Defending the Truth

That story is actually rather disturbing...

It would have been a lot better if the veteran hadn't threatened to murder whoever would burn the flag.
But I imagine if the image of a soldier pointing a gun at a boy and threatening to kill him is what you want to go with, that's your choice...

The fact that other people have died to make this country safe does not make an argument for why people should not be able to burn the flag. I served in the military myself, and I would be appalled if somebody tried to use my military service as an excuse for why people's rights should be limited...

Then do you think of me as the flag burners in your story? Do you see me as someone who hates our country or hates the flag and wants to burn it? I do not mean to portray myself as such a person, and I do not hate the country. In that respect, I am not a flag burner from the story.

The words of your story made the old man sound like a hero. But the old man was basically saying that he was going to murder someone if they continued to burn the flag. The first thing I'd have done is call the police and have the old man arrested.

I am in eternal gratitude that people have fought and died to protect our freedom. But those people shouldn't have had to fight, and they shouldn't have had to die. They had to because bad men came to take away our freedom, and there was no other choice but to fight. In your story, the bad man who came to take away the people's freedom was the old man. The protesters there shouldn't have to die to exercise their freedom, and the old man, the man who would commit murder to stop fabric from being burned, is a monster.

As I said, I would have called the police and had the old man arrested. But that isn't all I would do. I would try to talk to the protestors and convince them that our nation is good, and their protest is misguided. I would do what the old man did, except without threatening murder. I would try to change minds through persuasion, not through violence.

What I truly don't understand is why this story leads you to want to ban flag burning. What is your logic? An old man wants to kill a flag-burner, so your conclusion is that flag burning should be banned? Veterans raised a flag at Iwo Jima, therefore people should not have the freedom to burn flags? People should only have freedoms they're willing to die for? I don't understand what you are trying to say by this story.

But perhaps it will please you to know this, that if there were some way that my death would secure people's freedom to burn the flag, or if my death would ensure gay equality, or if my death would ensure one of many other freedoms for all Americans, I would glady die for those causes. But that simpy isn't the case. These freedoms will only be preserved by words and persuasion, and I can't persuade anyone if I'm dead.

Actually, my first thoughts when I read that was that I wanted to step forward.

The old man in this story is basically a terrorist. Invoking violence and the threat of death in order to achieve political gain.

I have no desire to burn a flag. None whatsoever.
But the thought that somebody would threaten Americans with violence and death in order to achieve their political goal and limit other people's freedom pissed me off enough to have my first impulse to want to step forward to make sure that this threat was countered.

Tell you what. Make sure both parties involved have a gun...
Make it a fair fight instead of a blatant ambush.

The story in question here goes to illustrate one point rather clearly. The contention is not whether the old man is a murderer or a terrorist, or even a "bad man" for trying to deny someone their right. It is much deeper. You see, in order for the burning of a flag to be protected speech, there must exist a presupposition that the flag symbolizes something to someone. In the case of those who wish to burn it, it symbolizes something in which they dislike or disagree.

For the old man in this story the flag symbolized something else. To him and those he talked about, it symbolized something in which they were willing to put their lives on the line for, and in some instance even die. It symbolized something greater, meaning much more to them.

As a soldier, and now as a veteran I still believe that the flag is a living symbol. One that represents what is great about this country and what can still be great. It was under that flag that I served. That is why many serve today and in the past. They have been willing to die for what that flag represents. And it is under that flag that those who have died have been laid to rest.

The old man asked a very important question, are you ready to die for what you believe? Obviously those in the crowd weren't. I guess it goes to show the power of one's conviction. Which is still true today, because there are some many brave young men and women who have died and who are willing to die for that flag still today. We will put ourselves in harms way to defend the rights of others, unfortunately, in that crowd that day only one existed who was a courageous.

The old man challenged the symbol of the crowd that day. And aked just one to follow his lead, put your life on the line for what that flag symbolizes to you, do you have the courage to die for what you believe. That is the difference between those who wish to protect the flag from desecration, and those who wish to desecrate it.

