Down with the Flag Burning Amendment!

Pardon me while I -gasp!- actually say something against the government, a mere day after writing I can't speak for or against US policies.

I can't tell you how happy I am the flag-burning amendment failed in the Senate.  It would've been adding a clause to our little rights known as freedom of speech and protest.  Yes, I get angry when someone burns the flag, but for [PIGEONS] sake, you can churn out another factory-made and Walmart-sold flag.  You can't just churn out countries that preach freedom and liberty!

I further molted my feathers when I saw this blurb in the news:

"Groups lobbying for the anti- desecration amendment say they will "widely publicize" this week's Senate vote. "We had high hopes for three Republicans, since it was in their party's platform and the president supported it. We thought they would go along with the team," says Daniel Wheeler, the president of the Citizens Flag Alliance, a coalition headed by the American Legion." 

Headed by the American Legion?  You should be ashamed of yourselves!  I've served honorably in the Army and Air Force for 12 years to defend that greasy-haired kid from Berkeley's right to burn the flag. Freedom of Speech is a sword I'm willing to die on, brothers.  I dare say if the amendment ever passed I'd burn a flag while in full military uniform:  yes, I would see it as that much of a disgrace to the US Constitution( it's bad enough it's already soiled by the amendments starting and stopping prohibition).   The Constitution, in my mind, is a document of high spiritual magnitude, and you don't go mucking with it every time a special interest gets a burr in their butt!  The beauty is in the simplicity.  The below cartoon by Colorado Springs Gazette editorial cartoonist Chuck Asay sums up my feelings perfectly.

Anyways, feel free to call me un-American all you want.  I know in my heart I've paid my dues for the flag.

Cross-posted on The Mudville Gazette

Comments

[canuckistani]

It seems the war on terror has brought about a zealousness for bills to legislate all manner of human behaviour, including free speech. I find your posting timely as just last evening I was reading a similar article in Vanity Fair called "Blair's Big Brother Legacy" by Henry Porter. Mr. Porter describes how in it's quest to protect the British people from terrorism, the Blair government has also embedded protections for the state against the people in its terror legislation. For example, in the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act of 2005, no one may demonstrate within a kilometer of Parliament if they have not first acquired written permission from the commissioner of the Metro Police. In other words, no demonstrations/protests, etc. within half a mile of Parliament. This makes the center of British government, Trafalgar Square and Whitehall, off limits to marchers who traditionally protested in these areas. Furthermore, if anything is written on placards or if someone makes a speech, he/she is deemed to be in breach of the law and is arrested. The person can received a sentence of up to 5 years. There are many more examples of these "hidden" laws in the article and I highly reccommend it for anyone concerned about state surveillance of the populace.

If people let their governments continue to make these laws without seriously examining them, flag burning is going to be the least of our worries. We may have Geore Orwell's prediction of the state peering at us through screens in our very own homes. Not bloody likely, you say? Look what's happened already. Here in Canada, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service already has an agreement with Bell Canada to track the online activities of suspicious individuals. Right now it is up to Bell Canada to turn over the info to CSIS, but soon it could be legislated they have to.

I understand the world we are living in today and the security precautions required, but I do not like the idea of hidden legislation riding the coattails of legitimate laws so the state can shut down protest by the people. To me, that is attacking the very life of a democracy.

[Violence Worker]

There is no absolute freedom of speech. I can't write here on your blog, on bandwidth you pay for, a threat to the President; regardless if it was serious or not. There's the old rule that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You have the freedom to worship, but that doesn't include things like polygamy or human sacrifice. (I know, that takes all the fun out of it.) The bottom line is that we restrict people in the excersise of freedom all the time. As much as we all lust for liberty, it must be tempered by the reasonable restraints imposed by society. So do we have some "right" to burn a flag in front of city Hall? Does banning that fall into the realm of "reasonable restraint"?

There is no doubt you've paid your dues. I've paid my dues. Twenty years of active duty has to mean something. Even now, I continue those dues payments. I might work for a civilian contractor these days, but in my wallet is a USAF ID card that places me in Geneva Convention Category IV. (I don't get the pay, but I get the status - go figure!) Some of my colleagues returned from Afghanistan last November recovering a C-17 that missed the runway. Some have had to go to Iraq, I was scheduled for a trip to the sandbox last year, but it got cancelled.

Thems my street creds,so where do I stand on the issue?

I suppose, in the end, I come down on the side of freedom. If it's your flag and you wanty to burn it, then by all means, flame on. If you happen to get arrested for burning your flag because of some local fire safety ordinace, that's the breaks. Like I said, there is no absolute freedom. Lighting a fire in some places is dangerous. If, in lighting that fire, your shirt catches fire too and you wind up with skin grafts, that might also be a consequence you have to deal with.

The flag stands for something intangible that can't be burned away by anyone. Some people look at the flag and see only the stains of history and conclude there is no other fit way to show their disgust but to burn it in the public square. Others, like me, see a different flag. One whose stains are bleached away by the blood, sweat and tears of millions of immigrants who gave up everything to come here and by countless men and women over the years who honorably served their country in some capacity.

Are we un-American by opposing an amendment banning the burning of the flag? No, I dare say we see the flag for what it really is. As for those who stand in the public square and burn the flag, they are the ones who are anti-American and anti-freedom. They desecrate the very symbol of freedom and free speech they say is their right to express. It is irony of the highest order.

So I say to those disposed to burn the flag: Flame on! Just know that a whole lot of people lived and died, people that you would spit upon, gave you the right. If you have an ounce of decency in you as a human being, you'd understand that and protest in a more fitting way.

To the politicians: Bugger off! We have a lot more serious problems than some idiot torching his flag down on Main Street. If you really want to do something to protect the flag, do something meaningful to protect our borders.

VW

[larry Z.]

Right on! You wanna burn the flag, be my guest. It protects your right to do that. So I support such bahavior? Do I respect the hypocracy that such an action belies? NO! But should it be illegal to express that sentiment? Of course not. Say and do whatever you want to express yourself, just don't hurt anyone (like buring down their house, or shooting them) to get your point across.

Keep in mind that the only way to properly dispose of a flag is to burn it. What does a law do that prohibits this? Does it ban an act or an idea? Think about that, and what you're banning.

LMZ