Comments on: Democrats Desecrate the Constitution to Create National Idol

By: CJ

CJ — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:52:14 +0000

I agree completely with you on this one. While the act is not one I would engage in personally, the Supreme Court has ruled that phsyical attacks on the flag are a protected right under the First Amendment to the Constitution. I personally don’t care one way or the other about burning the flag, but I certainly do care that congress is attempting to place an amendment into the Constitution that alters my existing Constitutional rights.

I particularly like this line from the article, “new cult of blind obedience based upon the ability of the government to inspire fear.” It fits hand in hand with another quote I read recently. “Of course the people don’t want war…the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

– Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

What better climate for a government to run rough-shod over it’s citizens than that which we have found ourselves in since 9/11?

By: Peregrin Wood

Peregrin Wood — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:28:31 +0000

I disagree, Hare. I’m 100% for freedom of speech. Many in the Republican government regard all dissent as hateful, and I don’t want to go down the path of having the government decide what speech is allowed and what speech is not.

By: HareTrinity

HareTrinity — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:20:27 +0000

Hate speech shouldn’t be allowed, Mike.

It’s not just sharing opinions, it’s encouraging other people to be violent, discriminant, and, in general, to break the law. It’s scary.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:49:12 +0000

Matthew, you are right on the money with your analasys of the problem: Once it becpomes an amendment to the Constitution, The act is no longer simply against the law, it is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL! In big bold letters! Then, the very actis immune fron legal consideration. Some, particularly people with strong feelings about our flag, would probably say,”Well,yeah…and what’s wrong with that?” Several things:
1. It erodes the very root of the 1st amendment right to fredom of speech, HOWEVER UGLY, UNPLEASANT, OR DISTASTEFUL SOME GROUP OF PEOPLE MIGHT FIND THAT SPEECH.
2.We found out how delicate and wisely put together our Constitution was put together in 1920 when another bad idea with the best of intentions became the 18th Amendment…and, if anyone out there forgot this really bad idea, we today refer to it as “prohibition”. See how easily a popular idea can turn out to be a bad idea, even with the best of intentions? Also, it is worth noting historically that this amendment passed through the efforts of a very vocal minority of the population…Kinda like what we face today, huh?

By: J. Matthew

J. Matthew — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:02:53 +0000

Eliza, you talk about things like anti-flag-burning laws being overturned all the time. But the thing about an anti-flag-burning amendment to the Constitution is that it cannot be overturned. It becomes part of the Constitution against which laws are judged. Such an amendment would turn the Constitution into a description of speech in which people cannot engage. Dangerous.

By: J. Clifford Cook

J. Clifford Cook — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:56:59 +0000

Eliza,

As I wrote in the article, the thing to get angry about is not that people won’t be able to burn the flag. The thing to get angry about is:

1. that we will have an amendment to the Constitution forbidding a particular form of anti-government speech
2. that politicians in power think that’s a good thing
3. that the amendment places the idea of a dictated sacred object in the constitution
4. that politicians in power think that’s a good thing

Liz,

While there may be earlier meanings of the word “nationalism” that were meant to be purely positive, the primary meaning of the term is now negative.

When people say nationalist, they think of a group like the Nazis. They think of totalitarian regimes. They think of Fatherlands. They think of Homeland regimes.

I think that this primarily negative definition of the word is warranted. The time has long passed when the idea of the nation represents progress. Certainly it’s better than a bunch of warring feudal states, or fiefdoms where the law is whatever the lord says it is. However, that’s not the issue nowadays.

What threatens us now are rulers who launch wars, restrict freedom, and otherwise attack humanity in the name of nationhood. George W. Bush is clearly doing so – he mentions the rights of the nation every time he does something despicable.

Words have fluid meanings, not static meanings. Words are not theoretical – they are practical. In my opinion, the definition of a word is therefore best determined by the way it is used, not be how it ought to be used.

By: liz

liz — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:22:25 +0000

actually, you’re misunderstanding the term “nationalism.” it was originally a liberal ideal: just the idea that people of the same background, in the same culture and physical location should govern themselves, and that the people, not the king, was given sovereignty. the idea, naive as it was, was that this would dissolve elite control of politics and imperialism. might i also remind you that ghandhi was a nationalist leader.

however, you’re right in that nationalism has been co-opted to mean that you should celebrate the actions of your government whatever they are rather than question them. it was a way hitler and mussolini allowed citizens of their country to feel like they were participating in politics (through patriotic demonstrations, marches, drives) without any actual political rights. it is also used to suggest that national identity is more important than human identity, and that one’s own nation is superior to others.

that is what nationalism has been used for. but that’s not what it means.

that is all.

~lizo

By: Eliza

Eliza — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:12:33 +0000

I’m not seeing exactly how this is a problem. I don’t see how this is even worthy of irregular times to get pissed off about. I don’t even see how Congress could be making such a hairy deal out of a SYMBOL. It’s like… so many symbols in this world are misconstrued, misunderstood and interpereted improperly. I don’t think that flag burning is good or bad… it’s a statement. While I don’t think it should be illegal, I don’t see the point in throwing up a fuss. Things like this get turned over all the time.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:15:46 +0000

I say, in the words of Jello Biafra, “Let it burn, baby, burn!”

I believe the flag is merely a physical representation of what America stands for. It’s not like burning the flag will cause our freedoms to succumb to the flames and turn to worthless carbon fibers.

I’m not the flag-burning type, but I’ll defend the right of anyone else to do it.