision to overrule state laws permitting medical use of marijuana, is an example of the Supreme Court attacking state?s rights even when the state attempts to defend individual liberty from the federal government. The Court strikes down state flag desecration laws, while it upholds in McConnell v. the FEC the power of Congress to prohibit "issue advocacy" ads within 60 days of an election ? precisely the kind of power the First Amendment was written to prevent.
And the Supreme Court?s assault on federalism has provoked heated and endless backlash. Instead of removing controversial issues from the political process, they have been politicized all the more. That?s why, after all these years, we are still bickering over abortion and public prayers.
So I am sympathetic to the Amendment in the sense that I loathe the Supreme Court. Once we have one amendment overturning a Court decision, momentum could build for further reform. Perhaps Congress will propose more blanket amendments better safeguarding the right of states to make their own laws. Perhaps it will begin to exercise its authority in Article 3 section 2 of the Constitution and protect state laws from federal interference.
That said, this is unbelievable. I would have no problem at all with an amendment that restores federalism, or an amendment that imposes more limits on the federal government and protects individual liberty. But this Amendment does none of that. The proposed Amendment states:
"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''
This doesn?t even overturn Johnson. Rather, it overturns United States v. Eichman, a correctly decided 1990 Supreme Court decision. After Johnson, Congressional nincompoops thought that they could resolve the controversy by imposing a national law against flag desecration. Now this really did violate the intention of the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court predictably thought so. In any case, the law violated the Ninth and Tenth Amendment because Congress assumed a power not given it in the Constitution.
The Amendment gives us the worst of all worlds: it fails to protect state sovereignty, it diminishes individual liberty, and it grants more power to the federal government. All to "solve" a non-problem.
In an age of imperial war, police-state crackdowns, imported and illegal labor, exported jobs, and universities controlled by far-left radicals, you would think that anti-government demonstrations and acts of flag desecration would be on the rise. But no. Flag desecration is legal and tolerated, yet we almost never see it.
Which makes me think that the proposed amendment has sinister implications. A decade ago, in a relatively more peaceful and prosperous time, a Flag Desecration Amendment could be seen as a petty cause from the Stupid Wing of the conservative movement. Even if the Amendment got passed and was ratified by Congress, it would seemingly have little effect on most people?s tranquil lives. But today, as the intellectual and moral basis for the government?s policies crumble and things are getting worse, force is its one remaining weapon to maintain the people?s "support." Conformity and compliance that can not be achieved through persuasion will be imposed through force. Opponents of war and tyranny will question the legitimacy of the federal government itself, if they haven?t done so already. The feds know this, and are seeking new ways to marginalize and silence their opposition.
Flag amendment supporters do not want to get rid of flag desecration. If they want a society with no flag desecrations, they are already as close to that ideal as could be imagined. Instead, they want to increase incidents of flag desecration. They want to increase violence and turmoil. They want to do what it takes to provoke previously peaceful, non-violent radicals. This flag amendment?s purpose is to alienate opponents of the federal government and its policies. Up until now, radicals have rarely resorted to flag desecration, largely out of patriotic respect for a country that was at least free enough to allow it. Flag desecration would have hurt their own cause ? protesters would have been seen by the people as failing to appreciate living in a free country.
The Flag Desecration Amendment, however, would remove such self-restraint. Flag desecration would, in the eye of radicals and other protesters, be an act of civil disobedience to signify that the flag of the United States government no longer stands for freedom. Whether one agrees with flag desecration as a tactic, in substance they would be right.
Flag amendment supporters ? particularly the ones in Congress ? are well aware of this. "Desecrating" the flag does not mean "down with America and Americans" but rather, "down with the government and its politicians." And the government will not tolerate that.
Government wants to sow discord among the people. It wants to turn moderate dissenters into radicals, and radicals into anti-government revolutionaries. So that at the first sign of conflict, the government could crack down on "dangerous extremists" and pass laws to increase its power still further.
The Flag Desecration Amendment is not about patriotism, or respecting freedom, or honoring those who gave their lives fighting under the flag of the United States. It is about identifying and arresting critics of the government. I can?t imagine a true patriot supporting it.
June 23, 2005
James Leroy Wilson [send him mail] is a columnist for the Partial Observer and blogs at "Independent Country." He currently resides in eastern Washington State.
