Antifa Burns US Flag

[Pogo]

This is for the shameful f*****s here on USMB who think it's OK to desecrate the flag. I wonder what this black man would say to you creeps.This man was a patriotic soldier who would have given his life so you slime could shit on the flag and laugh. For shame.

And that's not emotionally-based idolatry?


SMH

I get it Hoss. You have a dry sense of humor and you're proving my point with satire.

It's called devotion, Chuckybob. The man was shot at least 7 times and refused to let the flag be desecrated by letting it touch the ground. It's called patriotism. Something you say you're proud of not having. You should be ashamed of yourself and relinquish your citizenship.

Actually it's still called "idolatry". It was called that then, it's called that now, and a hundred years from now it will STILL be called that. "Patriotism" is the respect for one's country and its Constitution --- not some piece of graven image cloth that some shyster set up with a promotion to sell magazines in 1892.

 

[Pogo]

Post all the Googly Image memes you like --- you know I'm right.

Go check your first Commandment. Let us know what it says.

No one is worshiping the flag. They're simply showing respect. Something you apparently lack. A pity.

Au contraire mon frère. It's exactly what you're doing.

desecrate
[des-i-kreyt]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), des·e·crat·ed, des·e·crat·ing.

1. to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office.
2. to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose.
3. to treat with sacrilege; profane.

Origin of desecrate
1665–75; de- + -secrate, modeled on consecrate

That's your word. I'm showing you what it means. You can't 'desecrate' something until you first invest it with godliness. The "sacred". I can write with my pencil -- or I can break it or I can use it to pry a battery cover open --- but I can't "desecrate" it because it's not a god.

Hmmmm, well there's that and then there's this,

Definition of desecrate
desecrated; desecrating
transitive verb
1: to violate the sanctity of : profane

• desecrate a shrine

• a cemetery desecrated by vandals

2: to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously

• … the kind of shore development … that has desecrated so many waterfronts …
• —John Fischer

Definition of DESECRATE

Those are metaphorical. What I posted was direct.

Besides which, your own link also reports:

>>
Definition of desecrate for English Language Learners

• : to damage (a holy place or object) : to treat (a holy place or object) with disrespect
  <<

Funny how you left that part out.

Again, the prefix de- negates the verb which refers to sacredness (derived from consecrate, to invest with sacredness)... ergo it means to nullify or negate the sacredness of (whatever). That sacredness didn't get there by itself and it didn't ask to be born. It was put there. It was invested. And that is idolatry.

Well, I did have to go to another link to find what you were talking about. I also found that YOU left something out of that link, but here it is for all to see.
— desecration
/ˌdɛsɪˈkreɪʃən/ noun [noncount]

• The law forbids desecration of the flag.
• Desecrate - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Not at all --- that's exactly where this examination of the term "desecration" BEGAN. Hoss brought it up, and I took the ball and ran with it.

Once AGAIN ---- you cannot "desecrate" something until you invest it with sacred power. I'll just keep posting that until it sinks in. Take your time.

Get it? Only "holy" objects can be desecrated, specifically because they have previously been consecrated. You can't 'take the sacred out' (desecrate) until you first 'put the sacred in' (consecrate).

THEREFORE --- if it is possible to "desecrate" a flag (or anything else) --- then that object *MUST FIRST* be regarded as "sacred".

And THAT IS IDOLATRY. It's also called "fetishism" although the latter doesn't necessarily involve "the sacred". It's investing feelings, honor and deity-qualities into an inanimate object. An object which obviously possesses NONE of those qualities, any more than a pencil does.

And there's no way around that.

 

[Pogo]

No one is worshiping the flag. They're simply showing respect. Something you apparently lack. A pity.

Au contraire mon frère. It's exactly what you're doing.

desecrate
[des-i-kreyt]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), des·e·crat·ed, des·e·crat·ing.

1. to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office.
2. to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose.
3. to treat with sacrilege; profane.

Origin of desecrate
1665–75; de- + -secrate, modeled on consecrate

That's your word. I'm showing you what it means. You can't 'desecrate' something until you first invest it with godliness. The "sacred". I can write with my pencil -- or I can break it or I can use it to pry a battery cover open --- but I can't "desecrate" it because it's not a god.

