Oh, yeah, I’m sure Nazi’s would be really upset about defecation on the American flag.

The most amusing thing to me about punks is their utter incoherence and inability to act and express themselves in a normal, mature way, whether it be in relation to politics or personal hygiene.

If you don’t think doing this on a flag would result in an infinitely higher degree of outrage, you’re nuts.

It’s funny also, Michael, that you contrast “during a [live] show” with “in public”. These kind of crapping antics can go on only in a setting with such a minuscule audience that it might as well be in private, preaching to a choir.

How many punk shows have you attended in West Virginia? A lot of people were pissed off about it. As you might know, for a lot of “punk rockers” punk is simply a style of music or a set of clothing fashions and they want nothing to do with punk rock’s anarchistic politics. Nazi punks have been known to come to shows from time to time. It’s hardly “preaching to the choir.”

I will say this, though, about protest methods, that pooping always struck me as much more artsy than hunger strikes.

Absolutely.

Taking a crap in public does not usually go over well, with or without a flag involved. It’s generally regarded to be indecent.

To me, having wiped kids asses and changed diapers for years now, it’s simply amusing to see a punk try to shock people in an unshockable society. It’s funny also, Michael, that you contrast “during a [live] show” with “in public”. These kind of crapping antics can go on only in a setting with such a minuscule audience that it might as well be in private, preaching to a choir.

I will say this, though, about protest methods, that pooping always struck me as much more artsy than hunger strikes. Plus you can get animals to do it which is sort of a bonus.

My favorite story from the gospels is when Jesus asked to see a coin with Caesar on it and then threw it down and crapped on it. Or something like that.

This assumes that to treat something with respect is to treat it as a living thing.

Either the assumption is false, in which case the crappy singer thought experiment proves nothing; or it’s true, in which case your objections to “considered a living thing” are vitiated, since the phrase can’t be shown to mean any more than “is to be shown respect [and worn on the left lapel when on a pin],” and the problem then shifts to whether this or that show of respect is excessive.

That is in fact what it says.

Read it again. You can’t just ignore words and expect to keep the meaning. In this case, “considered” doesn’t mean “is.”

What the sentence does is to assert a particular (and, admittedly, peculiar) notional analogy between the flag and the country. The country is “living” according to the manner in which countries are said to live, and the flag is considered to be “living” according to the manner in which a flag could be considered to live.

If you want to define a “sacrament” according to the U.S. civil religion’s sacramentology to be “a sign that notionally assumes a quality analogous to a quality of the thing signified,” then I suppose you have the proof text to support it, though I don’t think you can do much with that definition that can’t be countered with, “So?”

I once saw the lead singer of a punk band take a crap on the flag during a show. How do you think that would go over in public?

That’s not what the code says, though, is it?

That is in fact what it says.

Agreed, but the connection is not a sacramental one.

You are right, though, that I don’t take the sentence particularly seriously. I don’t even know what it means — beyond lapel pin location — to consider the flag a living thing. You keep implying that this is self-evidently fraught, but I can’t at all see what it is supposed to be fraught with.

Americans don’t typically say explicitly that the flag is a living thing, but they certainly treat it like one.

This is contrary to my own experience and observation.

The flag is a living thing.

That’s not what the code says, though, is it?

Don’t forget that one also pledges allegiance to the flag. The whole pomp and circumstance definitely has liturgical aspects and goals. Why’d a pastor choose to put this “competition” into the sanctuary beats me.

Once again, the flag is said to represent the nation, and beyond this, it is also considered a living thing. Not “to the extent that” anything. It is considered a living thing. Period. How is this an acceptable idea? The fact that many americans would not explicitly agree with it is not really relevant. It is on the books, an official statement of the united states. The flag is a living thing.

Although it certainly receives more respect than the unborn. This is a great tragedy and an insult to our nation’s Founding principles.

It receives more respect than a lot of human beings, including the unborn. I’m glad you denounce this fact as I do.

The fact that it receives more respect than various groups of people is in fact a sign of the religious character of the flag for americans. I’m surprised that you cannot, or refuse to, see this.

In the sense that the country is land alive with people, to the extent that the flag represents this reality.

The flag code is not part of U.S. law ( I do not think – it’s still legal to burn the flag ), so technically the flag has as many rights as the unborn: none. Although it certainly receives more respect than the unborn. This is a great tragedy and an insult to our nation’s Founding principles.

I also don’t think you are taking seriously the extent to which these ideas have been received. Americans don’t typically say explicitly that the flag is a living thing, but they certainly treat it like one. And as my wife pointed out when she read these passages, the flag seems to have more rights than certain groups of americans (i.e. human beings) do.

Also, aside from the sacramentology going on here, in what sense is it okay for the flag code to insist that the flag is a “living thing” in any way whatsoever ?

Yes, a living thing. Not the living country, the thing it represents, which is what specifies a sign as a sacrament. Whatever it means to say a flag is considered a living thing, it doesn’t mean a flag is considered a sacrament.

My concern that it is (if it is) only mentioned once is not irrelevant to the non-self-evident question of what it means that the U.S. flag is considered a living thing, since where it is mentioned provides a context for interpreting that claim. And as I’ve pointed out, the only context supplied, the only “therefore” the Code specifies that follows, is that a lapel flag pin be worn “next to the heart.” Anything else, any other “therefore,” is someone else’s interpretation of the Code, not what the Code itself says.

Nor is it irrelevant to broader claims about a U.S. civil religion. As you point out yourself, no one follows the Flag Code (and just forget about it when there are two or three flagpoles), so a single obscure and puzzling statement can hardly be asserted as received doctrine.