** RNC ON FLAG AMENDMENT
Brian Carey
RNC News Release
RNC Chairman Challenges DNC, Clinton To Support
Bi-Partisan Flag Amendment
February 13, 1997
More than 180 Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.
House of Representatives are co-sponsored legislation
Thursday calling for a constitutional amendment to protect
the American flag from desecration.
Noting the wide range of support for the flag
amendment, Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Jim
Nicholson praised the cooperative spirit behind the
amendment and challenged others to follow suit. "The bi-
partisanship that so many have spoken of over the past few
weeks is clearly evident in this bill," said Nicholson. "If
Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the Democratic National Committee
would get behind this bi-partisan effort, it would virtually
guarantee that the people will finally have their chance to
be heard on this issue."
The flag amendment passed the House of Representatives
on a 312-120 vote during the 104th Congress. However, the
measure failed in the Senate 63-36 after the Clinton-Gore
administration lobbied against the proposal before the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Dozens of organizations have been fighting for this
amendment for a long time, and the wisdom of their fight is
reflected in the broad-based support for this bill in
Congress," said Nicholson, a former Army Ranger and
decorated Vietnam combat veteran. "This amendment cuts
across party lines and makes a statement about who we are as
a people. I sincerely hope the actions of the White House
on this bill will reflect their call for bi-partisanship and
the wishes of the vast majority of Americans."
Public opinion polls indicate support for the amendment
exceeds 70%. The amendment was also incorporated into the
Republican Party Platform, adopted by delegates to the 1996
Republican National Convention in San Diego.
---
Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political
prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should
labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these
firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can
be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the
influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure,
reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
--- Excerpts from George Washington's Farewell Address
grea...@mindspring.com
Brian Carey wrote:
How can you support an ammendment protect the American flag from
desecration if an "American Flag" has never been defined?
NO Nobody agrees on what constitutes an "AMERICAN FLAG"!
Herman
xona
I have a better idea for the American Flag
Take the flag and wrap it around each nut who wants to curtail my
right to protest using the symbol of America; douse it in gasoline
and light a match. I for one will be more than happy to roast
marshmellows over their burning anti-constitutional bodies.
xona
Ford
Try applying a little common sense, that might just help resolve the
matter.
gp
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has
made a lot of people very angry and been widely
regarded as a bad move....... Douglas Adams
John Ladasky
The following are the lyrics to a song written by myself and Craig Latta
back in 1990, just before the Supreme Court decision regarding the Texas
flag-burning incident. Sounds like it might be time to pull the tapes out
of the vault. Harry Shearer of Santa Monica authored a similar satire about
a month after we started circulating our tape.
Think Woody Guthrie.
"Burn the Flag" Copyright 1990 by John Ladasky and Craig Latta
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forgive me, but I never wrote a protest song before,
And in the nineties you might think I'm somewhat of a bore.
But the news that come from Washington just got me on the rag,
We care for almost nothin' now, but ooh, we love the flag.
Burn the flag! Burn the flag!
Compulsory idolatry is not a cause to brag.
Burn the flag! Burn the flag!
I won't tolerate a smidgen of this state-enforced religion;
You should get out of the kitchen if you cannot stand the heat.
Burn the flag!
They say we are the freest of the world's democracies;
But how can we be free if we can't protest as we please?
So grab your tie-dye shirts, my friends, and raise those torches high;
Let's make George rant, and Ronnie rave, and ol' Miss Nancy cry.
Burn the flag! Burn the flag!
Remember that the Stars and Stripes is just a colored rag.
Burn the flag! Burn the flag!
It's open hunting season on enlightenment and reason;
What the Feds are callin' treason I call thinkin' for myself.
Burn the flag!
Our deed is done and now the cops come racing 'round the bend,
Arresting all us citizens whose rights they should defend.
And even though they think they got us all without a fight,
We're writin' our next protest song, knowin' that we're right.
Burn the flag! Burn the flag!
(And then go burn your mattress, but first, remove the tag.)
Burn the flag! Burn the flag!
Symbols are just tools to make believers out of fools,
And were there logic to the rules, there'd be no need
To light a match, and start a fire, and fan it higher,
To burn the flag.
--
Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology
Keywords : immunology, music, running, Green
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Craig Smith
xona wrote:
>
> I have a better idea for the American Flag
>
> Take the flag and wrap it around each nut who wants to curtail my
> right to protest using the symbol of America; douse it in gasoline
> and light a match. I for one will be more than happy to roast
> marshmellows over their burning anti-constitutional bodies.
>
> xona
One needs to ask, what burning the flag is symbolic of.
Well, the flag is the symbol of the United States. Burning it in
protest, is symbolically destroying it. So, burning the flag in
prostest is symbolically destroying the United States.
Now, if a person were to attempt to *actually* destroy the United
States, that person would be a traitor, and could be sentenced to
death.
So, it should follow that a symbolic destruction of the United
States could be punishable by a symbolic death. How about exile?
Gregory Gadow
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> RNC News Release
>
> RNC Chairman Challenges DNC, Clinton To Support
> Bi-Partisan Flag Amendment
>
> February 13, 1997
>
> More than 180 Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.
> House of Representatives are co-sponsored legislation
> the American flag from desecration.
(snip)
>
> The flag amendment passed the House of Representatives
> on a 312-120 vote during the 104th Congress. However, the
> measure failed in the Senate 63-36 after the Clinton-Gore
> administration lobbied against the proposal before the
> Senate Judiciary Committee.
>
> "Dozens of organizations have been fighting for this
> amendment for a long time, and the wisdom of their fight is
> reflected in the broad-based support for this bill in
> Congress," said Nicholson, a former Army Ranger and
> decorated Vietnam combat veteran. "This amendment cuts
> across party lines and makes a statement about who we are as
> a people. I sincerely hope the actions of the White House
> on this bill will reflect their call for bi-partisanship and
> the wishes of the vast majority of Americans."
>
> Public opinion polls indicate support for the amendment
> exceeds 70%. The amendment was also incorporated into the
> Republican Party Platform, adopted by delegates to the 1996
> Republican National Convention in San Diego.
>
My American Heritage Dictionary (paperback, based on the Second College
Edition) defines desecration as "To abuse the sacredness of; profane."
Sacred is defined as "1) Dedicated to or set apart for worship. 2) Made
or declared holy. 3) Worthy of religious veneration. 4) Dedicated or
devoted exclusively to a single use or person. 5) Worthy of reverence or
respect. 6) Of or pertaining to religious as opposed to secular things."
And profane (as a verb) is defined as "1) To treat with irreverence;
blaspheme. 2) To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse."
While I consider myself a patriot and an active American, I shall always
protest any and all laws or Constitutional amendments which elevate the
flag to the status of national holy symbol. And that is exactly what
language such as 'desecrate' does. No longer is the American flag a
*representation* of the United States and the freedoms we have fought to
get and keep; it *becomes* America, and any injury done to the flag is
done to the entire country.
That is idolatry, pure and simple, and as far as I'm concerned, begins
to set up an established 'national religion' based on flag worship and
devotion to the State. The language used - desecration, sacredness,
profane, reverence, blaspheme - are all *religious* in nature.
Rather than condemn people who abuse the flag as 'desecraters', why not
apply current standards of 'fighting words' which are already in place?
This would allow the communities to decide on what
--
************************************************************************
Gregory Paul Gadow
Mail:
tech...@drizzle.com
Web : http://www.drizzle.com/~techbear
************************************************************************
Andre Robatino
SunLion (sun...@geocities.com) wrote:
: >>NO Nobody agrees on what constitutes an "AMERICAN FLAG"!
: >>Herman
: >
: >Try applying a little common sense, that might just help resolve the
: >matter.
