Flag priorities....

[CaptainHaplo]

So I have my own thoughts on this - but I am interested to see how the rest of this community sees things.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/29472787/s...-american-flag

Feel free to vote and share your views, but remember the rules of this forum and respect them.

[Oberon]

To paraphrase Star Trek V

What does God need with a flag?

[Rockstar]

I think you could add three more choices to the poll.

#1 Take it down. Its against the law.

The laws relating to the flag of the United States of America are found in detail in the United States Code. Title 4, Chapter 1 pertains to the flag and seal, seat of Government and the States; Title 18, Chapter 33 pertains to crimes and criminal procedures; Title 36, Chapter 10 pertains to patriotic customs and observances. These laws were supplemented by Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations. No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United State of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy.

#2 Take it down. Render unto ceasar what is his and obey his law.

#3 If anyone is hearing voices in their head they should seek professional help

[CaptainHaplo]

Rockstar.

Note that the USC you quote uses the word "should", not "shall". So some would state that it is voluntary.

It also references Naval services - so it could be argued that it is not relevant to civilian use.

Also note that some would argue that the USC - if applicable to civilians - is a violation of free speech rights as well, and thus an unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable ordinance.

I am not saying how I do or do not see it - I am simply stating these are arguments that are already out there.

[August]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I think you could add three more choices to the poll.

#1 Take it down. Its against the law.

Sorry but what they are doing is not against the law. Haplo is right.

[Betonov]

I went with d) since the Church was never low in hypocracy and being butthurt when their priviliges are bein threatened.

I would go with: they should fly only the christian flag anyway, since they don't pay taxes.

[vienna]

As in most of these cases, a bit of historical facts are in order rather than sectarian/political posturing:

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...no-ist=&page=2

In these sort of discussions over such things as the Pledge, the National Anthem, etc., part of the problem is the perception by an alarming percentage of the population that those icons of American culture were born at the same time as the Nation, that the founders were somehow involved in the creation or design of what we see now a sacred national custom. Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole situation roughly parallels the Ten Commandments: there it is, the 'writ of God' yet it has been so degraded and filtered through various social, political, and avarice-based motivations, what the masses believe is the word, is not. So too with the US cultural heritage; the Constitution is exactly what is written, the Bill of Rights is as written, the further amendments are as they are written. The Pledge should have stayed as originally written, but was filtered for political expediency based on the motivations of religious groups seeking a greater primacy over the lives of others. This move to impose a fractional will over the whole flies directly in the face of what is written down by those who created this nation. The modification of the Pledge stands not as an act of patriotism, but as an act of defilement to the precepts that formed this nation and an insult to those who wrote the Constitution...


<O>

[razark]

It's their flagpole. They can fly whatever they want, however they want.


Edit:
And the poll is missing the option "I take no stance on whether it is right or not."

[Rockstar]

Well, if it isnt illegal then it should be.

btw, from what I've dug up. 'Should' means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

The way I see it, spirits and ghosts telling people how to display the flag of the United States of America isnt what I would consider a valid reason.

Now, if on the otherhand 'may' was used in the wording it would truly be considered an optional rule. But it doesnt, so they should take it down and display it IAW U.S. Code and seek professional help.

[AngusJS]

There should be a fifth option - "Yes, it's their right to do whatever with their property as long as it couldn't harm others."

They can fly whatever flags whichever way they want for whatever reason - I don't care.

I do care that they are so up in arms about a group of Americans, who have been subject to intense discrimination for millennia, finally being treated equally before the law (in this area, at least). That pastor can claim whatever he wants, but it's pretty clear he doesn't actually like liberty or justice when it conflicts with his Bronze Age dogma.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Well, if it isnt illegal then it should be.

btw, from what I've dug up. 'Should' means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

The way I see it, spirits and ghosts telling people how to display the flag of the United States of America isnt what I would consider a valid reason.

Now, if on the otherhand 'may' was used in the wording it would truly be considered an optional rule. But it doesnt, so they should take it down and display it IAW U.S. Code and seek professional help.

Well just to fan the flame a little: the Pledge of Allegiance does say say "one nation under God..." Therefore throwing in so-called free speech and its offshoot, Freedom of Religion implications... the perspective of a church banner - a spiritual or holy ghost agenda reflection over a 'temporal' political banner..."Old Glory", in this instance, is not entirely unreasonable on the establishment's own flagpole. The Supreme Court ruled in the 70's that having the flag stitched to the seat of one's pants was permissible freedom of speech. Sheriff Smith vs Valerie Goguen: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/415/415.US.566.72-1254.html And later dealt with outright flag-burning as an 'expressive form' of free speech Texas vs Johnson:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/491/397.html Clearly, upon a given pole, priority of allegiance is an expressive form of free speech in a political context; I, Aktung, concur with Justices Powell and Brennan (respectively). Case dismissed.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

the Pledge of Allegiance does say say "one nation under God..."

Only in our lifetime. The original pledge, written in 1892:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

The "under God" part wasn't added until 1954, and was a reaction to "Godless Communism".

^
Thanks for clearing that up Steve, I didn't know that.
Who knows, maybe this will backfire for the church in the end when some more 'realistic' people in the government may get the idea that getting rid of the added "under God" sentence might be the best, after all we can see what happens when you grant religion too much power or privileges, they (like everyone else of course) get cocky and greedy and get funny (I think ridiculously stupid) ideas like in the OP.

From my point of view, religion must not have any say or influence in politics.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Only in our lifetime. The original pledge, written in 1892:


http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

The "under God" part wasn't added until 1954, and was a reaction to "Godless Communism".

DAMN! thanks Steve

Louis Albert Bowman, an attorney from Illinois, was the first to initiate the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea.

I am going to follow suit since that appears to be the 'modus operendi' and insert the word 'Socialist' in front of the word: "Republic" to render a more appreciative pledge now that I'm collecting Social Security. My bride is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution...we'll discuss my award...when it's convenient....after she takes her customary half!

[razark]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

I am going to follow suit since that appears to be the 'modus operendi' and insert the word 'Socialist' in front of the word: "Republic" to render a more appreciative pledge...

Well, the Pledge was written by a socialist.