Originally Posted by alias

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.

Originally Posted by alias

The liberals get their agenda done through the courts because the will of the people is not on their side.

Originally Posted by alias

There should be no line between church and state.

Originally Posted by alias

People have been free to exercise their religion for 200 years until lately.

Originally Posted by alias

No one is denied their right to peacably assemble. The problem is when those who protest do not want to be peaceful.

Originally Posted by alias

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.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Those have historical value as monuments.
A picture hanging on a wall does not have historical value as a monument.
You can move the picture to another place without problem and without hurting anything.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Yeah.
How about the Terry Schiavo case? Will of the people was against the conservatives, yet they used BOTH the "representatives" in congress AND attempted to use the courts to deny a vegetable the right to die.

The right uses the courts to their convenience as well.



Yeah.
Make churches abide by civil rights legislation!
Make them pay taxes!
<end sarcasm>

What you mean to say is that you want a one-way wall. Where state is prohibited from interfering with the church, but the church is free to interfere with the state.



They still have the freedom to exercise their religion.
They just can't use the government as a part of it.



That's a laugh.
A guy gets arrested in a VA hospital for DRINKING COFFEE and wearing a t-shirt that some don't agree with politically, and you start talking about the "problem" being people not "peacefully" assembling.



Then arrest those INDIVIDUALS.
But don't pretend they are indicative of the whole. They aren't.
The right has been FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE in curbing the freedom of speech of the left than the left has been actually committing violence in "free speech" name for these "peaceful protests".

Originally Posted by alias

There should be no line between church and state.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Yeah.
Make churches abide by civil rights legislation!
Make them pay taxes!
<end sarcasm>

Originally Posted by alias

You can't make churches pay taxes if there is separation of church and state.

Originally Posted by alias

I disagree strongly with your last statement. You can protest. What you cannot do is disturb people who are going about the lives.

Originally Posted by alias

That is what the left does. I guess you never seen what the left did in Seattle during their "protest". Store windows smashed, looted, streets trashed. Nice. What violence does the right do?

Originally Posted by alias

The cross in San Diego has historical value.

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

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

Originally Posted by foundit66

It's about 52 years old.
That's not real "historical value"...

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

A cross has stood on Mount Soledad since 1913. The current one was placed there in 1954. The land has belonged to the state since 1916. HMMM it would seem that there is a historical value to the cross on the Mount, one that even surpasses the state ownership of the land.

Furthermore if 52 years does not create a "historical value", then for those who say that Roe v Wade is the law of the land and should be accepted because of it precedents as well as the age of the decision, 36 years, seem to have no backing for their arguments either.

You should check your facts a little better next time.
dmk