: >
: >gp
: >In the beginning the Universe was created. This has
: >made a lot of people very angry and been widely
: >regarded as a bad move....... Douglas Adams
: Let's hear some sense then... would my burning flag screen saver
: count? How about my flag tattoo (hey they could never electrocute me
: if I had a tattoo of a flag on my chest!!). How about a videotape of
: a flag burning, or a flag burning that was missing a star? What if
: the flag's shade of blue was a little off?
A criminal could cover his entire body with flag tattoos and then the police
could never shoot at him (unless Congress remembers to make the appropriate
exceptions in whatever laws it makes). With the newly released RealVideo
software, videos of burning flags can be expected to be real popular if the
amendment passes. Having allowed laws against desecrating a symbol, people
will move to desecrating a symbol of a symbol. Then Congress will have to pass
a new amendment allowing laws against this. Etc., etc. ... Eventually, it
either gives up, or throws away the 1st Amendment completely, allowing people
to be thrown in jail just for looking at the flag the wrong way. Let's stop
the madness now.
: The Republicans (yes that means Billy-Bubba Klinton too) are just
: looking for anything that regulates what people think.
: Great tagline, by the way!
: peace/lovelights
: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/2473
: "It is BEING!"
--
-export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
grea...@mindspring.com
I think you have exiled your brain. I ask AGAIN. What is the definition
of an American flag? How can you send someone into exile for flag
desecration if you can't even define what constitues an American flag.
Craig,
If YOU can define an American flag, I will take off my hat and salute
you instead of calling you the usual jackass.
Herman
eric_kelso
In article <330C0C...@compuserve.com>, Craig Smith
<70004...@compuserve.com> writes:
>xona wrote:
>>
>> I have a better idea for the American Flag
>>
>> Take the flag and wrap it around each nut who wants to curtail my
>> right to protest using the symbol of America; douse it in gasoline
>> and light a match. I for one will be more than happy to roast
>> marshmellows over their burning anti-constitutional bodies.
>>
>> xona
>
>One needs to ask, what burning the flag is symbolic of.
>
>Well, the flag is the symbol of the United States. Burning it in
>protest, is symbolically destroying it. So, burning the flag in
>prostest is symbolically destroying the United States.
>
>Now, if a person were to attempt to *actually* destroy the United
>States, that person would be a traitor, and could be sentenced to
>death.
>
>So, it should follow that a symbolic destruction of the United
>States could be punishable by a symbolic death. How about exile?
I suggest you stop smoking whatever it is that you've been into lately, I think
it is damaging your brain.
Wayne Aiken
Brian Carey (ba...@the.ranch) wrote:
: RNC News Release
:
: RNC Chairman Challenges DNC, Clinton To Support
: Bi-Partisan Flag Amendment
:
: February 13, 1997
:
: More than 180 Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.
: House of Representatives are co-sponsored legislation
: Thursday calling for a constitutional amendment to protect
: the American flag from desecration.
It's interesting that a symbol of freedom could be exempt from the very
freedoms that its supposed to symbolize.
Such an "Amendment" would desecrate the flag far worse than any
malcontent with a Bic lighter ever could.
And if the symbol also used to designate the government is exempt from
criticism, can the government itself be far behind?
----------------
Join the Random Useless Junk Mailing List today!!! To sign up for a free
lifetime membership, send your application disguised as an advertisement!
----------------
Holy Temple of Mass $ >>> sl...@ncsu.edu <<< $ "My used underwear
Consumption! $ http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/ $ is legal tender in
PO Box 30904 $ users/a/aiken/htomc.html $ 28 countries!"
Raleigh, NC 27622 $ BBS: (919) 954-5028 $ --"Bob"
Andre Robatino
Craig Smith wrote:
>
> xona wrote:
> >
> > I have a better idea for the American Flag
> >
> > Take the flag and wrap it around each nut who wants to curtail my
> > right to protest using the symbol of America; douse it in gasoline
> > and light a match. I for one will be more than happy to roast
> > marshmellows over their burning anti-constitutional bodies.
> >
> > xona
>
> One needs to ask, what burning the flag is symbolic of.
>
> Well, the flag is the symbol of the United States. Burning it in
> protest, is symbolically destroying it. So, burning the flag in
> prostest is symbolically destroying the United States.
>
> Now, if a person were to attempt to *actually* destroy the United
> States, that person would be a traitor, and could be sentenced to
> death.
>
> So, it should follow that a symbolic destruction of the United
> States could be punishable by a symbolic death. How about exile?
No, exile is still an actual punishment, not a symbolic one. Burning
in effigy is more appropriate.
grea...@mindspring.com
Thanks Gregory,
For your well thought out post.
I have trouble trying to define an American flag.
Herman
Gregory Gadow wrote:
>
> Brian Carey wrote:
> >
> > RNC News Release
> >
> > RNC Chairman Challenges DNC, Clinton To Support
> > Bi-Partisan Flag Amendment
> >
> > February 13, 1997
> >
> > More than 180 Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.
> > House of Representatives are co-sponsored legislation
> > Thursday calling for a constitutional amendment to protect
> > the American flag from desecration.
Mike Conway
Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch> wrote in article <330A05...@the.ranch>...
> RNC News Release
>
> RNC Chairman Challenges DNC, Clinton To Support
> Bi-Partisan Flag Amendment
>
> February 13, 1997
>
> More than 180 Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.
> House of Representatives are co-sponsored legislation
> Thursday calling for a constitutional amendment to protect
> the American flag from desecration.
Does that mean burning? How about stepping on it? How about burning a
T-shirt that has an
American flag on it? How about the act of printing a symbol of an American
flag on a t-shirt, that to
me is desecration?
How about the car dealer that is on my drive home who has one of those 1/2
acre giant flags that flys at night
and in the rain, and is frayed at the edges and sun-bleached...is that
desecration?
My guess is that you would say no, because, the car dealer intends it to be
a patriotic statement. Now you are
talking about speech.
>
> Public opinion polls indicate support for the amendment
> exceeds 70%.
The Constitution is intended to protect the 30% from the 70%. It is
telling indeed that
a poll would be used as an attempt to bolster an attempt to alter the first
amendment.
Call me one of the 30% who thinks that the freedoms that the flag
represents are more important than
the cloth it is made of.
I cannot believe that the current members of congress have some greater
insight or intellegence than the
framers of the constitution, such that they would want to 'fix it up' with
some hot button issue.
My understanding is that the supporters of the amendment wanted to make a
show about all the terrible desecrations
of the flag as evidence of the need for the amendment, but they couldn't
find any. As one scholar said, this is a solution
in search of a problem. Its just pushing peoples buttons, and i find it
quite cynical.
if the amendment passes, I guess i'm entitled to 'inform' on that car
dealer, am I not?
Mike Conway
>
> Now, if a person were to attempt to *actually* destroy the United
> States, that person would be a traitor, and could be sentenced to
> death.
>
> So, it should follow that a symbolic destruction of the United
> States could be punishable by a symbolic death. How about exile?
>
good idea, symbolic punishment for a symbolic crime! Take a piece of
fabric with that flag-burners image on
it and exile that fabric.....let the punishment fit the crime. ;-)
Mary E. Walker
>
>Brian Carey wrote:
>
>How can you support an ammendment protect the American flag from
>desecration if an "American Flag" has never been defined?
>
>NO Nobody agrees on what constitutes an "AMERICAN FLAG"!
>Herman
Flag issues and such are just those emotional issues the right likes to fan.
Those nice low cost issue that win them votes among the same people whose
pockets they intend to pick, IMO. Same with the so called "balanced budget
amendment." They can argue and politicize about something that would take
years to enact and probably could be circumvented quite easily even if
enacted. I can just see down the road, one party accusing the other party,
the Supreme Court getting involved, Justice holding hearings, more fine, but
costly, entertainment. Better than the daytime soaps? Not really.
