Poll shows opposition to flag burning amendment.
By on Jun 27th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Poll shows opposition to flag burning amendment.
54 percent of Americans oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban flag desecration, compared to 45 percent who support the amendment, according to a new Gallup poll. Steve Benen has more.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Constitution is more important than the flag? What a bunch of traitorous libruls!
June 27th, 2006 at 11:56 amFirst, lets go after those who have already broke the laws on the books regarding this, ie bush signing flags…until he actually takes the country over (he’ll look great in a general uniform, better than the bombadier jacket!) and puts his family seal on old glory, he cannot be signing it…its not his flag, yet!
June 27th, 2006 at 12:02 pmthe flag is only as important as each individual considers it, and you can’t legislate individual beliefs… not that some don’t continue to try… this is as needless as a gay marriage ban amendment…
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2006/06/protecting-flag-burning-issue.html
June 27th, 2006 at 12:13 pmA Dictatorship must quash all voices of dissent. Burning the flag is a particulary onerous voice of distaste for the government and therefore must be banned.
Sadly, my senior Senator (Feinstein, D-CA) supports the Amendment. Nice to see she’s in the minority.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:16 pmI think that the US needs a flag burining amendment…
This SYMBOL is held in such high regard when it’s only a piece of cloth. The map is not the territory and the flag is not the country.
Have an amendment that specifically says that the flag is only a symbol of the country and not the other way around and that burning it is perfectly acceptable.
Z.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:16 pmRed, THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE FLAG, TRAITOR!
June 27th, 2006 at 12:17 pmRed, THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE FLAG, TRAITOR!
June 27th, 2006 at 12:17 pmDo you think that if we referred to a gay marriage ban amendment as a “fag burning amendment” it would get any more or less support?
Z.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:17 pmDear Think Progress:
Thanks for updating us on the public’s opinion of the gigantic Congressional waste of time known as “Flag desecration protection.”
However, it’s been a while since I’ve seen any updates on President Bush’s approval ratings.
Last time I saw anything (on this or any other Progressive blog) about the approval ratings was right after al-Zarqawi was cold-187′ed. At that time, it jumped to the mid 30’s range. However, the attention seemed to have died out in the past couple of weeks.
Anyone know where he is at now?
June 27th, 2006 at 12:17 pmthis is why the amendment process is so grueling…
i wouldnt worry too much about this.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:18 pmDo we want to be like China and other repressive countries that DON’T ALLOW flag burning? NO! Stand up for our freedoms and against tyranny and DEMAND SENATE ABIDE BY THEIR OATH’S TO DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMAND THEY VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT TO FLAG BURNING! Call tTODAY! 1-202-224-3121 to DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS!
June 27th, 2006 at 12:21 pm#8 – perhaps some enterprising consternative (sic) will propose such a thing… I’m sure Coulter wouldn’t hesitate…
June 27th, 2006 at 12:21 pmPete,
check out godhatesfags.com. The “good” reverend Fred Phelps has already suggested the death penalty for homosexuality.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:29 pmHi there Krazny!
At my church, we are taught that the LORD has no capacity in him for hatred.
Only Satan has such hatred capacity…
Perhaps satanhatesfags.com would be more appropriate.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:33 pmI plan to keep all my Fourth of July newsprint advertisements printed with American flags and mail them to my Senators and Representative to dispose of. I don’t want to do anything as dastardly as throw those flags in the trash to go to a landfill or to burn! My Senators and Representative will certainly want to be sure that those flags are safely stored and protected. I can just hear the Constitution ripping.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:37 pmI would agree MrBlueSky,
I as raised to believe that god was about forgiveness, and peace. I don’t really know how evengelicals, and mega churches fit in.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:37 pmSadly, my senior Senator (Feinstein, D-CA) supports the Amendment. Nice to see she’s in the minority.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
I think it’s the hairspray fumes…
June 27th, 2006 at 12:39 pmCheney and Bush screw the constitution with their unitary executive power, and all this lame bunch of senators can talk about is burning a cloth?
DID you know that burning a flag is to burn it?
Sure is, ask any military man.
* The flag should never have any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind placed on it, or attached to it.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:48 pm* The flag should never be used for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
* When the flag is lowered, no part of it should touch the ground or any other object; it should be received by waiting hands and arms. To store the flag it should be folded neatly and ceremoniously.
* The flag should be cleaned and mended when necessary.
