SC Teacher Stomps on Flag During Lesson, Facing Termination - UPDATE 2: GOT DAT MONEY!!!
 

So this is a couple days old and I was surprised that I didn't see (or may have missed) any discussion on the subject here.
FoxNewsInsider [foxnewsinsider.com]
Washington Times [washingtontimes.com]
Daily Caller [dailycaller.com]
WISTV Columbia [wistv.com]

The story is: An English teacher in a South Carolina school was teaching a lesson on symbolism. During his lesson (and other lessons that day), he allegedly threw a US Flag on the ground, said something along the lines of "This is a symbol of America. It is just cloth. This doesn't mean anything," and stomped on it. Students went home and complained to their parents, who immediately complained to the school. It looks like he has been suspended already and the superintendent is going to recommend he be fired to the board (I've seen claims that he has already been fired, but no sources or links have been provided).

I've read some opinions on it in a couple different places and was wondering what the thoughts were here.

I suppose I will state mine:
Absolutely ridiculous. He was teaching a lesson on symbolism and it obviously went right over the heads of his class and their parents (and this is supposed to be an honors class?! :rolleyes:). I fear that he was probably employed at will though and will not be able to fight it. His attorney claimed that "Compton wanted to demonstrate that the United States is an “inspirational idea” that is greater than any representation of it" and I believe that is an important lesson. He didn't say "**** you, America/Obama/Republicans/Tea Party/Whatever!!!" and stomp all over a flag (that was probably made in China), he had a point he tried to make about symbolism and hoped that there were critical thinkers in his class.
I read someone's comments who said that this isn't about not being offended, that the parents who got so angry "to the point of shaking" have the right to be offended. But after the offense, they should realize "Wow, I was offended. Huh, symbols ARE powerful."

I've read quite a bit of comments from veterans on Yahoo News or other places that allow comments, saying that they took an oath to defend the flag (the flag is not mentioned in the Oath of Enlistment at all) and that they would perpetrate violence on this man for doing this.
As a veteran myself: I have saluted the flag many times and since a law was passed recently that allows veterans to render a salute to the flag and during the National Anthem, I will continue to salute it. But this man's actions have not upset me at all. I never swore an oath in defense of the flag; I swore an oath in defense of the Constitution, which includes the First Amendment (which covers flag desecration). The ideals and beliefs that the flag represents are more important than the flag itself and the ideals and beliefs were not hurt or destroyed by this.



EDIT: I was hoping he wouldn't get fired, but I had a hard time finding any updates after the initial story broke. Apparently he did get fired, because he submitted his request for an appeal hearing to the school board. Update in post #178.

EDIT 2: Looks like he resigned in March, so he more than likely did not get fired. Anyway, kharvel provided an update in post 462:

These are the same people who insist that the confederate flag doesnt really "stand" for anything. Take that as you will.

I did have something in there about the Confederate flag, but I tossed it.
Believe me though, I've heard all about it. I've been living there for the past 5 years.

I will be holding my breath for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to hop on their jets and launch protests.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/w...tt-Compton.jpg <-- teacher / flag stomper.

I have no problem with what he did in the context he did it.

This is why I won't even apply for jobs in the Rebel States.

But he could have SAID that the flag is only a symbol and have SAID that even stomping on it is merely an expression. Could this at least be called a bad judgment?

I am not supporting termination. At most a letter reprimanding him is enough.

Also this subject is more appropriate for a course in philosophy perhaps even history than a course in English.

Gah. It might have been bad judgment on his part. But something to lose your job over, I think not.

I don't envy school teachers at all these days. They can't even reprimand a student anymore if it hurts the student (or the parent's) feelings. Just because someone is offended does mean they are entitled to any additional rights.

I'm sure the ACLU will come to his defense if he is actually fired. The principal would be an idiot to fire the guy just due to the fallout and taxpayer cost due to any lawsuit. I think it's a good thing if peoples' sensibilities are occasionally offended.

Perhaps the reason for it being in an English class is the idea that symbolic speech is still a form of communication, even if no verbal words are uttered.

A chemistry teacher can SAY that certain chemicals will cause a certain reaction when combined. Or s/he could demonstrate it to the class. Which do you think would typically be a more meaningful & effective form of teaching?

sounds like the teacher is teaching...

good

...teaching lessons that some don't want learned....

Good point about speech. Then I still say the teacher used very poor judgment to use the flag. He could have used other symbolism.

One aspect that has not been explored here is that there are anti gov sentiments in SC these days and perhaps this teacher felt comfortable doing what he did and then it backfired.

What is interesting is that I have noticed that southerners would want to put in jail someone who would burn the flag say in protest of hawkish policies of the US (Vietnam war, e.g) but they are willing to burn the same flag if it is, in contrast or at the time, the symbol of the unions as opposed to confederate or if at the time the president is a liberal. Sigh.

Hopefully this is a widespread phenomenon.

if you are going to do something that offends some people you should epect that some of those people will complain and you need to be able to deal with that. i dont have a problem with what he did per se, but it is not surprising that some are offended and complained. What an idiot.

He should have used a Mexican flag, IMO.

I am not surprised that people complained or were offended and I imagine he wasn't surprised either. He was probably surprised that the principal or other teachers didn't have his back, that no one said "Look parents, I understand that you are upset. But the lesson plan was about 'X,' he did this to demonstrate 'X,' and the outrage perfectly proves the lesson and what he was trying to teach. Perhaps you should listen in on or read his lesson plan from the day and use it to talk to your children about what happened and what the flag means."

But then again, these are people who whine and complain about the great "War of Northern Aggression," support a franchise that flies Confederate flags above the restaurants and is ran by a white supremacist, and attaches ~10 foot long rebel flags to the back of their trucks so they can fly freely in the wind as the trucks tear down the highway (I will still never forget the night my buddy and I saw that guy while going back to base from Columbia). So I really shouldn't be surprised too much.

It is also a place where the people love the Fourth of July, because it gives people a chance to break out their American flag-print shirts, flag-print shorts, flag-print napkins, tablecloths, plates, etc (despite all of those things being against the flag code and being as disrespectful as stomping on the flag to those who take it really seriously) for their parties.


We'll have to disagree on it though: You think this guy is an idiot; I don't. I think blind worship of the flag (any flag) is idiotic.

Why not a confederate flag whose values and army were our enemies and defeated by us?

IMO, that is.