Since scaring everybody to death about communism seems out of vogue, I guess
scaring everybody to death about the economy, wrapping themselves up in the
flag, and kissing up to the religious right is about all they have left.
mew2
Frank Warner
Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch> wrote:
>RNC Chairman Challenges DNC, Clinton To Support
>Bi-Partisan Flag Amendment
>February 13, 1997
> More than 180 Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.
>House of Representatives are co-sponsored legislation
>Thursday calling for a constitutional amendment to protect
>the American flag from desecration.
BURN THE FLAG
Rally round the flames, boys.
Rally round the fools, girls.
When the dragon breathes of tyrannies,
Old Glory goes to fire.
I will burn the flag
if you say I may not.
I will burn it
if you legislate to desecrate
the republic for which it stands.
Flash!
Burning the flag is the only non-violent act
that really ticks off the U.S. Government,
Congress declared Monday.
Flash!
Oh, say, can you see what the news is Tuesday?
Spontaneous combustion!
Americans more inclined to light the flag
than to curse the darkness.
Liberty in ashes,
the flag the symbol of every grievance
grand and petty,
stars and stripes forever burning.
A country that would not be annoyed
is no land of the free.
Burning the flag is offensive.
That's how it needs to be.
Flag burning is
not murder
not trauma
no gateway to arson,
but drama on the democratic stage.
So I will burn the flag
if you say I may not.
I will burn the flag
blue, white and red hot.
And if ever the dragon spies me and wags,
and your Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags
comes to lock me away,
I'll escape like an American.
I'll jump through a loophole;
you won't put me behind bars
'cause the flag that I burn
will have fifty-one stars.
Frank Warner
Brian Carey
Wayne Aiken wrote:
> It's interesting that a symbol of freedom could be exempt from the very
> freedoms that its supposed to symbolize.
It's interesting that people would claim to use the very freedoms that
the flag symbolizes in order to desecrate it.
It's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
--
Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
"Spurgeon" on #politics on the Undernet!
Brian Carey
grea...@mindspring.com wrote:
> I think you have exiled your brain. I ask AGAIN. What is the definition
> of an American flag? How can you send someone into exile for flag
> desecration if you can't even define what constitues an American flag.
If you don't know what a flag is, then you have indeed exiled your
brain.
grea...@mindspring.com
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> Wayne Aiken wrote:
> > It's interesting that a symbol of freedom could be exempt from the very
> > freedoms that its supposed to symbolize.
>
> It's interesting that people would claim to use the very freedoms that
> the flag symbolizes in order to desecrate it.
>
> It's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
No. The ultimate in hupocrisy is.
Deny freedom if a free citizen ELECTS to excersize that freedom by
desecrating the Flag.
In a Dictatorship, flag desecration would be a crime.
Is there not a difference between Democracy and Dictatorship?
Herman
grea...@mindspring.com
Brian Carey
Brian- call you what you will-
You still have not answered my question.
What is the definition of an American Flag?
Is the paper American Flag with a toothpick flagpole that you toss into
the garbage after a party an American Flag?
Herman
Stephen Thompson
Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch> wrote:
>Wayne Aiken wrote:
>>It's interesting that a symbol of freedom could be exempt from the very
>>freedoms that its supposed to symbolize.
>It's interesting that people would claim to use the very freedoms that
>the flag symbolizes in order to desecrate it.
>
>It's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
That's the great thing about this country... or at least, it's supposed to be.
You aren't supposed to have your freedom of speech infringed because of the
*content* of your speech, no matter how hypocritical it may be. That's why
it's still perfectly legal for hypocrites to publicly support a Constitutional
ban on flag-burning.
I thought we were done with this crap for a while. It's very frightening when
the government gets involved in suppressing anti-government speech, which is
exactly what a content-specific ban against burning an American flag would do.
I mean, jeez, what are we all so afraid of? Why do idiot flag-burners deserve
the credibility that outlawing their activities gives them? Does anyone
actually consider these fools a threat of some kind? And if there's no real
threat, then isn't the whole flag-burning uproar just the latest example of
political correctness gone haywire?
=============================================================================
"If you don't disagree with me, how will I know I'm right?" -- Samuel Goldwyn
My opinions are my own, and not those of my employer.
The weird part is... I'm self-employed.
sws...@home.com
My definition of the flag does not exclude the idea of burning it in
protest. I personally would not do so, because the statement that is
intended will only reach the converted, not the ones you might be
trying to reach. The ones you are trying to reach would probably be
the same ones that insist "a flag burner is a traitor", which is a
silly idea at best. I do not belive that making it illeagal to burn
the flag is a good idea. That would trample on the first amendment,
which I consider way more important than a piece of cloth!
Brian Carey
Call me what I will?? Okay...
>
> You still have not answered my question.
>
> What is the definition of an American Flag?
Dictionaries are useful for these sorts of problems.
>
> Is the paper American Flag with a toothpick flagpole that you toss into
> the garbage after a party an American Flag?
Hmmm... you know I just can't see those Marines at Iwo Jima struggling
to put up a little paper flag attached to a toothpick.
Brian Carey
grea...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > It's interesting that people would claim to use the very freedoms that
> > the flag symbolizes in order to desecrate it.
> >
> > It's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
>
>
> Deny freedom if a free citizen ELECTS to excersize that freedom by
> desecrating the Flag.
No, that's the ultimate in common sense as a punishment to someone who
desecrates the symbol of the freedoms that he/she is abusing.
>
> In a Dictatorship, flag desecration would be a crime.
There are a lot of crimes in Dictatorships which we share in
democracies, i.e., stealing, theft, perjury, etc.
>
> Is there not a difference between Democracy and Dictatorship?
You would have to define which Democracy and which Dictatorship you
specifically have in mind in order for me to answer that question.
grea...@mindspring.com
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> grea...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > It's interesting that people would claim to use the very freedoms that
> > > the flag symbolizes in order to desecrate it.
> > >
> > > It's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
> >
> > No. The ultimate in hupocrisy is.
> >
> > Deny freedom if a free citizen ELECTS to excersize that freedom by
> > desecrating the Flag.
>
> No, that's the ultimate in common sense as a punishment to someone who
> desecrates the symbol of the freedoms that he/she is abusing.
common.
You could work together for punishments for citizens who "defame the
national honor","critisize the government", "make fun of our elected
officials", "dishonor the flag", "refuse to salute the flag and sing the
national anthem" etc.
As far as I am concerned, I personally salute & honor the flag- BUT if
the time came when I could not chose to burn it- or if I were compelled
to salute then it would no longer be in a free country.
Herman
Herman
grea...@mindspring.com
> >
> > What is the definition of an American Flag?
> >
> into
> > the garbage after a party an American Flag?
> >
> >
>
> My definition of the flag does not exclude the idea of burning it in
> protest. I personally would not do so, because the statement that is
> intended will only reach the converted, not the ones you might be
> trying to reach. The ones you are trying to reach would probably be
> the same ones that insist "a flag burner is a traitor", which is a
> silly idea at best. I do not belive that making it illeagal to burn
> the flag is a good idea. That would trample on the first amendment,
> which I consider way more important than a piece of cloth!
If you asked me to define an Orange you probably could.
If I asked you to define a Clock you probably could.
What in the world was that hyperbole you wrote in response to my simple
question?
Herman
grea...@mindspring.com
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > What is the definition of an American Flag?
>
>
> >
> > the garbage after a party an American Flag?
>
> to put up a little paper flag attached to a toothpick.
>
Is THAT IT?
You are ready to punish a man and you cant even define the crime!
Herman
grea...@mindspring.com
Thats good Mike.
Someone once suggested that a fair punishment for flag burning would be
burning an effigy of the flag burner.
I still haven't heard any offers from anyone who can define an American
Flag.
Herman
Alan Miles
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> No, that's the ultimate in common sense as a punishment to someone who
> desecrates the symbol of the freedoms that he/she is abusing.
>
> democracies, i.e., stealing, theft, perjury, etc.
This opinion is shocking.
