Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/sanfranciscocbs5-15751300/s-bay-students-wearing-u-s-flag-shirts-sent-home-19586193#video=19601151

they are not taliban, communists, or terrorists.. they are americans.. in san francisco.. or somewhere in the bay area..

Hey, that's my area. But that link is the wrong one, directs me to a story about the oil-spill cleanup.

Edit: I found the story: http://www.localnews8.com/news/23475912/detail.html

I hope they sue the school for discrimiation and the principal should be fired.

"Bay Area Hair Being Turned Into Oil Cleanup Booms" is what I got.

Silly enough. But I also completely understand where the principal was coming from, as in these contexts those shirts could definitely be seen as racist given the not-so-kind context they're often used for in this situation. I don't think they should sue, people should just get over it.

the kids are right, regardless of the implications or how racist it may seem (and it really isnt), they have the right to wear that type of shirt any time they want.

but that aside its not really a big deal. people should just move on

Originally posted by King Kandy
Silly enough. But I also completely understand where the principal was coming from, as in these contexts those shirts could definitely be seen as racist given the not-so-kind context they're often used for in this situation. I don't think they should sue, people should just get over it.

I've no doubt those five wore those shirts on that day specifically to be jackasses, but were do you get "racism" from?

So you're okay with one group of children being discriminated against while another group doing the exact thing or similar aren't?

Originally posted by Robtard
I've no doubt those five wore those shirts on that day specifically to be jackasses, but were do you get "racism" from?

So you're okay with one group of children being discriminated against while another group doing the exact thing or similar aren't?
Racist against Mexican students, you know "America for Americans, go back to mexico" type stuff.

I don't see what you think the discrimination against those kids is... it's Cinco De Mayo, and that means wearing a mexican shirt is discrimination? I don't know what the theory behind that idea is.

To Ms. Marvel: Yeah they should be able to wear any shirt they want... but just because this one has a flag doesn't give it some kind of unimpeachable status. I'd be against banning shirts that promote drug use, but schools censor things that are obviously meant to cause trouble. All that happened here was the principal did his job.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Racist against Mexican students, you know "America for Americans, go back to mexico" type stuff.

thats not racist




if that were the case then all shirts displaying pride for a country should be banned all of the time

I doubt it was racist. One of the kids wearing the American Flag t-shirt stated that he was half Mexican.

In any case...this country has become too politically correct. The U.S. needs to chill out.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Racist against Mexican students, you know "America for Americans, go back to mexico" type stuff.

I don't see what you think the discrimination against those kids is... it's Cinco De Mayo, and that means wearing a mexican shirt is discrimination? I don't know what the theory behind that idea is.



That's you (or them) making it out to be that. Shirt is just a shirt.

Since when is wearing an American flag in America wrong or wrongful? If the school didn't have a problem with one group of children wearing the Mexican flag on their apparel, then there's absolutely no valid grounds to deny other students wearing any other country's flag; there's your discrimination. Hell, you can wear a Swastika and it's protected.

Do you think if students wore a Mexican, Canadian, German or Italian flag to school on July 4th, the school would have told those students to 'take it off or go home'? 'Tattoos N Scars' is correct, this is PC gone insane, examples should be made to help curb future PC insanity.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's you (or them) making it out to be that. Shirt is just a shirt.

Since when is wearing an American flag in America wrong or wrongful? If the school didn't have a problem with one group of children wearing the Mexican flag on their apparel, then there's absolutely no valid grounds to deny other students wearing any other country's flag; there's your discrimination. Hell, you can wear a Swastika and it's protected.

Do you think if students wore a Mexican, Canadian, German or Italian flag to school on July 4th, the school would have told those students to 'take it off or go home'? 'Tattoos N Scars' is correct, this is PC gone insane, examples should be made to help curb future PC insanity.
No, it isn't. If you wear a Swastika to school, then you will be forced to take it off, and no high court would say such a rule was invalid.

you only replied to like the 1/5th of his point ermm

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, it isn't. If you wear a Swastika to school, then you will be forced to take it off, and no high court would say such a rule was invalid.

Fine, ignore the rest of my post.

No, it's protected under "Freedom of Speech" . I know of one example too, student at UC Berkeley dressed in an SS outfit and passed out Neo-Nazi propaganda, school had to allow him.

There's another dealing with similar in a High School; school had to accept it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, it isn't. If you wear a Swastika to school, then you will be forced to take it off, and no high court would say such a rule was invalid.



That would be a first amendment violation


But, this country doesn't care about that anymore

It was in bad taste regardless of the reasons behind it. A bit disrespectful in my eyes but not the cause for a suspension or forcing them to remove the article.

Just makes them look like stereotypical Americans.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That would be a first amendment violation


But, this country doesn't care about that anymore

It does, but it's very selective.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fine, ignore the rest of my post.

No, it's protected under "Freedom of Speech" . I know of one example too, student at UC Berkeley dressed in an SS outfit and passed out Neo-Nazi propaganda, school had to allow him.

There's another dealing with similar in a High School; school had to accept it.
No, there's been a multitude of supreme court rulings saying if you spread a message with no value to free speech, that is likely to cause trouble, then schools can censure it. The most recent one being Morse v. Frederick.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fine, ignore the rest of my post.

No, it's protected under "Freedom of Speech" . I know of one example too, student at UC Berkeley dressed in an SS outfit and passed out Neo-Nazi propaganda, school had to allow him.

There's another dealing with similar in a High School; school had to accept it.

for a lot of schools students actually sign away certain rights as long as theyre on school property.

Originally posted by Liberator
Just makes them look like stereotypical Americans.

How stereotypically British of you.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, there's been a multitude of supreme court rulings saying if you spread a message with no value to free speech, that is likely to cause trouble, then schools can censure it. The most recent one being Morse v. Frederick.
Also, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and Bethel School District v. Fraser show what you are saying to be totally false.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, there's been a multitude of supreme court rulings saying if you spread a message with no value to free speech, that is likely to cause trouble, then schools can censure it. The most recent one being Morse v. Frederick.

Wearing a Swastika doesn't fall under that category in of itself. Now, a shirt saying "kill the Jews", that would likely be different.