Stop making shit up. You don't know what he was thinking or what his impetus was for this. Perhaps he expected people to complain or wanted to create a controversy. We don't know. Until we do, stop imposing your own bias on the situation.

your doing a good job of proving my point. If he is around the type of people that would get pissed off then he is twice as dumb as i suspect. I suppose this would be like stomping on an Islamic symbol in Iran or a symbol of Obama in Philly. IOW if your going to do this in front of people that you KNOW are going to get pissed, dont cry when they do get pissed. of course, my guess is that if he had done this to one of the above (my examples) this thread would have a different tone (maybe not your opinion but others).

what bias???? Um, what I am saying is fairly obvious. pissing off the parents of kids at your school is generally a bad idea if you want to keep your job.

Seems like a great first amendment lesson popped up out of a lesson about symbolism.

These kids learned that the government wont stop this mans freedoms to express himself, but that doesnt mean that he is not responsible for his actions, and now the consequences of those actions are playing out.

Personally I think the act is disgusting and disrespectful, but I really dont think he should lose his job over it. I think the teacher and the school should use it as an opportunity to...*gasp* educate the kids. Show them that even the best intentioned actions can have terrible consequences, and that what you say and do should be considered carefully.

That's completely different than what you originally stated.

I would agree with this. Maybe it's just me but I don't get how him teaching the kids symbolism and jumping on the flag should change one's viewpoint. If a firefighter lit a flag on fire and used it as an example of how to put out with a fire with a fire extinguisher I would expect there to be a similar amount of backlash as opposed to "oh, he's just showing us how to put out a fire, it's all good"...

Simple fact is that the American flag is a symbol of all that is American. It is your right to burn it, stomp it, etc. but it's also very dis-respectable and there are consequences that come with it.

Is lighting the flag on fire & then extinguishing it one of the more effective ways of demonstrating how to put out a fire?

Is disrespecting the American flag one of the most effective means of communicating symbolic speech?

Do you honestly think the teacher was trying to make a political statement through his actions? Or a teaching statement about the importance of symbols & symbolic speech?

The teacher is obviously terrible at his job. The whole point of symbols is that they have greater meaning than they have intrinsically as objects. Looks like this teacher finally learned this lesson the hard way.

I would have less of a problem with him stomping on the flag and saying "You are probably getting angry, and while I'm not stomping on America, you see me stomping on a symbol of America. If I was stomping on some other piece of cloth, it probably wouldn't bother you. This is how objects used as symbols are imbued with more meaning than what they possess as a physical object."

Unfortunately this man is an idiot and not fit to be a teacher.

Why do you believe he didn't say that? Or at least words to the same effect?

Reports are to the contrary. Reports are that he threw the flag on the ground stomped on it and said it was meaningless. That it was just a piece of colored cloth.

Maybe he was trying to get his students riled up by intentionally lying to them and making them think "OF COURSE IT HAS MEANING!". I don't know. Still a bad idea.

I think something is missing here. SC is a very strong confederate and red and anti democratic state. I would investigate to see if this teacher had made other political statements in the past.

The "reports" from the links in the OP are all from the same "concerned" parent -- a second-hand account at best.

From The Daily Caller link:

Compton’s attorney, Darryl D. Smalls, has argued that reportage of the incident has been unfair to his client. In an email to WIS, the area NBC affiliate, Smalls suggested that Compton wanted to demonstrate that the United States is an “inspirational idea” that is greater than any representation of it.

“He made only positive comments about America throughout this lesson,” Smalls wrote. “The version of events currently circulating is incomplete.”

“He meant no intentional disrespect to those men and women who served our country or to America itself,” Smalls added, noting that many of Compton’s relatives were service members.

“Many people have rushed to vilify my client based on one segment of the story related through a secondhand account,” the attorney continued. “My client has had an exemplary 12-year teaching career, and was only trying to create a forum for discussion using a powerful symbol with which all his students would be familiar.”

Because you don't think he very effectively taught his students the lesson you identified above?

Yes nic, because I think he is bad at teaching. Someone that clearly doesn't understand his own syllabus should not be in charge.

If he wanted to demonstrate the value of a symbol his words should have matched his lesson. Unless he was also trying to teach a valuable lesson on why lying is a bad idea. If so, he is currently doing a great job at teaching that lesson.

Again, you continue to assume that his words didn't match his lesson based on nothing more than a single statement by a parent who wasn't even there. That seems to be some pretty flimsy reasoning to judge him incompetent at his job.

It seems like he was highly effective at teaching SOME lesson.

What didn't he understand?

What was his lie? That stomping the flag communicates admiration for America?

His lie was saying that stomping on a symbol has no meaning. Of course it has meaning. So, that would be a lie. Maybe so blatant it was intentional, in which case, as I said before, he has taught a valuable lesson on why not to lie, or perhaps more scholastically, that shock use of irony/sarcasm is a poor tool for use in teaching. If it was not a lie, then he doesn't understand how symbols work.

If you are going to teach a lesson on symbolism, and you are going to stomp on the flag to do so, you should probably think about exactly how you are going to deliver the message. Unfortunately, he seems to have delivered the message badly.

He had many options in terms of how to teach symbolism, but he chose a particularly idiotic way of doing it, and didn't handle it properly. If you don't want to get burned, don't start a fire.

Upon what are you basing that conclusion?

Is it not possible that he did *exactly* as you stated above, yet there were still "concerned" parents whose panties got all bunched up? Just because some are either unwilling or incapable of understanding the message doesn't automatically mean he did an inadequate job of delivering the message.

Again, based upon what?

Or maybe the parent's retelling of his daugher's retelling of what happened in English class that day wasn't very accurate.

Based on the fact he pissed off enough people to make national news.

What other ways do you think he could have handled a lesson on symbolism other than offending his students by desecrating a flag? I can think of several. He chose to desecrate a flag, and he failed to communicate it in such a way as to deliver the lesson without blow back.

And yet such national news all quote the same single, pissed off father...

So anytime someone gets "offended" by a certain message, it's the fault of the speaker, regardless of whether the message was properly understood by those so offended?

It depends on what the speaker did or said. Demonstrative flag desecration is a tricky topic. If the teacher knew more about symbolism, perhaps he would have avoided flag desecration altogether. Right now, he seems to be on the learning side of this lesson rather than the teaching side.

It is possible the parent is recounting it wrong, but that is not the claim put out by the teacher's representative. This makes me think the second hand tale has been told accurately. The event is called "incomplete" rather than "incorrect". Perhaps more context would help, but I'm not sure how much. If anything it probably makes it worse on the teacher not understanding how symbols work front.