Why would we prevent people from burning a flag? Let's suppose that
burning an American Flag is the ultimate rejection of American
government. So? Do we believe that people don't have the right to
reject their government? I think they do.
Second, the crimes you mention, theft, perjury et al, clearly injure
people directly. Political views, such as flag-burning, don't. They
are hardly comparable.
Alan Miles
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> grea...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > Is the paper American Flag with a toothpick flagpole that you toss into
> > the garbage after a party an American Flag?
>
> Hmmm... you know I just can't see those Marines at Iwo Jima struggling
> to put up a little paper flag attached to a toothpick.
No, but the proposed Amendment says that it's a crime to desecrate an
American flag. Greatdane asks, reasonably, how will we define "the
flag?" Is Jasper Johns' "Flags" desecration? Can we put a flag on a
tee-shirt? If I fly a flag and accidently leave it in the rain -
against the flag code - have I committed a crime?
These are real questions that the proposed Amendment raises.
G*rd*n
Brian Carey wrote:
| > No, that's the ultimate in common sense as a punishment to someone who
| > desecrates the symbol of the freedoms that he/she is abusing.
| >
| > There are a lot of crimes in Dictatorships which we share in
| > democracies, i.e., stealing, theft, perjury, etc.
| This opinion is shocking.
|
| Why would we prevent people from burning a flag? Let's suppose that
| burning an American Flag is the ultimate rejection of American
| government. So? Do we believe that people don't have the right to
| reject their government? I think they do.
|
| Second, the crimes you mention, theft, perjury et al, clearly injure
| people directly. Political views, such as flag-burning, don't. They
| are hardly comparable.
You could say that flag-burning hurt people's feelings, as,
for example, pornography might. In such cases one wants to
preserve the freedom-from as well as the freedom-to, and
restricts such activities to a reasonable selection of
public spaces. Unfortunately this solution is too rational
to satisfy the fanatics of ideology.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
ShelbyWStark
<mailto:grea...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > What is the definition of an American Flag?
> > >
toss
> > into
> > > the garbage after a party an American Flag?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > My definition of the flag does not exclude the idea of burning it
in
> > protest. I personally would not do so, because the statement that
is
> > intended will only reach the converted, not the ones you might be
> > trying to reach. The ones you are trying to reach would probably
be
> > the same ones that insist "a flag burner is a traitor", which is a
> > silly idea at best. I do not belive that making it illeagal to
burn
> > the flag is a good idea. That would trample on the first
amendment,
> > which I consider way more important than a piece of cloth!
>
> If you asked me to define an Orange you probably could.
> If I asked you to define a Clock you probably could.
>
> What in the world was that hyperbole you wrote in response to my
simple
> question?
>
> Herman
>
Problem is... there are probably about 250,000,000 different
definitions of what the flag is in this country. Some are probably
rather similar some are rather dis-similar, thus the problem with such
an amendment.
Hugo S. Cunningham
Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch> wrote:
>RNC News Release
>RNC Chairman Challenges DNC, Clinton To Support
>Bi-Partisan Flag Amendment
The Republicans themselves propose to desecrate the Constitution
with trivia. Where is the epidemic of flag-burning we should be
concerned about? If someone burns a flag at a Leftist rally, he gets
hustled off the grounds by parade marshals who don't want to be
associated with him. If he burns a flag at an American Legion
convention, he gets punched in the nose. End of problem.
If Republicans are serious about flag-burning (in a broader sense
of the word), they could take a more selective approach, eg zeroing in
on the "Hiroshima Cult" *. No Constitutional Amendment, no criminal
sanctions-- just (1) a resolution that teaching the Hiroshima Cult as
fact in taxpayer-supported primary or secondary schools is educational
malpractice, and (2) a directive to assemble a package of educational
materials that concerned parents and local activists could promote as
an antidote to the Hiroshima Cult.
* a term used by Robert P. Newman in his book ("Truman and the
Hiroshima Cult," Michigan State Univ. Press, E. Lansing MI, 1995) to
describe a set of erroneous beliefs, primarily (1) the ruling
militarists in Japan were ready to surrender (ie disarm and permit
Japan's reconstruction into a peaceable, free society), even before
the atom bombs were used, and (2) Pres. Truman and his advisors knew
this, but chose to perpetrate a needless slaughter because they were
inhuman racists.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Gordon Swobe
Mike Conway <am...@email.adp.unc.edu> wrote in article
<01bc1f44$bdc988b0$67c80298@ais-nt2>...
> Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch> wrote in article <330A05...@the.ranch>...
> >
> > RNC Chairman Challenges DNC, Clinton To Support
> > Bi-Partisan Flag Amendment
<snip>
> > Public opinion polls indicate support for the amendment
> > exceeds 70%.
>
>
> The Constitution is intended to protect the 30% from the 70%. > It is
telling indeed that a poll would be used as an attempt to > bolster an
attempt to alter the first amendment.
>
> Call me one of the 30% who thinks that the freedoms that the
> flag represents are more important than
> the cloth it is made of.
Include me in that 30% as well. I am astounded by these percentages if
they are true.
I would never think of desecrating the flag of a country that protected my
right to do so. Such things are what make our flag the most beautiful on
the planet.
It seems that 70% of americans would desecrate our flag to "protect" it.
Brian Carey
Alan Miles wrote:
> > Hmmm... you know I just can't see those Marines at Iwo Jima struggling
> > to put up a little paper flag attached to a toothpick.
>
> No, but the proposed Amendment says that it's a crime to desecrate an
> American flag. Greatdane asks, reasonably, how will we define "the
> flag?" Is Jasper Johns' "Flags" desecration? Can we put a flag on a
> tee-shirt? If I fly a flag and accidently leave it in the rain -
> against the flag code - have I committed a crime?
>
> These are real questions that the proposed Amendment raises.
I'm not sure about Johns' "Flags" as I have not seen it. However, I
think it's safe to say that wearing a flag t-shirt and accidentally
leaving a flag out in the rain is not quite the same thing as burning a
flag in bitterness in a public place and promoting communism.
Chuck Hensey
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> Alan Miles wrote:
>
> > > Hmmm... you know I just can't see those Marines at Iwo Jima struggling
> > > to put up a little paper flag attached to a toothpick.
> >
> > No, but the proposed Amendment says that it's a crime to desecrate an
> > American flag. Greatdane asks, reasonably, how will we define "the
>
> > flag?" Is Jasper Johns' "Flags" desecration? Can we put a flag on a
> > tee-shirt? If I fly a flag and accidently leave it in the rain -
> > against the flag code - have I committed a crime?
> >
> > These are real questions that the proposed Amendment raises.
>
> I'm not sure about Johns' "Flags" as I have not seen it. However, I
> think it's safe to say that wearing a flag t-shirt and accidentally
> leaving a flag out in the rain is not quite the same thing as burning a
> flag in bitterness in a public place and promoting communism.
>
Brain
Assuming that you have read Texas vs Johnson, the case which sparked
this debate about flag-burning, I'd like for you to do the following
thing to prove your above accusation:
How does burning a flag in front of the 1984 Republican Convention to
protest Reagan's foreign policy in Latin America promote Communism?
also
The same year that the Supreme Court passed the Texas vs Johnson case,
Americans cheered as Chinese students burned Chinese flags in protest to
the undemocratic conditions in China. If this form of political protest
is valid for the Chinese where they have no rights, why is it not for
Americans who have the freedom of speech?
Chuck Hensey
grea...@mindspring.com
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> Alan Miles wrote:
>
> > > Hmmm... you know I just can't see those Marines at Iwo Jima struggling
> > > to put up a little paper flag attached to a toothpick.
> >
> > No, but the proposed Amendment says that it's a crime to desecrate an
> > American flag. Greatdane asks, reasonably, how will we define "the
>
> > flag?" Is Jasper Johns' "Flags" desecration? Can we put a flag on a
> > tee-shirt? If I fly a flag and accidently leave it in the rain -
> > against the flag code - have I committed a crime?