Public school officials may legally prohibit speech that disrupts the school environment. Wearing clothing bearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo is no different than wearing clothing bearing Bible verses condemning homosexuality on the National Day of Silence; the purpose is to antagonize other students. It is disruptive, and the school was within its rights to ask the students in question to change or go home.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wearing a Swastika doesn't fall under that category in of itself. Now, a shirt saying "kill the Jews", that would likely be different.
I already showed other rulings where even if you don't blatantly say it, the implication is enough.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Also, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and Bethel School District v. Fraser show what you are saying to be totally false.

Neither of those have anything to do with wearing a symbol (ie a Swastika).

Originally posted by Robtard
Neither of those have anything to do with wearing a symbol (ie a Swastika).
No... they have to do with freedom of expression, which symbols are included in.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Public school officials may legally prohibit speech that disrupts the school environment. Wearing clothing bearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo is no different than wearing clothing bearing Bible verses condemning homosexuality on the National Day of Silence; the purpose is to antagonize other students. It is disruptive, and the school was within its rights to ask the students in question to change or go home.

While I agree those students were likely being jackasses, your comparison is faulty.

American flag is just a flag. While anything condemning homosexuality on a day specified for LBGT is very specific in nature. Now, if those kids had "go back to Mexico on their shirts, then I can see a comparison and grounds for their suspension.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No... they have to do with freedom of expression, which symbols are included in.

First of all, the Swastika isn't a Nazi invention, but fine, as I don't really care too much about the Swastika angle, as it's really irrelevant here and it's distracting away from the issue here.

Originally posted by Robtard
It does, but it's very selective.


I agree with you, but it seems to be getting worse. In one sense, we are so politically correct that we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...especially foreign cultures. In another sense, the U.S. seems to be turning into a more totalitarian state with legislation such as the Patriot Act and attacks on the the Constition itself. The first amendment, as I mentioned, is not looked upon favorably by many politicians and judges in this country.

With the attack on the National Day of Prayer, religion is slowly being persecuted in this country. We don't want to offend any atheists, so we have to do away with national prayer? We don't want to hurt anyone who doesn't believe in God, but at that same time...we're offending those that do believe in God. America was founded upon the principle...Freedom OF Religion...not Freedom FROM Religion. Just because there is a national day of Prayer..does not mean atheists are forced to participate. That is just..politically incorrect. In any case, that is off topic. The point is...I agree with you. We shouldn't be worried about the petty things in life. We should concentrate harder on the major problems in this country...like the economy.

Originally posted by Robtard
While I agree those students were likely being jackasses, your comparison is faulty.

American flag is just a flag. While anything condemning homosexuality on a day specified for LBGT is specific. Now, if those kids had "go back to Mexico on their shirts, then I can see a comparison.
Things don't have to be explicit... that's just plain not how it works, what's important is the intention and the message it's likely to get across.

robtard, from a legal perspective, students who attend schools (like most high schools) sign away certain rights that are guaranteed to everyone normally. that includes not wearing anything that can be potentially disruptive. teachers have the right to judge any article of clothing to be disruptive. in that big stack of papers you sign for your kid to turn in at the beginning of the school year, one of the things you sign involves that. i think in california its related to the zero tolerance act or something.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I agree with you, but it seems to be getting worse. In one sense, we are so politically correct that we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...especially foreign cultures. In another sense, the U.S. seems to be turning into a more totalitarian state with legislation such as the Patriot Act and attacks on the the Constition itself. The first amendment, as I mentioned, is not looked upon favorably by many politicians and judges in this country.

With the attack on the National Day of Prayer, religion is slowly being persecuted in this country. We don't want to offend any atheists, so we have to do away with national prayer? We don't want to hurt anyone who doesn't believe in God, but at that same time...we're offending those that do believe in God. America was founded upon the principle...Freedom OF Religion...not Freedom FROM Religion. Just because there is a national day of Prayer..does not mean atheists are forced to participate. That is just..politically incorrect. In any case, that is off topic. The point is...I agree with you. We shouldn't be worried about the petty things in life. We should concentrate harder on the major problems in this country...like the economy.

http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93politically-correct.gif

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
robtard, from a legal perspective, students who attend schools (like most high schools) sign away certain rights that are guaranteed to everyone normally. that includes not wearing anything that can be potentially disruptive. teachers have the right to judge any article of clothing to be disruptive. in that big stack of papers you sign for your kid to turn in at the beginning of the school year, one of the things you sign involves that. i think in california its related to the zero tolerance act or something.

I know and agree. But it isn't that simple in this case. Two sets of kids were wearing flags/patriotic material, why was one allowed and the other not, considering neither were offensive in nature.

Originally posted by King Kandy
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93politically-correct.gif


frankly i think that demonizing the term into some kind of anti-liberal code or phrase or w/e is just as bad as using it to brush issues off.

Originally posted by Robtard
I know and agree. But it isn't that simple in this case. Two sets of kids were wearing flags/patriotic material, why was one allowed and the other not, considering neither were offense in nature.

i agree with you. its completely idiotic that only the kids with the American flag shirts were punished.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Things don't have to be explicit... that's just plain not how it works, what's important is the intention and the message it's likely to get across.

Again, that was other people than the wearers making it out to be as such. Unless I'm wrong and those kids were chanting "go back to Mexico"?

But it doesn't seem the case, they were just wearing shirts that had the US flag, in America no less.

Originally posted by Robtard
I know and agree. But it isn't that simple in this case. Two sets of kids were wearing flags/patriotic material, why was one allowed and the other not, considering neither were offense in nature.
Not really... it is blatantly obvious to me that while what they were wearing wasn't too different, the different reactions they were intended to illicit were night and day.

i disagree.

besides, you cant penalize for perceived intentions. there has to be some kind of proof or evidence.

Originally posted by King Kandy
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93politically-correct.gif


I see where you are coming from, but the truth is...someone is always going to get offended by something. It's not possible to make everyone happy...and to not hurt feelings on occasion. Life doesn't work that way. People need to learn to suck it up and move on...if they don't like it.(On minor issues)

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i disagree.

besides, you cant penalize for perceived intentions. there has to be some kind of proof or evidence.
Maybe in court, but on a day to day basis, school staff will make countless such judgment calls every day.

its already been established that legally they can do that.

doesnt make it right though.

if youre afraid of nationalism sparking a conflict, get rid of it completely. dont allow either side to flaunt their ethnicity. but dont punish group one, who's only crime was doing the same thing as group 2, purely for the sake of avoiding group 2's potential butt hurt.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I agree with you, but it seems to be getting worse. In one sense, we are so politically correct that we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...especially foreign cultures. In another sense, the U.S. seems to be turning into a more totalitarian state with legislation such as the Patriot Act and attacks on the the Constition itself. The first amendment, as I mentioned, is not looked upon favorably by many politicians and judges in this country.

