You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Complete and Utter Disgrace
- Thread starter shanebelanger
- Start date
"I'm a veteran, and I find the idea and the goal of the students social experiment to be pretty good. I too would like to see the ratio of students who walked around the flag as opposed to those who walked on it.
Having said that, I completely understand the Veterans point of view as well as those members of this forum that are outraged by it. I too would be outraged if this was just some stupid political statement or stunt in a vague "gee, I hate America" context. But i dont see that as the intent and I dont believe that was the intent of the student who did this. What I saw in the video didnt bother me in the least knowing that and the idea behind it.
Having said that, I completely understand the Veterans point of view as well as those members of this forum that are outraged by it. I too would be outraged if this was just some stupid political statement or stunt in a vague "gee, I hate America" context. But i dont see that as the intent and I dont believe that was the intent of the student who did this. What I saw in the video didnt bother me in the least knowing that and the idea behind it.
I think its just sad that people are so worried about being 'tolerant' and pc, that they will tolerate anything.....
Yes, it is just a piece of cloth, but what it stands for is SACRED, and should be held as such.
What would happen if you painted graffiti on the wailing wall, for instance? Or did something deemed inappropriate to one of the memorials in washington? Something that caused no permanent damage, but was disgraceful just the same? Would you be punished?
Some things that are held as the symbol of something sacred should be protected from desecration. Yes, its just a piece of cloth, but what upsets people is the idea that when you disgrace the symbol, you are also disgracing what that symbol stands for.....
Yes, it is just a piece of cloth, but what it stands for is SACRED, and should be held as such.
What would happen if you painted graffiti on the wailing wall, for instance? Or did something deemed inappropriate to one of the memorials in washington? Something that caused no permanent damage, but was disgraceful just the same? Would you be punished?
Some things that are held as the symbol of something sacred should be protected from desecration. Yes, its just a piece of cloth, but what upsets people is the idea that when you disgrace the symbol, you are also disgracing what that symbol stands for.....
Wildalaska
Moderator
What would happen if you painted graffiti on the wailing wall, for instance? Or did something deemed inappropriate to one of the memorials in washington? Something that caused no permanent damage, but was disgraceful just the same? Would you be punished?
Yep, different scenario.
WildobviousdifferenceAlaska ™
Some things that are held as the symbol of something sacred should be protected from desecration. Yes, its just a piece of cloth, but what upsets people is the idea that when you disgrace the symbol, you are also disgracing what that symbol stands for.....
That's true. But the ideas and the rights that the symbol stands for are more important than the symbol itself. Are you going to trample the rights in order to protect the symbol?
It's not easy to balance, but I think the Supreme Court got it right a while back in their unpopular decision about flag-burning.
A flag is a flag and if they changed it tomorrow I would not care...as long as what it stood for was not changed.
Agree!
I've been around Flag burnings (Vietnam era) and never understood why it caused such an outrage.
Nobody cared when we burned draft cards. Nobody cared when women burned their Bra's. because they are all just symbols.
Yeah, I protested Vietnam, but I also enlisted in the Army years later and have fought proudly for my country.
Of interest to me is the fact that "95-98%" of the students walked around the flags. and only a very small minority complained.
We deposed a tyrant in Iraq, where critisizing the goverment cost you your life. Is that what the flag groupies want? "protect" the flag at the expense of loss of liberty?
this wasnt a protest or negative in any way. If we stop this kind of activity (freedom of speech), what would we loose next, the right to bear arms?
JMHO
Tom
MAJ, USA
Graffiti is only non-permanent because it takes time and effort to undo the damage but it's certainly damaging.
If I were to buy a small scale reproduction of the monument and urinate on it would that not be the same thing? It's still a symbol but it's my property. Assuming this girl purchased those flags with her own money they were her property to do with as she pleased. Each of us is allowed to interpret the symbol as we please.
If I were to buy a small scale reproduction of the monument and urinate on it would that not be the same thing? It's still a symbol but it's my property. Assuming this girl purchased those flags with her own money they were her property to do with as she pleased. Each of us is allowed to interpret the symbol as we please.
Derius, you're absolutely right. There's no difference between a school or an individual authorizing someone to put pieces of cloth on the floor of a hallway they own, and someone vandalizing a national monument.
Apparently "misuse" of certain symbols not only causes some people to forget the concept of free speech, but also causes them to forget the concept of property rights.
Apparently "misuse" of certain symbols not only causes some people to forget the concept of free speech, but also causes them to forget the concept of property rights.
starshooter231
New member
No, I said repeatedy that this student has the absolute right to make this statement. What I oppose is my tax money being used to support any political speech, however benign, and the use of ANY tax money to support a school that permits this attack on the American flag.
CoolHandLuke:
Am I right in saying that you would not have a problem with this statement if she had laid the flags out on the floor of a Walmart?
Wildalaska
Moderator
Ok Wild, I'll bite. Explain to me why desecrating a monument in washington, (in a non-permanent, non-damaging way) is a different scenario from desecrating the flag?
You can desecrate your flag. You can't desecrate mine.
WilditsallaboutpropertyAlaska ™
rellascout
Moderator
It is easy to protect the rights of people you agree with. It is a much truer statement of what this country means to you when you defend the rights of people you cannot stand.
I don't necessarily agree with the actions I don't necessarily agree with the point this person is trying to make with this project but to focus on those things is to miss the point.
To me the point is that in this country, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which that flag represents we have the right to express our opinions right or wrong.
This is not mob rule. The majority does not get to silence the minority.
