Flag-stomping teacher has no regrets, wants student punished

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I didn't saying saluting a flag, standing for an anthem or bowing to a monarch, was committing idolatry. You are not replacing God in any of them, though bowing to a monarch could be, depending on how the monarch is viewed. However substituting a prayer for a pledge in order to honour/revere a secular symbol is replacing God in a Christian burial rite and qualifies as forbidden under idolatry.

The reason you don't see anything wrong with it is due to it being culturally acceptable where you come from, but I don't believe that you can't see the obvious parallels between pledge/silence/burial and prayer/silence/burial, which would cause it to be a no go for Christians (including Catholics) not from that culture.

The way it is structured is almost certainly intended to imitate burial rites, probably by people thinking they were being respectful without realising they were being profane.

The rites being similar does not mean the intentions are the same, and like I said, intentions are the crux of the point. Now an argument can be made that making the rights similar is in poor taste regardless of the intentions, but poor taste does not equal idolatry.

I have similar discussions with traditional Catholics who strongly prefer the Tridentine Mass over the Novus Ordo that is more commonly practiced after Vatican II. They make a bunch of what I feel are legitimate points about how the older form of Mass is more reverent, has a better flow etc. etc. I tend to agree with them. Where I depart however is when they act as though these differences in style amount to blasphemy. One does not equal the other.

The same is true with our discussion. There is a long distance between poor taste and Idolatry. I can see how from your perspective that the moment of silence is a bit much, but from mine, the moment of silence is not for the piece of cloth, but rather my brothers who's coffins were draped in it. That is the thing about symbols. They represent things other than themselves.

[Destump]

Oh americans and your nationalism... I will never understand you

[Kalis]

The rites being similar does not mean the intentions are the same, and like I said, intentions are the crux of the point. Now an argument can be made that making the rights similar is in poor taste regardless of the intentions, but poor taste does not equal idolatry.

That is mockery of the Christian faith and is not acceptable to Christians. As I said earlier, you can usually get away with that if you are doing it for comic effect, sarcasm, or something similar, but not if it is genuine.

People throughout the years have done similar things with the express intention of mocking the Christian faith.

The same is true with our discussion. There is a long distance between poor taste and Idolatry. I can see how from your perspective that the moment of silence is a bit much, but from mine, the moment of silence is not for the piece of cloth, but rather my brothers who's coffins were draped in it. That is the thing about symbols. They represent things other than themselves.

The moment of silence is not the main issue, it is replacing the prayer with a pledge that turns it into idolatry and the pledge/silence/burial process that clearly marks it out as an immitation of sacred burial rites, but done for a secular symbol.

[Kathandira]

The current events regarding the flag and the anthem remind of this song.

Before you ask, I am sort of indifferent to it all. I really don't care that people are doing what they are doing. They have the right to express themselves, and i'm not the sort to trample on people's freedom. But I will not be stomping on, or burning any flags, and I will stand in respect to the Anthem.



http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/propag...nofabitch.html

[Wikiy]

Oh americans and your nationalism... I will never understand you

It's somewhat understandable. They didn't experience on their own skin what too much nationalism can result in.

[purebalance]

I don't think I'll ever find it not weird the level of reverence a large number of Americans give to a piece of cloth.

I mean, his point about free speech is kinda on the nose considering the supposed vitriol it's attracted.

..... It's not just Americans..... lots of countries have the same level of flag and anthem reverence.

[zenkai]

If you can't express views that go against the public opinion, your freedom is imaginary.

But he can, and he did. Do you see him in Jail?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh americans and your nationalism... I will never understand you

Probably because you don't live in the greatest country in the world.

[Kathandira]

But he can, and he did. Do you see him in Jail?

Exactly. One cannot be arrested or imprisoned because of their opinion.

Though it is hilarious that he is now looking for action to be taken against the students for expressing their opinion.

Defamation of Character is a pretty bullshit thing when considering freedom of speech. Same with Slander.

[Kaneth]

Teacher IS entitled to stomp on the flag, as ist is a perfect example of First Amendment. if the kid is so butthurt about constitutional rights, he can adress the congress about it. But since not even flag burning is prohibited ( because First Amendment agress upon), he has no leg to stand on.

And yes, you are not entitled to photoshot your teacher or anybody else without consent.

The teacher does have the right to stomp on, burn, even wipe his ass with the flag. At the same time, he shouldn't be surprised if people get upset, or act, like the kid did. The kid took the flag and brought it to the principles office. Fairly reasonable response. The First Amendment protects our freedom of speech and we cannot be retaliated against via criminal charges. However, if your employer disagrees with what you are saying or your actions, and does not feel you are representing the "company" in the way they like, well then they can fire you. At least the teacher is most likely part of the teacher's union, and he may be able to grieve whatever action the school board takes against him.