With the attack on the National Day of Prayer, religion is slowly being persecuted in this country. We don't want to offend any atheists, so we have to do away with national prayer? We don't want to hurt anyone who doesn't believe in God, but at that same time...we're offending those that do believe in God. America was founded upon the principle...Freedom OF Religion...not Freedom FROM Religion. Just because there is a national day of Prayer..does not mean atheists are forced to participate. That is just..politically incorrect. In any case, that is off topic. The point is...I agree with you. We shouldn't be worried about the petty things in life. We should concentrate harder on the major problems in this country...like the economy.

Most people who complain about - or try and use the First Amendment in defense of themselves or something they have done - actually have no idea what it really means. It does not mean you can say or do whatever you want without recourse or consequence. It simply means that the government cannot make laws, and stuff like hate speech, threats, and the like are not protected under it. Wearing a swastika shirt to school - where such a thing is NEVER appropriate - can be considered a symbol of hate speech, and hence it is not a First Amendment violation to rule that such a thing is not allowed.

The National Day of Prayer should be contested. It directly defies the Establishment Clause that is a part of the First Amendment - the government may not pass any laws enforcing any sort of religious observances. Hence, the Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. If a private organization wants to do something like that, then they may - that is within their rights. But the government cannot. Poor Christians, being persecuted where they are the majority and are in power, however can they stand it

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
its already been established that legally they can do that.

doesnt make it right though.

if youre afraid of nationalism sparking a conflict, get rid of it completely. dont allow either side to flaunt their ethnicity. but dont punish group one, who's only crime was doing the same thing as group 2, purely for the sake of avoiding group 2's potential butt hurt.
"Group 2" wasn't flaunting their ethnicity, and I don't think group one was either. It was cinco de mayo, you're almost expected to do such things. I can't believe you can't see a difference between the intents made obvious between wearing a US flag on Cinco de Mayo, and, let's say, the 4th of July.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"Group 2" wasn't flaunting their ethnicity, and I don't think group one was either. It was cinco de mayo, you're almost expected to do such things. I can't believe you can't see a difference between the intents made obvious between wearing a US flag on Cinco de Mayo, and, let's say, the 4th of July.

who gives a **** about cinco de mayo? im almost full blooded Mexican and i dont give a **** about cinco de mayo. its not even an actual holiday here and even if it was that doesnt mean that people should get special privelages.

to repeat robtards point, if it was the 4th of july and a mexican kid came to school wearing a t-shirt colored completely in mexican colors, or it said viva mexico or something on it, no one would give a shit.

so in an american school in mexico during summer school would they send home latino kids for wearing mexican flag shirts on the 4th of july ? NOOOOOO

but we dont have the right to wear our flag and our colors when we want.

im hispanic and i think this is BS. everyone has the right to wear their country emblems on their clothes when ever they want.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
who gives a **** about cinco de mayo? im almost full blooded Mexican and i dont give a **** about cinco de mayo. its not even an actual holiday here and even if it was that doesnt mean that people should get special privelages.

to repeat robtards point, if it was the 4th of july and a mexican kid came to school wearing a t-shirt colored completely in mexican colors, or it said viva mexico or something on it, no one would give a shit.
Well even disregarding the fact that school isn't in session in July... if Mexican students wore mexican flags on the 4th, then I wouldn't be surprised if they got censored in a similar way. I've seen latino students censored for less than that.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well even disregarding the fact that school isn't in session in July...

just stop it kandy.



but they dont. i went to a high school with a very latino population, and we could get away with ethnic flaunting way more than white kids could. america has a soft spot for minorities, some kind of stupid guilt.

its dumb. minorities and gays (redundant?) dont deserve special attention or consideration. ever. they deserve to be treated like everyone else. that includes the limitations and judgments that everyone else is suspect to.

im mexican and black, but i dont like double standards period.

The 4th of July scenario was a hypothetical; he knew that.

And no, kids wearing a Mexican (or other country) flag wouldn't be penalized, as no one would give a shit, as it's just a shirt/flag.

Originally posted by Robtard
The 4th of July scenario was a hypothetical; he knew that.

And no, kids wearing a Mexican (or other country) flag wouldn't be penalized, as no one would give a shit, as it's just a shirt/flag.
Like I said, you are not correct here, as I have seen that very thing happen in the past.

so your experience overrides other peoples' mmm

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so your experience overrides other peoples' mmm
No... you said it would never happen. It has happened once (and the case we're discussing, where the US flag was censored, also happened once).

Originally posted by Peach
Most people who complain about - or try and use the First Amendment in defense of themselves or something they have done - actually have no idea what it really means. It does not mean you can say or do whatever you want without recourse or consequence. It simply means that the government cannot make laws, and stuff like hate speech, threats, and the like are not protected under it. Wearing a swastika shirt to school - where such a thing is NEVER appropriate - can be considered a symbol of hate speech, and hence it is not a First Amendment violation to rule that such a thing is not allowed.

The National Day of Prayer should be contested. It directly defies the Establishment Clause that is a part of the First Amendment - the government may not pass any laws enforcing any sort of religious observances. Hence, the Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. If a private organization wants to do something like that, then they may - that is within their rights. But the government cannot. Poor Christians, being persecuted where they are the majority and are in power, however can they stand it


If that is targeted by the government, then why isn't swearing oaths on the Bible declared unconstitutional in courts of law?Also, Christians do not run the U.S. government.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No... you said it would never happen. It has happened once (and the case we're discussing, where the US flag was censored, also happened once).

so then you agree that there is a double standard that exists as a result of knee jerking minority apologists?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so then you agree that there is a double standard that exists as a result of knee jerking minority apologists?
No, that's the complete opposite of what I was saying.

I have seen whites be censured for mexican concerns, once.

I have also seen mexicans censured for white concerns, once.