> >
> > These are real questions that the proposed Amendment raises.
>
> I'm not sure about Johns' "Flags" as I have not seen it. However, I
> think it's safe to say that wearing a flag t-shirt and accidentally
> leaving a flag out in the rain is not quite the same thing as burning a
> flag in bitterness in a public place and promoting communism.
>
times.
YOU have decided that someone burns a flag in "bitterness".
Maybe someone is burning it for fun and recreation?
YOU have decided that burning the flag promotes "Communism".
How would you know WHAT someone is promoting- if anything?
Perhaps we could appoint YOU "Emperor of Flag Desecration" and your
great wisdom would replace the laws. How simple. You are qualified.
Herman
Andre Robatino
Brian Carey (ba...@the.ranch) wrote:
: Alan Miles wrote:
: > > Hmmm... you know I just can't see those Marines at Iwo Jima struggling
: > > to put up a little paper flag attached to a toothpick.
: >
: > No, but the proposed Amendment says that it's a crime to desecrate an
: > American flag. Greatdane asks, reasonably, how will we define "the
: > flag?" Is Jasper Johns' "Flags" desecration? Can we put a flag on a
: > tee-shirt? If I fly a flag and accidently leave it in the rain -
: > against the flag code - have I committed a crime?
: >
: > These are real questions that the proposed Amendment raises.
: I'm not sure about Johns' "Flags" as I have not seen it. However, I
: think it's safe to say that wearing a flag t-shirt and accidentally
: leaving a flag out in the rain is not quite the same thing as burning a
: flag in bitterness in a public place and promoting communism.
This appears to be an admission that your real goal is to ban unpopular
speech. From the above, I take it that you don't normally consider those
little paper "flags" to really be flags. What if someone burns one to make
a political statement? What if they get a couple hundred and burn them all
at once? How small does a flag have to be, exactly, to not be a real flag?
What if someone burns one, makes a video of it close-up, and puts it on the
internet?
Under normal conditions, a dictionary definition of "flag" would be enough.
However, when you are considering banning doing something which millions of
people would then consider it civil disobedience to do (30% of the population
is a lot of people) many of those people will then try to taunt the
authorities by desecrating the flag in such a way as to skirt the law. I
claim that you cannot formulate a definition which prevents people from
committing acts which have the same emotional impact as burning a standard,
full-size flag.
--
-export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
Mitchell Holman
In article <33118A...@the.ranch>, Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch> wrote:
}
}I'm not sure about Johns' "Flags" as I have not seen it. However, I
}think it's safe to say that wearing a flag t-shirt and accidentally
}leaving a flag out in the rain is not quite the same thing as burning a
}flag in bitterness in a public place and promoting communism.
If making underwear out of the flag is desecration, what
about making pants? Indeed, what about the rest of the
costume that Uncle Sam is always shown wearing?
PS: Guess what the military does with flags that are worn
out? That's right - they burn them.
Mitchell Holman
"The destruction, it is just very heart-rendering."
Vice President Dan Quayle attempting to say
the SF earthquake wreckage was heart-rending (Newsweek 10/30/89)
Brian Carey
grea...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Brian Carey wrote:
> >
> > Alan Miles wrote:
> >
> > > > Hmmm... you know I just can't see those Marines at Iwo Jima struggling
> > > > to put up a little paper flag attached to a toothpick.
> > >
> > > No, but the proposed Amendment says that it's a crime to desecrate an
> > > American flag. Greatdane asks, reasonably, how will we define "the
> >
> > > flag?" Is Jasper Johns' "Flags" desecration? Can we put a flag on a
> > > tee-shirt? If I fly a flag and accidently leave it in the rain -
> > > against the flag code - have I committed a crime?
> > >
> > > These are real questions that the proposed Amendment raises.
> >
> > think it's safe to say that wearing a flag t-shirt and accidentally
> > leaving a flag out in the rain is not quite the same thing as burning a
> > flag in bitterness in a public place and promoting communism.
> >
> times.
>
> YOU have decided that someone burns a flag in "bitterness".
> Maybe someone is burning it for fun and recreation?
Uh-huh. It's great fun at a party. Hours of fun with your friends.
>
> YOU have decided that burning the flag promotes "Communism".
> How would you know WHAT someone is promoting- if anything?
I have not decided anything of the kind. I have simply said that there
is a difference between someone burning the flag in a public assembly to
promote communism and throwing away a toothpick flag. The spirit is
different. The motives are different. The activity is different.
>
> Perhaps we could appoint YOU "Emperor of Flag Desecration" and your
> great wisdom would replace the laws. How simple. You are qualified.
Call your Senator today. This might fly.
Brian Carey
Andre Robatino wrote:
> This appears to be an admission that your real goal is to ban unpopular
> speech.
No. My goal is to ban flag desecration.
>From the above, I take it that you don't normally consider those
> little paper "flags" to really be flags. What if someone burns one to make
> a political statement? What if they get a couple hundred and burn them all
> at once? How small does a flag have to be, exactly, to not be a real flag?
Ask an African-American living in the South if (s)he would mind it if a
toothpick confederate flag was displayed atop a local courthouse
building.
You know, you folks really could try using some common sense on this
issue.
grea...@mindspring.com
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> Andre Robatino wrote:
> > This appears to be an admission that your real goal is to ban unpopular
> > speech.
>
> No. My goal is to ban flag desecration.
>
> >From the above, I take it that you don't normally consider those
> > little paper "flags" to really be flags. What if someone burns one to make
> > a political statement? What if they get a couple hundred and burn them all
> > at once? How small does a flag have to be, exactly, to not be a real flag?
>
Desecraters.
I can't because you won't tell me what a "official" flag is.
Can you picture it. The law passed. We now have the AFD (Anti Flag
Desecration) police. OK buddy your under arrest for desecrating the
flag. "But officer- it isn't the flag- its my undershorts".
Well Harry - lets look up the manual. It says "Any undershorts, male,
sizes small through extra large may not have a flag imprinted unless the
flag makes up 10% of the undershorts area." Lets get out the ruler.
Herman
G*rd*n
Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch>:
| ...
| issue.
I don't see why. It's a religious issue. People have
profoundly different notions of what the subject of the
discussion _is_. For instance, you say (I believe) that a
flag can be desecrated, which means that for you it is a
sacred (religious) object. But that's not _my_ religion.
Neither of us can produce physical, sensible evidence for
our views -- both are in our heads. So how can we evolve
any "common sense" about it?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
-----------------------------------------------
NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
probably not be able to reach me by email.
Mike Conway
>
> I'm not sure about Johns' "Flags" as I have not seen it. However, I
> think it's safe to say that wearing a flag t-shirt and accidentally
> leaving a flag out in the rain is not quite the same thing as burning a
> flag in bitterness in a public place and promoting communism.
>
Exactamundo.........
The difference is the intent of the flag-soiler and whether there was some
message in whatever that person does to the flag. One is an act of
forgetfulness, one is an act of unpopular political speech.
Can anybody out here name the amendment that covers unpopular political
speech?
'promoting communism'? If I'm not mistaken, somebody could stand on the
steps of the capitol and promote communism if they wanted to....do you
think there should be a punishment for promoting communism? Things are
getting really interesting here...
Shelby
wrote:
> Andre Robatino wrote:
> > This appears to be an admission that your real goal is to ban
unpopular
> > speech.
>
> No. My goal is to ban flag desecration.
>
> >From the above, I take it that you don't normally consider those
> > little paper "flags" to really be flags. What if someone burns
one to make
> > a political statement? What if they get a couple hundred and burn
them
> all
> > at once? How small does a flag have to be, exactly, to not be a
real flag?
>
if a
> toothpick confederate flag was displayed atop a local courthouse
> building.
>
> issue.
