Flag burning

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1014586' date='Jun 29 2006, 01:10 PM']
That only works by the same logic that allows women to have abortions...That ruling too is a gross misinterpretation of the law. I don't say this because the people who think flag burning is allowed by the Constitution are for abortion, but rather that the court that ruled it Constitutional (or any law prohibiting the free practice thereof, et cetera) made the same mistake there that it did when it ruled that all laws prohibiting abortion are un-Constitutional. They were wrong, and are wrong.

It was wrong for the Supreme Court to include such actions in the realm of speech, regardless of whether it is morally right or wrong. This is one of the few things I learned well from my politics class. We have a right to freedom of speech and press, not anything else. It's not fair for us to impose any modern (and especially those that are grossly wrong) interpretations on the Constitution. It leads to a mess. If you want an example that is close to home, we have a freedom of religion. Was it fair for the Supreme Court to take that to mean we have freedom from religion? Washington used to use God in his speeches......
But

1) It isn't speech.
2) It's not technically legislation.
3) I think everyone on here would be upset about any Amendment idea except those banning homosexual unions.
Has anyone here actually properly retired a flag?

I have.
[/quote]
yeah, I was a boy scout too.

1. It is speech as defined by the prevailing legal opinions of the day. While you want to make the comparison to abortion, you can't. It's not abortion. It's a piece of cloth...or whatever flags are made of.
2. It's not technically legislation? uh, how does that work? If Congress is wasting time on this then it grinds my gears.
3. I don't believe we should have to codify things that are common sense. Again, Congress could be doing other things with its time.

Again, let me say that your visceral reaction to the flag burning is only proof of its power as a form of communication (speech).

[quote name='Socrates' post='1014741' date='Jun 29 2006, 07:46 PM']
As I said, this is about American law.
Unfortunately, perhaps, our country is not a Catholic theocracy. If flag-burning is regarded as constitutionally-protected speech, so would crucifix-desecration.
It is highly unlikely that the law in this country would make distinctions between the two.

My point is that the interpretation of "free-speech" to mean any actions done to provoke or offend others is absurd.
Neo-pagans may argue that there is nothing wrong with moral licentiousness, and that opposition to it is just religious folk trying to "force their morality" on others.
They are wrong, of course, but legally, it is unlikely your proposal would require America become a theocratic nation. (Perhaps a worthy goal, but unlikely to occur any time soon.)

Flag-burning, desecration of religious symbols, racist displays, and public obscenity, are all things would deeply offend large parts at least of the American public.
The question here should be: at what point does one's "right" to "free speech" interfere with the right of other people not to put up with offensive speech or dislays?

Try this one; if someone runs around screaming offensive racial epiphets at people who are racial minorities, does his constitutional "freedom of speech" protect him from other people acting to put a stop to his offensive behavior? If a cop hauled him away for his offensive, beligerent behavior, could he argue his behavior is protected by free speech as long as was not physically harming anyone?
I think most people, when pressed, would agree "free speech" has limits. The question is where they are drawn.
[/quote]
good point about the crucifix desecration. You're totally correct. A crucifix is just as open to desecration under the law as a flag is. Pretty upsetting...but not much to be done about it. However, if Christians were to riot as the Muslims do maybe we could get everyone walking on eggshells too.

Free speech reaches its limits when it preaches or encourages imminent violence or sedition. Flag burning is a powerful way to say, this country is NOT living up to the ideals we associate with this flag...so watch your ideals burn. Again, if people were to riot every time a flag was burned...free speech wouldn't cover it.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1015086' date='Jun 30 2006, 07:19 AM']yeah, I was a boy scout too.

1. It is speech as defined by the prevailing legal opinions of the day. While you want to make the comparison to abortion, you can't. It's not abortion. It's a piece of cloth...or whatever flags are made of.
2. It's not technically legislation? uh, how does that work? If Congress is wasting time on this then it grinds my gears.
3. I don't believe we should have to codify things that are common sense. Again, Congress could be doing other things with its time.

Again, let me say that your visceral reaction to the flag burning is only proof of its power as a form of communication (speech).[/quote]

1) What I'm comparing here is not that it's morally wrong in the way that abortion is, but rather that the Supreme Court has lost my confidence in "interpreting the Constitution" and so using it as a base for using the Constitution. I think it was wrong in the first place for declaring flag-burning to be a Constitutional right guaranteed by the first amendment, just as the fact that you have a freedom from hearing other people pray in a public setting is protected by the first amendement. It's not, and so neither is flag burning.