That's not a double standard.

so because you have seen something happen... once, thats just.. how it is? Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so your experience overrides other peoples' mmm

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so because you have seen something happen... once, thats just.. how it is?
No, because the issue we have seen here in this thread, also happened ONCE (the topic being reported in the OP).

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Also, Christians do not run the U.S. government.

When the majority of people in each branch of government are Christian then Christians do run the government, though not as some unified force of "Christianity".

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, because the issue we have seen here in this thread, also happened ONCE (the topic being reported in the OP).

how do you know its only happened once?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When the majority of people in each branch of government are Christian then Christians do run the government, though not as some unified force of "Christianity".

Who says they are Christian? Most politicians will claim that..especially to gather votes from the Bible belt states. Their actions speak differently once in office. Obama is a prime example.

This is just like those kids who get sent home for making sexual or
"inappropriate" comments. Sure, the Constitution says they can, but its more of a common courtesy thing.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Who says they are Christian? Most politicians will claim that..especially to gather votes from the Bible belt states. Their actions speak differently once in office. Obama is a prime example.

Obama's a closet Atheist who went to church for his image and nothing else.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
If that is targeted by the government, then why isn't swearing oaths on the Bible declared unconstitutional in courts of law?Also, Christians do not run the U.S. government.

Swearing an oath on the Bible is not required by law.

And considering the fact that the vast majority of people in power and in the government are Protestant Christians, yes. They do. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala not listening" doesn't change the facts.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Who says they are Christian? Most politicians will claim that..especially to gather votes from the Bible belt states. Their actions speak differently once in office. Obama is a prime example.

I think it has to do with the fact that no atheist is ever going to get into office.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel

im mexican and black, but i dont like double standards period.

You make me hard.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Like I said, you are not correct here, as I have seen that very thing happen in the past.

Can you show it?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Who says they are Christian? Most politicians will claim that..especially to gather votes from the Bible belt states. Their actions speak differently once in office. Obama is a prime example.

If we're going by 'actions not words make one a Christian' (which I agree with), then there are very few Christians in this country, from what I've seen.

Originally posted by Peach
Swearing an oath on the Bible is not required by law.

And considering the fact that the vast majority of people in power and in the government are Protestant Christians, yes. They do. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala not listening" doesn't change the facts.

his point isnt necessarily invalid though

Originally posted by Autokrat
I think it has to do with the fact that no atheist is ever going to get into office.

If a Black man did it, then its only a matter of time. Besides, many historians believe Jefferson and Lincoln were non-believers.

There's more "No Religion" people in America than Jews, Blacks or Hispanics...so that's a lot of votes for an Atheist politician.

Originally posted by Robtard
If we're going by 'actions not words make one a Christian' (which I agree with), then there are very few Christians in this country, from what I've seen.

The Bible says "No good works" will get you into Heaven. So Christianity is a creed-based religion, not a deed-based religion.

Originally posted by Robtard
If we're going by 'actions not words make one a Christian' (which I agree with), then there are very few Christians in this country, from what I've seen.

I totally agree...and that is the truth with politicians and most Americans.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
how do you know its only happened once?
I don't know if it happened more than once, but so far this seems to be the only time anyone in the thread has heard of it, which means my perspective is as valid as any here...

We don't even know the kids who did this... you know who probably did know them though, the school staff. They have way more information on what these shirts were intended to accomplish, then you could surmise from a one-article snippet.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't know if it happened more than once, but so far this seems to be the only time anyone in the thread has heard of it, which means my perspective is as valid as any here...

ive heard of and seen incidents like the one being discussed in this thread dozens of times. its one of the perks of going to a school in a border state.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Bible says "No good works" will get you into Heaven. So Christianity is a creed-based religion, not a deed-based religion.

Bibile says a lot of things; so did Jesus.

Jesus also said something along the lines that repentance is not lip service; you must live for the Lord(Jesus). Seems it's both, to me.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bibile says a lot of things; so did Jesus.

Jesus also said something along the lines that repentance is not lip service; you must live for the Lord(Jesus). Seems it's both, to me.

The most common Protestant belief is that a true Christian that has accepted the holy spirit and Jesus, will show such belief in their character and ergo their actions. Works alone are useless, but true faith will bring about good works.

Originally posted by Robtard
I know and agree. But it isn't that simple in this case. Two sets of kids were wearing flags/patriotic material, why was one allowed and the other not, considering neither were offensive in nature.

It is not a what issue, but a why issue. The speech was not restricted because it is offensive in content. It was restricted, because its purpose is to antagonize, and be disruptive.

Originally posted by Autokrat
The most common Protestant belief is that a true Christian that has accepted the holy spirit and Jesus, will show such belief in their character and ergo their actions. Works alone are useless, but true faith will bring about good works.

Like I said, I've seen very few true Christians in my life, or what I would consider a true Christian.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not a what issue, but a why issue. The speech was not restricted because it is offensive in content. It was restricted, because its purpose is to antagonize, and be disruptive.

The flag-shirts didn't do that by themselves though, it was other people who took that point of view and then reacted on it.

Could any other student have gone to the principle and stated "the Mexican patriotism apparel offends me, my grandfather is French(or Texan); I want it removed" and it would have been? No, it wouldn't have, because it's not offensive in the general sense of things; either is the American flag.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Who says they are Christian? Most politicians will claim that..especially to gather votes from the Bible belt states. Their actions speak differently once in office. Obama is a prime example.

So you're relying on the silent majority or some particular definition of "christian".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you're relying on the silent majority or some particular definition of "christian".


I'm saying it is a mistake to label most of our government leaders as "christians" when that simply is not the case. If true evangelical christians were in office, it would re-shape U.S. policy dramatically.

Let's say that in the next election, every current member of Congress lost his/her seat to a true Christian. Immediately after taking office, they would attempt to overturn roe vs wade. They would make it impossible for homosexuals to marry or adopt children. They would still respect the separation of church and state, but their policy making would be influenced tremendously by their faith.


As far as the definition of "Christian"...there is only one definition. Being a Christian literally means to be.."Christ-like". A true Christian would live his/her life according to the standards that the Bible has prescribed for all followers of Christ. Do you really see elected members of Congress acting like the Apostles in the New Testament? Do you see them openly profess Christ to others..as the only standard to live by? I thought not!! When I say this, I don't mean to go around Capitol Hill and evanglize all over the place. Their faith would be noted in their off-time..while attending Church, witnessing to others, and their frequent participation in spiritual affairs. If they did these things, the media would publicize it.

