Top Gun wrote: Why do you see nationalism as an "extreme religion"? ...Nationalism is a far cry from having some sort of desire to subjugate the rest of the world.
Nationalism is not the same thing as social identity, cohesion, etc. Nationalism is not the same thing as taking pride in your culture.
Main Entry: na·tion·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'nash-n&-"li-z&m, 'na-sh&-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness
exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups (emphasis mine)
Nationalism is an indispensible ingredient for aggressive war. Nationalism is a divisive tool that is used to establish a "them vs us" mentality that enables the power-hungry to wage aggressive war. (For example, see
Hitler: A Study in Tyranny by Alan Bullock.) Note: I'm not comparing Republicans or Bush or The House of Reps to Hitler. I'm pointing out a source that backs my assertion that Nationalism is a necessary tool of warmongering.
The earth has no fixed political/cultural boundaries. Borders are man-made. Nationalism is a primitive, barbaric, tribal expression that is a product of fear, and a tool of warmongers.
Top Gun wrote: Palzon, since when did I say that civil disobedience to protest a serious loss of rights is "immature"? What I said was that going out and burning a flag in your yard solely because it was made unconstitutional to do so is petty.
You reaally don't get it.
First of all, criminalizing flag burning
IS a serious loss of a 1st ammendment protected right. Second, no one was talking about burning the flag for the sake of being petulant, contrary, or ruffling feathers. Third, burning the flag in protest over flag burning being made illegal is the very definition of civil disobedience.
Top Gun wrote:To me, that reeks of an adolescent, "I'll do it 'cause they told me not to" mentality. There's a massive difference between a prohibition against buring one object and institutionalized racism. I hope you're able to see that.
Is there a rampant flag burning problem in this country? Last time I checked there wasn't. Let me say this again. No one is upset about outlawed flag desecration due to having some flag burning fetish. No one would burn the flag because they are acting like a petulant adolescent who wants to flaunt their displeasure with "the rules". It is a valid, circumspect form of protest.
And yes, this is highly similar to institutionalized racism because, like racism, it is 1. institutionalized and 2. a violation of a consitutional right. in order to challenge the consitutional basis of a law, it is typical to
break the law, get charged with the crime, and
then challenge the validity of the law when you're tried in court. The salient point here is that it is a constitutional right - not that the right is free speech versus freedom from descrimination. Both are protected under the constitution.
Top Gun wrote: ...soldiers in battle in our nation's history have gladly given their lives...it's about the love of country, freedom, and liberty that it represents.
That representation becomes meaningless if there is no free speech. Burning the flag is protected free speech. do the math.
Top Gun wrote:The flag is more than a mere national symbol; it represents the ideal that is America.
Not based on your argument; the flag is MERELY a national symbol in your argument because the freedom it represents is superficial and non-existant. In the America you accept, speech is free unless the ruling party disagrees with the message - then it lands you IN JAIL.
What you seem to be missing is that ALL expression is at risk once the government gets away with outlawing SOME expression.
Top Gun wrote:Take a look at the widow of a fallen soldier, who receives a folded flag from "a grateful nation." Look at the famous picture from Ground Zero. Think of the stories of the unsuccessful British bombardment of Fort McHenry. Our very national anthem was written to celebrate our flag. To me, the flag is no rally towel to be thrown around at a sporting event. It's an object to be treated with a certain reverence. The fact that other countries could consider changing their national colors at the drop of the hat is what completely confounds me, not the feelings of Americans toward our flag.
Lastly, imagery such as handing flags to widows is not a rational basis for outlawing flag desecration. such an argument is an irrational, emotional appeal that has ZERO percent to do with a considered position on freedom/rights. This is not my opinion, it is a logical consequence of drawing conclusions based on imagery as opposed to argumentation.
Appealing to emotion is a tool often used when there is no rational argument to be made. Appealing to emotion and emotive imagery as the basis for legality or for foreign policy is a baren philosophy, which openly despises rationality. Such devices are not the mark of a civilized democracy that is evolving.
What you seem to be missing so completely is that it is freedom that is to be revered, not that flag which is ONLY a representation. I feel strongly that your position does reduce the flag to a rally towel by valuing the flag above the freedom.
.
