People will bitch about anything

I

Inkd

Active Member
PeoplesElbow said:
The patch is not a flag, it is a representation of the flag in patch form.

Same with the cakes, they are not flags but representations of the flag in cake form.
Click to expand...

An argument could be made against having cakes resembling flags.

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

I think a cake is temporary. We know how it usually gets discarded.

But, I like cake. :drool:
 
PeoplesElbow

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
You people have a hard time understanding sometimes that something that is good and beautiful can still be against the law or a military code.

I am betting you would not feel the same way if some welfare mama, that happened to be patriotic, did the same thing.

Personally I get the picture and think that it is a beautiful sentiment but I also think it goes against the flag code and military code and that the navy will probably discipline the sailor for it.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
PeoplesElbow said:
But the sentiment can be exactly the same, what about a construction worker, a scientist, preacher, Indian chief?
Click to expand...

Still not the same. The elements of the photo combine to make a statement - the military person, the baby cradled in the flag symbolizing freedom and protection. If a welfare mother - or a political candidate, or Muslim woman in a burka - were holding the flag cradle, the photo would take on a different meaning.
 
B

BigBlue

New Member
PsyOps said:
Displaying a flag across a football field doesn't violate the code. Using the flag to swaddle a baby does; and that part of the code has already been provided; a few times I believe.
Click to expand...


Like it or not and I don't but that is another discussion(I am for the Amendment) .Currently, flag burning is not illegal in the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States in its decision from 1969 has ruled that the burning of the flag is protected by the First Amendment.Now maybe Military personnel(on duty) must handle the flag in a certain way but if an artist or any American wants to exercise his or her rights they can use the flag in the matter that is being discussed or as they see fit .
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
BigBlue said:
Like it or not and I don't but that is another discussion(I am for the Amendment) .Currently, flag burning is not illegal in the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States in its decision from 1969 has ruled that the burning of the flag is protected by the First Amendment.Now maybe Military personnel(on duty) must handle the flag in a certain way but if an artist or any American wants to exercise his or her rights they can use the flag in the matter that is being discussed or as they see fit .
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken you were the one that brought up the flag on a football field; so you brought it into the discussion. And I thought it was a relevant point.

I am strictly talking about this from a military standpoint. The SCOTUS has already supported misuse and abuse of the flag as a 1st amendment and protected issue. If someone the military were caught burning the flag they would land themselves in a heap of trouble. If the Navy wanted to pursue this specific issue of placing a baby inside a folded flag, they could and the person in the photo (if active duty) could be, at a minimum, reprimanded. I think it's unlikely they will do anything about it. But given the attention this has gotten, they may feel compelled to do something. The standards for the military are set and if they allow one violation, it opens the door for more of it.
 
B

BigBlue

New Member
PsyOps said:
If I'm not mistaken you were the one that brought up the flag on a football field; so you brought it into the discussion. And I thought it was a relevant point.
Click to expand...


Yes it was I ,it was in response to someone's post that said Flags can't be rolled up and must be folded in the triangle manor .
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
BigBlue said:
Yes it was I ,it was in response to someone's post that said Flags can't be rolled up and must be folded in the triangle manor .
Click to expand...

Those are such large flags I don't know what they do with them when they leave the field. I watched a couple of videos where the flag was touching the ground while stretching it across the field. I'd like to think they properly fold it after they take it off the field. And We do know military folks have participated in holding these flags. So, the 'letter of the law' to the military? I doubt it - not in the case of these field flags. In the case of the photo in the OP, I doubt it. I think if it does become an issue with the Navy they will likely look at intent - what it the intent to dishonor the flag or disparage the country? It seems the opposite to me. But if the Navy wanted to bring the hammer down on this Clevenger person, I suppose they could based on what I've found. I think they have more important things to do than screw people for this sort of thing. The most I see would happen is: "Clevenger, what the heck you doing? Here, go read our regs and understand them and don't do this again."
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
Those are such large flags I don't know what they do with them when they leave the field. I watched a couple of videos where the flag was touching the ground while stretching it across the field. I'd like to think they properly fold it after they take it off the field. And We do know military folks have participated in holding these flags. So, the 'letter of the law' to the military? I doubt it - not in the case of these field flags. In the case of the photo in the OP, I doubt it. I think if it does become an issue with the Navy they will likely look at intent - what it the intent to dishonor the flag or disparage the country? It seems the opposite to me. But if the Navy wanted to bring the hammer down on this Clevenger person, I suppose they could based on what I've found. I think they have more important things to do than screw people for this sort of thing. The most I see would happen is: "Clevenger, what the heck you doing? Here, go read our regs and understand them and don't do this again."
Click to expand...

Well: It's like this. I have bought a few flags, They come in a box. I have gotten a couple that were flown at the Capitol.
I never bought nor got one that was properly folded.
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Hijinx said:
Well: It's like this. I have bought a few flags, They come in a box. I have gotten a couple that were flown at the Capitol.
I never bought nor got one that was properly folded.
Click to expand...

