Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 18

= December 18 =

Socialism & the US
This question has been puzzling me for a long time, but it's taken a while to work out how to word it. I am NOT trying to gain opinion, or to troll by asking something provocative in the hope of getting flames, it is a genuine query. As such, I'm not looking for polemic answers, so much as a genuine explanation, and hopefully answers will be genuine, non-partisan responses:

Why does the US in general seem to have such a negative attitude towards socialism? Communism, yes, that I can understand, to some extent, at least - it may be "government of the people, for the people, and by the people", but its monolithic nature is largely anti-capitalist and anti-democratic, at least in the sense of democracy as understood in the US.

Socialism in modern parlance, though, doesn't share those qualities, but rather usually refers to the social democrat model - it is, in its generally accepted form, somewhere between US-style capitalism and communism, without the extremes of either model. It says that you can get rich through your own deeds, but that not everyone is able to, and those that can't require the government to step in to help, and as such, the state is responsible for maintaining a framework which will support the public.

It's even more perplexing given that most of the US's major allies have, or have had, some form of socialist government in power in recent history, in name at least. The UK's government is the Labour Party, as is Australia's (spelt Labor in their case) - both these parties are members of the Socialist International.

There are frequent questions on these boards relating to things like "is it true that education/health/etc costs less in Europe?". In many cases the answer is "yes", and it is largely because of the SocDem structures in those countries.

Let's face it, many of the major points of the New Deal, possibly the greatest economic package the US has ever unveiled, were inherently socialist. Yet when there's even a hint of state spending on social policies today (e.g., the recent fight over healthcare policy), the country seems to be up in arms.

Now, I can understand that the US, in general terms, may prefer other forms of political party, but I cannot for the life of me understand the pariah status that even the mildest social democrat tendencies elicit from its people. Why does this attitude exist?

Thanks in advance, Grutness...wha?  00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick explanation would be that it runs counter to America's ideal about "rugged individualism". There's a built-in assumption that it encourages laziness and discourages industriousness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a question that has been puzzling political scientists since the early 20th century. A common answer is "no feudalism, no socialism." This means that while Europeans have an ingrained class consciousness that dates back to the era of serfs and lords, the U.S. has always been a theoretically "equal" country, at least for white people.

You're really asking two questions. One, why are Americans afraid of the word "socialism." Secondly, why is there so much opposition to welfare-state policies in the U.S.

For the first question, you have to remember a couple things. Firstly, most Americans would associate socialism with the Soviet Union, not with Sweden. Most Americans aren't really into Western European politics and wouldn't know that most Western European nations have been governed by officially socialist parties at one point or another or that those countries have done a lot better that the U.S. in addressing certain social ills. Secondly, socialism -- real socialism, meaning public ownership of the means of production -- is generally thought to have been a failure, even by left-of-center people in the U.S. Today's supposedly "socialist" parties in Western countries have generally dropped socialism from their platform. They advocate "a market economy but not a market society," which basically means they're just left-of-center "bourgeois" parties nowadays. Their "socialist" name is more a throwback to the old times than anything else. So it would make little sense for an American political movement today to associate itself with "socialism" when the only reason "socialist" parties in Western countries still do so is tradition.

The second question is harder to answer and really depends on one's point of view. My opinion is that because of the racial pseudo-caste system that has always existed in America -- or the perception of that system -- most white Americans associate themselves with the "haves" as opposed to the "have-nots." They identify with those who would be on the losing end of a redistribution of income, whether or not this is really true. Most poor Americans aren't black and most black Americans aren't poor. But in the mindset of the typical white person, "welfare recipient" means "minority." Ronald Reagan helped ingrain this attitude with his fictional Welfare Queen, who, he always pointed out, lived on the South Side of Chicago -- the black neighborhood. There's an extremely widespread attitude in the U.S. that poor blacks are living high off the hog on the tax dollar of the hard-working middle-class person. For some insight into this phenomenon, read about the Reagan Democrats, working-class whites who voted for Reagan in the 1980s.

Interestingly, I once saw a poll of Americans that showed about 20% thought they were in the wealthiest 1% of the country and another 20% thought they would be some day. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "most Americans would associate socialism with the Soviet Union, not with Sweden" I've heard this explanation before, but is it true? Has anyone conducted an opinion polls or anything about this?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's something else to remember: Most Americans are far more comfortable with government activism to address social problems than the current political status of the country would have you believe. If you read over some polls, for example, you'll get a picture of a country somewhat farther to the left on economic issues than you would expect. For example, a 2007 poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found 69% of respondents thought "Government should care for those who can't care for themselves." That's up from 57% in 1994. The number may have decreased since 2007 with all the anti-Obama hysteria being pushed by the right wing.

