While Professor Schaff and I have been busy talking about judicial review, our friends at CCK have been attracting attention to themselves. David Newquist posted a note on the site that is reprinted by Mr. Heppler below. I reproduce here two of four paragraphs.
In totalitarian societies, it is a practice to criminalize those who protest by committing acts against cherished symbols. The state rages against the desecraters, while it desecrates the values of freedom, equality, justice.
And if the flag in fact represents what this nation has become under George W. Bush, well do you really want to salute it?
Now I think Professor Newquist gets totalitarianism wrong. Totalitarian symbols are not to be "cherished," they are to be feared. And it is absurd to compare what would happen to someone who defied such a symbol in such a country, and what would happen to a flag-burner in the U.S.
On the other hand, I agree with Professor Schaff (and I assume with Newquist and all the folks at CCK) that an anti-flag burning amendment is a bad idea. I note that both Senator Thune and Senator Johnson voted for the amendment. I do not think that either should be held in contempt for that vote, much less the millions of ordinary Americans who wish to see the flag defended because they love it.
With regard to David's ultimate paragraph, it does strike me as a rhetorical question and as such cannot be taken for a clear statement of his opinion about "what this nation has become." So I think the criticism of him in this and other blogs is a bit unfair.
South Dakota War College quotes Chad at CCK on Catholics:
I don't have a problem with Catholics.
I have a problem with the guys who wear the collar and the fancy robes.
I have absolutely no respect for an organization that looks the other way to sexual molestation for decades and then decides they are going to tell their members to vote "values" or they are going to hell.
One anonymous commentator at SDWC makes this shrewd retort:
I don't have a problem with Jews. I have a problem with the guys who wear the funny prayer shawls and the fancy yarmulkes.
Had Chad said the above, he would be swiftly condemned as an anti-semite. And rightly so. But say the same of Catholics, and it is ok.
Anti-Catholic bigotry is the last acceptable form of religious discrimination. No one would make a movie about evil homosexuals, evil blacks, evil Jews, or evil Muslims, but it is okay to make a movie about evil Catholics (hello, Divinci Code).
Anonymous is surely right about what would happen if the tables were turned, but again I think that this is somewhat unfair. Chad does seem to be directing his criticisms against the Church rather than against Catholics as such, and that is fair game even if his criticism is off the mark.
I am unaccustomed to defending the Daschlistas, so I will relieve the stress by making this comment. I have no problem with any of them as people. I am sure they are fine and patriotic fellows. I do not say the contrary. I do object to their persistent tendency to call virtually anyone who disagrees with them idiots, or scoundrels, or both. And in fact, it is not necessary to disagree with them to get the brush. Here is Chad on yours truly.
One item of note, I see Ken Blanchard -- college professor -- still doesn't know if guaranteed access to pre-school education is a good thing.
Northern State University in Aberdeen must be proud.
Any wavering, any sign of doubt, any insufficient cheering of the party line, that is something to be ashamed of. Can one believe that a college professor actually questions whether an extraordinarily expensive social program is really worth the cost? It is an interesting view of higher education that the Daschlistas apparently hold. No doubt when they are in charge all public university professors will hold exactly the right views. Tom Daschle must be proud.
Recent Comments