Quote from RDAgain, the same answer: one is a religious symbol and the other isnt. And again, the same question for you: why is a religious symbol more important than a symbol representing other values?
National. Pretaining to a nation.
Religious. Not pretaining to any one nation.
There.
[Blocked Image: http://www.curtrich.com/flag-anim2.gif]
[Blocked Image: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/koran.gif]
Quote from The PostmanNational. Pretaining to a nation.
Religious. Not pretaining to any one nation.
There.
Why is a symbol pretaining to a nation less important than a symbol not pretaining to a nation?
Quote from RDWhy is a symbol pretaining to a nation less important than a symbol not pretaining to a nation?
Because a symbol pretaining to a nation, within that nation is more pertinent to that nation. A religious symbol has no national boundaries.
Who said anything about a flag having borders? If I were in sweden and saw someone dragging the norwegian flag down in the mud Id be pissed!
But okay, I get the picture, since its a religious item its no-touchy since a religion obviously demands more respect than a nation. [/sarcasm]
Quote from SkjalgWho said anything about a flag having borders? If I were in sweden and saw someone dragging the norwegian flag down in the mud Id be pissed!But okay, I get the picture, since its a religious item its no-touchy since a religion obviously demands more respect than a nation. [/sarcasm]
Flags don't have borders, ammendments to the US constitution do. God, Fletch was right, I do need to repeat to myself "They're all 14, they're all 14..."
From the United States Flag Code:
§176. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
* (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
* (b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
* © The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
* (d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
* (e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
* (f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
* (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
* (h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
* (i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
* (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
* (k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
Quote from JohnnyTRAITOROUS LIES
YOU...YOU COMMUNIST!
Quote from The PostmanBecause a symbol pretaining to a nation, within that nation is more pertinent to that nation. A religious symbol has no national boundaries.
Why is a symbol that is more pertinent, less important than a symbol that is less pertinent?
Quote from RDWhy is a symbol that is more pertinent, less important than a symbol that is less pertinent?
Context, RD, context.
Quote from RDYou still havent answered why a religious symbol would be more important, other than saying its religious and that a religion crosses borders.
This is about a law in the US on US soil dealing with a US symbol. It is more important here than anywhere else because it deals with the US.
The religious symbol is NOT a national symbol and its importance can be felt anywhere there are followers of that religion.
Goddamn man, do I need to draw diagrams with stick figures?
Quote from The PostmanThis is about a law in the US on US soil dealing with a US symbol. It is more important here than anywhere else because it deals with the US.
The religious symbol is NOT a national symbol and its importance can be felt anywhere there are followers of that religion.
Goddamn man, do I need to draw diagrams with stick figures?
Now youre answering a question i didnt ask.
If there are americans that find it offensive their flag is burned, it doesnt matter to you does it? You would speak out in favor of the freedom to protest.
But if there are religious folks in your country whose symbol is burned, it suddenly matters and you oppress those who wish to protest. The question is why? The only logical conclusion is that you expect atheists to be more tolerant than believers, which is positive discrimination.
And yes you can use diagrams to explain it :roll:
Quote from RDNow youre answering a question i didnt ask.
No, I'm answering exactly what you've asked. Repeatedly, emphatically.
Quote from RDIf there are americans that find it offensive their flag is burned, it doesnt matter to you does it? You would speak out in favor of the freedom to protest.
What's national matters to a nation. I've said this repeatedly.
Quote from RDBut if there are religious folks in your country whose symbol is burned, it suddenly matters and you oppress those who wish to protest. The question is why? The only logical conclusion is that you expect atheists to be more tolerant than believers, which is positive discrimination.
Burning or destroying a religious symbol anywhere invokes strong response ANYWHERE in the world. You can do so in America, but it does nothing to help the scenario elsewhere in the world. The GOVERNMENT cannot do it because it is a direct attack on the religious values and rights of her citizens. The CITIZENS can (unless it's a burning cross because that has racist connotations) and it just looks as moronic as some jackass torching a flag.