However, your last sentence about needing consent to take a photo of someone else is blatantly incorrect. If you are in a public space, and I am assuming the school is a public school, so it is considered community property, then a photographer needs no consent to take your photo. Do you really think the paparazzi get consent to take photos of celeb's in public areas? Do TV camera crews need consent to record events with crowds? Do amateur photographers need consent to take pictures of anyone in a public space? The answer is always no.

[Animalhouse]

Oh americans and your nationalism... I will never understand you

Sorry to quote just you, this is aimed at all those that know NOTHING about what it means to be an American and allows their view of the US to be distorted by mainstream media.


Why don't you people get it? It is not love of a cloth or the pattern on the cloth but the ideal that it USED to stand for. To be given a fair chance to have something of your own, to put in hard work and reap the benefits without it being taken away. To chart your own path. For freedom that was hard earned by BLOOD! A freedom that was framed by the constitution and is under constant attack by our now bloated and transforming government that is now 100% controlled by corporations and special interest groups. Our constitution is being made a mockery of on a regular basis. European nations should thank the US and it's ideals of freedom and capitalism (capitalism currently lacking regulation) that has allowed it to become the most powerful country on earth and helped free Europe from Nazi Germany and providing a framework through the league of nations that has allowed many European nations to enjoy the prosperity it has today.

Now what we see is a bunch of aimless thinkers that hate America. People who stand for nothing and fall for anything. Hipsters that think they are so modern because they are politically correct but have no damn spine.

FUCK that teacher, black ball him and make an example. He should know better.

Flame on America haters. As far as I am concerned the US should pull out all forces from Europe and abroad and let's see how long it takes until you ask for protection.

[Provenance]

But he can, and he did. Do you see him in Jail?

- - - Updated - - -



Probably because you don't live in the greatest country in the world.

Envy manifests itself in many ways. (: I think the real thing problem here is that teacher's should focus more on teaching facts rather than their political opinions. It seems like there are a lot of professors these days that either crave attention, are mentally instable, or just depend on grilling a student with different opinions to make them feel complete as a human being.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

That is mockery of the Christian faith and is not acceptable to Christians. As I said earlier, you can usually get away with that if you are doing it for comic effect, sarcasm, or something similar, but not if it is genuine.

People throughout the years have done similar things with the express intention of mocking the Christian faith.



The moment of silence is not the main issue, it is replacing the prayer with a pledge that turns it into idolatry and the pledge/silence/burial process that clearly marks it out as an immitation of sacred burial rites, but done for a secular symbol.

The problem with your reasoning is you're attempting to draw parallels where they do not exist so that you can invalidate a practice. It's called a false equivalence. As I've stated before, unless they, themselves, the person undertaking a pledge or observing a moment of silence or standing for an anthem sees it as an act of worship to God or other gods, it is not an act of idolatry. You can nitpick at similarities or style all you want, but that is tantamount to arguing with a bride whether or not her dress was appropriate.

Only when an act is objectively evil and expressly forbidden can intention be overlooked when judging it's morality. The Catechism was specific about what constitutes Idolatry, and neither taking a pledge of allegiance nor observing a moment of silence at a flag burning ceremony fit that criteria. Lets go back to the catechism for the broader definition of moral vs. sinful behavior.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

- the object chosen;

- the end in view or the intention;

- the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry to quote just you, this is aimed at all those that know NOTHING about what it means to be an American and allows their view of the US to be distorted by mainstream media.


Why don't you people get it? It is not love of a cloth or the pattern on the cloth but the ideal that it USED to stand for. To be given a fair chance to have something of your own, to put in hard work and reap the benefits without it being taken away. To chart your own path. For freedom that was hard earned by BLOOD! A freedom that was framed by the constitution and is under constant attack by our now bloated and transforming government that is now 100% controlled by corporations and special interest groups. Our constitution is being made a mockery of on a regular basis. European nations should thank the US and it's ideals of freedom and capitalism (capitalism currently lacking regulation) that has allowed it to become the most powerful country on earth and helped free Europe from Nazi Germany and providing a framework through the league of nations that has allowed many European nations to enjoy the prosperity it has today.

Now what we see is a bunch of aimless thinkers that hate America. People who stand for nothing and fall for anything. Hipsters that think they are so modern because they are politically correct but have no damn spine.

FUCK that teacher, black ball him and make an example. He should know better.

Flame on America haters. As far as I am concerned the US should pull out all forces from Europe and abroad and let's see how long it takes until you ask for protection.

I like to compare smug Europe and Canada to the adult that can't provide for themselves and still lives in their parents' house but still feels entitled to complain about how their parents earn their money. The US barely began the process of leaving Europe militarily and they all lost their shit and started begging for help when Putin revealed to them their social programs weren't going to defend their borders.

[Saucerian]

Teacher and student both asshats IMO.

Teacher had right to do what he did, but it was not the right time or place, at all.