If you look at it that way then can you name one country where things of that nature have not occured and would that then make each countries flag a symbol of hate and racism.
Just to add my 2/100ths of an ounce...
I have a lot of better things to do than burn flags. However, that will change if it becomes illegal to burn the flag. I will most certainly be spending time doing it.
I don't give a damn about the flag or any other 'false idols' people may worship. Ideas matter, flags don't.
Besides, why should we care if someone wants to burn the flag of that traitor Washington? (You do know that the Stars and Stripes were designed from his family coat of arms, right?)
Now the Gadsen, that's a flag a patriot can admire!
I am curious that is the Gadsen?? As I said I support someones right to burn a flag, I personally don't go along with it. But that is an example of why this group works we respect each others right to do as we see fit regardless of if we agree or not. The point is to not have ANYONES rights controled by the powers that be.
This is the ultimate civil disobedience event that would require enormous spiritual strength and the will to suffer to the death for freedom.
Martin Luther King Jr and his fellow protestors KNEW they would be beaten if they protested, but they did it anyways because they knew it was worth it. ?Brutal racism plagued the land, and making the injustice of this violent racism apparent to all Americans on national television is how they created outrage across the country.
If the amendment banning flag burning passes, and if we subsequently burn a US flag on national television (in an innocent manner), we WILL seriously suffer for the cause, and it will make the injustice of this violent nationalism apparent to all Americans. ?We could even be killed by overemotional nationalists. ?We will be protesting against irrational violent emotions that have been exploited repeatedly and have ruined our country for countless years.
But if we are not going to fight against blind nationalism, then who will? ?If an evil in society is not corrected, it will exist forever. ?And if anyone thinks Americans will see us being beaten on national television and feel no sorrow for us, you are mistaken.
"The hardest heart and the grossest ignorance must disappear before the rising sun of suffering, without anger and without malice."
-Gandhi
Such a protest, if it worked properly, would be a historic event equivalent in importance to the civil rights marches.
Just a thought. Why not send a couple of letters to your US Senators and tell them to vote against the amendment?
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on June 23, 2005, 10:10 AM NHFT
This is the ultimate civil disobedience event that would require enormous spiritual strength and the will to suffer to the death for freedom.
Martin Luther King Jr and his fellow protestors KNEW they would be beaten if they protested, but they did it anyways because they knew it was worth it. ?Brutal racism plagued the land, and making the injustice of this violent racism apparent to all Americans on national television is how they created outrage across the country.
If the amendment banning flag burning passes, and if we subsequently burn a US flag on national television (in an innocent manner), we WILL seriously suffer for the cause, and it will make the injustice of this violent nationalism apparent to all Americans. ?We could even be killed by overemotional nationalists. ?We will be protesting against irrational violent emotions that have been exploited repeatedly and have ruined our country for countless years.
But if we are not going to fight against blind nationalism, then who will? ?If an evil in society is not corrected, it will exist forever. ?And if anyone thinks Americans will see us being beaten on national television and feel no sorrow for us, you are mistaken.
"The hardest heart and the grossest ignorance must disappear before the rising sun of suffering, without anger and without malice."
-Gandhi
Such a protest, if it worked properly, would be a historic event equivalent in importance to the civil rights marches.
Gimme a break...You do this because you think it's cool. You're such a rebel....nice picture by the way...
Burning a flag is the proper way to retire it. So basically the law has to make your intent in the manner in which you burn it illegal. Looking solemn as you burn it in a respectful appearing manner is fine. Waving it around while it burns is not.
The countrys broke, the supreme court just ruled you have no right to property and the president lied us into war.
Thank god congress is doing something.
What Jackasses.
Quote from: JonM on June 23, 2005, 11:00 AM NHFT
Burning a flag is the proper way to retire it.? So basically the law has to make your intent in the manner in which you burn it illegal.? Looking solemn as you burn it in a respectful appearing manner is fine.? Waving it around while it burns is not.
Then be respectful toward all people, but wave it around while it burns.
It's just a piece of cloth. ??? This is a fully legitimate protest and I'm sure we would have a lot of support if a flag burning amendment passed - the second time in history the constitution will be amended to actually RESTRICT individual liberty.
Quote from: Pat K on June 23, 2005, 11:33 AM NHFT
The countrys broke, the supreme court just ruled you have no right to property and the president lied us into war.
Thank god congress is doing something.
What Jackasses.
