|
First, the question comes to mind...how does this affect the manner in which flags to be taken out of service are to be disposed of in a dignified manner? The american Legion states that the correct way to dispose of a worn-out, torn-up flag, in a dignified manner, is by burning it...yes, BURNING IT...and on flag Day, every year, for years back, american Legion halls have routinely set hundreds of flags ablaze in a respectful disposal ceremony of old flags.
This is, as I have said, the proper, respectful, and dignified way to dispose of old, worn-out, tattered and torn flags. How would a Flag-Burning Amendment affect this practice? How would we then dispose of a flag in a dignified manner when it has reached the end of it's serviceable use? It is certainly disrespectful of the flag to fly it when it is in poor condition (tattered, torn, worn-out) and I do not think simply putting the flag out with the garbage is a respectful manner in which to dispose of a flag.
The second, and perhaps more important question is this: Why are they so concerned about a SYMBOL (let's face it a flag is nothing by a symbol) and yet, the majority of supporters of this Amendment (Republicans) routinely hold the SYMBOL sacred, while routinely trashing everything the symbol represents, you know, things like peace, freedom, democracy, equality, justice, etc....
Is it not one of the fourteen signs of fascism to have an over-emphasis on Symbols, and symbolism? This, to me, is a pure sign of Nationalism. An article on this morning's front page clearly defines the differences between Patriotism and Nationalism, but if you want another (my) definition of the terms, I'd put it this way: you will find the Patriots on DU, and the Nationalists on Free Republic.
Lastly, what do the Nationalists hope to achieve by passing this Amendment, which is clearly in violation with the First amendment right to free speech? The First Amendment is designed to protect, specifically political speech...and even more specifically, UNPOPULAR political speech, as popular political speech, by definition, needs no protection.
Those who have hatred in their hearts for this country, or for our symbols...or what those symbols have now come to mean (torture, illegal, pre-emtive wars, Gitmo, etc...) are not going to respect the law of this land, anyway, and will continue to burn flags to make their political statements...and this amnendment would not be binding on the most common offenders, anyway, as those people are foreigners, and are doing their activities on foreign soil.
I'm thinking those who support this Amendment would do much better to address the things that cause some to disrespect and desecrate the symbols of this nation. Why do they do it? could it be because the symbol, for them, symbolizes something different that it once did? could it be that the policies and actions of this corrupt Administration have changed, for some people, what Old Glory symbolizes for them?
Of course, they won't do that, because, as the aforementioned article mentions...it is far easier for the Nationalists to point fingers at a scapegoat or a boogeyman, and blame it for all our ills...rather than take a good, long, hard, honest look at themselves and their actions...and to ponder if perhaps some of those actions are causing others to take the action they are now lining up trying to prevent.
So, to sum things up, my questions regarding the amendment would be...
1. What replaces burning as the dignified, respectful, and proper way to dispose of a no-longer-serviceable United States Flag?
2. What are we going to do as a country, to change what our symbol menas to others around the world? Or are we just going to subscribe to the "might is right" theory and simply FORCE and batter our view into common practice, as the Busheviks have been doing these pst five years (which is, incidentally, why we are so universally hated around the globe these days)
3. How does one enforce this Amendment, particularly when most of the offenders will be, and have been, people not subject to the laws of this land?
4. How does one reconcile this Amendment with the free speech provisons afforded under the First Amendment?
5. What, exactly, are the Nationalists who support this bill REALLY trying to achieve here? They seem more concerned with the SYMBOL than with the nation the symbol represents. Then again, that is a common trait of Nationalists.
As a patriot, it hurts my heart to see an American flag burned by an angry group of political protestors. It hurts me not that they are burning the flag...but rather, it hurts me that the flag has come to symbolize such horrible things to them that they feel it necessary to burn it in order to make thier views known. The country I grew up in...the country I learned about, and the country I love, I fear it already no longer exists. I find myself asking the question time and again...how has my country come to this...that the symbols of our country could come to mean such evil things to some people?
Weren't we supposed to be about liberty and justice for ALL? Weren't we supposed to be about peace, democracy, freedom, human dignity, inalienable human rights? Wasn't THAT what Old Glory was supposed to represent? So why doesn't it represent that to some people anymore? THAT is the question that should be asked. But, again, that is a question for patriots...not nationalists.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