Student had right to take flag and walk out, or just walk out, but uploading a photo and slandering the teacher was just being a dick (classrooms, ironically, supposed to be camera-free safe spaces so ideas can be freely expressed without fear of this happening, at least in college, don't know if same applies to HS).

[Kalis]

The problem with your reasoning is you're attempting to draw parallels where they do not exist so that you can invalidate a practice. It's called a false equivalence. As I've stated before, unless they, themselves, the person undertaking a pledge or observing a moment of silence or standing for an anthem sees it as an act of worship to God or other gods, it is not an act of idolatry. You can nitpick at similarities or style all you want, but that is tantamount to arguing with a bride whether or not her dress was appropriate.

The parallels clearly do exist. There is no truth in the claim that you have to realise something is profane for it to be profane, an unintentional profane act is still profane, easier to justify and atone for but nevertheless still not acceptable.

Only when an act is objectively evil and expressly forbidden can intention be overlooked when judging it's morality. The Catechism was specific about what constitutes Idolatry, and neither taking a pledge of allegiance nor observing a moment of silence at a flag burning ceremony fit that criteria. Lets go back to the catechism for the broader definition of moral vs. sinful behavior.

You ignored the part about the state though and the most damning aspect, that the pledge is used in place of God (in this case represented by prayer). You also can't divide it into parts and then say that the individual parts aren't an issue, when the issue is the whole and how that whole is a mockery of Christian burial rites.

Pledge of Allegiance = fine

Moment of silence = fine

Burying the flag = fine

Pledge of allegiance + moment of silence + buying the flag = not fine

[nextormento]

unless they, themselves, the person undertaking a pledge or observing a moment of silence or standing for an anthem sees it as an act of worship to God or other gods, it is not an act of idolatry.

To be clear, this is not an argument but a frame of mind. One you may or may not share with others.
Defining something by what practitioners think it means is fine and dandy. But It clashes severely with bystander perception: things can be offensive, or profane, if perceived like so, even when unintended. Your framing posits that what is, is what the practitioners intend, rather than what the bystanders perceive.
We see this issue emerge quite often, Most notably around transgenderims: your framing would favor what folks identify themselves to be, over what they're perceived to be.

Interestingly, post-modernism was founded on the idea that intent doesn't matter at all. But eventually that very postmodern thought settled on the idea that identity does matter. We're back to square one, it appears. What a pointless century.

- - - Updated - - -

Pledge of allegiance + moment of silence + buying the flag = not fine

Buying flags is the capitalist ritual yo!

[haxartus]

But he can, and he did. Do you see him in Jail?

If I'm not mistaken, schools are run by the government, and he is being prosecuted by the school, so indirectly by the government.

[triplesdsu]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences and freedom of speech definitely doesnt apply when you are in a work setting. He is well within his rights to do that on his own time, but when he does it in the course of his employment, he absolutely can be disciplined or fired for his actions by his employer (even if it is the government). If he couldn't be punished for this because of the 1st then in theory he couldnt be punished for saying "Fuck [insert racial slur]" as a teacher because that would also be freedom of speech.

[Endus]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences and freedom of speech definitely doesnt apply when you are in a work setting. He is well within his rights to do that on his own time, but when he does it in the course of his employment, he absolutely can be disciplined or fired for his actions by his employer (even if it is the government). If he couldn't be punished for this because of the 1st then in theory he couldnt be punished for saying "Fuck [insert racial slur]" as a teacher because that would also be freedom of speech.

Again, racism is explicitly prohibited in the teacher code of ethics he's sworn to, and that is why he could be summarily fired for it.

There's no such passage covering stepping on a flag. This is the mother of all false equivalences.

[nextormento]

Again, racism is explicitly prohibited in the teacher code of ethics he's sworn to

Do professionals other than doctors swear their code?. I explicitly sign into mine by admission to the collegiate, but swearing sounds démodé.
Explicitly prohibiting racism sounds like a pretty bizarre and excessively specific commitment. These things usually come of the form "appropriate behaviour", or "upstanding character". Is that a commitment to the clients (students and school, I imagine), or to the profession?.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

The parallels clearly do exist. There is no truth in the claim that you have to realise something is profane for it to be profane, an unintentional profane act is still profane, easier to justify and atone for but nevertheless still not acceptable.



You ignored the part about the state though and the most damning aspect, that the pledge is used in place of God (in this case represented by prayer). You also can't divide it into parts and then say that the individual parts aren't an issue, when the issue is the whole and how that whole is a mockery of Christian burial rites.

Pledge of Allegiance = fine

Moment of silence = fine

Burying the flag = fine

Pledge of allegiance + moment of silence + buying the flag = not fine

We're talking past each other at this point so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't equate saying a pledge of allegiance during a flag burning ceremony to deifying the flag or even personifying it for that matter. It is simply another act of reverence for a beloved symbol, which according to any priest or scholarly work of the Church I've consulted, is just fine.