I hate what is happening to my Country.
My last move and hopes now lay in New Hampshire.
I feel like I am being backed into a corner.
The rest of the country has been Socialized and reek of fascism.
I have been a good non violent American but I have to ask this question.
What will it take for us Americans to finally rise up and take back control of our country???
We have effectively and openly been sold to the highest bidders.
Our country is being divvied up to foreign nations and big business that have no loyalty to this great republic.
what will it take.....work camps....confiscation of all private property forced public service?
Our methods of creating change are successful. Through our efforts, we will give people a second chance at liberty. But we must not give in to despair.
Do not lose hope. :)
Quote from: GT on June 23, 2005, 10:29 AM NHFT
Just a thought. Why not send a couple of letters to your US Senators and tell them to vote against the amendment?
that's funny
Quote from: BillyC on June 23, 2005, 12:35 PM NHFTwhat will it take.....work camps....confiscation of all private property forced public service?
some are doing it now........but good questions :)
I like LLoyd's idea of burning other things such as an oversized patriot act and some ID cards. And to burn a current flag but waive around an old flag, I personally would like to waive one of our first flags while burning a current one to show I would like to return to the constitution of the earlier days. Part of my plan involved getting arrested when I know the state law is clearly wrong. I would like to see if any officer would mistakenly enforce it. How about if I burnt a replica if the white house. Too bad I cant burn protest with oil and instead of dumping tea in the ocean dump barrels of oil.
Quote from: russellkanning on June 23, 2005, 02:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: GT on June 23, 2005, 10:29 AM NHFT
Just a thought. Why not send a couple of letters to your US Senators and tell them to vote against the amendment?
that's funny
People could certainly do both
Quote from: russellkanning on June 23, 2005, 02:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: GT on June 23, 2005, 10:29 AM NHFT
Just a thought. Why not send a couple of letters to your US Senators and tell them to vote against the amendment?
that's funny
Why is it so funny..........?
Quote from: danhynes on June 23, 2005, 03:29 PM NHFT
How about if I burnt a replica if the white house.
That's not illegal.
Quote from: danhynes on June 23, 2005, 03:29 PM NHFT
Too bad I cant burn protest with oil and instead of dumping tea in the ocean dump barrels of oil.
An environmental disaster is a very bad idea.
Quote from: GT on June 23, 2005, 04:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on June 23, 2005, 02:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: GT on June 23, 2005, 10:29 AM NHFT
Just a thought. Why not send a couple of letters to your US Senators and tell them to vote against the amendment?
that's funny
Why is it so funny..........?
It's funny because, unfortunately, lobbying the government is a pointless and ignorable action.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on June 23, 2005, 04:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: GT on June 23, 2005, 04:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on June 23, 2005, 02:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: GT on June 23, 2005, 10:29 AM NHFT
Just a thought. Why not send a couple of letters to your US Senators and tell them to vote against the amendment?
that's funny
Why is it so funny..........?
It's funny because, unfortunately, lobbying the government is a pointless and ignorable action.
What's the point of all these protests if you never get the laws changed or repealed?
Quote from: GT on June 23, 2005, 04:34 PM NHFT
What's the point of all these protests if you never get the laws changed or repealed?
Good point! ;)
The biggest problem we face is this:
Most methods of political change will result in disaster in the end. Refer to the political side of the abolitionist movement for an example of the terrible disasters that will ensue from political methods of change.
All we can do is try our best to change the culture through all moral means available to us. If the law can keep up with these changes, then the government will survive. If not, then no consent will exist for the government and it will cease to exist.
QuoteAll we can do is try our best to change the culture through all moral means available to us.? If the law can keep up with these changes, then the government will survive.? If not, then no consent will exist for the government and it will cease to exist.
Mike, I'm not sure I want to be the one who has to tell all those bureaucrats and legislators their jobs have ceased to exist.? The looks on their faces might make me sad.? Gosh, I hope they can all find work in the private sector (which I guess would then be the only sector? ;D).?
Of course, without all that regulation, jobs oughta be plentiful -- maybe you can teach a few bureaucrats to repair computers?? Hey, everybody deserves a chance, right?
:P :P :P :P :P :P
Wow, that will make a great movie someday -- Anarchists and libertarians succeed in abolishing or nearly abolishing government, and everybody prospers except the poor useless bureacucrats, until a few kind Free Staters teach them to survive as human beings in the wild jungles of New Hampshire. Guess I'd better get started on the script...