And a fourth factor: Right-wing forces in the U.S. such as the Heritage Foundation have convinced many Americans that welfare-state programs have done more harm than good. For example, the Cato Institute likes to claim that the U.S. has spent $9 trillion on government programs to fight poverty since Lyndon Johnson began his War on Poverty in 1964, yet we still have a lot of poverty, so social welfare spending must be a failure. What they don't tell you is that poverty actually declined markedly in the 1960s when these programs were enacted and stagnated after the government stopped enacting new anti-poverty programs in the 1970s. Few Americans are aware either that industrialized countries with strong welfare states actually have far fewer social ills, including poverty, than the U.S. There's really no monied interest out there to disseminate such facts to Americans. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * An answer to your question could be the subject of a book, or several books, since there are many perspectives on this question. And, of course, books on this have been written.  Probably one of the more interesting ones, is What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank.  According to his thesis, there was a time 100 years ago or so when the culturally conservative, modestly educated white working (and agricultural) class of the interior and South of the United States supported the economically leftwing Populist Party.  However, over the years, the culture of the left in the United States shifted away from that of the culturally conservative working-class whites who theoretically should make up the largest base for left politics.


 * I have to admit that I haven't read Frank's book, but I can give you a historical explanation for this. This happened in a couple of steps.  First, during the first half of the 20th century, there was a big migration from rural areas to the growing industrial cities of the North, Midwest, and, to a lesser extent, California.  This migration brought together both black and white workers.  At first, the left-leaning Democrats did not seriously challenge segregation and other forms of legal, institutionalized racism, and they were able to hold on to their majority in both northern urban areas and across the South.  However, beginning in the 1950s and increasingly in the 1960s, a coalition of educated white liberals and (in all but name) social democrats formed an effective coalition with blacks within the Democratic Party that led to civil rights legislation and black allegiance to the Democratic Party on the one hand.  On the other hand, this trend led to alienation particularly among poorer and less educated whites, who felt that the Democratic Party had abandoned and forgotten them and become the champion of the blacks.  This led to racist indignation and a feeling of betrayal among poorer and less educated whites, particularly when the educated elites who really controlled the Democratic Party seemed to prioritize racial issues ahead of bread-and-butter economic issues of concern to working-class whites.  This alienation only increased during the 1970s and -80s when parts of the Democratic Party took up the causes of feminists and lesbians and gays, which offended the culturally conservative values of (often very religious) working-class whites outside of a few coastal  enclaves in the Northeast, Midwest, and California, where working-class whites are not so culturally conservative.  The rightwing Republican party, beginning in the 1960s with Richard Nixon and especially in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan, seized on this sense of alienation, cultural distaste, and latent racism by making scapegoats of "liberals", "cultural elites", and government as a whole.  Republicans, and their very popular rabble-rousers in the media (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly, have convinced many whites of limited education and/or income that government (i.e., the government that takes your tax money and gives it to black welfare queens and funds gay marriage) is the source of working people's troubles, never the solution, and that the Democratic Party (which stands to the left of the Republican Party) is the enemy of normal white people (or "real Americans", in the words of Sarah Palin).  Marco polo (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A very short answer would be that, like you said, it is "somewhere between US-style capitalism and communism". During WWII there would have been strong objections to anything perceived to be "somewhere between US-style capitalism and Nazism" - I think it's understandable that anti-Socialist sentiments came along with anti-Communist sentiments during the Cold War.  In my understanding, before WWII all sorts of political ideas Americans would consider pretty radical or unfavourable today were much more acceptable.  --π!  03:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I second Bugs's abbreviated answer: "Socialism" has become shorthand for:  People who work hard will be forced to support the lazy.  Tempshill (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the thinking of opponents of socialism all over the world, though, not just in America. And there are significant numbers of opponents of socialism in the UK, Australia, etc., so another way of looking at the question is: why do we tolerate government spending on social projects so spinelessly elsewhere in the world? 213.122.6.175 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Way back in 1906, Werner Sombart published an essay "Why is there no Socialism in the United States?" which has remained a kind of classic in the field... AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One more point I would make is that the political economy of the United States almost guarantees that socialist options never even make it to the table. The reason is that our two main parties are beholden for financing on rich people and corporations (and American political campaigns, with their requisite paid TV ads, are very expensive).  