>
> Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
> "Spurgeon" on #politics on the Undernet!
>
> "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political
> prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In
> vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should
> labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these
> firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
>
> "And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can
> be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the
> influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure,
> reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national
> morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
>
> --- Excerpts from George Washington's Farewell Address
>
Common sense is to not ban any form of speach. Not even flag burning.
If you ban flag burning because it offends you, then I want a ban on
words such as faggot, nigger, spic, etc... Then let's try and figure
out what constitutes offensive speach in any form to anyone, then ban
it. Where will we stop? The only way to get rid of offensive speach is
to repeal the First Amendment to the Constitution! I would rather
allow a few unwise individuals to burn the flag than do this.
Andre Robatino
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> Andre Robatino wrote:
> > This appears to be an admission that your real goal is to ban unpopular
> > speech.
>
> No. My goal is to ban flag desecration.
>
> >From the above, I take it that you don't normally consider those
> > little paper "flags" to really be flags. What if someone burns one to make
> > a political statement? What if they get a couple hundred and burn them all
> > at once? How small does a flag have to be, exactly, to not be a real flag?
>
> Ask an African-American living in the South if (s)he would mind it if a
> toothpick confederate flag was displayed atop a local courthouse
> building.
>
Ask anyone at a veteran's convention whether they'd mind if you
stepped up to the podium and burned a toothpick flag.
Is it your expectation that laws against flag desecration would take
into account the _intent_ of the perpetrator? If so, then you are
indeed trying to ban unpopular speech. If not, then I claim that no
reasonable definition of desecration can be formulated which has the
intended effect. "I know it when I see it" isn't good enough.
Frank Warner
lad...@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Ladasky) wrote:
>The following are the lyrics to a song written by myself and Craig Latta
>back in 1990,
>"Burn the Flag" Copyright 1990 by John Ladasky and Craig Latta
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Burn the flag! Burn the flag!
>Compulsory idolatry is not a cause to brag.
>Burn the flag! Burn the flag!
>I won't tolerate a smidgen of this state-enforced religion;
>You should get out of the kitchen if you cannot stand the heat.
>Burn the flag!
Here's a ditty of the same name:
BURN THE FLAG
Rally round the flames, boys.
Rally round the fools, girls.
When the dragon breathes of tyrannies,
Old Glory goes to fire.
I will burn the flag
if you say I may not.
I will burn it
if you legislate to desecrate
the republic for which it stands.
Flash!
Burning the flag is the only non-violent act
that really ticks off the U.S. Government,
Congress declared Monday.
Flash!
Oh, say, can you see what the news is Tuesday?
Spontaneous combustion!
Americans more inclined to light the flag
than to curse the darkness.
Liberty in ashes,
the flag the symbol of every grievance
grand and petty,
stars and stripes forever burning.
A country that would not be annoyed
is no land of the free.
Burning the flag is offensive.
That's how it needs to be.
Flag burning is
not murder
not rape
not trauma
no gateway to arson,
but drama on the democratic stage.
So I will burn the flag
if you say I may not.
I will burn the flag
blue, white and red hot.
And if ever the dragon spies me and wags,
and your Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags
comes to lock me away,
I'll escape like an American.
I'll jump through a loophole;
you won't put me behind bars
'cause the flag that I burn
will have fifty-one stars.
Frank Warner
David Salvador Flores
In article <330C0C...@compuserve.com>,
Craig Smith <70004...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>xona wrote:
>>
[deletia]
>So, it should follow that a symbolic destruction of the United
>States could be punishable by a symbolic death. How about exile?
How about electrocuting you in effigy.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <330D9A...@the.ranch>, Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch> wrote:
>Wayne Aiken wrote:
>> It's interesting that a symbol of freedom could be exempt from the very
>> freedoms that its supposed to symbolize.
>
>It's interesting that people would claim to use the very freedoms that
>the flag symbolizes in order to desecrate it.
>
>It's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
The ultimate desecration of the flag is to prohibit its desecration
by law. Burning our flag is only a symbolic muddying of what it stands
for. "Protecting" it through constitutional ammendments undermines
everything the flag was supposed to represent.
-Dave
Eugene V. Greathouse
th...@primenet.com.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL (Stephen Thompson) wrote:
>I mean, jeez, what are we all so afraid of? Why do idiot flag-burners deserve
>the credibility that outlawing their activities gives them? Does anyone
>actually consider these fools a threat of some kind? And if there's no real
>threat, then isn't the whole flag-burning uproar just the latest example of
>political correctness gone haywire?
>
>=============================================================================
>"If you don't disagree with me, how will I know I'm right?" -- Samuel Goldwyn
>
> My opinions are my own, and not those of my employer.
> The weird part is... I'm self-employed.
I saw a post a little earlier in this thread that scientifically
proved American flag burning ( as opposed to flag burning) causes
communism. No this is not just political correctness gone haywire. It
is a disease that must be crushed under the jackboots of freedom.
With real issues facing this country, like how quickly we can
redistribute money from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy, who
shows less respect for the American public, the President or the
Congress, assaults on the social system that we wish we lived in,
attempting to co-opt the next conciousness raising effort in order
that it has "our" spin on it, ways to live in a world of meaningless
boundaries, separating "National Interest" from "Economic Interest"
(sorry Kiddoes, they're not the same), problems with major populations
passing like ships in the night on a dark, fear-filled sea, seeking
what is "mine", and any number of other issues, I can't believe this
topic has taken up the time and consideration of so many people who
have better things to do with their time. This is a perfect
illustration of what our government does when it is faced with
difficult problems made worse by simple ill-considered solutions, it
jumps on some hot-button to get everyone emotionally stirred up
drawing attention away from how truly ineffective they are. WHEN WILL
WE EVER GET A GOVERNMENT THAT GIVES A SHIT ABOUT US?
***********************************************************
Pugilisticus (ink...@airmail.net)
Republicans want us to be responsible for ourselves only.
Democrats want us to be responsible for everyone but ourselves.
Th.Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican.
***********************************************************
Bob Danielson
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:27:57 -0500, Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch>
wrote:
>I have not decided anything of the kind. I have simply said that there
>is a difference between someone burning the flag in a public assembly to
>promote communism and throwing away a toothpick flag. The spirit is
>different. The motives are different. The activity is different.
That's right, the first being an act of political protest, and the
second being littering, a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions.
Andre Robatino
Eugene V. Greathouse (ink...@airmail.net) wrote:
: have better things to do with their time. This is a perfect
: illustration of what our government does when it is faced with
: difficult problems made worse by simple ill-considered solutions, it
: jumps on some hot-button to get everyone emotionally stirred up
: drawing attention away from how truly ineffective they are. WHEN WILL
: WE EVER GET A GOVERNMENT THAT GIVES A SHIT ABOUT US?
One of the early posts pointed out that about 70% of the public is in favor
of the amendment. So, unfortunately, this is one of those cases where they
(the 70%, not the 30%) are getting the government they deserve. It's
unrealistic to expect politicians to resist milking this for political gain
when the public is so gullible.
Stephen Thompson
Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch> wrote:
>Andre Robatino wrote:
>You know, you folks really could try using some common sense on this
>issue.
Some common sense questions:
1. Would a flag burning amendment outlaw the burning of something that looked
almost exactly like an American flag, but didn't fit the specifications of
one (e.g. it had 51 stars)? If so, how?
2. Do you believe that suppression of anti-government speech is a valid role
of the federal government?
3. Do you believe there is some sort of real threat to our nation or its
citizens from the act of burning a U.S. flag?
Tony Veca
Is The United States Flag Important?
By Tony Veca
In this day and age of symbols there is one symbol that is consistently
overlooked in the US, that symbol is the flag of the United States of America.
For many of people, the world over, the stars and strips of the American flag
means freedom, peace, prosperity and most importantly to succeed in a free
enterprise system like no where else in the world.