2) I believe it was an Amendment to the Constitution. It's not the same thing that Congress does most of the time.

While most people here probaby take the opinion that this is a pointless thing to bring up in the first place, the Supreme Court has well overstepped its bounds, sadly, and can only be stopped in its modern and wrong opinions by an Amendment. The path that the Supreme Court has begun down can only lead to destruction of the union, and so stopping its poor interpretations is actually pretty important.

3) Congress was in the right here, however for some reason most Americans go with the Supreme Court. I don't know why, but most of the time it's frightening.

[quote]good point about the crucifix desecration. You're totally correct. A crucifix is just as open to desecration under the law as a flag is. Pretty upsetting...but not much to be done about it. However, if Christians were to riot as the Muslims do maybe we could get everyone walking on eggshells too. [/quote]

Actually, the flag was not open to desecration under the law because 47 states outlawed it. There was something done about it, but it got overturned.

[quote]Free speech reaches its limits when it preaches or encourages imminent violence or sedition. Flag burning is a powerful way to say, this country is NOT living up to the ideals we associate with this flag...so watch your ideals burn. Again, if people were to riot every time a flag was burned...free speech wouldn't cover it. [/quote]

I don't think that burning a flag is free speech, it is completely expression. I know that's very literal, but if speech is so all-encompasing, how come there's a second clause about freedom of the press? By most interpretations on here it would be freedom of speech already.

[track2004]

Just because it isn't right doesn't always mean it's wrong or should be illegal. Flag burning smells of elderberries, but that doesn't mean there should be an amendment against it. Does Catholicism have rules about destroying our symbols? Are they written down or are they just known?

[goldenchild17]

I think if this country wants to uphold it's protection of free speech they need to take the good with the bad. This protection is extended to all who are citizens of the country. That includes anyone who would want to burn the flag.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1][color="FF6699"]It is
Disrespectful
&
Anti-Patriotic


If you hate the country so much, go somewhere else.
[/color][/size]

[Jewels]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1014732' date='Jun 29 2006, 04:18 PM']Sexual licentiousness is always morally wrong.[/quote]

[mod]lewd and offensive - L_D[/mod]

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1015532' date='Jul 1 2006, 12:43 AM']
[size=1][color="FF6699"]It is
Disrespectful
&
Anti-Patriotic
If you hate the country so much, go somewhere else.
[/color][/size]
[/quote]

ta da.

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1015181' date='Jun 30 2006, 12:41 PM']
I don't think that burning a flag is free speech, it is completely expression. I know that's very literal, but if speech is so all-encompasing, how come there's a second clause about freedom of the press? By most interpretations on here it would be freedom of speech already.
[/quote]
FLIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMSHAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW!


sorry, I've got nothing constructive to contribute anymore. Wanted to get a flimshaw in there.

[dspen2005]

i have to agree w/ CrossCuT.... i guess my mind is closed

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1013745' date='Jun 28 2006, 09:06 AM']
Although the measure has been voted down, I find the timing of the flag burning proposal to be suspicious (just as I found the timing of the marriage amendment to be suspicious). But I"m open to suggestions. Is flag burning really something we should be discussing?

As a starting point, [url="http://www.glassesonweb.com/CatalogImages/Frames/big/bf_47839.jpg"]Dana Milbank in the Washington Post[/url] has this to say:
[/quote]


Burning the flag has always been illegal.

It is a sin if not for the simple fact that it is illegal.

It is a disrespect to the society one lives in. Someone who burns the US flag should be expelled from the country for the safety of society.

As Catholics we are to uphold the law, and help our society.

Ref: The Catechism; The Bible.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1014746' date='Jun 29 2006, 06:02 PM']
No, I don't think America should become a "theocracy", but it should use the moral law as the measuring stick for its decisions.

You're right that others might use fine distinctions to justify their immoral life, and that's an important point. Somebody's point of view has to win. It's either ours or theirs.
I don't think you can equate burning a flag with those other examples, for the reasons I explained above.