Obviously, rich people and for-profit corporations do not want any policies that reduce their capital, wealth, or income, as almost any socialist policy would, so they will not fund candidates or parties who propose such policies.  Instead they will fund their opponents, who paint themselves as champions of hardworking "real" Americans—who are virtuously self-reliant and don't need government help—and as opponents of handouts for poor (read black) people.  Likewise, all of the major media in the United States are privately owned and effectively controlled by the wealthy and capital.  Furthermore, those media rely for income on corporate advertising.  No major media outlet dares to present any remotely socialist policy proposal without also presenting an overwhelming and withering critique of the proposal by conservative Republican media personalities.  This is done in the name of "balance", but somehow the major media balance always tips toward policies that favor the interests of the wealthy and capital.  Marco polo (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even with all that, the American media are accused by American right-wingers of being far too liberal in general. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Socialism," has been described as the government taking an active interest in the welfare of the people. People during the 20th century came to expect the government do do lots of things for their benefit, such as disaster relief, social security, and medicare, without it constituting dreaded "socialism." In 1927 there were devastating floods of the Mississippi River and some of its tributaries, and initially President Hoover Coolidge said that it was not the federal government's job to provide housing and food for those flooded out of their homes. It was expected that the Red Cross, from charitable donations, might rent tents from the Army. Today we take it as a given that the government should send all needed aid (however lacking the result may be in practice). We expect the government to provide monthly checks to those who have never been able to work due to birth defects, to widows and orphans of workers, or to workers disabled by illness or injury, and that medicare should fund medical treatment of the elderly, but these are not generally though of as the dreaded "socialism." The working poor, who get up early to go to a crummy low paying job, hate the notion of a nonworking multigeneration "welfare class" which lays around and gets a check, while being equally capable of doing the same crummy job. They hate "transfer payments" take their tax dollars and hand them over to nonproductive folks. At the same time, the working poor fear illegal immigrants who will work for less pay than the barely living wage they get, and they hate the export of jobs to the Third World where someone will make gadgets or talk on the phone for scant wages. These hatreds and fears are manipulated by politicians and radio and TV bloviators. Edison (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"I think a very simple answer here is that there seems to be a widespread belief, especially among conservatives, but others as well, that "Socialism" is nothing more than a politically correct way of saying "Communism". APL (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Limbaughs and the Hannities and their kind use the terms "liberal", "socialist" and "communist" as equivalents. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the House Unamerican Activities Committee had a lot to do with where the US is now politically. Communists, socialists, and even liberals were attacked, publicly humiliated, and lost their jobs, and this sinister attack on the rights of the left rightly left a permanent impression that it was dangerous to publicly be a "leftist", which left very few remaining, from then to right now. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, have you ever heard of a decade called "the sixties"? (From fifty years ago to forty years ago.) AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, I well remember the 1968 election, when the liberal-leaning American public elected that well-known leftist, Richard Nixon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * After giving a mighty thumping to Barry Goldwater (who presented himself as an explicitly ideologically Right-wing candidate) four years earlier. If even Angela Davis was able to hold on to her job at UCLA, I don't see how it can be said that the populace of the United States was so uniformly traumatized that none dared to express a leftish sentiment... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to Grutness's question, or to one small part of it: ''most of the US's major allies have, or have had, some form of socialist government in power in recent history, in name at least. The UK's government is the Labour Party, as is Australia's (spelt Labor in their case) - both these parties are members of the Socialist International.'' Perhaps Britain's Labour Party (aka New Labour) just hasn't got around to leaving it. It's a conservative party, though arguably not as conservative as is the Conservative Party. Blair and Brown have happily hosted Thatcher at no. 10; they're happier to make approving references to her than to Attlee, I believe. -- Hoary (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the American attitude towards socialism may be the result of the Cold War. However, it is indeed possible to be both democratic and socialist, as is the case with Democratic socialism and the New Democratic Party in Canada. Rightists in the US often point to the Nazi Party as an example of extreme socialism, but this is an incorrect argument as the Nazis themselves were far-right, and American rightists are often also the ones participating in climate change denial. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

