There's a lot of flag-burners who have got too much freedom

[vovat]

Apparently, the House of Representatives has passed a proposed Constitutional amendment against flag burning, and the Senate will debate it after Independence Day. Now, I've never burned a flag, nor do I have any intention to start doing so. For that matter, who IS still burning flags? It doesn't exactly strike me as a widespread form of expression in this day and age. In a way, that makes the whole thing all the worse. Does the government REALLY care that much about a flag, or are they testing the waters to see what other kinds of expression they can outlaw? I mean, it would be obviously be a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Not to mention that singling out this one action is pretty trivial for a Constitutional amendment. Not like that one about not having to quarter troops in my house, which has saved my ass on numerous occasions.

All joking aside, though, the whole idea of an anti-flag-burning amendment pisses me off. Sure, the flag is an important symbol of the country to many people. But the key word is "symbol." Burning a flag isn't the same as burning the country. Honestly, the fact that so many people still ascribe so much value to this symbol puzzles me somewhat. I'm not too fond of the Pledge of Allegiance to this same flag, either. But that's just me, and it's totally not the point. The point is that, once the government starts outlawing things that some people find offensive, it'll eventually reach the point where no one can say or do anything that isn't officially sanctioned. And that's a lot more un-American than someone burning a flag, isn't it?

From what I understand, such an amendment has already passed in the House on a few occasions, but never made it through the Senate. I'm just hoping that's what happens this time as well.

Comments

[obsessical.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean about the Pledge. I never got that. I mean...isn't that kinda like idol worshipping? I mean, obviously, to a lesser degree, but why should we get up everyday and say a little "prayer" to this flag? I never really got it...

[slfcllednowhere.livejournal.com]

Hey, at least you didn't also have to do a STATE pledge. (At least I don't think you did.)

Re: the amendment--that's so incredibly messed up I don't even know what to say about it.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I've actually heard that some members of more radical Christian sects have objected to the Pledge as idol worship. Now, I'm not religious, and I don't really care if people want to worship idols, but should it be required by the schools?

I know there's some controversy over the words "under God," which were added to the Pledge during the Cold War to separate the United States from the godless communists. I agree that they shouldn't be there, but I also kind of think they should just get rid of the whole thing.

I mean, think about it. "I pledge allegiance to the flag"? What does that even mean? Does it mean that, if the flag started telling you to do things, you'd have to obey it? And even putting that aside, what's the point of the Pledge? I mean, if you simply cut out the flag and said, "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America," that would be less objectionable, but still rather pointless. Do they honestly think having kids recite this speech they don't understand will help to curb treason?

there are bigger fish to fry

[mmpoetatheart.livejournal.com]

I think they need to put their minds on more important things like the war, and jobs, and healthcare rather than flagburning.

Re: there are bigger fish to fry

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It's not exactly a burning (no pun intended) issue nowadays. They're apparently trying to gain additional support from the flag-wavin' yahoos. Or possibly there's someone in Congress who keeps proposing it over and over again, or a combination of both. Regardless, it's pretty dumb.

Re: there are bigger fish to fry

[mmpoetatheart.livejournal.com]

that's the government for you at times....

[yosef.livejournal.com]

At least they don't want to make it legal for policemen to beat them!

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I'm glad someone caught the reference.

And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay. If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Ah, government is stupid. My big beef with this is that they want to make it an amendment to the Constitution. Had the same beef with the proposed one about gay marriage. If they want to make it a LAW, that's one thing, but the Constitutional Amendments, at least the first ten, were meant to ensure the protection of people's rights and freedoms, not to be LAWS (which, incidentally, would restrict the people's rights and freedoms). I mean the only one I can think of that was prohibitory was, appropriately enough, Prohibition, which they ended up repealing. How do I, who took a year of Civics in high school, understand the purpose of the Constitution better than people who are professional polititians? At least I think I do.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it seems like a lot of politicians want to amend the Constitution for just about anything. It kind of defeats the purpose. At least the Founding Fathers made it difficult to pass a new amendment. (I kind of have to wonder how Prohibition ever passed, but I don't really know much about the political climate in those days.)

I think a law against flag-burning would be declared unconstitutional, which is the whole reason they want the amendment in the first place. I don't really know enough about the Constitution to know what you could get out of it about gay marriage, but I tend to think the whole marriage issue shouldn't be the government's business in the first place.