* When a flag is so worn it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country, it should be destroyed by burning in a dignified manner.
http://www.usa-flag-site.org/etiquette.shtml
#13 Krazny
June 27th, 2006 at 12:50 pmWhile I would like to see what the crazy opposition has to say, I’m a bit afraid to go to the dear “pastor’s” website and increase his hits. He’s likely to see that as endorsement of his horrible religious doctrine of hate.
#19 – PLC,
Zoo Jr spent a couple hours one day going through the very reverend Phelps’ sites. At first he thought it was a parody, but then realized they were deadly serious. He was absolutely horrified. We spent hours talking about it. I have never looked at the sites, there are some things I don’t need to have in my brain. Ugh…
June 27th, 2006 at 12:56 pmPLC,
I have seen the site, it is classic example of bigoted hate. He equates the moral decline of the US with homosexuals. All gay men are child molesters etc. etc..
nothing really new to see. It is about the same as viewing a neo-nazi site, just a different group to hate.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:57 pmI wonder how the supporters of this ridiculous Amendment would respond if an individual hosted a religious ceremony complete with prayers, a sermon condemning the separation of church and state attacks of neocons, and topped off with burning a torn American flag as a sacrament?
June 27th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#13 – way ahead of you… I already addressed how to “deal with” this mofo in a blog called “God Hates Jerks”
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2006/02/god-hates-jerks-guide-to.html
June 27th, 2006 at 1:02 pmCNN is doing a poll today on this issue if anyone want’s to put their two cents in. i did.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:04 pmDefaming the Constitution for Political Gain
“GUT AND RUNâ€
Prithee dear sir, why art thou proposing Constitutional amendments that promote hate and bigotry?
Why? Because the cloying scent of these red meat amendments doth inflame the plebeian viscera and serves to swell the base.
I see. Premeditated use of fanfare and pageantry in pushing certain constitutionally derogatory amendments allows you to inflame certain segments of the population to gain advantage in upcoming elections?
Verily, my liege. This is so.
What policy name exists for this plan to defame the Constitution for political gain?
We call it “Gut and Run.â€
June 27th, 2006 at 1:17 pmMrBlueSky
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2120516&page=1
June 27th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
This is nothing more than a specific election-year-pandering, vote-getting-stunt. And an attempt to, yet again, thanks to the Bush administration, limit our civil rights and free speech.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:18 pmif you must burn the flag please wrap a liberal or (ahem) progressive up in it first!
June 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pmSue, sarcasm is totally lost on you, isn’t it?
June 27th, 2006 at 1:29 pm#28 Moonbat patrol I don’t know if this fits the etiquette of blogs but I’m repeating a post I addressed to you on another thread just a few minutes ago. It seems it also fits here and I want to be sure you see it:
So, you are all for the violent deaths of fellow Americans that you don’t agree with? I guess old Patrick Henry was misquoted – he actually said: “Give me the liberty to act in any damn way I please and insist that you act like me, or give you deathâ€. How in world is this attitude not equivalent to that of our terrorist enemies? I despise your politics and your arrogance. If I actually knew you, I might even hate you personally. But I would NEVER wish harm on you. May God have mercy on you.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:29 pm#25 Cognitorex
June 27th, 2006 at 1:30 pmGut and Run – great one. Gut the Constitution and Run for Office.
Moonbat, if you are going to spew hate and stupidity, please come up with something new. that is the same useless shit you said last time the flag burning amendment was brought up.
I think Bush’s rise in popularity mostly had to do with the death of Zarqawi, the advances we have made in Iraq, and the mention of bringing troops home. I would imagine as time goes on that Bush’s popularity will fall again. Most have seen the flag burning amendment, and the gay marriage amendment as self serving political moves to energize a sluggish base for the mid-terms.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:34 pmI read a comment in my local newspaper editorial section that was attributed to a NY state representative which I firmly belive sums up the entire debate about flag burning and it went something like this; “If the flag needs protection, then it is from some members of Congress who value the symbol itself more than the freedoms it represents”
I don’t think it can be said better than that.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:39 pmWhenever the flag amendmant comes up for discussion I am reminded of the West Wing episode that dealt with it and President Barlet’s question “Is there a rash of flag burning going on that I haven’t heard about?”
I also recall that during a discussion of poll results about people’s feelings about it, one astute pollster (astute writer) said that when the question was posed to respondants who were in favor of (rather than opposed to) the amendmant as to the level of importance of a flag burning amendmant, it was very low in importance. Framing the issue is important in polls.