I would say that you're buying your flags from a private company that does not have to comply with the Flag Code. And I'm not so sure the code specifically addresses how a new flag is packaged and if it has to be 'properly' folded. I've never received a new flag while I was in the military, but I would bet they come the same way yours did; in some sort of package folded up in some sort of square. Then they remove it, unfold it and inspect for any flaws or damage; then properly fold it and store it until it's used.

My retirement flag was flown over the capital and it was properly folded and put in one of those wall display doo-dads that I have hanging on my 'love me' wall.

Look, I'm not all anal about this. I was just pointing out that there is a flag code, and the military are required to abide by the code. If you don't believe the code has meaning, then the code is pointless to you. I don't see you or Vrai or anyone else in here as flag burners or spit-on-your-country people. I get that you see what this person did in this photo was in the context of honoring the flag and their patriotism. I see it that way too. But regardless of how good it may make you feel, the military are held to a standard different from their civilian counterparts. In most instances they take this very seriously for a bunch of reasons; one very big one being 'military image'. If they allow one tiny 'infraction' go, it opens the door for more. But I am not advocating that I want to see this navy person get into trouble over this. I don't want to see their career affected by something they believe was patriotic.
 
Last edited:
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
PsyOps said:
Here is what the Air Force stipulates (and I would imagine all branch have the same)

AFI 34-1201

​

Taken directly from USC 36.

Failure to adhere to this AFI is punishable under Article 92—Failure to obey order or regulation.
Click to expand...

Sure a person could be punished for violating that instruction, but that instruction states
SCOPE said:
This instruction establishes policy and provides guidance for excellence in protocol, decorum, customs and courtesies during Air Force ceremonies, conferences and social events; in hosting distinguished visitors; and in honors afforded at military funerals.
Click to expand...
How is that instruction applicable to the situation being discussed?
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
PsyOps said:
Look, I'm not all anal about this. I was just pointing out that there is a flag code, and the military are required to abide by the code. If you don't believe the code has meaning, then the code is pointless to you. I don't see you or Vrai or anyone else in here as flag burners or spit-on-your-country people. I get that you see what this person did in this photo was in the context of honoring the flag and their patriotism. I see it that way too. But regardless of how good it may make you feel, the military are held to a standard different from their civilian counterparts. In most instances they take this very seriously for a bunch of reasons; one very big one being 'military image'. If they allow one tiny 'infraction' go, it opens the door for more. But I am not advocating that I want to see this navy person get into trouble over this. I don't want to see their career affected by something they believe was patriotic.
Click to expand...
The code you speak of is a guide, the language within the code uses the terms "should" and "should not", further evidence that it is simply a guide, otherwise it would carry words such as must, will, must not or will not, making those actions mandatory. Sort of like the law on flag desecration, see 18 USC 700, which has been held to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.
 
MMDad

MMDad

Lem Putt
Ken King said:
The code you speak of is a guide, the language within the code uses the terms "should" and "should not", further evidence that it is simply a guide, otherwise it would carry words such as must, will, must not or will not, making those actions mandatory. Sort of like the law on flag desecration, see 18 USC 700, which has been held to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

It's also important to look at the intent of the law - to provide guidelines to ensure that the flag is treated with respect and standardize practices between the Army and Navy. It was not meant to be all inclusive, nor to exclude anything that is not in strict compliance with the code. It does not seek to draw the line between what is or is not disrespectful, it just provides a guide to help civilians display and care for the flag.

I'd love to see someone try to prosecute a sailor for not complying with a "should" statement. Anyone who would even think of doing that is obviously so bored that they need to be reassigned to Afghanistan for some perspective.

If the flag code did not exist would the picture still be seen as disrespectful? Or is it only seen that way because some people feel that it violates the flag code?
 
MMDad

MMDad

Lem Putt
PsyOps said:
Using the flag to swaddle a baby does; and that part of the code has already been provided; a few times I believe.
Click to expand...

Since the flag was not used for swaddling, it doesn't violate the code. See how easy that was? You got all offended over nothing.
 
I

Inkd

Active Member
Ken King said:
The code you speak of is a guide, the language within the code uses the terms "should" and "should not", further evidence that it is simply a guide, otherwise it would carry words such as must, will, must not or will not, making those actions mandatory. Sort of like the law on flag desecration, see 18 USC 700, which has been held to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

A few minor changes were made a year later during the Flag Day 1924 Conference, It was not until June 22, 1942 that Congress passed a joint resolution which was amended on December 22, 1942 to become Public Law 829; Chapter 806, 77th Congress, 2nd session. Exact rules for use and display of the flag (36 U.S.C. 173-178) as well as associated sections (36 U.S.C. 171) Conduct during Playing of the National Anthem, (36 U.S.C. 172) the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Manner of Delivery were included.

This code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has its own flag law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top