Jaxian you claim that this is about denying freedom, that those of us who wish to see an amendment wish to deny others their freedom. That may be true. But freedoms are denied all the time...the freedom to murder, to rape or even to steal. Oh yes but those crime inflict harm to others that will be your argument. But it would seem that the burning of a flag inflicts harm to those who believe in it greatness, so again why should we allow this freedom???

The one thing that is remarkable about those who burn the flag, is that they always do so while surrounded by those who agree with them. I guess this too goes to show the power of their convictions as well. Even John Scalzi pointed out, that no one ever does try to burn one in a VFW parking lot. Just once I would like to see someone have the power of their convictions to travel to Fort Bragg and burn the flag on post, but then again that would take courage, something that those who wish to burn the flag always seem to be lacking.

dmk

Sgt, burning the flag isn't assaulting anyone or harming anyone. Physically no one is being effected by it except maybe the moron accedentally burns himself in the process. It is true that maybe some people would be offended by the burning of the flag. But you have to keep in mind that virtually any political expression can and probably would offend somebody. On the basis that you ban the burning of the flag because it offends people, is on the lines of banning virtually all political free speech because it offends people. The freedom to burn the flag is much different in the "freedom" to cut someone's head off in protest. The difference being is that the burning of the flag is by all means a peaceful symbolic protest, while the latter is murder (even though it was still a protest). The Supreme Court has upheld numerous times people's right to symbolic protest, and the burning of the flag as protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Saying you want to amend the Constitution is automatically admiting that under the Constutition currently, the burning of the flag is lawful and an American right. If Congress were to only pass a law if favor of banning the burning of the flag, then any joe that was charged for doing so can challenge it to the courts and have charges dropped and that law would be overturned.

Also, it is very much true that our men and women of the Armed Forces served under that flag. But you must also come to terms with the fact that they fought for what the flag stands for, and not necessarily the cloth itself. They have sworn to defend their country and Constitution. It is therefore only a desecration onto their sacrifices if you ban a Constitutional right, rather than the burning of the flag. Because ideas are fire-proof, Sgt. I'm not morally weakened if I see someone burn the flag because I know that their views are skewed, at least in my point of view. They can burn the flag all they want and they are not destroying what the flag stands for, they are only burning the cloth. And in that sense the flag is not being destroyed but lives on. However, banning a freedom and a right is doing direct damage to what the flag stands for and what it is.

And yes, I would any day risk my life to defend what the flag stands for and not just the flag itself, if it is in danger, because I am an American who loves his country and his rights. And with such a Congress that would trample our freedoms and rights in the name of "security", and because such things might "offend someone", I feel as if our government is becoming more and more a domestic enemy of the state. I just hope it does not go that far.

I can see how this country is being destroyed from within. No religious symbols. No patriotic symbols. Go through the courts to get around the will of the people. It makes me sick how the liberals are destroying America and trying to turn it in to a totalitarian state.

Are you serious? I think you're missing that it is not the liberals who are trying to get a form of symbolic protest banned. Its not the liberals who are creating "free speech zones" so that protesters are conveniently placed where no one can see them. Its not the liberals who are trying to blur the line between church and state. Its not the liberals who are even in power. Your assertion was very absurd and has no evidence backing it whatsoever.

The liberals get their agenda done through the courts because the will of the people is not on their side. That is absolutely clear to me. There should be no line between church and state. People have been free to exercise their religion for 200 years until lately. The free speech zones are put in place to protect the rights of everyone. The purpose of most of these so-called protests is to disrupt, that is clear. No one is denied their right to peacably assemble. The problem is when those who protest do not want to be peaceful. Did you hear about the peace protester who punched a cop's horse? A peace protester was just arrested for assault the other day. That is not protest, that is a crime.

By the way, if you find religious symbols so threatening, when are you going to take down the sculptures from the US Supreme Court Building of Mohammed and Moses holding the 10 commandments? When are you going to dig up that bible buried in the cornerstone of the Washington Monument. You aren't because they are not in schools which are your target.