Maybe he said "I love America. It's the best! It's the coolest country in the history of countries. Now if I take this colored piece of cloth and stomp on it, that doesn't mean anything. It's just a cloth and who cares? AMERICA IS AWESOME!"

I don't know. It still sounds like he made a pretty big mistake.

Question:

Wouldn't a made-in-China U.S. flag be a worse offense than stomping on said flag?

Discuss.

From the OP:

Of course the contradiction in his sentences was intentional and introduced cognitive dissonance, provoking thought.

IMO, a highly effective teaching mechanism.

Except for the students who were too outraged to think about the contradiction.

Because knowledge leads to cowardice?

It's singularly *the* most effective way to demonstrate the value of symbols & their ability to communicate messages.

Actually, the teacher's lawyer said that "the version of events" was "incomplete". As in, there was more to the story than the statement being circulated by the pissed off dad.

I guess trusting high school students to understand the message being taught was, sadly, a pretty big mistake.

:sadwalk:

If the man was truly courageous, he would have stomped on a Koran.

Offending Christians and American patriots is for cowards.

Looking to be offended when there is no such justification for it is for attention-seekers like the father quoted in at least 4 different media outlets.

Whilst I lament the current zeitgeist, this is the result of 50 years of minority Identity Politics, where loud obnoxious offendedness is lavishly rewarded. Dont complain when the Christians, White Europeans, and Males seek to advance their well being and interests by playing the game constructed by the ascendent Left.

And was such "offendedness" the result of a teacher teaching a lesson in a manner in which they didn't approve? Or was the result of legally being treated as second-class citizens with less-than-full legal rights?

But, hey, nice try at comparing two events that aren't really, you know, comparable...

Smeg, as you well know the offendedness is at a fever pitch these days, it didnt dwindle as major issues were corrected, but accelerated to ever increasing levels for ever more petty offenses. The appeasement and capitulation continue apace as well. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. You have to defend your groups interests by providing negative incentives to others to even think about doing anything that even might in some contrived and convoluted mindset offend someone else's group. This is the ugly balkanized multicultural diversity wonderland we live in today. Enjoy!

As I said. Dont complain when the White Europeans, Males and Christians participate in the new political zeitgeist created by the Left. Or are they not welcome in the New Order? :rolleyes:

So you concede that there were "major issues" that needed "corrected"... Did the white Christian male Europeans ever experience such "major issues" that needed such "correction"?

No, this is the fantasyland that you live in.

Feigned offense over innocent behavior isn't welcome.

I am thinking he could have shown a utube movie or show a movie of Vietnam protesters who are to some degree vindicated.

And how would that be effective at teaching about the importance of symbols and/or symbolic speech?

Screw effective classroom demonstrations, let's just show a movie about chemical reactions... :(

What do you think of Westboro crowd?

Huh?

A utube movie showing people stomping on the flag.

Sheesh!

Which would still be analogous to telling a chemistry teacher to just show a movie about chemical reactions...

Not quite.

chemical reactions is probably explicitly in the syllabus. flag burning probably is not.

Chemical reaction is (hard) science. Symbolic speech is not.

Chemical reaction does not often most people. Some symbolic speech is designed to offend many.

They simply are not analogous. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Whist I agree, that isnt the way of the world these days. Your ideological fellow travellers are to blame for the current state of affairs.

Identity Politics is the New Left Zeitgeist and it isnt going to end well. Too bad conservative color blindness and equality of opportunity ideas arent ascendent. You have to operate within the environment you find yourself, not what you may wish it to be.

So what?Can't one learn about something just as effectively through watching a movie rather than an in-person demonstration?

Relevance to whether watching a movie is as effective as a demonstration?

No, it's designed to deliver a message. Whether someone chooses to be "offended" is a personal choice of his/her own making.

We're not discussing the actions themselves. We're discussing effective methods of *teaching* about them. While not identical, of course, I submit that teaching chemistry is still rather analogous to teaching English in terms of the effectiveness of watching a movie.

It was a combination of poor teaching technique mixed with flag desecration.

Is flag desecration a great example of the power of symbolism? Yes. Is it a good idea to do it the way he did it? No.

This is like trying to teach a kid about bullying by punching him in the face with his own hand and saying, "Why are you hitting yourself? I'm not hitting you. Why would you do that? This isn't bullying because you are hitting yourself." Perfect example of bullying, terrible way to teach about it.

So you agree it shouldn't happen, yet attempt to justify it because "everyone else is doing it"?

Is that the morality that your Christian religion teaches?

I believe you have reached that conclusion using insufficient information about the context & manner in which he did it.

You choose to believe the pissed off father repeating secondhand information. I choose to give the teacher the benefit of the doubt without much stronger evidence establishing that he should be blamed.

Alinsky would be so proud.


I also advocate the firebombing of German and Japanese cities full of women and children in WW2. Neither is indicative of my highest moral principles.


The only way to stop from being railroaded and your rights from being infringed (like legal discrimination against your group) and interests from being ignored is to play the game. Others whom wish to infringe upon your rights and interests must feel negative consequences and feedback, they must feel pain, and not be allowed to run rouoghshod over your group (as has been the case with regards to white Europeans, Males, and Christians for some time). Lawfare, protests, boycotts, negative media campaigns must meet those who disrespect your group, else the behavior will continue. Fear keeps businesses and organizations in line, fear of negative consequences.

And he thanks you for the free advertising.

Jesus would be so proud.

Well, the dagos, the micks, the polacks, the fetas, and the frogs all experienced "major issues" that needed correction.

How do you know showing a video of flag stomping would not lead to the same reaction?

Major? Or moderate given the conditions of others?

Explain how making the U.S. flags in China is not in and of itself flag desecration. Should the U.S. government fine and/or arrest the CEO of the companies that make U.S. flags in China?

The micks would argue that they were the "n*ggers" of the British Empire. That's definitely major.

The polacks and dagos would argue that they were discriminated against because of their body odor, their gestures, and their food. You could call it major.

As for the fetas and frogs, I don't know much about their history to determine whether it was major.

I do not know. I know my reaction would be different.

Therefore, your argument is based on Kharvel's Third Law.

Who? What law?

Anyone who think how one person might react is either delusional or dishonest.

The fact is that the two are different.

it's heck here. i'm trying hard to get back to the union.

Seeing as desecration almost always involves damaging a flag, I don't see how making one would constitute desecration regardless of the location of manufacture. No CEO should not be fined by the US government.

Teachers do not have full freedom of speech in their classrooms.

It is desecration because:

1) It is made by a Communist country which is against everything that the flag stands for.