Thinking people know that it is purely a political issue & one that wastes valuable time that should be spent on other issues.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:47 pmFlag Burning joke – via crooksandliars
This is a joke right? Our government is having a debate about flag burning when nobody burns flags.
Dana Milbank:
“The Citizens Flag Alliance, a group pushing for the Senate this week to pass a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, just reported an alarming, 33 percent increase in the number of flag-desecration incidents this year.
The number has increased to four, from three. The naive among us may have trouble appreciating how four flag-burning episodes would constitute a constitutional crisis. But the men and women of the Senate, ever alert to emerging threats, are on the case…read on “
we had a loony-toon set a flag on fire while standing on the canon on the courthouse lawn, across the street from a bar and the sheriff’s dept… quite a skuffle…
June 27th, 2006 at 1:49 pmcharges are pending, while state’s attny is trying to figure it out… poor guy – he is running for judge this fall…
#30 – For you, PLC:
When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it – always.
-Mahatma Gandhi
June 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pmThe mile-high view that Gandhi offers is correct. But meanwhile, many people die.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:03 pmDespair seems appropriate at such times. Despair that the human race recycles itself through tyrants and murderers on such a regular basis. Think of that! Always.
Makes us seem pretty stupid…. hopeless…. useless.
But on a lighter note….
I’m getting rid of my flag BEFORE my neighbors can turn me in for not treating it the way THEY think it should be treated! My flag used to represent freedom. Now it represents a government mandate that carries a potential of PUNISHMENT for me if someone chooses to say I did this with it or I did that with it. Too much risk for me and my family. I’m getting rid of it.
#36 Zookeeper
June 27th, 2006 at 2:09 pmThanks! In truth, though, I come to this blog to find the comfort of like-minded people since I live in a backward, right-wing county (actually state – Ohio) and it’s nice to read others saying what I’m thinking. I guess my only concern about the trolls is that one or more of them may actually be some of my many relatives! I haven’t talked politics with my father since the beginning of the Iraq War because of how awful one of discussions went and how I thought (and I think my father agreed) that continuing would harm our relationship. Not worth it – but here… well…
The mile-high view that Gandhi offers is correct. But meanwhile, many people die.
Despair seems appropriate at such times. Despair that the human race recycles itself through tyrants and murderers on such a regular basis. Think of that! Always.
Makes us seem pretty stupid…. hopeless…. useless.
Comment by Solitaire
That was touching, Solitaire. These are particularly ugly times, but we humans are resilient, and we will find our way again — and we will again lose our way. We must never lose hope, and we must never stop speaking out. We will again become human, and more humane, I will never doubt that.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:14 pm#38 – PLC, I can guarantee none of the trolls here are your family — because they are all my family. That’s me, the black sheep of the family! I had a horrible argument with my father while Katrina was still going on, and we have not talked politics since then. I’m glad you’re here, you always have something rational to contribute. ;)
June 27th, 2006 at 2:18 pmwhew! that’s good to know, zoo!
i always worry about giving too much info away… as if i cared…
by the way – “s-c-u-f-f-l-e”… not k…
June 27th, 2006 at 2:24 pmjust learned that at the levin thread… heh
#41 – by the way – “s-c-u-f-f-l-eâ€â€¦ not k…
just learned that at the levin thread… heh
Comment by katy
Wow, what a relief. *snort*
Don’t worry about giving out too much info (although you do use your real name), I just posted my email address for a certain law school student. I hope I don’t get email from Denny or Santo. Yikes.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:32 pmThey’re Just More Important Than You Are
Are any secrets more important than the New York Times’s sources?
By Andrew C. McCarthy
The echo trails off the last defiantly gleeful chorus of “We Are the World.†Reality stubbornly dawns on you: There really are bad people out there. They are the world, too. And they want to kill you.
They refuse to be reasoned with. They can afford to. They’re not a country. They don’t have to worry about defending a territory. They are seeped into places that can’t be bombed into submission. They are the world, after all. They are the children — or at least hidden among them. No “Mutually Assured Destruction†here.
No, you have only one defense: Intelligence. Superpower power is useless. What are you gonna do? Hit them where they live? Bomb Hamburg? Bomb London? Bomb New York?
Not an option. Your nukes, stealth fighters, carpet bombers … they’re largely irrelevant. This is not about killing an advancing brigade. It’s about killing cells. A handful of operatives here and there, nestled among millions of innocents.