...seriously?

Okay, a reality check here. Lawmakers already do what they can to restrict abortion as much as they possibly can without actually going against Roe vs. Wade, and there are attempts at overturning it quite often. It is currently illegal for homosexual couples to marry in almost every state in the US, and it is far more difficult for them to adopt children than a heterosexual couple. There are many policies that are directly influenced by the faith of those in government that are making the laws.

Your what-if scenario isn't a what-if, it's how things already are and have been for some time. And, which I should haven't to point out, NOT how things should be.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I'm saying it is a mistake to label most of our government leaders as "christians" when that simply is not the case. If true evangelical christians were in office, it would re-shape U.S. policy dramatically.

So then you are narrowing the definition of Christian to make it fit. Okay.

Originally posted by Peach
...seriously?

Okay, a reality check here. Lawmakers already do what they can to restrict abortion as much as they possibly can without actually going against Roe vs. Wade, and there are attempts at overturning it quite often. It is currently illegal for homosexual couples to marry in almost every state in the US, and it is far more difficult for them to adopt children than a heterosexual couple. There are many policies that are directly influenced by the faith of those in government that are making the laws.

Your what-if scenario isn't a what-if, it's how things already are and have been for some time. And, which I should haven't to point out, NOT how things should be.


What I'm saying is..if true Christian lawmakers were in office, Roe vs Wade would never have happened in the first place. Homosexual unions would be banned in ALL states. Even Obama himself stated that this is not a "christian" nation anymore in a fairly recent speech. You can see the state of this country and tell that it is falling away from christian influence. Most of the posters in these forums are even professed atheists or agnostics. If you think most of our federal and state leaders are such mega-christians, then show me evidence that their lives match what they publicly profess in front of a television camera. Give me examples of a few members of Congress performing evangelical activities(this does not include attending Church...that can be argued as being just for show).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So then you are narrowing the definition of Christian to make it fit. Okay.


What is your definition of Christian?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
What is your definition of Christian?

People who are a member of any of the world's various Christian sects.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People who are a member of any of the world's various Christian sects.


So, Judas Iscariot was a Christian?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
So, Judas Iscariot was a Christian?

Christianity as a movement that identified itself as such didn't form until after Jesus died, so no.

Originally posted by Robtard
The flag-shirts didn't do that by themselves though, it was other people who took that point of view and then reacted on it.

Could any other student have gone to the principle and stated "the Mexican patriotism apparel offends me, my grandfather is French(or Texan); I want it removed" and it would have been? No, it wouldn't have, because it's not offensive in the general sense of things; either is the American flag.

This is not a general instance, but a fairly specific context.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Christianity as a movement that identified itself as such didn't form until after Jesus died, so no.

So, many of these medieval Catholic bishops who paid for their offices..and the bishops who took payments for indulgences. They're Christians?

Hitler was a professed Catholic Christian...would you call him that?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
So, many of these medieval Catholic bishops who paid for their offices..and the bishops who took payments for indulgences. They're Christians?

Hitler was a professed Catholic Christian...would you call him that?

Yes and yes. You can define Christian as "politically active evangelical Christian fundamentalists" but that really a definition only used by politically active evangelical Christian fundamentalists and atheists.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
So, many of these medieval Catholic bishops who paid for their offices..and the bishops who took payments for indulgences. They're Christians?

Hitler was a professed Catholic Christian...would you call him that?
Yes on all three counts.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
If true evangelical christians were in office, it would re-shape U.S. policy dramatically.


Not necessarily, because the Constitution would stay their hand. But even still, Christianity has always somehow found its way into American law. Like the The Ten Commandments in court houses. Even when a country is officially secular, its largest religion always bends laws in their favor. India is officially secular, but cow slaughter is illegal in five states, because the country is mostly Hindu.

Originally posted by super pr*xy
http://news.yahoo.com/video/sanfranciscocbs5-15751300/s-bay-students-wearing-u-s-flag-shirts-sent-home-19586193#video=19601151

they are not taliban, communists, or terrorists.. they are americans.. in san francisco.. or somewhere in the bay area..

You answer your comment..."San Francisco" land of Berkeley and other weird places.

Wacky Northern Californians.

You know, we don't celebrate November the fifth, or Bastille day, or any other foreign independence day knock-off. Why in ****s sake do we celebrate Mexican independence day?

I understand MLKJ day, that's something to do with independence of americans, etc. But celebrating the day that another country got their independence? It's kind of like... what the ****?

Yeah, i really can't see why this was even brought up, its not like we're part of Mexico or anything....

why were they sent home from school? surely there was a way they could have not worn the shirts and also attended class?

Originally posted by One Free Man
You know, we don't celebrate November the fifth, or Bastille day, or any other foreign independence day knock-off. Why in ****s sake do we celebrate Mexican independence day?

I understand MLKJ day, that's something to do with independence of americans, etc. But celebrating the day that another country got their independence? It's kind of like... what the ****?

Cinco De Mayo isn't even that. dude. Mexican Independence Day is in September.

Cinco De Mayo celebrates one victory the Mexican army had over the French in a war they eventually lost. Most of Mexico doesn't celebrate Cinco De Mayo, it's like Alamo Day here in the US. Celebrating it here is little more than an excuse to get drunk.

Originally posted by inimalist
why were they sent home from school? surely there was a way they could have not worn the shirts and also attended class?

I believe they refused to take off the shirts and I'm pretty sure most schools have a 'shirts on' policy, with the exception of P.E.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe they refused to take off the shirts and I'm pretty sure most schools have a 'shirts on' policy, with the exception of P.E.

so, they flat out refused to comprimise?

I don't see your angle here then...

really? Mr Butcher used to get all us guys together topless for photography class in like grade 6... thats normal, ya?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, they flat out refused to comprimise?

I don't see your angle here then...

really? Mr Butcher used to get all us guys together topless for photography class in like grade 6... thats normal, ya?

They shouldn't have been asked in the first place, it was a none issue until the school made it one. How's that angle?

Maybe in Canada?

Originally posted by Robtard
They shouldn't have been asked in the first place, it was a none issue until the school made it one. Hows that angle?

Maybe in Canada?

