Over the 4th of July, an inlaw was launching a bunch of fireworks as more of a pyromaniac purge than a celebration of the US.
For the finally he brought out a $40 piece that at first seemed very patriotic. It was 750 of those whistling bottlerockets, set in a box decorated as an American Flag. Basically, it was a rectangle box loaded with high flying explosives, printed as a flag.
I enjoyed the display, as each rocket lit up the sky. Then I realized that each rocket was ripping through that flag print, and leaving a blackened burned hole as the only remnant. When the display was over, the one time flag was a charred, blackened, burned mess.
Was I right to be uncomfortable with this display?
Would it have been legal if the Flag Burning Amendment would have passed?
If you agree that this was innappropriate, would you cut into a cake decorated as a US flag?
B
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
No, I can't see myself being upset or uncomfortable.
Lots of fireworks have flags printed on them, and a good majority of those wind up burned, exploded, and in the trash. Fireworks are disposable, and any decorations printed on the side are merely part of the eye candy.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't think it is ever beneficial to be upset at an act because you see it as representing something that it was not intended to represent.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Examples like this are part of my concern over the Flag Burning Amendment - because where do we draw the line to say "this is not a Flag"? Do we require that "a flag" under the terms of the amendment have 13 stripes and 50 stars and specific proportions, as do US flags intended for display on poles and hand-held sticks? Or is it simply the pattern of red and white stripes with white stars on a blue background. And then there's the issue that was brought up elsewhere (I think it was here on Hatrack, but I might be wrong) about how to appropriately retire old and damaged flags if they can't be burned as has been policy at my local VFW. Do they get some kind of exemption, which then potentially creates a loophole for others? I think this amendment will create more problems than it will address.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
Is this wrong? What do you mean? Morally wrong? It's just a design on a package, and while some people might not enjoy seeing the flag burned, there's nothing "wrong" about it. Performing a malicious act against a country -- such as killing citizens for no other reason than their nationality -- is wrong. But flag burning, burning only a piece of cloth and not a person, is not "wrong" and certainly should NOT be illegal. It may be disrespectful and unpatriotic but I sincerely hope disrespectful and unpatriotic are not grounds for making something illegal. That would be like we're living in a toltalitarian country or something....we're not, are we?
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
I think that the anti-flag-desecration amendment would only prohibit desecrating the flag, not burning it. As a crime of intent, that would probably make it much more difficult to prosecute--like the differences between the three degrees of murder--but I think it definitely protects unintentional damage like this and the retiring of old flags. (Supposedly the reason why you're supposed to cut out the union part of the flag is so that when you burn it, it's no longer a flag. But then you are cutting the flag apart, which is hardly more respectful, if that's the issue.) My questions about the amendment are: when did the flag become sacred to begin with? And if someone burns the flag in ceremony (plenty of people I've talked to feel that burning the flag is a way to show that although the symbol of freedom can be destroyed, the freedom behind it remains), with no intention of "desecrating" the flag, can they be prosecuted under this? Thought police, thought police, thought police...
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Wrong like evil, no. But yea, disrespectful. Not as bad as the American flag disposable diapers that someone (I'm thinking WalMart) put out a few years ago though.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Did it really make you uncomfortable? You know that no disrespect was meant. I don't see any reason to be upset or worried about it. Colors in a pattern aren't important. What's important are the ideals. Freedom, Truthfulness, Openness, the Bill of Rights, all the things our government seems to be throwing away with wild abandon lately, in the name of fear. That is what makes me profoundly uncomfortable.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The U.S. flag no longer represents ideals, it has represented to many of those for it to have any meaning any more, other than, and this is a shocker, representing the U.S. I don't think Danes are nearly as anal about the Dannebrog, of which they are immensly proud, as Americans are about their flag. Note that it is legal to burn the Dannebrog in Denmark but not to burn the flags of any other country (an outdated law based on the fear of provoking a war, but an interesting statement none the less.) Clearly the Danes are more comfortable in their patriotism than we are, or, more likely, more willing to allow disagreement.