2) The country in which the flag is made in is hostile to our national security interests. Kind of like the flag of Israel is being made by a company with roots in the Neo-Nazi movement and with skinhead executives.

Yes, they experienced severe discrimination. But there were not sold as chattel. Relatively speaking, I still hesitate to classify that as "major".

I could, but again, compared to what others experienced, it seems far less "major".

You previous post seemed to suggest you had already determined that it was...

I don't see why them creating a symbol that stands against what they believe in constitutes desecration. Maybe their workers will be inspired to fight for democracy every time they sew together the stars and stripes and know it is headed to a free country to be waved with pride.

You're free to your own interpretation of the word desecrate though.

For the record, I do only buy US flags made in the USA.

But are those real and legitimate flags in the first in order to be desecrated?

What you say does not follow and is based on Garagamel's 7th law.

While the legal use of the term "desecrate" might typically involve actual damage, the plain meaning definition requires no such physical harm.

desecrate [merriam-webster.com] -- 1: to violate the sanctity of : profane; 2: to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously

A strong argument could be made that the manufacture of American flags in China is an example of treating the flag disrespectfully or irreverently...

No one suggested that they did.

I certainly wouldn't encourage them to shout "Fire!" in a crowed classroom. ;)

You should ask the parents of the students who were outraged by the flag stomping.

But then she would be violating Khomeini's 9th Law.

remove your own buas and reread what I wrote

am I only one that feels he should actually be fired. Yes I understand symbolism.. but does how many people died for what the symbol stands for. In history you'll see pictures of people hoisting the american flag. People actually take their hats off at games when the star spangled banner is played.. why? because of what it represents.. (not because it's a good song). Anyone ever tried to keep their hat on during the song.. not a pretty site in public.

People burn the Kuran and look what happens.. same thing with the Bible.. it's a show of disrespect to a group of people. By stomping on the flag it's a show of disrespect for this country and worst of all people that died fighting for it. If one were to say Obama stands for socialism and anti-gun laws and marketed targets with his face on it.. people would be angry as all hell.

If you think this is ok.. I question what values you actually have. Maybe you're just unhappy with this country in general. Even in boyscouts they teach you the flag is folded in an exact manner and never placed on the ground.

How many of you go to business jobs in rips up sweats and a shredding t-shirt? Or do the majority of wear business attire which represents a symbol of professionalism? Or are we claiming the shirt and tie are more comfortable?

Did these people happily die for the freedom-hating, liberty-deprived, godless yellow Commies to profit from the manufacture of the symbol? Should we charge all people who buy Chinese-made U.S. flags with treason and execute them for disrespecting the deaths of those who died?

How many of those flags in the pictures were made by the freedom-hating, liberty-deprived, godless yellow Commies?

Did these freedom-hating, liberty-deprived godless yellow Commies take off their hats when making the U.S. flags? Did they treat the U.S. flags respectfully and with patriotic fervor when manufacturing them?

No less disrespectful than allowing freedom-hating, liberty-deprived godless yellow Commies to manufacture these flags AND happily buying the flags from them.

News flash: people DIED so that other people would be free to stomp on the flag and show as much disrespect as they want.

If you are against the freedom to stomp a flag, you are against freedom, period.

I question your patriotism and loyalty to the United States Constitution and to the Second Republic of the United States. If you HATE giving people the freedom to stomp on U.S. flags, GET OUT of the country.

I wonder if you are the one who is unhappy with the country, since you seem to HATE freedom and liberty and everything that the U.S. Constitution stands for.

Thousands of people in the Silicon Valley and other tech hubs. Do you also HATE the freedom for people to wear whatever they want to work?

Your HATE for freedom and liberty is clear.

Do you honestly believe the teacher's intent was to be disrespectful to the flag, and therefore, to America? Do you think that's *why* he engaged in the actions that he did?

I won't even comment to everything you quoted. But the amusing thing is that liberals in general. Are against the military the fought for the right. Liberals in general are all for limited 2nd amendment rights but leave the 1st amendment alone. Well as long as we're not attacking some liberal group.. Then it's hate instead of freedom of speech. Yet again liberals in general, idolize most of the European countries that are more socialistic.. yet the majority of these countries find it a crime to desecrate their flag. I could literally write paragraphs on the two sided hypocritical thinking that occurs amongst liberals, but it would be pointless.

There's this saying that people that swear alot just have nothing more intelligent to say. I think the same is true of desecrated the flag.. except it's not intelligence, it's just an utter lack of respect and morals. In a teaching position it's that w/ a complete mix of stupidity. What if the teacher would use the Bible to teach symbolism, metaphors etc..? Suddenly we wouldn't be arguing 1st amendment rights, we'd be arguing about injecting children w/ religious beliefs. Then we'd be talking about separation of church and state etc..

Or are we for 1st amendment rights? If we were.. teachers would be free to use the Bible as a reference.. correct? Last I checked it was the best selling and most read book of all time..

spare me the double talk...

I find the amusing thing to be pointless generalizations about "liberals".

It seems that conservatives, in general, believe themselves to be able to speak for entire groups of people, particularly those who would disagree with them on political issues.

:rolleyes:

:secret: He started off using a cross as a symbol of Christianity.

:secret: Teachers are free to use the Bible as a scholarly reference, just not a proselyting tool.

Actually I'm not sure, I wasn't there. I would tend to believe they were not his intentions though. But the issue I have is that teachers are supposed to be sort of a role model to students. Students spend alot of time with their teachers so they are very influential. So when a teacher does something like stomps on a flag, he may mentally understand what he's trying to push across. But a student may pickup on something completely different. I believe kids still say a pledge of allegiance in the morning to the flag. How confusing is it to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.. and then watch your educational role model rip it down and stomp on it. I think it's hard to defend the notion that this was a poor choice of objects to use. Could he be stomping on a Koran.. well then Obama would be issuing a national apology. A bible? Then the church would go nuts. Objects like these tend to have a meaning associated with them. True, they are just objects, but they are a representation of beliefs embodied by that object.

If someone you knew got a picture of your recently deceased mother and/or father and urinated on it. Might you find that offensive. And yes I realize that's very extreme.. but the point is.. there is meaning behind many objects.

Not only do I think what he did was okay in the context that he did it, I do not have a problem with people burning, spitting upon, or stomping on a flag in protest or 'just because.'
If the flag were to stop existing right now, our country would go on. The country is not damaged just because a flag with 6 white stripes, 7 red stripes, and 50 stars gets damaged; the values and ideals of our country are stronger than that. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are more important that the actual flag itself.