I totally just skimmed the thread, I was under the assumption some Mexican kids had complained?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, they flat out refused to comprimise?

I don't see your angle here then...

really? Mr Butcher used to get all us guys together topless for photography class in like grade 6... thats normal, ya?

Did he ever take you into the dark room?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did he ever take you into the dark room?

Why must you always turn something so obviously innocent into something so perverse?

Originally posted by Robtard
Why must you always turn something so obviously innocent into something so perverse?

I just didn't want to feel so alone.

Originally posted by inimalist
why were they sent home from school? surely there was a way they could have not worn the shirts and also attended class?
The school asked them to turn their shirts inside out, and they refused which prompted them being sent away.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The school asked them to turn their shirts inside out, and they refused which prompted them being sent away.

and they were asked to because Mexican children had complained?

Originally posted by inimalist
and they were asked to because Mexican children had complained?
The article doesn't say.

A very sad day.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The article doesn't say.

then it just seems like yet another over-reaction of the authoritarian day-care centre that passes as the education system...

Originally posted by inimalist
then it just seems like yet another over-reaction of the authoritarian day-care centre that passes as the education system...

I'm curious, but how would something like this be handled in Canada? Say if someone wore something that could potentially be offensive to some of the native tribes that live in Canada, but patriotic in that, say the theme was based around your country's flag.

Would anyone care? Would it even make the news?

Originally posted by Punnchy
Yeah, i really can't see why this was even brought up, its not like we're part of Mexico or anything....

40% of the students at the school in question are Mexican.

i dont think the kids should have bn suspended.. the problem i see here is that it was obvious those kids wanted to get a rise out of the other kids who do celebrate cinco de mayo out of spite..

now if i was at downtown celebrating and drinking and some dipsh#@ came to me wearing a red white and blue flag i wouldn't care. now if he came to me and try to throw it in my face then i would kick his @$$ not b/c i don't respect the America flag which i do and even fought for it even though at times the flag doesn't seem to represent what it once was. but, i would kick his @$$ b/c obviously the guy came with something to prove and try to be petty and spiteful.

those kids should have just gotten their @$$ kicked by some random kids for their immaturity and obvious attempt to get a rise out of ppl "if" they were walking up to ppl to see their reaction.

Originally posted by Autokrat
I'm curious, but how would something like this be handled in Canada? Say if someone wore something that could potentially be offensive to some of the native tribes that live in Canada, but patriotic in that, say the theme was based around your country's flag.

depends. This whole situation seems really hit and miss. You get good administrators and you get bad ones, and everyone makes a bad call now and then. Students have been suspended for stupid things all over the world, and we are as sensitive to racial issues here as anywhere.

However, it is important to realize we don't have this sort of knee jerk patriotism. Native rights issues don't really evoke such exclusionary ideas (our ignorance normally comes from not understanding why they wouldn't want to be part of mainstream Canadian society) and few real issues with immigration (this is getting worse in the working class).

Originally posted by Autokrat
Would anyone care?

not in the way Americans do. Patriotism is very strange for Canadians. We are extremely nationalistic, but we are suspiscious of nationalism. The sort of overt "this is my canada" doesn't play well. We like to be canadians, but we really don't want to tell people who can and can't be a canadian

So like, people would care, but I think it would focus on "why are they doing this" rather than on "they be allowed to wear whatever they want". Our constitution works differently with regards to free speech, and besides, schools don't have to give students free speech anyways. But even then, its not going to be the same. The whole issue wouldn't make sense in a Canadian context, and people would probably be interested more because it would show a troubling trend in youth patriotism

Originally posted by Autokrat
Would it even make the news?

local maybe. if anything, cbc might cover it if it became a national thing. But its not something that would garner a whole lot of attention unless someone really tried to make it an issue

sorry about the bad link everyone.. thanks Robtard, for the correct link..

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
40% of the students at the school in question are Mexican.

Ahh, its still an American school though.

So, in theory, the school would pull the same stunt if someone wore a Mexican or US flag on St. Patrick's day? It's an Irish holiday, but like Cinco de Mayo, is not celebrating independence day, and by and large tends to be celebrated far more heavily in the US (since we've gone right ahead and pretty much turned it into "National Drinking Day".

Additionally, if the school were really worried about them causing a problem, and did want to send the kids home, they should have at least made it an excused absence. Trying to mark them down as absent for no reason, like the school wasn't notified of why they were gone and thus had no idea where the kids were, is bogus when the damn school itself is the one that told them to go home. An actual suspension is overboard, considering it's extremely unlikely any actual dress code violation took place, as it's obvious there's no rule in place against the wearing of a national flag. The article mentions plenty of Mexican flags appearing on clothing, after all.

I think kids should be able to wear shirts with Swastikas on them. Seriously...it's an American school, American flags should be OK, flags of other countries should not be allowed.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I think kids should be able to wear shirts with Swastikas on them. Seriously...it's an an American school, American flags should be OK, flags of other countries should not be allowed.

There is a contradiction between your first sentence and your second sentence. You indicate that any kind of symbol be allowed no matter how offensive but then turn around and say that only American flags should be allowed? Despite using an obvious non American example.

Originally posted by Autokrat
There is a contradiction between your first sentence and your second sentence. You indicate that any kind of symbol be allowed no matter how offensive but then turn around and say that only American flags should be allowed? Despite using an obvious non American example.


I see you are oblivious to sarcasm (my first sentance)

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I see you are oblivious to sarcasm (my first sentance)

It was lost in the translation.

The kids are pricks, but they shouldn't have been sent home.

they pledge allegiance to our flag, wtf do they wear other flags?

Click2Houston.com
updated 8:18 a.m. CT, Sat., May 8, 2010

HOUSTON - A Houston-area student was suspended for taking down and throwing away a Mexican flag, KPRC Local 2 reported Friday.

Cinco de Mayo is celebrated and recognized in numerous local schools, but for 15-year-old Nicholas Morris from Klein Collins High School, the Mexican flag hanging from his school's hallway was offensive.
"It could have been a Russian flag or French flag, I still would have taken it down. If you looked at the American Flag and Texan flag, in another part of the building, the Mexican Flag was much higher," said the 10th-grade ROTC cadet. "Before I took it down, I sent a picture of it to my mom and she called the school to tell them we were offended and they hung up on her."

