Flag-burning party

[Hogeye]

The US senate is about to vote on the following constitutional amendment:

"The Congress and the States shall have Power to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States."

Note that even if it passes, there will be a time lag before the feds and states pass laws against desecration of flags. This provides a window of opportunity to desecrate and be legal.

This amendment has come around before (and failed), but for the first time it has a real chance of passing the Senate. News sources say that 66 votes (out of 67 needed) are there. The House has already approved it, and if the Senate approves it, it is expected to easily be ratified by provincial legislatures (all 50 state legislatures have approved of such in the past, and it just requires a 2/3 supermajority.)

[Savonarola]

Why will we be partying? To commemorate the passing of the amendment, or to burn a flag in protest while we still can?

Burning the flag is a rightful protest against people wanting to ban flag-burning in the name of faux patriotism.

[Hogeye]

Both. And I agree; burning the flag is an excellent way to protest against people wanting to ban flag-burning.

[Doug]

DOUG
If we were to burn a flag, that would promote the false stereotype of nonbelievers as communists and unpatriotic. I think it would be counterproductive.

[Dardedar]

I think it would be counterproductive.

DAR
To say the least.

Not having any training in patriotism (Jehovah's Witness, raised in Canada) I didn't understand what all of the fuss was about regarding this flag fetish until I watched Saving Private Ryan. Then I got it.

The obvious irony is that they want to take away a freedom of expression to preserve their symbol which is supposed to stand for "freedom of expression." And they want to formalize the ban on this freedom in the constitution. How bizarre.

Being somewhat of a guest in this country and not a citizen, I would not be interested in any way being part of a protest that would only be seen as being disrespectful to those who, for whatever right or mistaken reasons, have chosen to get themselves killed in one of America's many wars.

D.

[Savonarola]

Being somewhat of a guest in this country and not a citizen, I would not be interested in any way being part of a protest that would only be seen as being disrespectful to those who, for whatever right or mistaken reasons, have chosen to get themselves killed in one of America's many wars.

Why wouldn't burning the flag be an honor to those who died for our right to express freely?

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Doug's point.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Unfortunately, while Savonarola is correct that burning the flag would honor those who have died to preserve us the freedom to do so, Doug (& Savonarola) are correct that it would be counterproductive. I'm with Darrel on the irony - or hypocrasy - of a flag buring amendment. It is not a type of protest I would participate in, or even approve of, but it's not free speech if you restrict the form or content.

[Hogeye]

Desecrating flags if the State outlaws flag desecration would be like demonstrating if the State outlawed demonstrations, or distribution pamphlets if the State outlawed pamphletting. It's disobeying an unjust law in protest.

Darrel may be excused if he's worried about banishment. That's reasonable. (Or he could wear a Guy Fawkes mask to the party.)

As for stereotypes, I haven't heard the one about freethinkers being communists. The notion that freethinkers are unpatriotic (in the modern nationalist, blind devotion to State sense) is quite reasonable, considering many are and have been just as antiauthoritarian about State as religion. Historically, this is undeniable: from Thomas Paine, ardid opponent of "priestcraft" as well as "kingcraft," to Voltaire's "Écrasez l'Infâme," to Meslier and Diderot's "May the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." There is a lot of overlap between anarchism and atheism. The writings of virtually every anarchist luminary (excepting Tolstoy) condemned both the authority of rulers and religion.

The general assumption is that there is a negative connection; logical, because divine and human authority reflect each other; and psychological, because the rejection of human and divine authority, of political and religious orthodoxy, reflect each other. Thus the French Encyclopdie Anarchiste (1932) included an article on Atheism by Gustave Brocher: `An anarchist, who wants no all-powerful master on earth, no authoritarian government, must necessarily reject the idea of an omnipotent power to whom everything must be subjected; if he is consistent, he must declare himself an atheist.' And the centenary issue of the British anarchist paper Freedom (October 1986) contained an article by Barbara Smoker (president of the National Secular Society) entitled `Anarchism implies Atheism'. As a matter of historical fact the negative connection has indeed been the norm anarchists are generally non-religious and are frequently anti-religious, and the standard anarchist slogan is the phrase coined by the (non-anarchist) socialist Auguste Blanqui in 1880: `Ni dieu ni matre!' (Neither God nor master!). - Nicolas Walter, Anarchism and Religion

While some dictionaries define freethought as pertaining only to religion, others give a broader definition.

