![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
symbioidljfound here This little nugget, on the "desecration" of the flag and why Christians should oppose the flag-burning amendment... If you have "conservative" fundie christians, you may wanna pass this along... But maybe they don't understand the word "transcendent" or "semantics" or any of them other high-falutin' words...
Good stuff...
=======================================
By elevating the flag to an object of transcendent veneration—an untouchable idol—the proposed amendment strikes at the core of Jewish, Muslim and Christian belief systems.
The Ten Commandments apply to Jews and Christians alike. Heading the list is the commandment to have no other god, meaning no other absolute allegiance. The Second Commandment extends that prohibition to veneration of material objects—it forbids “bowing down to” or worshipping graven images of any kind. The point of all this is that no temporal power is worthy of the veneration that must be reserved for God alone.
A virtually identical prohibition applies to Muslims. The First Pillar of their faith, repeated daily in prayers, is “There is no God but God and Muhammed is the messenger of God.” The greatest sin for a Muslim, comparable to idolatry for a Jew or Christian, is “shirk,” which means associating something with God. That includes associating a state or nation with God, or assigning transcendent importance to a symbol of that state or nation.
There are two ways in which the proposed amendment violates the prohibitions on shirk/idolatry. One is the use of the word desecrate, which, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, means “to violate the sacredness of.” The amendment would in effect declare the American flag sacred. Efforts to use a less loaded term were explicitly rejected by the amendment’s sponsors.
But more than semantics is at play. As it presently stands, the First Amendment forbids Congress from passing any law “abridging the freedom of speech” or “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The proposed amendment would create an exception for the flag. It would become the only object in America that could not be subjected to symbolic protest. Not even the Cross, Crescent and Star of David merit such protection. […]
Should the amendment be passed by the Senate and then ratified, it would for the first time incorporate religious language into the Constitution. The great irony is that it would do so to venerate a secular object—the symbol of an often exemplary but still fallible nation-state—violating the most fundamental tenets of the three primary religious faiths of the American people.
Good stuff...
=======================================
By elevating the flag to an object of transcendent veneration—an untouchable idol—the proposed amendment strikes at the core of Jewish, Muslim and Christian belief systems.
The Ten Commandments apply to Jews and Christians alike. Heading the list is the commandment to have no other god, meaning no other absolute allegiance. The Second Commandment extends that prohibition to veneration of material objects—it forbids “bowing down to” or worshipping graven images of any kind. The point of all this is that no temporal power is worthy of the veneration that must be reserved for God alone.
A virtually identical prohibition applies to Muslims. The First Pillar of their faith, repeated daily in prayers, is “There is no God but God and Muhammed is the messenger of God.” The greatest sin for a Muslim, comparable to idolatry for a Jew or Christian, is “shirk,” which means associating something with God. That includes associating a state or nation with God, or assigning transcendent importance to a symbol of that state or nation.
There are two ways in which the proposed amendment violates the prohibitions on shirk/idolatry. One is the use of the word desecrate, which, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, means “to violate the sacredness of.” The amendment would in effect declare the American flag sacred. Efforts to use a less loaded term were explicitly rejected by the amendment’s sponsors.
But more than semantics is at play. As it presently stands, the First Amendment forbids Congress from passing any law “abridging the freedom of speech” or “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The proposed amendment would create an exception for the flag. It would become the only object in America that could not be subjected to symbolic protest. Not even the Cross, Crescent and Star of David merit such protection. […]
Should the amendment be passed by the Senate and then ratified, it would for the first time incorporate religious language into the Constitution. The great irony is that it would do so to venerate a secular object—the symbol of an often exemplary but still fallible nation-state—violating the most fundamental tenets of the three primary religious faiths of the American people.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-06-17 09:11 am (UTC)I have something for you :)
no subject
Date: 2003-06-17 10:49 am (UTC)Ahh, the hypocracy. Anthony and I truly believe that if you do believe in the bible - that's fine - but you need to believe it all. You can't pick and choose what you feel is right or wrong if you want to be christian - it's either an all or nothing thing. His aunt and uncle are perfect examples of what every christian should be - very loving, very accepting, deep rooted in their beliefs, but never throwing it in your face, always giving, never asking. Absolutely wonderful people all around. And, if every christian followed that example, hell, I'd love religion. :)
-m.