So, Nick decided to take the flag down himself and put it in the trash.

"Nick sent me a text message and he told me what he did. I told him I support him but he had to be ready for the repercussions," said Stephanie Morris.

Nick told KPRC Local 2 that he was punished with three days of in-school suspension and he was to pay restitution for the flag. The incident created a furry around the country and sparked heated debates on national and local radio stations.

One local radio station put a picture on its website of a Mexican flag being flown on a pole above an upside-down American flag.

Many who saw the picture thought it was at the same school.

"That never happened. We didn't do anything on this campus or any other district building to dishonor the American or Texan flag," said Trazanna Moreno, Klein ISD's spokeswoman.

The picture of the two flags was from a school in California.

KTRH talk-show host Michael Berry said the picture has been removed from his website.

"I don't think anyone was offended by what we put on the website. People are offended by what Klein ISD is doing to this student. I think what he did is heroic and I think the community of Klein agrees and does not approve of what the district did," said Berry.

Nick said he's been harassed since the incident, but he's also received support.

"I've been called a racist. I've been called a lot of things and I've received threats from people who want to fight me. I also have had a lot of people tell me I did the right thing and they would have done the same thing," said Nick.

"It's a national flag and I know we are not in Mexico, but we should respect all flags from every country," said Alfredo Torres, a student's parent.

Klein ISD said it displays several flags from other countries to celebrate different cultures and holidays throughout the year. The district has sent out a letter to all parents for clarification.

Now i don't think there can be much argument on that one. That kid's just plain nuts and it was totally within the school's right to punish him.

Originally posted by One Free Man
they pledge allegiance to our flag, wtf do they wear other flags?
You don't have to recite the pledge to go to school in the US...

Originally posted by King Kandy
Now i don't think there can be much argument on that one. That kid's just plain nuts and it was totally within the school's right to punish him.

If the Mexican flag was "higher" than the Texan or American Flag, the only thing he should have done is lowered it. Yes, he definitely should have lowered it.

He shouldn't have thrown it away, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If the Mexican flag was "higher" than the Texan or American Flag, the only thing he should have done is lowered it. Yes, he definitely should have lowered it.

He shouldn't have thrown it away, though.
No, he had absolutely no right to do that. It was the schools decision not any nutcase who feels offended can just go vigilante and take the thing down.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, he had absolutely no right to do that. It was the schools decision not any nutcase who feels offended can just go vigilante and take the thing down.

Yes he does. If you see flags improperly displayed, you can correct them.


Sorry if it doesn't fit your liberal agenda.


If I see flags improperly displayed, I will correct them. Guess what? They can't do shit.

apparently they can suspend you. a united states school building is flying a mexican flag though? that's uncalled for. Its the united states.

Not mexico.

Christ. People who think that a flag is part of your culture or race are so uneducated. Your flag is a symbol of your government, not your culture. It is not racist to ask you not to pay homage to a symbol of another government while you are a citizen of ours.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes he does. If you see flags improperly displayed, you can correct them.


Sorry if it doesn't fit your liberal agenda.


If I see flags improperly displayed, I will correct them. Guess what? They can't do shit.
Actually most schools lock the flagstring to prevent this. In any case, how is deliberately screwing up the flag not vandalism. It's like if the kid saw two displays, one was mexican and above the other one that was american, and so he broke the window with the mexican display and destroyed it. You keep your hands off of school property, it's just common sense.

ya, America is insane

"dont fly other flags higher than ours"

"why?"

"because this is America"

"so?"

"so their flag shouldn't be higher!"

"why?"

"because this is America"

"so?"

"so their flag shouldn't be higher!"

"why?"

"because this is America"

"so?"

"so their flag shouldn't be higher!"

"why?"

"because this is America"

"so?"

"so their flag shouldn't be higher!"

"why?"

"because this is America"

"so?"

"so their flag shouldn't be higher!"

"why?"

"because this is America"

"so?"

"so their flag shouldn't be higher!"

"why?"

"because this is America"

"so?"

"so their flag shouldn't be higher!"

"why?"

Actually it's called "flag protocol". Within the nation the only thing you're supposed to fly higher than the national flag is that of the royal family. However the kid is still clearly nuts and should be punished for vandalizing school property.

The only flag within the US that is supposed to be put higher than the US flag is the UN flag.

I had it as a pub quiz question the other week.

I personally don't see the big ****ing idea with flags. I couldn't give a flying **** if people mistreat the Union Jack or the St George's Cross. Better them burn a flag then a person.. It's just a peice of fabric.

Kids are made to wear uniforms in a lot of schools in the world so chucking out a brat for wearing something the school feels is innapropriate is fair enough, if the children or family have a problem then they can simply go **** themselves. Schools should be able to make an example of children for something that is agaisnt school policy without it becoming national news, even if it does disrespect the mindless flag wavers of America.

Originally posted by One Free Man
apparently they can suspend you. a united states school building is flying a mexican flag though? that's uncalled for. Its the united states.

Not mexico.

Christ. People who think that a flag is part of your culture or race are so uneducated. Your flag is a symbol of your government, not your culture. It is not racist to ask you not to pay homage to a symbol of another government while you are a citizen of ours.

Who's uneducated?

Oh thats right...

EO8MGmoVgGU&feature=popular

So they were basically offended by the existence of Mexico? Cool, go America. I'd really be shocked if there weren't any American flags on the second floor and in terms of of where you can put a flag the only thing that is relevant is where it is on the flag pole. By definition if it was draped over the side as shown it wasn't flying above any American flag.

What I love is that he claims the only option was to take it down and throw it away. Because we all know kids are locked in homeroom for lunch amirite?

Requiring restitution is definitely crazy. It's a flag, that's maybe $10 to replace it.

That kid has more balls than the Principal IMO. He took upon himself to take down a flag that didn't belong there in the first place. Principal was most likely relentless to do it out of fear some Mexican Gang Member would retaliate.

Personally, I would have taken down the flag and take a giant shit on it. Just piece of cloth right? Mexicans shouldn't be offended.

$50 plus shipping and handling. seriously the appropriate size flags can cost in the 100 range their not cheap its the material quality.


anyways we did the same thing in Iraq we are suppose to fly the host countries flag alongside ours.. some smart @$$ marines decided to put a small iraqi flaq next to ours.. one of the base commanders was pissed ordered it down and replaced with the appropriate size flag and then wanted the marines responsible for the BS prank..

flag protocol is very important and i think should be respected..