Dictionary.com gives:
Freethinker \Free"think`er\, n.
One who speculates or forms opinions independently of the authority of others

Wikipedia gives:
Freethought is a philosophical doctrine that asserts that human beliefs should be formed on the basis of scientific inquiry and be unrestricted by tradition, authority or any agenda that might compromise the free exercise of thought and the reliability and validity of one's conclusions.

IMO a freethinker should have just as much distain of political authority as they do of religious authority. Otherwise, they are merely submitting to another god.

[Savonarola]

As for stereotypes, I haven't heard the one about freethinkers being communists.

But let's not forget that it is common for atheism to be associated with communism...

Then there was the whole Papa Bush ordeal regarding atheists and citizenship...

[Dardedar]

Why wouldn't burning the flag be an honor to those who died for our right to express freely?

DAR
Only because 90+% of people wouldn't veiw it that way. When it comes to interpretation of symbols and symbolic acts everyone gets to make up what it means to them. Burning a colored cloth means nothing to me because I haven't been programmed to think that it should matter. Shoot, flags are even supposed to be burned in some sort strange proper ritual. But in this country, for some reason, burning a flag in public is a highly emotional afront to many people. Freethinkers doing it in a group would be seen something akin to the Phelps group, which no doubt is a great embarrassment to 99% of Christians. I am glad Phelp's group has the freedom to do what they do, and I totally support their right to do what they do in public, but I think it backfires for them and helps us heretics. Just as when Moses goes out and makes christians look like fools. Likewise, I totally support the right for people to go out and burn what they want but I am not into it for two reasons:

a) I am not too much into symbolic acts. Either displaying flags to show patriotism or support for something, or burning them to offend people. Especially people who usually have friends who in some sense think they have given their life for this symbol.

b) I think it would be profoundly counter productive and work into the hands of those who oppose freethinkers, just as Phelp's actions work into our hands and us who often speak of religious nutcases and the extremism it spawns.

"Look at those goddamn America hating godless Fayetteville Freethinkers, burning the flag."

Nothing but 99% horrifically bad PR, and all over symbolism and a piece of cloth.

And I think Hillary's support of this flag amendment is pathetic and 100% pandering. I also think the amendment is absurd and self-contradictory.

D.

[Hogeye]

BTW, we are not necessarily talking about burning the flag. There are many good ways to desecrate it. Someone once said to me, "Why burn the flag when you can wipe your ass with it?" At the March 11 Peace March, I dragged the flag on the ground behind me, frequently turning to spit on it. People got the point. At a couple of the Sunday protests on College, I simply stood on the flag, stomping on it when the inspiration hit. In fact, burning the flag can be expensive, not to mention difficult and dangerous - you really need to use an accelerant since flags are usually flame retardent.

Regarding the PR issue that Darrel brought up: who is the target audience? The 90% of the people who would be offended may well be the same 90% who are offended by freethinkers regardless - who think freethinkers are evil people going straight to hell. They're beyond hope anyway. The people - our target audience - who have half a clue about civil liberties will get it, at least most of them. Are not we freethinker's people willing to knock down the idols and promote rationality even if it makes some people mad? Do we not admire Galileo for just that? If you don't want to offend anyone, why don't you just pretend to be a devout Southern Baptist? If you think banning flag desecration is wrong, then show it - don't wimp out on your values and condone the irrational "highly emotional" beliefs of deluded fools.

Besides, there is some truth to the view that no publicity is bad publicity. Do you want to increase the salience of FayFreethinker's tenfold? Hell, we have the best discussion forum in NWA, yet few people know about it. I guarantee you, that if the newspapers show a picture of freethinkers shitting on the flag, the forum participation will mushroom, the meeting attendence will triple, etc. So what if a bunch of superstitious assholes get offended? Our target audience is an intelligent active-minded remnant, not Boobus Americanus.