I don't necessarily agree with the actions I don't necessarily agree with the point this person is trying to make with this project but to focus on those things is to miss the point.
To me the point is that in this country, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which that flag represents we have the right to express our opinions right or wrong.
This is not mob rule. The majority does not get to silence the minority.
This is shock art just like the abortion art on another thread. The creators lack any real creativity so they rely on peoples shock and outrage to spread the word. Seems to be working for them too. Now they can just sit back and enjoy all the buzz about their "art" without having to put any real thought or effort into it.
A) The yale abortion thing was fabricated (http://www.yale.edu/opa/) as the act didn't actually have to take place to get the audience response required.
B) In neither of these cases is it about the artist. It is about the art and the questions it raises.
In this case, it is well within reason to test the boundries of those college kid "Amerika" haters. It isn't exactly a permanent installation. The flag (the cloth) can handle what the Flag (the symbol) represents.
If I were to have been walking that corridor, I'm sure I'd have stepped around the flags. If I thought that the flag no longer represented America and it's values (like if we imposed martial law and started taking away people's guns) you can be sure that I would have no trouble indicating that the Flag (the symbol) no longer represents what it used to.
I love the flag (The symbol). That's what I pledge to. The cloth is but cloth though. If they burn that to get a rise out of me it doesn't bother me at all. If they burn it in genuine animosity for what it represents, you will find my fist in their face.
Wildalaska
Moderator
If I were to have been walking that corridor, I'm sure I'd have stepped around the flags.
Well of course you would, thats what normal folks would do...it would be like "dudes, don't involve me in your student histrionics, get a life, yuk"
Why give them what they want? They want you to get all pissed off and emotional...
WildididstufflikethatwheniwasastudentAlaska TM
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
CoolHandLuke:
Am I right in saying that you would not have a problem with this statement if she had laid the flags out on the floor of a Walmart?
No, I would still have a problem with it based on the content of the speech. I'd like to see an Amendment to our Constitution that outlaws flag desecration.
However, at present, if the display were on private property and didn't involve any involuntary financial contribution there's not much that can be done about it.
Wal Mart typically strong-arms local governments into eminent domain takings, property tax breaks, and road improvements around their stores, so there would still be the issue of taxpayer money going to such a display.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
I think a more appropriate analogy would be to question whether or not the school would allow a different student to perform a similar social experiment by placing Nazi flags on the floor and seeing how many people intentionally step on them or even pick them up and throw them in the trash.
What kind of response do you think the University of Maine Art Dept. would have if the student had painted a picture of Jesus with the Ten Commandments with a caption reading: "Christ is the Answer!" or had placed copies of the Koran on the floor instead of the American flag.
I'd wager there wouldn't be much talk about "promoting discussion" etc., and the student would be suspended.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Apparently "misuse" of certain symbols not only causes some people to forget the concept of free speech, but also causes them to forget the concept of property rights.
The Art Dept. building belongs to the citizens of Maine. If they object to this display they have every right to not be coerced into supporting it with their tax dollars.
The dust up over the Univ. of Maine flag desecration / display is much like the controversies over displays of creches on public property.
Where's the ACLU when we need them?
The Constitution is there to protect the minority. If it were in place to protect the majority opinion, we wouldn't need one.
I would say that withholding funds if you make an unpopular statement is an abridgment.
First, a law that prohibits disrespecting the flag because it is unpatriotic. Then, a law prohibiting the disrespect of the president, because that is unpatriotic. Soon, the laws read that criticizing anything the government does is unpatriotic, therefore illegal.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I would say that withholding funds if you make an unpopular statement is an abridgment.
First, a law that prohibits disrespecting the flag because it is unpatriotic. Then, a law prohibiting the disrespect of the president, because that is unpatriotic. Soon, the laws read that criticizing anything the government does is unpatriotic, therefore illegal.
If it was done as a project for a class about art in religion? I'd take you up on your wager and double down against the idea that the kid would be suspended.What kind of response do you think the University of Maine Art Dept. would have if the student had painted a picture of Jesus with the Ten Commandments with a caption reading: "Christ is the Answer!" or had placed copies of the Koran on the floor instead of the American flag.
I'd wager there wouldn't be much talk about "promoting discussion" etc., and the student would be suspended.
College art classes are a lot more open-minded than you seem to think.
edit: although it should be noted that it would have to be pictures of jesus laid on the floor, not a painting on the floor since no one painted the flag. in that case I'd probably just step around it because I wouldn't want to scuff up anyone's picture, just as I'd step around a picture of bob marley, einstein, or bruce lee laying on the floor.
Not exactly. Just because something is paid for by the taxpayers does not mean the taxpayers have every say in what goes on or that the individuals "own" it. We technically "own" NSA headquarters but that doesn't mean any of us has the ability to simply walk in and start dictating policy. The taxpayers of Maine may paying for part of the art department - and a small part considering that most of the their budget seems to come from tuition - but that doesn't give any taxpayer the authority to alter educational policy.The Art Dept. building belongs to the citizens of Maine. If they object to this display they have every right to not be coerced into supporting it with their tax dollars.
And if the majority of Maine's taxpayers are ok with this then the small minority that aren't have even less of a foot to stand on. As so many here have said in other matters, if they don't like it they can simply move to another state, right?
Is the nativity scene being used in the context of an art class or is it just being used to preach a religious idea?The dust up over the Univ. of Maine flag desecration / display is much like the controversies over displays of creches on public property.
Where's the ACLU when we need them?