Quote from: JonM on June 23, 2005, 11:00 AM NHFT
Burning a flag is the proper way to retire it. So basically the law has to make your intent in the manner in which you burn it illegal.
That's what I point out to people who are in favor of such a ban. It's not the act of burning a flag that would be made illegal, because that's how a flag is properly retired. Instead, it's the
thoughts running through someone's head that make the burning illegal. A ban on flag burning is "hate crime" legislation. (That usually get 'em in the gut, since they despise "hate crime" laws!)
The proposed ammendment even admits this: it's not a ban on burning the flag, it's a ban on "desecration".
Kevin
I will have no problem disrespecting and desecrating a piece of cloth that I own, as long as I am always respectful to others. And no, I do not consider burning my own piece of cloth as a form of disrespect - how could it be to a reasonable individual?
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on June 23, 2005, 10:35 PM NHFT
I will have no problem disrespecting and desecrating a piece of cloth that I own, as long as I am always respectful to others. And no, I do not consider burning my own piece of cloth as a form of disrespect - how could it be to a reasonable individual?
Because you are deliberately insulting something people cherish. It's not that tough to grasp.
Why do you limit your consideration to only "reasonable" individuals? Even if it is unreasonable to feel insulted by someone burning their own flag, and you, knowing that many people will feel insulted, proceed to do so, then it doesn't matter if they were "reasonable" to feel insulted. You did so anyway, which is a deliberate insult.
I recall some childhood "insults" that really weren't, like accusing someone of being a homo sapiens. But no matter how unreasonable it was for someone to be enraged by the term, we still did it. No matter how accurate it was, and no matter how unreasonable their response, it was a deliberate insult.
Kevin
Hmmm...
Good point.
Mike et al,
There are other ways of making protests that don't immediately alienate people over a symbol that means different things to different folks.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on June 23, 2005, 10:35 PM NHFT
I will have no problem disrespecting and desecrating a piece of cloth that I own, as long as I am always respectful to others.? And no, I do not consider burning my own piece of cloth as a form of disrespect - how could it be to a reasonable individual?
Obviously you have never fought for that flag or lost a friend or family member fighting for that. That is why you will never understand what it means.
Quote from: foreverfree on June 24, 2005, 09:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on June 23, 2005, 10:35 PM NHFT
I will have no problem disrespecting and desecrating a piece of cloth that I own, as long as I am always respectful to others.? And no, I do not consider burning my own piece of cloth as a form of disrespect - how could it be to a reasonable individual?
Obviously you have never fought for that flag or lost a friend or family member fighting for that.? That is why you will never understand what it means.
Waving the bloody shirt doesn't work. My brother was a tunnel rat in Nam. He and I are pretty much on the same wave length.
QuoteObviously you have never fought for that flag
No, I've never fought for a piece of cloth, but I'll certainly fight for what it is supposed to represent.
And no, I don't see the point in burning American flags -- it just pisses people off, and I don't see it sending a positive message.? Why do activists always seem to be such pyromaniacs?? ?::)
Print a copy of the first amendment on a flag sized piece of cloth and burn that in protest.
Quote from: AlanM on June 24, 2005, 10:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: foreverfree on June 24, 2005, 09:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on June 23, 2005, 10:35 PM NHFT
I will have no problem disrespecting and desecrating a piece of cloth that I own, as long as I am always respectful to others.? And no, I do not consider burning my own piece of cloth as a form of disrespect - how could it be to a reasonable individual?
Obviously you have never fought for that flag or lost a friend or family member fighting for that.? That is why you will never understand what it means.
Waving the bloody shirt doesn't work. My brother was a tunnel rat in Nam. He and I are pretty much on the same wave length.
You'll have to explain a little further with the saying, "Waving the bloody shirt." As for your brother....good for him....he is a real American. He has contributed.
Quote from: Rocketman on June 24, 2005, 10:24 AM NHFT
QuoteObviously you have never fought for that flag
No, I've never fought for a piece of cloth, but I'll certainly fight for what it is supposed to represent.
And no, I don't see the point in burning American flags -- it just pisses people off, and I don't see it sending a positive message.? Why do activists always seem to be such pyromaniacs?? ?::)
The American flag is not just a piece of cloth. It is a visual representation of ideals and history. I doubt that you would fight for anything other than for something to help yourself.
