You do not need logic to know that you cannot force people to respect things the way you do, and that is common sense. In the Phelps' case they could not stop the families protesting, but the government could regulate it by not having it near grieving families the grieving families deserve privacy. It is protecting the "victim" and that is right
Sure. I just say respect for the dead, and because it's different termanology that maybe religious people use, you go off attacking my word usage.
I now that you read my posts about the Phelps' at DSR because I posted them in either Extremist America or Best President and the fact that your analogy with the bald eagle is coming out of something that I posted there. Because the bald eagles were protected due to the numbers of their population. The founding fathers did not care so much about eagles anyway. Franklin wanted the turkey, and yet we eat it on the day we stole things from Native Americans. I eat and get nourishment from the American symbol (turkey not the eagle).
So you think that if the bald eagle wasn't endangered, we ought to have the right to kill it? And how do you feel about the pledge? <_<
First off, I was not attacking your word usage over respecting the dead. That law that was passed because of the Phelps' being dooshbags may make you think that it was out of respect for the dead, in truth, it is out of respect for the families and the loved ones of those the deceased knew. Indirectly, yes, it does respect the dead, but only by directly giving the families respect through privacy.
About the eagle, not necessarily. I personally do not think the bird should be killed, unless it overpopulates and kills a lot of its food chain, then it needs to die so the population does not starve, and for hunters to eat it would be a lot less than people killing for sport. From an animal perspective though, the bald eagle does take away from some of their living space and food supply, and for people to make a symbol upset the ecosystem by not regulating it would be stupid and ideolistic. I think that government should not encourage hunting of other birds by raising the fines on eagles because then more other birds will be killed and then the eagles will eventually overpopulate. But, as I have said, the extra fines should be only allowed based on if it is in risk of extinction and not solely based on its symbol status.
I feel that the pledge is something that is OK in saying, but for schools to make you do it is wrong. The phrase "under God" should not be in there and otherwise it is OK. The phrase "under God" was added because Eisenhower thought that it would give the US a sense of humbleness or a slice of humble pie. This however was mainly added because of the spread social and secularist governments around the world.
EDIT: wikipedia is funny. Did you know that the old way, the Bellamy salute to the flag was somewhat of a precursor to the Nazi salute. Try Nazi saluting the flag at school and bring this up, your teacher will !@#$% their pants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg
Author
Topic: Burning the flag of the USA in means of protest! (Read 9816 times)