Congress nearing ban on flag desecration

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vwcruisn, Jun 15, 2005.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Good, then I won't have to see those tattered flags that people put on their cars post-9/11. And I can stop having to see people wearing flag clothing.

    But I suppose it will still be wrong for a protester to burn it but right for someone to burn it for disposal purposes. Weird.

    You can't force patriotism. Well you can, but then you're a dictator. Patriotism must be given freely.
     
  2. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #3
    This past Memorial Day I forgot to take my flag off the porch at the end of the day, and it got soaked by the sprinklers. If this amendment is adopted, could I be charged with flag desecration? :eek:
     
  3. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #4
    No, only flag irrigation.


    So: You can be punished for damaging a piece of cloth imprinted with a red, white and blue pattern, but not for desecrating the Islamic holy book.

    Feh.

    Give me corrupt and indecisive Canadian politicians any day.
     
  4. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #5
    Yeah, I was wondering what the amendment's position was on Old Glory thongs...
     
  5. Applespider macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #6
    I hope it was properly lit then. Can't you only fly the flag at night if it's properly lit (presumably not with flames!) otherwise it's supposed to come down at sunset?
     
  6. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #7
    does it just include a real flag or would include everything? like printed materials, or those horrible sweaters?

    could i desicrate the flag by ramming an SUV that has a u.s. bumper sticker?
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    So I understand. I suppose I could have turned on the porch light, but if I'd remembered to do that, I've have simply taken it down. Reverently, of course.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    :D

    I'm ashamed of myself for not having thought of that...
     
  9. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    that's some representation we've got going in congress these days.

    i'd also like to know how "flag" is defined. the Chicago Tribune, for as long as i can remember, has printed the flag in its masthead. and what if i burned a cloth flag with 49 stars and 12 stripes?

    the list of ridiculous test cases is endless. what a stupid thing for our legislature to spend time on.
     
  10. feakbeak macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #11
    I think this is silly. Who cares if someone burns some cloth? It's just a symbol that is supposed to represent a set of ideals and values. Politicians and citizens alike desecrate those ideals each and every day, but as long as we pass frivolous laws to protect that actual physical symbol it is alright? Weird. This is just another distraction to keep people from contemplating the true issues that currently affect our nation, IMO. This legislation, if passed, won't help anyone in any tangible way.
     
  11. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    You answered your own question: It's good for politicians, who really don't want us to be thinking too much about important issues.

    I thought I wouldn't have any problem with the senatorial delegation from California until I discovered that Diane Feinstein was signed onto this bit of awfulness. Clearly she is trying to protect her right flank in anticipation of next year's election but I think it might backfire. Not only doesn't she need that protection as nearly as I can tell, it may cause many of us, who would otherwise vote for her, to withold our support.
     
  13. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #14
    Here is the text of the proposed amendment:

    What I don't like about this is the far-reaching implications. The wording is so broad and vague. Since states have the power, I could drive from state to state and suddenly become a criminal because I have a sticker on my car with the flag on it.

    It would be slightly more tolerable if it defined desecration, but not much.
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    Yeah I was pretty pissed to see her on the list of sponsors. And the kicker, as you note, is that she doesn't need to protect her right flank. I know Ca is trending red, but not enough to make her need an innoculation like that.

    Focus on something worthwhile Feinstein.
     
  15. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #16
    That's exactly what I was wondering. If it's not to burn a representation of that symbol, then really this ultimately applies to any symbolic criticism of the US.
     
  16. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #17
    Law makers with nothing to do. Look at me beat my chest and pass another stupid Law. Allowing idiots to burn flags is why we are Great. Start doing this crap and we are no different then any other Police State. Thats what it is really about. The Republicans want a police state that they can control all. I bet they hate that 1st amendment . Imagine allowing folks to speak or show their mind. Sacrilege! Were going to vote all those bastards out and wont let em back for another 50 years. History will repeat.

    Vote out All Incumbants is the only answer.
     
  17. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #18
    I've never understood folks who wear their patriotism on their sleeve. Like the guy down the street from me, who has his little house festooned with no less than five flags. I guess that makes him more patriotic than the rest of us.

    Nor can I comprehend the superpatriots who impugn the loyalty of people who question their government. These people are so much like the Pharisees in the Bible: always pointing out other people's sins while making a big show of their own supposed moral rectitude.

    I just hope that, if it passes, at least 1/4 of the states have enough guts and brains not to ratify this amendment...but these days being what they are, I wouldn't count on it.
     
  18. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #19
    So I guess that means Bruce Springsteen is finally going to get locked up. ;)
     
  19. neildmitchell macrumors 6502a

    neildmitchell

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    #20
    Its a piece of Cloth, RELAX!
    There are more important issues to be worried about :mad:
     
  20. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #21
    It's not patriotism, it's nationalism. Much more dangerous.

    I never got it either though. I love this country, I seek to change it when it diverts from it's original intentions. And I believe that though freedom comes at a price, that price should obviously not be freedom. So let them burn the flag. Show them that we are better than that. Bush said it himself when talking about Iraq, a nation is truly free when you are allowed to voice your displeasure with it yet fear no political reprisal.

    Maybe if we spent less time giving them reasons to want to burn the flag, this law wouldn't be necessary.
     
  21. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #22
    so will GW and DC be impeacheable for overimposing their name on the flag in electoral posters?
    i mean, they certainly are not honoring the flag...
     
  22. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #23
    Im really amazed that our congress is so backward on so many things, How do you have Freedom when you have countless and i do mean countless law after law after law. Here we go after generations fighting for freedoms and libertys our own Congress removes it. See we didnt even need enemy's because our own Govt is our worst enemy. Freedom is almost gone here anyways. Get ready for the Fat police,Weed Police,Seat Belt Police,Gay Police, and now the Flag Police. Only thing missing is the Free Speech Police , just give Congress a little more time on that one. :mad:
     
  23. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #24
    Okay, here's a constitutional question for you:

    Even though this would be an amendment to the Constitution, could someone (like the ACLU) still challenge it on the basis that it contradicts the First Amendment?
     
  24. eva01 macrumors 601

    eva01

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Gah! Plymouth
    #25
    this was already considered constitutional by the first admendment by the supreme court in i believe the 80s

    at least flag burning is constitutional
     

Share This Page