Quote from: JonM on June 24, 2005, 11:04 AM NHFT
Print a copy of the first amendment on a flag sized piece of cloth and burn that in protest.
Much better! Thank you JonM
Quote from: foreverfree on June 24, 2005, 11:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: AlanM on June 24, 2005, 10:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: foreverfree on June 24, 2005, 09:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on June 23, 2005, 10:35 PM NHFT
I will have no problem disrespecting and desecrating a piece of cloth that I own, as long as I am always respectful to others.? And no, I do not consider burning my own piece of cloth as a form of disrespect - how could it be to a reasonable individual?
Obviously you have never fought for that flag or lost a friend or family member fighting for that.? That is why you will never understand what it means.
Waving the bloody shirt doesn't work. My brother was a tunnel rat in Nam. He and I are pretty much on the same wave length.
You'll have to explain a little further with the saying, "Waving the bloody shirt."? As for your brother....good for him....he is a real American.? He has contributed.
Try reading history.
I would not participate in or support in any way a burning of the U.S. flag, I would recommend against it. I'm so against the idea in fact that I would probably not even participate more than this once in a debate about it, since that would just draw attention to the idea. There are so many better flags to burn: New York, Mass. , China, Connetticut, UN...does District of Columbia have a flag?
I will not participate in any US flag burning because the issue is not obviously just to enough people. Too many people love this piece of cloth for me to burn it. I believe it would only hurt our cause.
Of course, if jingoism gets too far out of control here, I'll be the first to bring this idea up again.
Quote from: Rocketman on June 23, 2005, 05:50 PM NHFT
QuoteAll we can do is try our best to change the culture through all moral means available to us.? If the law can keep up with these changes, then the government will survive.? If not, then no consent will exist for the government and it will cease to exist.
Mike, I'm not sure I want to be the one who has to tell all those bureaucrats and legislators their jobs have ceased to exist.? The looks on their faces might make me sad.? Gosh, I hope they can all find work in the private sector (which I guess would then be the only sector? ;D).?
Of course, without all that regulation, jobs oughta be plentiful -- maybe you can teach a few bureaucrats to repair computers?? Hey, everybody deserves a chance, right?
:P :P :P :P :P :P
Wow, that will make a great movie someday -- Anarchists and libertarians succeed in abolishing or nearly abolishing government, and everybody prospers except the poor useless bureacucrats, until a few kind Free Staters teach them to survive as human beings in the wild jungles of New Hampshire.? Guess I'd better get started on the script...
:)
I think it would turn people against you real quick.
While I plan on trying to fight the Amendment I think that burning as a protest is a bad idea.
Yes DC does have a flag.
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-dc.html
I got to spend 4 years looking at it in college, during the 'Crack Barry' years.
Dude who crushed my karma? :P
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on June 24, 2005, 12:20 PM NHFT
I will not participate in any US flag burning because the issue is not obviously just to enough people. Too many people love this piece of cloth for me to burn it. I believe it would only hurt our cause.
It would hurt our cause, but it's not because they love a piece of cloth. It's because they love the ideal represented by that cloth, which is also the very thing we're seeking: Liberty!
Quote
Of course, if jingoism gets too far out of control here, I'll be the first to bring this idea up again.
I haven't seen the first hint of jingoism here (not counting deliberate trollish behavior). Jingoism, by definition, defies reason. Those here who oppose burning the U.S. flag do so out of devotion to the
reason behind it.
Mike, I want to point out that I have great respect for you, for reconsidering your stance on this. When I get to NH, we'll burn a UN flag. ;D
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on June 25, 2005, 01:30 AM NHFT
Mike, I want to point out that I have great respect for you, for reconsidering your stance on this. When I get to NH, we'll burn a UN flag.? ;D
Burn burn burn the flag,
Burn it every day!
Merrily merrily merrily merrily,
The U.N. is insane!
;D
Quote from: KBCraig on June 25, 2005, 01:31 AM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on June 25, 2005, 12:51 AM NHFT
Dude who crushed my karma? :P
I applaud thee!
Kevin
Dude, what are you complaining about. Mine was possitive, and now, went negative just in the past few days.
Nobody likes me :(
Tracy
How about a flag retirement ceremony?
Tracy, you are back in neutral ground. 8)
Looks like it ;)
Tracy