BUT, I think you make a legitimate point that the sensibilities of the majority should be respected. Ultimately, though, I think it will backfire. I don't think you can base law on majority sensibilities, because the majority sensibility may or may not be grounded in moral law. The majority may be offended by something, but to suppress that something may be a burden that is not imposed by moral law itself. I guess you can argue that prudence would still recommend it, but when the majority sensibility turns against you, so will the law.

On the other hand, when the law is based on moral principles, and not majority sensibility, then you won't have to grant others a right to rule against you once the majority sensibility changes in their favor. You can stand on the moral law, just as you did before, and remain consistent. If they say you have to allow them to desecrate the Eucharist, because the majority approves, you can say no, the majority sensibility didn't rule the day when it was in my favor, and it won't rule the day now. Moral law must always guide our society.

If you suppress the burning of the flag because it offends the majority sensibility, then you'll have to suppress something good if the majority sensibility grows to dislike it (such as religion, for example). Otherwise, you're not being consistent. But if you always defer to the moral law, you can defer to it when the majority opinion is and is not in your favor. There is no inconsistency there.
[/quote]
There are actually two different issues being argued here ( morality of burning the flag, and whether it is constitutionally-protected "free speech.")

As to the constitutional issue, I don't think desecrating a flag is "speech."
Where state and local laws protect the flag, federal judges have no right to step in declare that this offensive action must be protected by law. Since the 1960s, liberal judges have been declaring all sorts of actions protected "speech," that would never previously as been recognized as such.

"Freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" as defined by the framers simply meant that people are free to write speak or publish their political opinions freely, without being censored by the government for disagreeing with the government "party-line." We take this for granted today (nobody thinks twice about reading an editorial criticizing the president or his policies, for instance), but at the time this was rather novel, when previously the press in most countries was tightly controlled by the government, and dissident political opinions were commonly censored.
"Freedom of speech" was never seen as protecting things such as desecration of national symbols or obscenity for most of this country's history.


On the moral issue, I disagree that burning a flag is totally morally neutral. It is not "just burning a piece of cloth," but is contrary to virtue of patriotism, love of one's country, which has traditionally been considered part of the virtue of piety, akin to love of one's family. It expresses hatred and contempt for one's country, and that cannot be considered virtuous. (that is seperate from the legal/constitutional issue, but if you are to argue that immoral forms of expression should be banned, flag-burning would not be excluded from this category.)

[Era Might]

You can't say that burning a flag, in itself, is a sin against the virtue of Patriotism, because there is nothing intrinsically special about the American flag. A sin against Patriotism would have to be based on intent, and you can't judge intent on the burning of a flag alone. I can imagine a scenario, for example, where someone in my state burned the flag of Massachusetts to express its descent into general Godlessness (gay marriage, for example). I wouldn't do that personally, for reasons I have already explained, but I can see it happening legitimately by way of protest. I wouldn't take it, by itself, as a sign that the person wanted to destroy Massachusetts, but as a symbol that the dross needs to be burned away and the state rebuilt on moral foundations.

As for whether the Constitution protects flag burning as free speech, you're right that it's a separate question. Personally, I don't care what the constitution says. I look at everything through the lens of what I think it should be, and go from there. If the constitution happens to agree with me, then my argument will be easier, of course. But I don't disagree that judges shouldn't be advancing their pet causes, because their job is to interpret the constitution. My job as a citizen is to change the constitution as I see fit. Of course, whether the judges ARE wrongly interpreting the Constitution here is up for debate.

[journeyman]