And here is something I saw someone say in response to "People died for that flag!"

I'd criticize anyone that flips back and forth.. I like things very black and white with extremely little gray. The rules should be simple and clearly defined, no room to flip flop on anything. Makes no difference if liberal or conservative which both groups are guilty of.. just IMO one group somewhat more than the other.

I was referring the bible as in the lessons used to symbolize different events etc.. For example virtually no christian takes the story of Adam and Eve as fact. Notice he didn't stomp on the cross. Did he hold a cross or did he just mention it. I'd be willing to wager he probably couldnt' even bring one in.


:secret: Teachers are free to use the Bible as a scholarly reference, just not a proselyting tool.[/QUOTE]

and most (actually the utter vast majority) do not. Why? Because of the issues it creates. This all stems back to the mid 1960's when it was deemed unconstitutional to pray in school.

So you are attempting to condemn him (or at least fire him) for being disrespectful to the flag, though concede that that wasn't likely his intention...

It shouldn't be that confusing to high school students given the context in which it was presented. These aren't kindergartners.

And what other object would better drive that point home than the American flag?

There is also meaning behind actions. Did someone piss on my dead dad in order to offend/insult me? Or did someone piss on my dead dad to teach a lesson about the importance of symbolic speech?

and if one urinated on a picture of your dead relative, wife, child etc.. your life would go on. But I tend to believe you might be a little annoyed. But why? it's just a picture????

If I try to scare someone robbing me by firing a warning shot and accidentally shoot him the head.. should I be condemned for my intentions or the results?

so high school students have a fully formed opinion that is developed beyond influence?

oh my.. use your imagination.. marketing has caused many people to associate many figures w/ products and/or companies.

Unless you are a mind reader how are you to judge their intentions?

Somewhat? :lmao: Guess I must have missed all those posts where you make overbroad generalizations about what all the conservatives think & believe.

It's reasonable to assume that not everyone in his classroom was Christian. It's also reasonable to assume that everyone in his classroom lives in America, making it the most effective symbol to so "desecrate".

And you know this how?

Except, of course, that that's not what the SCOTUS actually held...

According to the gun threads, you should be praised for saving the time & hassle of a trial. ;)

Is that what I said? It's written pretty plainly...

That's irrelevant to whether the American flag would be the most effective symbol to deliver such a lesson.

We judge intentions all the time. That doesn't mean we assume our judgments to be foolproof.

No one has said you can't be annoyed or upset by the act. You have every right to be offended. But maybe some critical thinking should be involved as to why you are annoyed/offended and why the act happened.

Or since answering things with questions is the way things work, if seven is a prime number, does the cow still jump over the moon?

But yes, someone urinating on a picture of a loved one would annoy me, seeing as a photo of a relative probably would belong to me and I don't take kindly to people pissing on my belongings.
Them urinating on the photo is not the same as them urinating on my loved one though and it certainly does not mean that I don't love that relative anymore either.
And while I could possibly be upset, I doubt I would feel enough anger that I would start shaking, like the father in the articles did. I would also not be threatening violence on the person, like so many commenters on Fox News, Yahoo News, and other places are doing.

Good attempt at a lesson and thinking. I am often shocked at how many people put a symbol of freedom above the actual freedom it represents.

Freedom trumps symbols of freedom.

INTERPRETATION: You won't comment on ANYTHING that I said.

ANALYSIS: You have absolutely no counterarguments or rebuttals.

CONCLUSION: FAIL.

Why would you be annoyed by a stranger you don't know or have never met urinating on the picture of your dead relative, wife, or child?

please..

I'll give you a true analysis.. logic and history tells me no longer how solid my rebuttals are you it will have no effect on you. You will cling to your hypocrisies like a child onto their mothers teet. Therefore any attempt to reason with you is pointless and a waste of time.

Thus..

Conclusion: Trying to reason or debate with you is a waste of time. Meaning your mentality and/or logic. There are a couple liberal minded people here who can maintain an open minded debate/discussion (and I enjoy that). You unfortunately are not one of them. You'd argue the sky is orange w/ pink polka dots if Obama told you so..

Yes Freedom does trump symbols... But what lesson are we teaching society? That nothing is sacred? That nothing deserves respect? If the flag is something that is OK to desecrate..what is not? So you teach people they can desecrate symbols because of free speech. But when people burn Kurans to show free speech they are basically ousted by the entire country. When the lunatics religious group (I don't recall the name) comes out to rejoice in dead soldiers.. they too are utilizing free speech.

Why not demonstrate free speech w/o the disrespectful negative involved? Does the flag mean more to someone who died serving our country? Obviously.. because it stands for what they died for. So desecrating it is somewhat similar to insulting what they gave their life for.. (yes I get what they were protecting). But you're demonstrating utilizing what they protected, by insulting the object that stands for what they gave it up for.

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned academic freedom so I will.

I agree the teacher used poor judgment. I agree that at this teacher should get a letter of reprimand. I think the choice of the flag and literally stomping on it was a poor one especially now that some idiots in some states make petition to secede.

(I still think there must be more to this story. School boards are not allowed to divulge matters from a teacher's personnel file but that might come out later.)

But what about academic freedom? I know college professors have academic freedom. I am not that sure that teachers have academic freedom. In my opinion the best way to deal with cases like this is to have other teachers rein on their colleagues rather than the administration do. Teacher's committees can write professional handbooks and then when a violation is suspected have a committee of teachers assess the situation and make a ruling. Then administrators can act on those rulings.

So, I have mixed opinion on this. Does the teacher have the academic freedom to teach symbolism this way? In thinking that, it is also important to note that HS students are not necessarily above the age of consent....

I wonder if his lesson plan was peer reviewed...

Teacher #2: "Yeah, flag stomping and sarcasm at 9:30? That sounds good. Nice use of symbolism."

interesting point. btw.. SC age of consent is 16. (also I tend to agree w/ a majority of your points, even though it probably appears I have taken a much tougher stance on this)

actually the way you verbalized it made me think about the location of the physical flag itself. Was it on a pole or probably flush mounted on the wall. I tend to believe flush mounted. It's probably at a decent height also. So this guy really had to go out of his way to get up to it, take it off the wall, toss it on the grown, stomp on it, then probably get back on a chair.. and rehang it. Sounds like he really wanted to stomp on that flag to go through all that trouble....

Hmm.....does this means a 40 yo can have sex with a 16 year old in Alabama and all is fine?

I was also thinking of this: students often HAVE to attend. Do all/some states allow students to drop out at an age below 18 or say 16?