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
EO8MGmoVgGU&feature=popular

I AM OFFENDED SO I CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT.

Sounds like someone is going to be issuning death threats against South Park next...

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
flag protocol is very important and i think should be respected..

Yeah, too bad it wasnt broken.

i didnt say it was,,, i was just voicing my view on the importance and respect of flag protocol..

Excellent!

flag protocol?

and you think health care is too much big brother?

omfg

Originally posted by Autokrat
I'm curious, but how would something like this be handled in Canada? Say if someone wore something that could potentially be offensive to some of the native tribes that live in Canada, but patriotic in that, say the theme was based around your country's flag.

Would anyone care? Would it even make the news? Depends, Canadians are scared to fly there own flag. Bunch of wimps.

Originally posted by inimalist
flag protocol?

and you think health care is too much big brother?

omfg

Well a flag is a symbol, a representation of a nation!

The well being of people, whether or not they are alive...thats just fraking irrelevant.

Originally posted by Ordo
Well a flag is a symbol, a representation of a nation!

The well being of people, whether or not they are alive...thats just fraking irrelevant.

Truth.

Originally posted by inimalist
flag protocol?

and you think health care is too much big brother?

omfg

You know we actually fly the Canadian flag down here in Washington. Most of the big retail stores have it next to the U.S flag. Just a little lower of course.

Originally posted by TRH
Depends, Canadians are scared to fly there own flag. Bunch of wimps.

ya, that fear of worshiping a symbol that is most commonly used to divide people along ethnic lines

pussy canadians and their tolorance of other peoples' identities and desire not to push a culture onto new immigrant populations

Originally posted by Ordo
Well a flag is a symbol, a representation of a nation!

The well being of people, whether or not they are alive...thats just fraking irrelevant.

oh, well, now that you put it like that. Obviously abstract symbols and how they are displayed are much more important than the physical and material well being of citizens. I am convinced, more government in my life, but only interfereing in pointless issues of display. Heaven forbid if it tries to help me.

Originally posted by Autokrat
You know we actually fly the Canadian flag down here in Washington. Most of the big retail stores have it next to the U.S flag. Just a little lower of course.

cool? It really doesn't make much of a difference to me, though I'm sure it helps with the tourists

I don't really think displaying a flag means much... someone putting it outside of their store to entice me to give them my money doesn't strike me as being really "into" Canadiana

Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually most schools lock the flagstring to prevent this. In any case, how is deliberately screwing up the flag not vandalism. It's like if the kid saw two displays, one was mexican and above the other one that was american, and so he broke the window with the mexican display and destroyed it. You keep your hands off of school property, it's just common sense.

I must be biased, then, because I've never seen a flag pole that you had to expertly throw a flag up on some hooks to get the flag to stay up. You could try using a ladder, I suppose. hmm You'll have to show me those flag poles that don't have a way to place up flags at different levels.

It would seem that you have dropped my whole point about adjusting flags to their proper position. In fact, it looks like you were ignoring that entire point, this whole time.


Talk me out of this point:

"If the Mexican flag was "higher" than the Texan or American Flag, the only thing he should have done is lowered it."

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, America is insane

"dont fly other flags higher than ours"

"why?"

"because this is America"

"so?" ...


If you don't know flag protocol, you can look it up. There's plenty of "why"s.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you don't know flag protocol, you can look it up. There's plenty of "why"s.

which do you suppose are unrelated to nationalism?

Originally posted by inimalist
which do you suppose are unrelated to nationalism?

Does your above post assume too much?



Edit - Just read some of your posts (I was in the middle of typing a response to KK's post, last night, wen to bed, and started back up...you obviously had words since I posted.) Your post does assume too much. You've incorrectly assumed that I think the reasons behind those laws about flag protocol, are bad. I don't. I think they are good. I wil definitely not ever convince you of otherwise because you prefer anarchy (not a bad thing, necessarily) over a huge ass government like the US's. You see nationalism as a tool of division and anger. I don't. You can be patriotic and still love other nations and people.


Double edit - One thing you shouldn't do is go to another nation and disrespect it's sovereignty. On that same token, you should also respect the origins of other peoples, especially if your nation is a gigantic melting pot, like the US.



Triple edit - Just reread my post: my post seems a tad too derisive towards you. You are more than welcome to call me an a**hole for it...Basically, I am saying that you assumed too much about my perspective on things, or at least thought that I might see the error in my thinking. I don't necessarily thinkg you're wrong in thinking that patriotism can be bad: it can.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Does your above post assume too much?

Edit - Just read some of your posts (I was in the middle of typing a response to KK's post, last night, wen to bed, and started back up...you obviously had words since I posted.) Your post does assume too much. You've incorrectly assumed that I think the reasons behind those laws about flag protocol, are bad. I don't. I think they are good. I wil definitely not ever convince you of otherwise because you prefer anarchy (not a bad thing, necessarily) over a huge ass government like the US's. You see nationalism as a tool of division and anger. I don't. You can be patriotic and still love other nations and people.

Double edit - One thing you shouldn't do is go to another nation and disrespect it's sovereignty. On that same token, you should also respect the origins of other peoples, especially if your nation is a gigantic melting pot, like the US.

Triple edit - Just reread my post: my post seems a tad too derisive towards you. You are more than welcome to call me an a**hole for it...Basically, I am saying that you assumed too much about my perspective on things, or at least thought that I might see the error in my thinking. I don't necessarily thinkg you're wrong in thinking that patriotism can be bad: it can.

no, you hit the nail on the head

we can talk about different types of nationalism and patriotism (I would gladly define myself as a Canadian nationalist), but ultimatly, in this issue, we are talking about how the state uses otherwise meaninless symbols as a form of cultual assertion over other ethnicities and as a form of identity control over its own populace.

My sarcasm was basically that, for all the things you don't want big brother doing (like helping people), you do want it making rules about flag-poles? Actually, iirc you aren't even against state health care... I was more talking about some of the knee jerk "conservatives" who posted on the last page.

but no, it is really unlikely that you will ever convince me that it is worth while for a government to mandate and enforce where flags should be, even if we aren't talking about my anarchist ideals.