The real challenge is not how to kill them — or at least capture them. It’s how to find them. How to identify them from among the hordes they dress like, sound like, and even act like … right up until the moment they board a plane. Or wave cheerily alongside a naval destroyer. Or park their nondescript van in the catacombs of a mighty skyscraper.
The only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to gather intelligence. It is to collect the information that reveals who the jihadists are, who is backing them with money and resources, and where they are likely to strike. There is nothing else.
How do you get such intelligence? Your options are few. The terrorists you capture, you squeeze until they break. Since your laws and protocols forbid physical coercion, you must employ psychological pressure — relentless detachment and loneliness that may render a battle-hard, hate-obsessed detainee hopeless enough and dependent enough on his interrogators to tell you the deepest, deadliest secrets. So you move your captives to places where they will be isolated, and forlorn, and … eventually — maybe after a very long time — moved to tell you what they know about their fellow savages.
Otherwise, you use your technological wizardry to penetrate their communications. You use your mastery of the global web that is modern finance to find the money and follow it — until you can pierce the veiled charities and masked philanthropists behind the terror dollars. Until you strangle the supply lines that convert hatred into action.
All the while, you never underestimate your enemies. You know they are clever, resourceful, and adaptive. You know they study you, just as you are studying them. More effectively, in fact. After all, when you find their vulnerabilities, there is still due process. When they find yours, there is murder. Mass murder.
Life or death. Which one it will be turns solely on intelligence and secrecy. Can you find out how they next intend to kill you, can you stop them, and can you prevent them from knowing how you know … so you can stop them again?
Simple as that. Modernity has changed many things, but it hasn’t changed that. In command of the first American military forces, and facing a deadly enemy, George Washington himself observed that the “necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged…. [U]pon Secrecy, Success depends in Most Enterprises … and for want of it, they are generally defeated.â€
What on earth would George Washington have made of Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, and his comrades in today’s American media?
What would he have made of transparently politicized free-speech zealots who inform for the enemy and have the nerve to call it “patriotism.â€
Who say, “If you try to isolate barbarians to make them hand up the other barbarians, we will expose it.â€
“If you try to intercept enemy communications — as victorious militaries have done in every war ever fought — we will tell all the world, including the enemy, exactly what you’re up to.â€
“If you track the enemy’s finances, we will blow you out of the water. We’ll disclose just what you’re doing and just how you’re doing it. Even if it’s saving innocent lives.â€
And why this last? Remember five years ago, back when they figured “you’re not doing enough†was the best way to bash the Bush administration? Remember the Times and its ilk — disdainful of aggressive military responses — tut-tutting about how the disruption of money flows was the key to thwarting international terrorists. So why compromise that?
Is there some illegality going on in the government’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (exposed by the Times and other news outlets Friday)? No, no laws have been broken. Is there some abuse of power? No, there seem to have been extraordinary steps taken to inform relevant officials and win international cooperation. Why then? Why take action that can only aid and comfort the enemy in wartime?
Because, Keller haughtily pronounced, American methods of monitoring enemy money transfers are “a matter of public interest.â€
Really? The Times prattles on about what it claims is a dearth of checks and balances, but what are the checks and balances on Bill Keller? Can it be that our security hinges on whether the editor of an antiwar, for-profit journal thinks some defense measure might be interesting?
Well, here’s something truly interesting: There are people in the U.S. intelligence community who are revealing the nation’s most precious secrets.
The media aspire to be the public’s watchdog? Ever on the prowl to promote good government? Okay, here we have public officials endangering American lives. Public officials whose violation of a solemn oath to protect national defense information is both a profound offense against honor and a serious crime.
What about the public interest in that? What about the public interest in rooting out those who betray their country in wartime?
Not on your life.
National-security secrets? All fair game. If it’s about how we detain, or infiltrate, or defang the monsters pledged to kill us, the New York Times reserves the right to derail us any time it finds such matters … interesting.
But the media’s own sources? That, and that alone, is sacrosanct. Worth protecting above all else.
National-security secrets, after all, are merely the public treasure that keeps us alive. Press informants are the private preserve of the media.
And they’re just more important than you are.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:10 pmThe trolls just like to stir things up, I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they act normal when away from blogging.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:14 pmBriseadh na Faire – Irish?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:16 pmso, bill, what does andy (nat.review online) say about the wall street journal’s printing the same story?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:29 pmPeople, don’t burn flags, BURN FASCIST REPUBLICANS INSTEAD!!!!!!!
June 27th, 2006 at 5:49 pm