Unfortunately there are those in our own country that see it as just a piece of
cloth, devoid of meaning and something to be scorned and ridiculed.
The true meanings of the colors of our nation follow; white signifies Purity and
Innocence; Red, Hardiness and Valor; and Blue, Vigilance, Perseverance and
Justice.
To this day I still get a lump in my throat seeing the Flag raised while the
Star Spangled Banner plays. It is a reminder that there were those before I was
born who fought against tyranny and would rather die as free men than to live as
slaves.
Okay then, what is so special about this red, white and blue piece of cloth? If
you were to ask ten different people you would get ten different answers and all
of them would be right including the ones that are not so flattering.
Our national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner describes the battle at British
bombardment of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812 when the US fought the
British to maintain the right of neutrality on the seas. The British were
attacking US ship and impressing the crews into the British Navy during their
war with the French.
In 1814 the British attacked Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor, in an effort to
take Baltimore. The British naval commander told the fort commander that they
could signal surrender of the fort by lowering the flag and if they didn't lower
it they would blast the fort with cannons until they did surrender. The British
Naval ships pummeled the fort with their ship's cannons and they fort refused to
surrender, the British commander ordered his gunners to start targeting the flag
to get them to bring it down to cause the fort's defenders to loose heart. As
the song says, "Through the rockets red glare and bombs bursting through air,
gave proof to the night that our flag was still there."
That proof came with a price, for in the morning 150 men died keeping the flag
standing. You see, one of the British guns had hit the flag pole and came close
to toppling it, what kept it standing were men who were willing to die to keep
the flag flying high in defiance of the British. As men were killed they took
their place to keep the flag standing.
To me those lives were not lost just to keep a flag flying, it was to keep an
ideal alive, one of freedom to live one's life unfettered by the dictates of
another. It gave others the hope that they would win out against tyranny. This
battle was the one that sent a clear message to the British, that they would not
go quietly into the night, they would not submit to British rule, and that they
would fight for their freedom against oppression and tyranny no matter what the
cost.
In "Veterans of the USA", song by a group called The Goads, the chorus sums up
my feelings towards those who have fought for our nation both past and present.
The red is for the blood,
The blue is for the bruise,
The white is for the eyes;
that fought for me and you
So we lift our hearts today,
Filled with gratitude and praise.
For the veterans of the USA.1
Is the American Flag important? The answer is yes, make that a resounding YES!
If it weren't important there would not be laws governing the handling of the
Stars and Stripes. These laws were handed down in the early years of this
nation, and up until the last thirty forty years have been observed, only the
military follows those dictates. Here is a short list of how to handle the US
flag.
* Never handle the flag with your bare hands; always handle it with
white gloves.
* The flag should never touch the ground if it does; it shall be burned
in a private ceremony.
* When folded, only the stars and blue field shall show.
* If a flag becomes tattered, faded, or desecrated it shall be burned in
a private ceremony.
As you can see, there is a reason for burning the flag, when it is burnt it is
because it has served it purpose, but time and age had made it unable to serve
as a symbol. Those who burn the American flag in public protest, can do so, the
First Amendment guarantees them that right. But, in my humble opinion, those who
do so are spiting on the memory and honor of those who risked their lives for
them to have the right to burn the flag in public protest.
The American Flag is a symbol that there are things worth fighting for; the
right to life, liberty and that no man or woman has the right to decide what is
best for you.
Finally I would like to leave you with our National Anthem and the Pledge of
Allegiance.
National Anthen:
Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light.
What so proudly we held, by the twilight's last gleaming
Whose bright stripes and bright stars through the perilous light.
From the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming
Through the rockets red glare and bombs bursting through air,
gave proof to the night that our flag was still there.
Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave
For the Land of the free and the home of the brave
Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
And to the Republic, for which it stands,
One nation, under god, indivisible;
With liberty and justice for all.
Long live the USA.
1©1989 Goadies Music
NOTICE: Except where authorship is otherwise noted, all material is © 1997 Tony
Veca. Permission is hereby given to copy and distribute this material provided
proper notice is displayed on such copies regarding authorship and copyright and
no payment of money is received in exchange for such distribution or
duplication. All other rights are reserved.
Tony Veca
cybe...@geocities.com.
Copyright © 1997 Tony Veca
Cyber Libertarian Web Magazine.
======================================================================
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
======================================================================
Tony Veca
Visit the Cyber Libertarian Homepage
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1099/
cybe...@geocities.com
grea...@mindspring.com
Tony Veca wrote:
>
> Is The United States Flag Important?
> By Tony Veca
Hi Tony,
I appreciate your post. I love my flag too.
I have an important problem concerning the U.S. flag.
I have not been able to find ANYONE who could define exactly what an
American flag IS. And until it is defined there is no way we could have
a law or ammendment to protect it.
As an example. I have some little paper American flag toothpicks that I
use at parties. Is that toothpick flag really an American flag? Can I
just toss it in the garbage after eating?
What about those little 2inch x 3inch American flags that children
sometimes put on bicycles. Are they real American flags?
Herman
Andre Robatino
Tony Veca (tv...@gte.net) wrote:
: As you can see, there is a reason for burning the flag, when it is burnt it is
: because it has served it purpose, but time and age had made it unable to serve
: as a symbol. Those who burn the American flag in public protest, can do so, the
: First Amendment guarantees them that right. But, in my humble opinion, those who
: do so are spiting on the memory and honor of those who risked their lives for
: them to have the right to burn the flag in public protest.
Not necessarily, this is only one possible motive. The protest can be
directed at the government, not those who fought for it. As long as our
government is less than perfect, which it will always be, the First Amendment
should never be compromised to prevent this form of protest.
Andre Robatino
Andre Robatino (an...@bwh.harvard.edu) wrote:
: Tony Veca (tv...@gte.net) wrote:
: : As you can see, there is a reason for burning the flag, when it is burnt it is
: : because it has served it purpose, but time and age had made it unable to serve
: : as a symbol. Those who burn the American flag in public protest, can do so, the
: : First Amendment guarantees them that right. But, in my humble opinion, those who
: : do so are spiting on the memory and honor of those who risked their lives for
: : them to have the right to burn the flag in public protest.
: Not necessarily, this is only one possible motive. The protest can be
: directed at the government, not those who fought for it. As long as our
: government is less than perfect, which it will always be, the First Amendment
: should never be compromised to prevent this form of protest.
More to the point, the flag represents the _government_. Not the people,
and not the veterans. If the Constitution is amended to allow laws against
flag desecration, this would limit nonviolent criticism of the government.
And _that_ would be spitting on those who fought for our freedoms.
Tony Veca
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 07:58:25 -0500, grea...@mindspring.com wrote:
>Tony Veca wrote:
>>
>> Is The United States Flag Important?
>> By Tony Veca
><snip>
>
>Hi Tony,
>
>I appreciate your post. I love my flag too.
I appreciate your post, and thank you. Sometime I think people need to be
reminded what the flag of the USA is really about.
>I have an important problem concerning the U.S. flag.
>
>I have not been able to find ANYONE who could define exactly what an
>American flag IS. And until it is defined there is no way we could have
>a law or ammendment to protect it.
>
>As an example. I have some little paper American flag toothpicks that I
>use at parties. Is that toothpick flag really an American flag? Can I
>just toss it in the garbage after eating?
>
>What about those little 2inch x 3inch American flags that children
>sometimes put on bicycles. Are they real American flags?
As to your questions, in all honesty, I don't know how to answer it. The only
thing I can think of, is do what you think is best.
>
>Herman
On one of my jackets, I have a USA Flag patch sewn on the left shoulder,
underneath it is the Texas State Flag (the state where I was born) and under
that is the Washington State Flag (the state in which I live). I have other
Flag patches on that jack representing the various states and nations that I
have visited on the same jacket.