But this is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment protection to those who refuse to accept these views. The First Amendment protects expression, be it of the popular variety or not. See, e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (holding that Johnson's conviction for burning the American flag violates the First Amendment); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam) (holding that a Ku Klux Klan leader's conviction for advocating unlawfulness as a means of political reform violates the First Amendment). And the fact that an idea may be embraced and advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to voice a different view.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 660 (2000)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1016356' date='Jul 2 2006, 07:10 PM']
You can't say that burning a flag, in itself, is a sin against the virtue of Patriotism, because there is nothing intrinsically special about the American flag. A sin against Patriotism would have to be based on intent, and you can't judge intent on the burning of a flag alone. I can imagine a scenario, for example, where someone in my state burned the flag of Massachusetts to express its descent into general Godlessness (gay marriage, for example). I wouldn't do that personally, for reasons I have already explained, but I can see it happening legitimately by way of protest. I wouldn't take it, by itself, as a sign that the person wanted to destroy Massachusetts, but as a symbol that the dross needs to be burned away and the state rebuilt on moral foundations.
[/quote]
The American flag has for well over 200 years symbolized the United States of America, and has had very specific protocol concerning its proper use and treatment. Burning the flag is universally understood as defying this protocol, and showing disrespect for America. The intent is clearly expressed and understood in this action. If you respect the flag, and by extension the country it represents, you do not burn it. The fact that this action is understood as disrepectful, is the reason people do it. If the flag and its burning were so meaningless as you imply, the flag burning would not have its desired effect.
Claiming that one is intending something else by performing an action universally recognized as disrepecting this country is rather nonsensical. Unless the flag is burned by accident, or the person is in the unlikely condition of being totally ignorant of the symbolism of the U.S. flag, the meaning of this action is clear.
To return the crucifix example, a patriotic American would no sooner burn a flag than a devout Catholic would deface a crucifix (or burn a Vatican flag). And making some excuse that he was simply doing this to protest wayward bishops in the Church no living up to Catholic ideals would be equally absurd.

[quote]As for whether the Constitution protects flag burning as free speech, you're right that it's a separate question. Personally, I don't care what the constitution says. I look at everything through the lens of what I think it should be, and go from there. If the constitution happens to agree with me, then my argument will be easier, of course. But I don't disagree that judges shouldn't be advancing their pet causes, because their job is to interpret the constitution. My job as a citizen is to change the constitution as I see fit. Of course, whether the judges ARE wrongly interpreting the Constitution here is up for debate.[/quote]
The whole point of having a national constitution is to place checks on government power and have a universally recognized standard of law, in order to prevent everyone in government from simply doing things how "they think it should be." (Though, of course, its success in this has been limited).
The problem is liberal judges have been "changing the constitution as they see fit" for many years now, with disasterous results, including such things as abortion and "gay marriage" as a "constitutional rights". The Constitution is not perfect, but if actually followed correctly, it would provide a check on judges simply changing (or "reinterpreting") the law to fit their own ideological agendas.
The problem is there are lots of people wanting to change the law as they see fit, and very few of them are doing so from a genuinely Catholic moral perspective. Better to follow the Constitution as originally written, than have the unchecked legal free-for-all we are now seeing.

[journeyman]

Justice Thomas and Scalia in dissent:

I do not start with these foundational principles because the Court openly disagrees with them — it could not, for they are solidly embedded in our precedents. See, e.g., Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989) (“[T]he First Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office” (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971))); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 53 (1982) (“The free exchange of ideas provides special vitality to the process traditionally at the heart of American constitutional democracy — the political campaign”); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964) (“[S]peech concerning public affairs is . . . the essence of self-government”). Instead, I start with them because the Court today abandons them. For nearly half a century, this Court has extended First Amendment protection to a multitude of forms of [Page 412] “speech,” such as making false defamatory statements, filing lawsuits, dancing nude, exhibiting drive-in movies with nudity, burning flags, and wearing military uniforms.1 Not surprisingly, the Courts of Appeals have followed our lead and concluded that the First Amendment protects, for example, begging, shouting obscenities, erecting tables on a sidewalk, and refusing to wear a necktie.2 In light of the many cases of this sort, today's decision is a most curious anomaly. Whatever the proper status of such activities under the First Amendment, I am confident that they are less integral to the functioning of our Republic than campaign contributions. Yet the majority today, rather than going out of its way to protect political speech, goes out of its way to avoid protecting it. As I explain below, contributions to political campaigns generate essential political speech. And contribution caps, which place a direct and substantial limit on core speech, should be met with the utmost skepticism and should receive the strictest scrutiny.

Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 411-412 (2000)

[Era Might]

Again, just because some people see the burning of a flag one way doesn't mean burning a flag can't mean something else. Most people who burn a flag DO intend to say the hate America. But if we're not gonna punish them for verbally saying they hate America, then there is no basis for punishing them for burning a piece of clothe, which can mean anything in itself. You can assume what it means for them, but that is nothing more than assumption.

You keep throwing a crucifix out there, but you are comparing apples and oranges. It is NEVER ok to desecrate a crucifix. A flag is not a religious symbol. It represents a temporal empire, not God. Burning it can mean anything, from you hate America to you are protesting the holocaust of abortion to whatever.