[Dardedar]

The 90% of the people who would be offended may well be the same 90% who are offended by freethinkers regardless...

DAR
That's not remotely accurate. The moniker "freethinker" is actually quite popular. I get religious people telling me all the time that they consider themselves freethinkers. Then I tell them what it actually means and show how it usually doesn't apply to them. I know lots of people, from the Mayor to reasonable Episcopal's and Unitarians etc., that associate freethought, freethinking and the Fayetteville Freethinkers with good rational intelligent discussion and consideration of dissenting opinion. Take a shit on a flag in public and you have just reduced yourself to assclown of the Fred Phelps variety and accomplished very very little except to marginalize yourself as much as possible. Now for some people, this is their goal no doubt. It's not mine. Knock yourself out.

D.

[Guest]

I would put those "reasonable Episcopal's and Unitarians" in the reachable 10%. The Unitarians I know would "get it" (understand our protest); some may even join us in a flag desecration party if that amendment passes. At the last ACLU thing I went to, there were more than a few Unitarians. They'd almost certainly get it. The Unitarians I know are anything but braindead flaghumpers.

[Hogeye]

Oops. That was me. I forgot to log in.

[Doug]

I guarantee you, that if the newspapers show a picture of freethinkers shitting on the flag, the forum participation will mushroom, the meeting attendence will triple, etc.

DOUG
You are correct. But we would also give the group a black eye. There are better ways to protest. Besides, I don't think the anti-flag burning thing is going anywhere. As much as people hate gay marriage, that amendment is dead. People hate seeing the flag get burnt, but I don't think that amendment is going to happen.

[Betsy]

I think flags are stupid, but I am also offended by the idea of people spitting or otherwise leaving bodily waste upon it. It's just disrespectful, tacky and gross. If I'd seen Hogeye spitting on the flag at the peace march, I would have been turned off by the peace march. That's not very peaceful. In other words, you would have lost me, and I'm in the >10% who think flags are stupid.

Surely there are much better, classier and tactful ways to get our point across than that!

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The flag is a symbol (reason I don't "Pledge Allegiance" to it) of a country and a type of government I "love"/prefer (considering the alternatives). It has changed over the years (in number of stars and stripes) to indicate at least geographic changes in the the country itself, unlike the flags of other nations (which only change with the entire type of government). As a symbol, and only as a symbol, I treat the flag with the tradtional show of respect (stand at attention when it goes up or down in my presence, salute it when it goes by, if I hang it at all I hang it during daylight hours and don't leave it out in the rain). As a symbol, I understand burning it in protest of antisocial national behaviors, although that isn't something I'd do myself or even particularly approve of. I certainly approve of it more than blowing up federal buildings - or than proving one's pseudo-patriotism by hanging it out and leaving it there until it becomes dirty, faded, and ragged. Hogeye's other suggestions are obviously desecration for desecration's sake - in fact, rather similar to a small child smashing toys because he doesn't get his way - and are much more likely to make people reject his stand just because he stands for it, without even learning what it is.

[Hogeye]

Betsy, we're not talking about a peace march here. Would you 'get it' when people desecrate a flag a few days after the Senate passes the flag desecration amendment?

There are many ways to desecrate a flag which do not involve bodily fluids or excrement. You can cut it up with scissors. You can shread it and use it for garden mulch. You can use the flag as a dish-rag. Can you think of other ways?


Barbara, would you consider using the word "State" rather than "country" when you speak of a political unit? A "country" is a region, a local geographic area. This Orwellianism of equating "State" to "country" is one of my pet peeves. The State which claims you is the USEmpire; your country is the Ozarks; your nation is the Anglo Nation, i.e. US, Canada, England, Australia, and New Zealand. By equating these, you give power to pandering politicians.

I am glad you don't give the Oath of Allegiance to the State. I generally remain silent, too, but when particularly inspired I recite the

Proclamation of Disdain

I proclaim disdain for the rag
of the United State of America
and for the coercion for which it stands;
One empire, militarily aggressive
with liberty and justice a sham.