Tony Veca
On 15 Mar 1997 00:23:12 GMT, an...@bwh.harvard.edu (Andre Robatino) wrote:
[...deletia...]
> More to the point, the flag represents the _government_. Not the people,
>and not the veterans. If the Constitution is amended to allow laws against
>flag desecration, this would limit nonviolent criticism of the government.
>And _that_ would be spitting on those who fought for our freedoms.
IMHO, I would say that you are right up to a point. Yes, a flag can represent a
government, but it can also represent a people. I point you toward the colors
of the US Flag: White signifies Purity and Innocence; Red, Hardiness and Valor;
and Blue, Vigilance, Perseverance and Justice.
The description of what the colors mean does represent the US as a people, as
individuals we all have these characteristics to one degree or another. Even
the stars and stripes have a meaning. The stars represent each of the 50 states
of the Union, the 13 stripes represent the 13 colonies that became the first
states.
I remember from one of my history classes a teacher who described the colors
chosen for the US Flag this way.
Red represents the blood of patriots who faught for this nation
White: the purity of the purpose of freedom
Blue: the Justice of our cause of freedom.
There is only one state in the Union that uses a similar patern to that of the
US Flag, and that is Texas. After Texas won the war with Mexico, it was an
independant nation (The Republic of Texas) for 8 years before petitioning the US
government to become a state of the union.
If I remember my history correctly, when deciding what the flag should be to
represent the US as nation, the reason give for the choice was that it paid no
favoritism to any one state.
Mike
A wise ol' philosopher, a.k.a Bret Cahill, once said, "All conservatism is
based on the censorship of economic information." Unforunately, I'd have to
agree with said philosophers premise(Good, God, the horror!). Hardcore Republicans
continue to divert public discussion towards side issues like the Flag
Amendment. With a five trillion dollar debt that needs to be paid off,
and with programs like Social Security on the brink of destruction,
one has to wonder what motivates these Republicons. Is it insanity?
Or are they really tring to censor economic information?
Andre Robatino
Tony Veca (tv...@gte.net) wrote:
: On 15 Mar 1997 00:23:12 GMT, an...@bwh.harvard.edu (Andre Robatino) wrote:
: [...deletia...]
: > More to the point, the flag represents the _government_. Not the people,
: >and not the veterans. If the Constitution is amended to allow laws against
: >flag desecration, this would limit nonviolent criticism of the government.
: >And _that_ would be spitting on those who fought for our freedoms.
: IMHO, I would say that you are right up to a point. Yes, a flag can represent a
: government, but it can also represent a people. I point you toward the colors
: of the US Flag: White signifies Purity and Innocence; Red, Hardiness and Valor;
: and Blue, Vigilance, Perseverance and Justice.
: The description of what the colors mean does represent the US as a people, as
: individuals we all have these characteristics to one degree or another. Even
: the stars and stripes have a meaning. The stars represent each of the 50 states
: of the Union, the 13 stripes represent the 13 colonies that became the first
: states.
But human nature is the same the world over. People in this country are in
no way superior to those anywhere else, except to the extent that our form of
government is better at bringing out the positive side of human nature, and
keeping the bad side hidden (we have our Saddam Husseins, they just don't
acquire absolute power).
It's ironic that "vigilance" is exactly the trait which is lacking in those
people who think a flag amendment is a good idea. They believe that our
government has reached such a state of perfection, and will always remain so,
that we can now afford to censor criticism. There was an article today by
columnist Charles Levendosky titled "Amending the First Amendment into
oblivion" about the fact that there are now 7 proposed amendments involving
abridging the First Amendment (two of them involve flag desecration). Scary.
Bob Tiernan
On 15 Mar 1997, Andre Robatino wrote:
> More to the point, the flag represents the _government_. Not the people,
> and not the veterans. If the Constitution is amended to allow laws against
> flag desecration, this would limit nonviolent criticism of the government.
> And _that_ would be spitting on those who fought for our freedoms.
And, as one person said on Crossfire many months ago, if this amendment
passes it will mean that this symbol of freedom means more than freedom
itself. How absurd.
Bob T.
LP of Oregon
J. Kendrick McPeters
tv...@gte.net (Tony Veca) wrote:
Hey Tony,
From your post it is obvious that your heart is in the right place.
But what is a cyber-libertarian quoting the pledge of allegiance for?
The pledge was written by a socialist, and was meant to emphasize the
importance of the federal government. It was later changed (they
added the "under God" part in the 1950's) to endorse religion.
Neither of which makes the Pledge all that libertarian, IMO.
YMMV.
---Kendrick
Comandante "Less-than-Zero" (D. J. Waletzky)
Crap. The flag stands for opression and imperialism, not a misconception of
freedom.
I'm a flag-burner and damn proud of it.
--
<<<_______________________________________
w a l e t z k y @ v o y a g e r . b x s c i e n c e . e d u
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
``>>>
Tony Veca <tv...@gte.net> wrote in article
<3328ba16....@news.gte.net>...
Tony Veca
>tv...@gte.net (Tony Veca) wrote:
>
>Hey Tony,
>
>From your post it is obvious that your heart is in the right place.
>But what is a cyber-libertarian quoting the pledge of allegiance for?
Because my allegiance is to my country, and the flag represents my
country.
>
>The pledge was written by a socialist, and was meant to emphasize the
>importance of the federal government. It was later changed (they
>added the "under God" part in the 1950's) to endorse religion.
>
>Neither of which makes the Pledge all that libertarian, IMO.
It mostly has to do with the last few lines:
One nation under God;
Indivisable with liberty and justice for all.
To me these last few lines are a message to all of us that we are one
nation; not a racial groups that liberty and justice are for all of
us, even if their are those who don't think so.
======================================================================
Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a hike.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
"The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"
Andre Robatino
Tony Veca (tv...@gte.net) wrote:
: On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:45:45 GMT, mcpe...@usit.net (J. Kendrick
: McPeters) wrote:
: >tv...@gte.net (Tony Veca) wrote:
: >
: >Hey Tony,
: >
: >From your post it is obvious that your heart is in the right place.
: >But what is a cyber-libertarian quoting the pledge of allegiance for?
: Because my allegiance is to my country, and the flag represents my
: country.
My allegiance is to the freedom that this country presently represents (more
or less). If the country stops living up to these ideals, my allegiance will
go elsewhere. Nationalism is a disease.
Cliff Morrison
In article <5h7t0i$3...@mufasa.harvard.edu>, an...@bwh.harvard.edu (Andre
Robatino) wrote:
> Tony Veca (tv...@gte.net) wrote:
> : On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:45:45 GMT, mcpe...@usit.net (J. Kendrick
> : McPeters) wrote:
>
> : >tv...@gte.net (Tony Veca) wrote:
> : >
> : >Hey Tony,
> : >
> : >From your post it is obvious that your heart is in the right place.
> : >But what is a cyber-libertarian quoting the pledge of allegiance for?
>
> : Because my allegiance is to my country, and the flag represents my
> : country.
>
> My allegiance is to the freedom that this country presently represents (more
> or less). If the country stops living up to these ideals, my allegiance will
> go elsewhere. Nationalism is a disease.
>
Wrong, it is blinkered patriotism which is arguably a disease, or an
excuse for distasteful conduct, because it puts the trappings and
institutions of the established power above the interests of the nation or
nations within a country.
A nationalist's allegiance stays with the nation (which may or may not be
synonymous with the country, no matter....) but if the State stops living
up to the required ideals then his or her loyalty may quite legitimately
and correctly turn against the establishment.....
The USA isn't one nation and the previously successful attempts to use
patriotic symbolism (as evidenced at the opening of big media events for
example) to create the psychological illusion of a single cohesive nation
seem now to be failing... your empire has passed its peak and will go the
same way as have all others, British included. nationalism isn't a
disease; economic dogmatism, exploitation, supremacism, imperialism,
statism, and political correctness all are.