Constructive gadfly
Published on July 5, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

A young husband loses his wife to cancer and feels God has let him down: in his grief he burns the Bible. However others may perceive this as offensive, he has the right to this function or dysfunction, provided it is his bible and has done so on his own property. If he melodramatically wishes to make a point and burns it in the public square or on church grounds, it is a criminal act and not his right to free speech.

No one has the right to burn a flag draped on the coffin of a fallen soldier, not even a family member who wishes to express his or her protest of the war. However, should the spouse or sole possessor of the folded flag at burial wishes to burn it, he or she may do so if in the privacy of grief or futility but not as public desecration to the memory of a war hero.

If as the Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is a matter of free speech and the right of assemblage to demonstrate such offensiveness, the court has missed the point completely. That the flag in question was privately purchased with the intent to desecrate publicly does not excuse the dysfunction unless on the perpetrator’s front lawn. We do not have the right to destroy the Ten Commandments or the Cross on ecclesiastic property or through established practice such monuments on public property, but if private persons become disillusioned with their own beliefs there is every right to dismantle whatever religious display exists on their own private property, but on no other. On Guantanamo if the Koran is the private property of the prisoner or has been issued by international organizations, then desecration is not only offensive but criminal; however, if the Koran has been distributed by the Navy or Defense Departments, what they give can be taken away as punishment for bad behavior.

Through accepted practice Old Glory is not only symbolic but through blood and tears of so many wars, it has taken on legitimate sanctity for the nation and should therefore be protected by law, not simply by military law. Moreover, crass commercialism of the flag should be banned — a pizza stain on an Old Glory ‘t’ shirt or a stars and stripes ass-snapping beach towel is as offensive. Burning the flag as a public demonstration privately purchased or not is an affront to the millions who have given their lives for it — rightly or wrongly — tantamount to throwing eggs at the Iwo Jima monument.

 

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: July 5, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments
on Jul 05, 2005

I cant tell if you are being facietious, or serious. But if you are serious, then I am leaving the reservation.

Sorry, I love my flag, but if some whackos want to burn it, it is their right.  yes it represents what you say, and it also represents the blood of those men and women who fought to allow that activity.

on Jul 05, 2005
I might not have gotten the 'jist' of what you're saying but from what I see you're a very gung-ho-about-the-flag kind of individual. That you place a kind of immortal sanctity over something made by the hands of men (mankind for the sensitive). I think it's kind of moot when you think about the events that lead to the stars being added to the flag. Historical nostalgia takes precedent in any and all books one reads in the education system. In all fairness, some stars being added were no different from a notch carved into a gun. Figuratively of course.
To me, it's mentally weak to give in to symbolism. And there's no way I'd ever give any material thing heavenly and divine qualities. If someone wants to burn a flag, then fine. It's shameful to some. Rude to others. Acceptable to some. Outrageous to others...If you buy into the whole patriotic meaningful-flag-symbol-of-freedom-and-democracy mentality, how does one account for their desire to rid others of those same freedoms? It's contradictory.
2 Choices
1. See these kinds of incidents as a triumph for freedoms and democracies everywhere and acknowledge those said freedoms can suck balls sometimes.
2. Acknowledge that you don't care about freedoms and democracies as much as you thought and they can be bypassed, ignored, and overlooked when it's personally convenient.
on Jul 05, 2005
it also represents the blood of those men and women who fought to allow that activity.
If you polled the warriors I doubt there'd be agreement--Mom's apple pie and the flag are the same.
if some whackos want to burn it, it is their right.
Did I not say that it was okay provided it was not a public demonstration of free speech but a deliberate act of provocation equal to burning a cross on one's lawn.
on Jul 05, 2005
#2 by Reiki-House
Tuesday, July 05, 2005


--I disagree, in that for some people, it isn't the flag itself...its what it represents...the blood spilled in creating the United States of America (link to article: Link ) (USA one of the most ironic anagrams ever....), if we as a nation forget that, by allowing people to burn it, though its only a symbol, we show that we have no respect for those who died for america and its people (not the government), ya know, their friends, family,etc... but ironically, the US was founded on freedom, liberties... hmmm?

on Jul 05, 2005
it's mentally weak to give in to symbolism. And there's no way I'd ever give any material thing heavenly and divine qualities.
There's nothing divine or heavenly about the symbolic power of a flag but rather a profound respect and gratitude for the heroic sacrifice it represents and thus inviolable.
I see you're a very gung-ho-about-the-flag kind of individual.
On the contrary, I am not an in your face flag-waving type, which can be almost as offensive as the burner. My point is that if one is so frustrated with policy that he has to take it out on the flag, then he should burn it in his patio grill.  
on Jul 05, 2005
we show that we have no respect for those who died for america and its people
right on!
on Jul 05, 2005
There's nothing divine or heavenly about the symbolic power of a flag but rather a profound respect and gratitude for the heroic sacrifice it represents and thus inviolable.I see you're a very gung-ho-about-the-flag kind of individual.
On the contrary, I am not an in your face flag-waving type, which can be almost as offensive as the burner. My point is that if one is so frustrated with policy that he has to take it out on the flag, then he should burn it in his patio grill.


--Granted, a majority of americans seem to follow a moderate path, with a few extremes out there...and i agree...
on Jul 06, 2005

Did I not say that it was okay provided it was not a public demonstration of free speech but a deliberate act of provocation equal to burning a cross on one's lawn.

Destroying your property is one thing.  Destroying someone else's is vandalism.  I dont beleive in 'hate crimes' as all crimes of passion are essentially hate crimes.  And to prove intent is something we cannot do as we are not yet mind readers.  So buring a cros on your property should be no worse than the flag, altho I realize it does have more historical baggage to it.  Still, if someone wants to proclaim to the world "I am a racist bigot', that is their right.

on Jul 06, 2005
apparently they aren't making flags as large or scoundrels as small as in times past.

last friday, the fbi raided the home of representative 'duke' cunningham (who introduced the anti-flag buring legislation passed by the house last week), the 42' yacht on which cunningham has been living while he was in dc and the offices of defense contractor, mzm, inc.

mzm was founded by mitchell wade who owns the yacht and who also purchased cunningham's former house in late 2003 for $1.67 million; wade resold the property less than a year later for only $975k.

since no one alive in southern california today can recall another instance in which a home of any type (including dollhouses) sold for less than it was purchased, the justice department suspects an idiotic attempt to cover up an illegal contrbution.

sadly an assemblage of the congressman's constituency all decked out in red, white and blue as well as a boy scout color guard, a navy chaplain and lee greenwood hisself were deprived of cunningham's presence at an annual patriotic 4th of july pancake breakfast when the lawmaker realized, try as he might, he was no longer able to wrap himself in the flag and and opted out of the event.

perhaps it was all for the best tho; any self-respecting flag would demand to be burned after spending more than a minute wrapped around a sweating hunk of sleaze.
on Jul 06, 2005
if they want to make a REAL statement they could do what the monks did in vietnam, douse themselves in gas and set themselves on fire.
on Jul 06, 2005

"I am a racist bigot', that is their right.Like Sen. Byrd who spent the better years of his life regretting it.

the monks did in vietnam, douse themselves in gas and set themselves on fire.
I like.