I believe there are some quirky laws that say age of consent as long as the person is within x number of years older than you. This allows a person 19 to be a 16 year old but not a 40 yr old w/ a 16 year old.

I thought all parents had to consent to a kid dropping out.. ya got me.

I always thought those specific cases, like sex between a person younger than 20 and a person older than 16 were creating exception to the law but not modifying what age of consent is.

So for example while a 16 year old can have sex with a 19 year old and not be considered rape, the same 16 year old still cannot consent to buying a house.

Flags can be respected, but they're not sacred. Making things legally "sacred" is what brings about crazy things like blasphemy laws. People are sentenced to death due to blasphemy laws.

I've seen flag-sacreders (lol, good enough word, I guess) remind me of anti-blasphemers when it comes to the flag. They want to make laws and put people in prison and whatever else for handling a flag in a disrespectful manner. It's scary. What's next, put you in prison if you don't say the Pledge of Allegiance? (The Pledge of Allegiance and how it came about and what it's purpose is is a whole 'nother can of worms.)

A history teacher can SAY that black people were oppressed and demeaned or s/he could demonstrate it to the class and use all sorts of derogatory terms to an imaginary black person to show the kids what it was like back then for black people. Do you think this would be acceptable? If so, how do you think it would be received by the students, parents and the school?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fa...-well.html

Once again:

FAIL.

I think it doesn't have the impact,..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bWlTZZN3DY

He probably should have used a flag that does not represent any country -- i.e. one that he designed himself.

Lecture symbolism and stomp the flag he created.

Then bring out the US flag, discuss and ask the students how they would feel if the same stomping occurred on the US flag.

The question and hypothetical situation should incite the students enough to understand without being butt hurt.

Great link. I especially like the part where the kids actually perform worse the next day in math tests simply because they believe theyre inferior due to the color of their eyes. If only all teachers could teach kids such an important lesson we'd at least have less white supremacists on the podium

String him up...

:lmao:

Problem is that the Confederate flag stands for the same thing as the American flag: Freedom from their oppressors.

The Northern states were doing many of the same things to the southern states as the British were doing to the American colonies. Taxation without representation, trampling of rights, etc... As a matter of fact, the Civil War itself was a violation of the sovereignty of the southern states as promised by the constitution.

The Civil Was was never, has never, and will never be about slavery... EVER! It was about preventing the legal secession of the Confederacy from the United States.

History lesson over.

But I did not mention slavery.

There was a war. The two sides were enemies. One side was represented by the American flag; while the other side by the confederate flag. One side won. One side lost.

Apparently, your history lesson was written by Calvin Candie (the slaveowner in Django Unchained).

The real history lesson was that the Civil War was started because of slavery. More specifically, it was started by the Confederacy in response to the Union meddling/resistance to the slave trade and slave expansion across the newly created Western territories and states.

Sorry, I don't get my history lessons from Hollywood.

You said, specifically, that the South's values were an enemy to the North. In a sense, you are correct. Where you'd be mistaken is that the North was morally righteous. The South had a right to secede and that's the sole reason for the North's unlawful invasion, not slavery.

If you'd done any sort of actual research into the Civil War, you'd never have made such an uneducated statement.

The South seceded because of slavery, period. You and I both know that.

Even if that were the case, which is isn't (the North's attitude towards slavery was mentioned by 2 governors as a reason for their secession, not the entirety of the Confederacy), it was the North who invaded and started the war.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20111228.gif

I think the more accurate statement is that the civil war was not JUST about slavery.

"Slavery" is what's being taught in schools, he can't help it.

I know. It's just frustrating when you see people who simply swallow what they're taught without ever finding out the truth for themselves.

It is an awesome example of "the victor writes the history books".

Where is the right to secede documented?

Just so you know, the first physical act of aggression was committed by South Carolina when the state troops attacked Fort Sumter, a federal fort.

Just so you know, the militia at the Old North Bridge shot at the British troops first.....

In the Civil War, the enemy of the union and its values were not Jamaica or Yemen or Sweden. It was the confederate. And our enemy was defeated. The confederate lost.

Did your ancestors fight in the Civil War? If not, how can you call the Confederacy your enemy?

It's important to remember history, but claiming to be on one side or another when there is no personal connection is pretty meaningless for most people. Even then, it can be meaningless. Think about decedents of the Nazis. Most of them would not claim "We lost to our enemy Russia". It's always tempting to believe you would have been on some chosen side of a war. But if you weren't there, you weren't on either side.

Personally, my ancestors didn't come to America until after the Civil War. I cannot rightly say "We fought and defeated our enemy, the Confederate States."

Fair enough. Let me make a change:

In the Civil War, the enemy of the union and its values were not Jamaica or Yemen or Sweden. It was the confederate. And enemy of the union was defeated. The confederate lost.

In the War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression, the enemy of free and sovereign states were anti-secessionists like President Lincoln. According to Lincoln, initially, the war was not about slavery but about preserving the Union, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery."
Lincoln did not oppose the Corwin Amendment, as he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
Slavery certainly was a central point of contention, especially when discussing expansion into other territories, but the claim that the war was 'about slavery' is severely misguided and incomplete.

I did not mention slavery. If you disagree with anything that I have said, please identify them..

Oh, sorry, I guess I was thinking of another conversation.

The states would not have seceded if not for the issue of slavery. There were no other central issues that would have led to secession. Since the war was about preserving the Union and the preservation of Union would not have been necessary if not for the issue of slavery which caused the secession in the first place, then it logically follows that the war WAS about slavery or at least was started by the issue of slavery.

Explain how slavery forced states to secede.

The main issue was that the federal government was funded primarily by tariffs that the south paid.

Here is a nice article [lewrockwell.com] that perhaps shines some light on the true causes of the Civil War:

Why were business and political leaders in the North so intent on keeping the southern states in the Union? It was, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, solely a fiscal matter. The principal source of tax revenue for the federal government before the Civil War was a tariff on imports. There was no income tax, except for one declared unconstitutional after its enactment during the Civil War. Tariffs imposed by the federal government not only accounted for most of the federal budget, they also raised the price of imported goods to a level where the less-efficient manufacturers of the northeast could be competitive. The former Vice-President John C. Calhoun put it this way:

"The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North… the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue."

In March 1861, the New York Evening Post editorialized on this point:

That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

Given the serious financial difficulties the Union would face if the Southern states were a separate republic on its border engaging in duty-free trade with Britain, the Post urged the Union to hold on to its custom houses in the Southern ports and have them continue to collect duty. The Post goes on to say that incoming ships to the "rebel states" that try to evade the North’s custom houses should be considered as carrying contraband and be intercepted.

Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and saw what was really at stake. Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical:

Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

The London press made this argument:

The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.

Good thing too because we get to work for that union through May now.

:lmao:
Man, I never get tired of hearing about "The War of Northern Aggression" in South Carolina.

The problem are those who are not willing to pay/work for things that they want/get.

You mean the Union? It sure is easy to tax people to give other people our money.

Sounds like the teacher taught those students about the very abstract concept of symbolism in a way that was not only extremely meaningful/successful, but it was also in a way that they will never forget.

Teachers like this should be applauded, not fired.

The firing will only reinforce the meaning of symbols. I would hate for this lesson to lose some of its meaning.

LOL.

I can't believe people think this teacher should be fired for this.

I can't believe the teacher is such a moron. I don't want him fired specifically for the stomping (although it shows bad judgement). I want him fired because he showed terrible judgement in lesson planning and apparent use of sarcasm in the classroom. If he wasn't sarcastic, he was being a moron. Either way, bad judgement or moron guy should get the boot.

Funny thing is, many of those same people have been vigorously defending the next amendment...

I didn't say he should be banned from stomping on the flag. Just doing it as a high school teacher while saying "This is just a piece of colored cloth and doesn't mean anything" (to which he said the story was incomplete rather than incorrect). That's just stupid.

Do you think high school teachers should be allowed to teach whatever they want in class?

How about teaching a class on how bad religious persecution was during the holocaust by saying (presumably sarcastically, but maybe just because he is stupid), "So then the Nazi's killed the Jews. Which made sense because they were mostly to blame for the economic problems of Germany at the time."

And you don't understand how that statement would be part of teaching the kids symbolism? Do you understand making statements you don't believe for the purposes of argumentive illustration? In law, an attorney or judge in a formal setting would typically state "assuming arguendo..." This was a more informal situation where he was giving his kids the benefit of understanding the point based upon the context of the situation.

No, but i think they should be able to teach symbolism.

And what would be the intended lesson there? I could see that statement being effective to illustrate the views of Nazis. Its all about context here.

I understand exactly how it was meant to work. Feel free to reread my previous posts in this thread. I think it is important to remember this was a sophomore level class in high school (admittedly "Honors"). As such, I still don't think that kicking off further discussion on symbolism by stomping on a flag and saying "See me stomping on this symbol can't undermine the greatness that is America" (or whatever he really said pointing out that his symbolic act was meaningless in spite of the fact that symbolic actions have meaning) is a good idea.

The intended lesson for the holocaust is to show how Germany was a bunch of dicks by being a dick and making everyone think "Yeah, that guy is being a dick". It hardly matters, it's a bad way to teach high school history.

How better to get kids to understand symbolism than to illustrate it by hitting them with with a situation they can relate to? I think it's brilliant. Symbolism is a very abstract concept. He drove it home in a way that few in his class will ever forget. I like teachers who take chances to teach kids in ways that don't resort to repeating what is in a book.

I don't think the fact the Nazis were dicks is a concept that requires such an illustration to drive home the point. But the views of nazis IS important to teach--we need to understand why they thought what they were doing was just.

image the difference if he had stomped a picture of MLK or a GLAD image.

what he did was wrong, and a poor decision on his part. if teachers have been fired for hugging a student, or for bad-mouthing a student online, it would be no surprise if he is fired.

of course, it really will not be a surprise if he is not fired. morals are disappearing.

Equivalence FAIL.

The difference would be that the lesson would lose most of its impact because neither of those supposed "symbols" carry the same or even similar weight as the american flag.

Why was it wrong? Because you personally disagree with his choice of teaching methods?

My moral is that animals should not be killed for their flesh. Since you eat animal flesh, you are immoral and you should be fired. Do you agree?

that depends on who you ask.



You think stomping on the american flag is ok?

It is much more OK than warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention without access to lawyers. . . .

Which do you believe to be a more powerful, meaningful symbol - the gay pride rainbow or the american flag?

I think free speech is ok, how about you?

In any event, he didn't stomp on the flag to make a political statement. He did it to make a teaching statement.

Nope, that would be sarcasm as a teaching tool in a different situation. I'm just pointing out that sarcasm is a terrible way to teach. Especially high school sophomore level English or history. If you'd like, I could come up with another way of using sarcasm in teaching to continue to show how it's a bad idea especially as it relates to sensitive subjects like religious oppression and flag desecration.

Let's just keep going the symbolism route:

How would you feel if for his example he burned an effigy of the president? (then pointed out he is just burning some hay)

How would you feel if for his example he lynched a dummy with an MLK mask? (the pointed out this doesn't reduce the value of what MLK did as a man)

How would you feel if for his example he hung Nazi flags in the classroom and a framed picture of Hitler? (then pointed out we won the war so these are just meaningless decorations)

By all means, please provide another example.

Not quite. I was talking about the government in general and certain politicians and people whom they represent in particular. They approve the programs (i.e. they want the service) but when it comes to paying the bills (i.e. revenues) they refuse to approve. It is disgusting. It is irresponsible. It is reprehensible.

Edited my previous post.

so you are ok with it?

Considering I'd be "okay with it" even if it was a political statement, I'm even more okay with it as a teaching statement.

So you are also ok with these??:

Eggzackally

They don't get my panties in a twist, no.

I think they wouldn't be nearly as effective as teaching lessons, though. A pic of MLK is pretty much still a pic, even though of an important historical figure. It just doesn't have the same weight as the american flag, a practically universal symbol of the country as a whole.

As for burning in effigy, as a parent I would object on safety grounds. ;)

Sex is an extremely sensitive subject. Anal sex is an extremely, extremely sensitive subject. Does this mean that you are against all form of pornography? Do you wish to outlaw all forms of pornography?

I would feel bad. I also feel bad about anal sex. What do you think we should do about pornography depicting anal sex given that I feel very bad about it?

I would feel bad. I also feel bad about oral sex. What do you think we should do about pornography depicting oral sex given that I feel very bad about it?

I would feel bad. I also feel bad about gory violence. What do you think we should do about all those HBO and Showtime programs depicting gory violence given that I feel very bad about it?

I am against depiction of anal sex in HS.

I do not think pornography should be used to teach sophomore level sex ed.

See above.

See above.

I would not use HBO and Showtime programs depicting gory violence (gratuitous, I could see Band of Brothers being useful) to teach sophomore high school level history and literature.