To be honest, I couldn't give a shit if people can or cannot burn flags. But I can't help thinking about this being a rather pointless thing to try and do, anyway. Maybe I'm being flippant, but isn't flag burning usually a sign of defiance?
So isn't this playing into their* hands a bit? "I don't agree with the government so I'm going to burn a flag," "oh no, don't burn a flag, the government doesn't agree with it.
* Flag burning people, obviously.
Quote from TaylorTo be honest, I couldn't give a shit if people can or cannot burn flags. But I can't help thinking about this being a rather pointless thing to try and do, anyway. Maybe I'm being flippant, but isn't flag burning usually a sign of defiance? So isn't this playing into their* hands a bit? "I don't agree with the government so I'm going to burn a flag," "oh no, don't burn a flag, the government doesn't agree with it.
* Flag burning people, obviously.
The whole ammendment was basically just cock-waving by the neo-con Republicans in America going LOOK AT US PROTECTING THE FLAG FROM COMMUNAZIATHEISTS!
Quote from The PostmanBurning or destroying a religious symbol anywhere invokes strong response ANYWHERE in the world. You can do so in America, but it does nothing to help the scenario elsewhere in the world. The GOVERNMENT cannot do it because it is a direct attack on the religious values and rights of her citizens. The CITIZENS can (unless it's a burning cross because that has racist connotations) and it just looks as moronic as some jackass torching a flag.
Thats what i thought your reasoning boiled down to: because a religious symbol invokes a stronger response, it should get more respect.
What does burning a flag prove?
Quote from Section_Ei8ht
Burning a flag in the US proves that you can criticise those who have power over you without fearing for your life.
Burning a religious symbol in the US, proves that you can criticise a culture/religion without fearing for your life.
If theres violence in return to either of those, then theres a problem?
There is no excuse that a symbol is an ancient interracial non-state entity. All of these are flawed arguments, and the ppl that you call racists actually had an incredible insight into the problem. The violence proves their criticism was just.
A man burning your flag and getting blown up by a government missile, was fighting for your freedom. But if it was a religious symbol he was burning, and a religious bomb that killed him, he was a racist.
:roll:
That is what happened with the muhammed cartoons matey.
Quote from RDThats what i thought your reasoning boiled down to: because a religious symbol invokes a stronger response, it should get more respect. What does burning a flag prove?
No. Not at all. My point is that one is national the other is not. The flag burning ammendment only effects people in the US. The burning of a Koran or some-such other symbol effects more than just any one nation.
Then again my point this entire retarded conversation has been that you're injecting bullshit into an argument where it simply does not have any bearing at all. It still has no bearing and will never have any bearing.
The flag is a symbol for our freedom to speak and act freely, even if it might offend somebody else. Thus it is a symbol whose strength is that allows itself to be destroyed. It's called a paradox. Some people are simple minded and don't understand that it's a paradox. This scares them, so they write flag burning amendments to prevent themselves from having to think.
Quote from The PostmanNo. Not at all. My point is that one is national the other is not. The flag burning ammendment only effects people in the US. The burning of a Koran or some-such other symbol effects more than just any one nation.
Then again my point this entire retarded conversation has been that you're injecting bullshit into an argument where it simply does not have any bearing at all. It still has no bearing and will never have any bearing.
It has bearing, but you have to think outside the political correct prison surrounding your mind to get it.
In America, you defend the freedom to protest against yourself, but you oppress the freedom to protest against others. Out of respect for different cultures or religions, you disrespect your own citizens.
From what ive seen Posty, you are in favor of the freedom to burn the flag, simply because you dont care and its just a piece of cloth. But the underlying principle that youre in favor of it because it demonstrates freedom, has completely gone over your head. This is demonstrated by the fact that you are against the freedom to burn a cloth that you do care about.
The paradox Fletch talks about isnt just misunderstood by ppl that want flagburning banned, its also misunderstood by ppl that want the burning of other symbols banned.
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