American antipathy toward socialism may also have something to do with the labor unions and antiwar movements back in the early twentieth century. Both tended to be socialistic, and in the public eye became associated with anarchy (strikes) and weakness (pacifism). The upper and middle classes hated Eugene Debs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.66.60 (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the basic idea goes "all the way back". A great many immigrants in colonial and early federal times came to America in order to acquire land "fee simple"--which they could truly own and on which they could do more or less as they pleased. For centuries it was quite possible to acquire land for cheap and live more or less free of government inference. Today this is less and less an option. Personally I might call myself a socialist, but my (paternal) ancestry fits the model described above to a T--poor landless people in Europe who came to America and, after some generations of semi-serfdom in colonial times, acquired land--and then every time government started to impinge upon their way of live sold the land and moved west to the fairly lawless frontier (where "impinge" might mean something as simple as having to serve jury duty!). Having researched my own family history somewhat I've come to realize that this instinct is deeply ingrained in the US. It was several centuries in the making, and arises from a frustration with the European model--at least the European model of several centuries past. Memories linger long in the deep countryside and mottos like "Don't Tread on Me" still hold meaning. Personally, I think this mindset began to become obsolete a century ago, but I think the age-old desire to own your own truly "private" property, without little to no government meddling, runs deep in some parts of the US. Pfly (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Jury nullification
Is jury nullification morally acceptable? J4\/4 &lt;talk&gt; 17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of your teachers asked you to write an essay on this question? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read Consequentialism. If you agree with the theory that the article describes, then the answer is "yes".  If you disagree, then the answer is "no."  --M @ r ē ino 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a reference desk, not a debating society, sorry. --Tango (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The question could be framed as asking for references relative to when jury nullification has been considered moral. In The Devil and Daniel Webster, a fictional work from 1937, a man is acquitted by a jury of the damned, who found against the Devil, saying ""Perhaps 'tis not strictly in accordance with the evidence, but even the damned may salute the eloquence of Mr. Webster." Saving a man's soul from hell contrary to the law and the facts of the case was considered moral in that story. Common law supports the right or at least the power of the jury to find contrary to the law, as a check against tyranny. Nontheless, jurors who espouse the doctrine have been removed from the jury, and counsel (in the US) generally may not tell the jury it is an option. In the US, it has been considered moral for juries to have refused to convict Peter Zenger under colonial era libel laws for criticizing the Governor, or to enforce the Fugitive Slave law. Uses of jury nullification widely considered immoral occurred in the U.S. South when all white juries ignored clear evidence of the lynching of Negroes. The morality of nullification is all over the map, as defendants protesting the Vietnam War, opposing abortion,  supporting marijuana use or opposing limits on gun ownership have sought to get juries to render verdicts "not strictly in accord with the evidence" by making emotional appeals. See also, , (in military trials), .  Edison (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Jury nullification is not only morally acceptable, it is morally required. If a law is unjust, the jury should never enforce it. After all, the people are governed by the laws, so they should have the final say in which laws are valid. Without this vital check on governmental power, there's nothing to stop the government as a whole from degrading into despotic tyranny where the people have no say in anything. Although jurors have the power of jury nullification, they currently don't have the right to be informed of it! This means that only the few jurors who already were aware of this right would exercise it, while the vast majority would continue to convict people of violating unjust laws. In effect, our court system today is a "trial by lottery": anyone who is lucky enough to get even a single juror who is aware of jury nullification would be acquitted, while those who aren't so lucky get convicted for breaking unconstitutional or immoral laws. --75.60.15.160 (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Then there's the criticism that "a jury is a group of people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty"... -- Jayron  32  03:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That one juror aware of jury nullification would be best advised if he never used the term "nullification," because if another juror complained to the judge, he might be replaced by an alternate and the deliberation restarted, or a mistrial might result. The underlying justifications for jury nullification could be cited, with reference to the Peter Zenger case and the Fugitive Slave Law cases, which are taught in civics and American History. The worst thing the juror could possibly do would be to print out something from the internet and hand it to the other jurors as if it were an additional instruction. Any jurur can also "hang" a jury and prevent a guilty verdict, but again they can be replaced unless the "continue to deliberate" rather than just hunkering down and saying, "Nope, my mind is made up!"Edison (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that jury nullification is a good way to fight unjust laws. For example, in US states with legal medical marijuana, the federal government can still prosecute those who grow marijuana for the patients.  Such a stupid law just screams for jury nullification. StuRat (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is Kupfermühlen Bay?
Several Wikipedia articles about German WW II U boats mention their being scuttled in Kupfermühlen Bay, but I can't find where that is. Can someone enlighten me? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Go to Google and enter [Kupfermühlen Bay] or [Kupfermühlen Bucht] and you should see many references. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Google maps cant seem to find it. Are we sure on the spelling?  Googlemeister (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I did that, Bugs, and found nothing useful but more references to scuttled U boats. Googlemeister, that's the spelling that's used in the various U Boat articles.  See German_Type_VII_submarine for example.  99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a Kupfermühle. It's German for "copper mill". I can't tell if it's near a bay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. I wonder if it's part of Flensburg Fjord.  99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kupfermühlen Bay