Wow that was easy. Because I'm not talking about banning flag desecration. I'm talking about not using it in class at a sophomore high school level to teach symbolism, especially in combination with sarcasm. I'm not even saying ban all depictions of it in the class. But what this guy did deserves firing. He should not go to prison. He should not be fined. He should not lots of things. But he should be fired.

You are misrepresenting my position as wanting to outlaw some sort of speech.

:lmao:

Hey, a nation of sociopaths always attracts more of the same.

Now that we have cleared all that up, I am going to ask you this question:

Do you believe that certain literature such as "Running with Scissors", "The Flamingo Rising", etc. should not be taught at a sophomore high school level and should be cause for dismissal of the teacher who teaches such books?

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites...banned.pdf

If you don't believe so, then please let us know whose standards should be used to determine which teaching methodology, teaching literature, etc. are grounds for firing/dismissal and whether such standards should be applied uniformly at the sophomore level at all high schools in the United States.

I'm relatively illiterate on these matters as I have not read many of the challenged books. But I do think "Fifty Shades" should not be used as part of the literature for sophomore level high school. Obviously people review the required reading lists frequently to ensure appropriate content. They set standards locally, etc.

I'm not even saying that all depictions of flag desecration should be abandoned. I'm just asking that teachers think hard about their potentially offensive lesson plans, perhaps have them reviewed by peers, before they go off half-cocked. If they do go off half-cocked, then they can expect to absorb 100% of the repercussions of their decision.

Yes, and this happened at a public high school. He could have probably gotten away with this at a college level, but that wouldn't change his poor judgement.

it is a bad decision to desecrate a symbol of the country in which you reside.

Absolutely. However, that doesn't necessary mean there won't be reasonable disagreement as to what those repercussions should be. ;)

In order to reach that conclusion, did someone first need to teach you about the importance of symbolism & symbolic speech?

You mean the brave men and women who have given their lives defending this country?

Funny how people OK with this cry that the 1st amendment protects a person who does something like this. How convenient....

How did dead soldiers teach you that flag desecration was bad? :scratch:

It's also equally "convenient" that the 2nd Amend protects individual gun ownership. Your point?

And why do you find the 1st amend so amusing?

Fair enough. This discussion is about whether what he did is "half-cocked" as you say and should be fired or reprimanded for it.

If you don't think a teacher should teach flag stomping at sophomore level, then at what level do you believe flag stomping is a teachable subject and why?

College freshman level/AP in high school, if I had to throw it out there. But this is something for local school boards to decide. It's not for me to tell the whole nation how to run. I simply think firing this guy sounds like the right decision to me.

UPDATE
Apparently the teacher did get fired. I found some links stating that he submitted a request to the school board for an appeal hearing.
*sigh* I may have resided in South Carolina for the past couple years, but at least I can say I am not from there...

One of the articles even has a quote from a member of The Patriot Guard who says that while everyone he knows was upset by the news, he shouldn't have been fired over it.
The article from The State says that in another school district in the state, there was a teacher who put up a sign that said "The road to hell is paved with Democrats." That earned her only a week's suspension.

Not enough facepalms in the world...
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27...is-firing/
http://www.thestate.com/2013/01/1...RIab1HtGW9
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bo...omped-flag

Firing is actually pretty lenient for a Right to Work state. I was thinking more along the lines of "crushed by heavy stones." :omg:

Firing was too good for the "teacher"...

Unbelievable.

Well I don't think he did anything at all wrong, so I am more sighing at the fact that he is getting fired for no legitimate reason (dumb parents and school board members isn't that good a reason in my book).

Firing is too good for him.

I know many places where if he stomped on the American flag, he would get his head stomped in....

The left has not yet succeeded in eliminating patriotism in everyone. Not yet.

Their trying.

"Only a moral society can take the Constitution seriously. And since we are no longer a moral society anymore, the politicians we elect don’t care about the Constitution."

i am sure the patriots whom you know do not beat up people who stomp on flags. they actually defend the right to perform such actions.

Yes, I'm sure those patriots believe they are defending the right to beat up people who stomp on the American flag.

So that's what physical assault and assaulting someone's rights is called nowadays. "Patriotism."

Funny reading comments on this topic from someone making a mockery of the flag and nation by using it in his avatar. Disgraceful.

It's much more patriotic than the slime who stomps on the American flag....

He's probably a doper too.

I love America. Served in the military for America.

I'd stomp the US flag if I found enough fault with the US government over something.

That said, this teacher wasn't even doing it for that reason.

For those who find his actions unpatriotic, you're so incredibly wrong it's almost obscene.

So now it's patriotic to be a criminal engaging in violent criminal activity?

Is there a limit to the use of such violent criminal activity to show one's patriotism? Would stomping in the head of some Muslims trying to build a mosque near Ground Zero get a similar seal of approval? After all, the First Amend is only intended to prevent govt censorship, not a brutal beatdown at the hands of those who disagree with other's free speech/religion...

:vomit:

100% this ^

Thank you for your service. It is primarily in gratitude for those who served and especially for those who gave their all for what the flag represents that I feel the way I do. It would have to be an extreme "fault" to cause me to stoop that low, and I don't think I could do it even then. There are other ways to display our disapproval.

Right, for a lesson in "symbolism"? :rolleyes: :shake:

I fully understand the premise of "I do not agree with what they do, but I'll defend their right to do it", but IMHO they don't have the right to desecrate our flag. We have laws that limit our freedom in many areas, and desecrating the flag should be a criminal act.His actions are unpatriotic and in violation of US Code. There should be criminal penalties for violations of that code.

I don't see why you need to roll your eyes. If you don't understand symbolism, I'm sure someone would be more than happy to explain it to you.
No it shouldn't. You are wrong.

This explains it well, from your link

The Simpsons episode "The Day the Violence Died" has a clip titled "I'm an Amendment to Be" where an amendment banning flag burning sings that the problem lies with "a lot of flag-burners who have got too much freedom" and that he wants to "make it legal for policemen to beat them," as there are "limits to our liberty".

So your point is...?
You are still wrong and apparently there are other people out there in positions of power that are wrong. Flag desecration should not be illegal.

Edit: For someone who loves the flag and hates flag desecration, you still have not changed your avatar. According to the Flag Code, a flag is a flag or anything "by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag." Your avatar is a flag.
The country is a living thing and as such, the flag that represents it is also a living thing. For you to attach extra stars to it and then display it is just...reprehensible.

This isn't a loaded question, but: why? I might not be representative of the majority opinion (I don't invest much in symbols such as the flag, etc), but I don't think of the flag being representative of the government.