Westboro Baptist Church stomps on American flag, controversy ensues

[Jiang Winters]

Name 5, without looking it up.

USSR, DPRK, DPRC, Nazi Germany, Italy under Mussolini

EDIT:

Flag-burning should never be a crime wherever freedom of speech is a right.

If I disagree with my country, I have every right to mutilate and desecrate the flag in any way, shape, or form I want. There is nothing holy or sacred about a flag, nothing that makes the destruction of one an irredeemable, intolerable sin. Destroying the flag is a statement, just as raising a flag is. A flag is a symbol, and a symbol is only what you make it out to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

I choose to respect and love my flag; others may choose to hate it and tear it down, and that is their right. If I take away that right, then in doing so, I'd lose my right to love and display my flag. After all, if burning a flag disturbs me so much that I ban it, then doesn't the other guy have just as much right to ban my flag because it disturbs him?

 

[Green Ranger]

Where ever Muslims are.

woah

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Boli sorta said it rather well here. I couldn't word it better.

Boli also commendably admitted that he's biased by the fact that the WBC stands opposed to his very existence. You, however, can claim no such thing, so you can't really fall back on Boli's unique point of view.

Try again.

Iraq
Where ever Muslims are.

Just off the top of my head.

First of all, that's completely prejudiced. You may be right, I honestly have no idea, but you're coming from a place not of reason, but of basic religious division and stereotyping.

Second of all, you got 1 out of 5. Sort of. Iraq's old flags can be burned. The current ones cannot, as they contain religious elements and, therefore, to burn them would be blasphemous to Islam.

Nonetheless, your inability to name 5 proves the point I was aiming for, which is that you are not well informed enough to make such a blanket statement like "No way something like that would fly in another country." Especially when that's not true, because it assumes that the United States is the only country where flag burning is a legal form of protest.

 

[Solaris]

Iraq
Where ever Muslims are.

Just off the top of my head.

Ever been to Iraq?

USSR, DPRK, DPRC, Nazi Germany, Italy under Mussolini

Oi, I didn't think of Fascist Italy. I keep wanting to say there's a modern Western country that banned it, but I can't place it.
Ah-ha! Mexico. Looking it up, there's a number where it's discouraged - but few where it's outright banned.

 

[Green Ranger]

Boli also commendably admitted that he's biased by the fact that the WBC stands opposed to his very existence. You, however, can claim no such thing, so you can't really fall back on Boli's unique point of view.

Thanks for covering that. Tbh I didn't want to make it a part of the discussion, but yeah...kinda relevant.

 

[BLADE]

And if it were the only country that banned flag-burning, it would prove nothing except that in this regard we were truly exceptional and right whilst the rest of the world was wrong.

Oh and France heavily discourages it, but it's not disallowed. Keep in mind that civic-mindedness has pretty much replaced traditional religion in France.

Also too.

SHARIA LAW ZOMG MOOSLIMS!

Edit: I should clarify that these disincentives do include steep fines. So it may in fact, have a chilling effect in France.

 

[Random Hero]

Concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, I despise them... with every fiber of my being.

That said, it is there right to protest... no matter how backward and morally wrong their protest are.

Freedom rocks and sucks at the same time.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Freedom rocks and sucks at the same time.

I disagree that legal yet despicable opinions and actions make freedom partly suck. The morally wrong opinions, such as WBC’s, being legally shared in public is what enables you to know with confidence that your freedom of speech is protected as well. The content of their vile diatribes may not rock, but the fact that their freedom is protected rocks just as much as my freedom being protected.

 

[Green Ranger]

I disagree that legal yet despicable opinions and actions make freedom partly suck. The morally wrong opinions, such as WBC’s, being legally shared in public is what enables you to know with confidence that your freedom of speech is protected as well. The content of their vile diatribes may not rock, but the fact that their freedom is protected rocks just as much as my freedom being protected.

Interesting silver lining perspective, and it's an angle I find myself agreeing with.

Honestly this discussion has got me rethinking my initial stance on the whole thing.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I find this video particularly relevant:

[video=youtube;fjJN08uqt70]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70[/video]

 

[Green Ranger]

That's...actually a pretty good way of putting it.

 

[Phil]

In regards to what was said to me, I admit I am not as knowingly about other countries, so I am sorry for making that assumption. It may or may not also stem from my hate for the WBC. Coming from a christian family, it's them who give christians such bad names and reputation.

As for "They have the right to do it", then I firmly believe people have and still exploit that every chance they can get. I'll admit America ain't perfect and prolly won't ever be what it was, but "The right to do it" can only go so far, IMO.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

In regards to what was said to me, I admit I am not as knowingly about other countries, so I am sorry for making that assumption. It may or may not also stem from my hate for the WBC. Coming from a christian family, it's them who give christians such bad names and reputation.

As for "They have the right to do it", then I firmly believe people have and still exploit that every chance they can get. I'll admit America ain't perfect and prolly won't ever be what it was, but "The right to do it" can only go so far, IMO.

The right must be absolute, otherwise your right to freedom is threatened. If rights can be taken away from some, they can be taken away from all. Therefore, they must be taken away from none.

 

[Lavi]

The flag is a symbol, yes, but the act of destroying a symbol is another symbol. Allowing one symbol while denying the other is amoral in a democratic society.

EDIT: Of course, there will be restraints on what is acceptable as a symbol, but as long as no one is at risk of being physically injured in the process, it should be within one's rights.

 

[Phil]

I guess. Though WBC should be showing a lot more restraint, or they may be the ones getting arrested next time. Here's hoping!

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I guess. Though WBC should be showing a lot more restraint, or they may be the ones getting arrested next time. Here's hoping!

You can be arrested for doing nothing. The arrest is not what's relevant (though it's not a good thing that you can just be arrested willy nilly). The real issue is being charged with an actual crime. In the case of WBC, so long as they have permits to protest or do whatever else local ordinances require, then there's nothing to charge them with. Being a douche is not against the law.

 

[Phil]

I don't know completly how military funerals work, but I'd think that a group like WBC would have been vacated from the area when they started to protest about someone's death just because of their sexual oriantation.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I don't know completly how military funerals work, but I'd think that a group like WBC would have been vacated from the area when they started to protest about someone's death just because of their sexual oriantation.

A funeral is a funeral. If the WBC does their protesting on public land or where they have permission to protest, then it doesn't matter if the funeral is conducted by the United States Military or the Romulan Empire. It is what it is.

 

[Jiang Winters]

I'm pretty sure the Romulans would've just shot them.

 

[Rev]

Not sure if many of you know this, but I work at a hotel, that said my story can commence.

Few weeks ago a Navy SEAL that was from the area was killed in a helicopter crash. Him, another SEAL, a few Afghani Military, the pilots, and the hostages they had were all killed due to an RPG shooting them down. That said, the viewing/funeral precession was all held at the church across the street from my hotel. We ended up having between 25-45 active Navy SEALs stay for the 3 days their fallen comrade was being laid to rest. Before they ever arrived though the local PD and the SEAL Foundation told us if we got any word from WBC arriving for protest to inform them so they could take care of it. Us being a private business we can deny them from staying, but never know kind of thing. So for the most part I feel the military is prepared for this sort of thing now, whereas a few years ago it was a lot bigger controversy due to the surprise of them showing up and people not being ready/aware of it.

This is mainly to what Phil had said; yes they do make them vacate and the only place they're going to be allowed is a public area not pre-designated to the Funeral/family.

It's sad that it has to be done, but as Bac was saying their Constitutional Rights have to be given to them, whether or not the public agrees with it entirely.