Kupfermühlen Bay is a small inlet to the north of Flensburg, close to the Danish border. I've been trying to answer the above thread but couldn't because of endless edit conflicts. Try googleing it instead of searching the maps. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Duncan. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is the north-westernmost corner of the Flensburg Fjord (Flensburger Förde (German) / Flensborg Fjord (Danish), forming part of the German-Danish border. If you still haven't found it, search for "Kupfermühle Bucht" (German) or "Kobbermølle Bugt" (Danish). Otherwise click the link in the top-right corner of the "Kupfermühle" article, it will show you the location on e.g. Google Maps. 80.167.179.233 (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Desecration of portraits in Iran and Islamic law
News stories say protesters in Iran are accused of desecrating portraits of Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini. Online dictionaries says that to "desecrate" is to violate the sacred character of an object. I have understood that Islam opposes the worship or veneration of an image of a person, and that mosaic designs were historically used in mosques (or the Dome of the Rock) as geometric decorations, rather than portraits, icon, or statues. so there should be no temptation to venerate an image of a person (or animal). When did it become acceptable to consider as "sacred" the portrait of a religious leader, given the historic iconoclasm of the religion? Is it possible to "desecrate" an image of someone who is merely respected and fondly remembered but not "sacred?" Is it acceptable among the Iranian religious leaders, but not among the Taliban of Afghanistan/Pakistan? Edison (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wahhabis are a lot stricter than Iranian Shi`ites in enforcing "aniconism" in religion -- the Persian miniature tradition was not at all afraid to produce quasi-devotional images depicting prominent Islamic figures, as long as certain conventions were adhered to (such as that the facial features of Muhammad generally could not be shown), etc. etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, journalists are not above using some bit of hyperbole in describing an event, or extending the meaning of words beyond their original intent. So desecrate can mean simply "to damage or destroy in a disrespectful manner" just as a crusade can mean "a campaign against something undertaken with strong fervor".  The fact that a news article described the destruction of a portrait as "desecration" does not mean EITHER that a) the journalist believe that the object in question was actually sacred or holy or that b) the person destroying the object believed that either.  Its just "poetic lisence" with a word.  That's all.  -- Jayron  32  20:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alamnews, in Iran, called it "sacrilege" defined by an online dictionary as "outrageous violation of what is sacred" or "gross irreverence toward a hallowed (i.e., holy, consecrated, sacred, revered) person, place or thing." Edison (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As Jayron has already mentioned, it doesn't really matter what the dictionary says a word is supposed to mean. In this case they just mean "destruction". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So there are no religious overtones, and the news would be just as likely to use the word sacrilege to describe the destruction of the portrait of any other respected public figure, such as the Oil Minister? 213.122.6.175 (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, probably. Journalists! What do they know? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not. I think Adam Bishop's point is a little simplified although I may get what he's trying to say. The destruction of potraits of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is likely to be seen as far worse because he's viewed as a far more important figure. This doesn't have to mean he's worshipped per se. Sacrilege may be chosen to convey the strength of the insult that it's viewed as without necessarily conveying that it comes to a religious level. Also in terms of the Iranian news thing, remember cultural and language issues may come to play. It may not even occur to the writers that anyone is going to think they are worshipping Ruhollah Khomeini since to them that's automatically nonsense. I would agree that there is a very blurry line between religious or sacred worship and holding someone to an extremely high esteem especially when the people don't give a great deal of thought to how and why they feel so strongly about someone or something but of course it doesn't stop them at least thinking they high esteem or reveration is not in a religious manner. BTW, I think it's fairly obvious that desecrating is used in non religious contexts even in the US and other countries. Considering my earlier point, you might say the fuss in the US over desecrating flags reveals they're awfully close to worshipping the flag and I may agree with you but I suspect many of those who go ape shit over such things would vehemently disagree. I also doubt all the proponents of the Flag Desecration Amendment suggest that the flag is a holy thing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Athiests and Jehovah's Witnesses see the veneration of the American flag as coming to close to worship of it, and violating the prohibition against idol worship. See also  and  which agrees you can't "desecrate" something unless it is "sacred." See also Albrecht Gessler which discusses the legend of people in the 1300's being ordered to venerate the dictator's hat on a pole, and William Tells refusal. See also Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's refusal to bow down before the statue of Nebuchadnezzar. Does a requirement to venerate a statue, hat or flag, or a prohibition against tearing up a photo or burning your flag make them "sacred" or idols? Edison (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They're missing the point that it's not the U.S. flag itself that's sacred, but the souls of those who died defending what it stands for, namely us and our freedom. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)So why is it illegal to burn it? Very little freedom there...hotclaws 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which is still iconographic. They're not missing the point, there's just a disagreement on interpretation. If folks were willing to change from revering the flag to revering a yellow polka-dotted sheet to represent the fallen, you could say they were missing the point. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)