Hmmmm, well there's that and then there's this,

Definition of desecrate
desecrated; desecrating
transitive verb
1: to violate the sanctity of : profane

• desecrate a shrine

• a cemetery desecrated by vandals

2: to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously

• … the kind of shore development … that has desecrated so many waterfronts …
• —John Fischer

Definition of DESECRATE

Those are metaphorical. What I posted was direct.

Besides which, your own link also reports:

>>
Definition of desecrate for English Language Learners

• : to damage (a holy place or object) : to treat (a holy place or object) with disrespect
  <<

Funny how you left that part out.

Again, the prefix de- negates the verb which refers to sacredness (derived from consecrate, to invest with sacredness)... ergo it means to nullify or negate the sacredness of (whatever). That sacredness didn't get there by itself and it didn't ask to be born. It was put there. It was invested. And that is idolatry.

Well, I did have to go to another link to find what you were talking about. I also found that YOU left something out of that link, but here it is for all to see.
— desecration
/ˌdɛsɪˈkreɪʃən/ noun [noncount]

• The law forbids desecration of the flag.
• Desecrate - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Not at all --- that's exactly where this examination of the term "desecration" BEGAN. Hoss brought it up, and I took the ball and ran with it.

Once AGAIN ---- you cannot "desecrate" something until you invest it with sacred power. I'll just keep posting that until it sinks in. Take your time.

Get it? Only "holy" objects can be desecrated, specifically because they have previously been consecrated.

THEREFORE --- if it is possible to "desecrate" a flag (or anything else) --- then that object *MUST FIRST* be regarded as "sacred".

And THAT IS IDOLATRY. It's also called "fetishism" although the latter doesn't necessarily involve "the sacred". It's investing feelings, honor and deity-qualities into an inanimate object. An object which obviously possesses NONE of those qualities, any more than a pencil does.

And there's no way around that.

Now what does all that mean?

It means that we have Congresscritter demagogues boldly trying to pass laws establishing a religion -- call it the religion of the sky-cloth god or whatever you want --- in spite of the United States Constitution's specific PROHIBITION of that in its First Amendment. And the Supreme Court strikes it down citing exactly that Amendment. And then they try another end-around, and again the SCOTUS strikes it down.

But the demagogues don't give up, they continue to weasel their way into erecting a sky-cloth god with Appeals to Emotion inciting mob mentality e.g. "fire the sumbitches", e.g. "break their knees with baseball bats", e.g demanding that a citizen "kiss a flag".

WHY do they persist with this demagoguery, trotting it out as a mandatory exercise before you can watch a baseball game played by Venezuelans and Dominicans and Japanese and Cubans and Canadians?

Because they know, as the "divine right" kings before Liberalism created that Constitution knew (and which is why Liberalism sprang up to oppose it) that when you impose a religion on the masses you can lead them around by the nose under fear of "blasphemy", "desecration", "fire the sumbitches", "kiss the flag" or whatever you'd like to call it. With a sacred object you can hoist and go "Look! Sacred object will get you! Booga booga!" -- you have control.

THAT is why they do it. It's all about control. It's all about obedience to the State. And that's also why the penalty for defiance is always ostracism, "fire the sumbitches", "break their knees", or in Starr's case hard labor in prison for having the temerity to defy a mob of yahoos bent on mob mentality emotion.

JUST SAY NO to that bullshit. It ain't gonna kill you to honor the First Amendment to your Constitution instead of genuflecting before some demagogues sky-cloth god. Capitulating to that sort of demagoguery, however, just might.

 

[g5000]

Typical....

 

[Hossfly]

Au contraire mon frère. It's exactly what you're doing.

desecrate
[des-i-kreyt]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), des·e·crat·ed, des·e·crat·ing.

1. to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office.
2. to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose.
3. to treat with sacrilege; profane.

Origin of desecrate
1665–75; de- + -secrate, modeled on consecrate

That's your word. I'm showing you what it means. You can't 'desecrate' something until you first invest it with godliness. The "sacred". I can write with my pencil -- or I can break it or I can use it to pry a battery cover open --- but I can't "desecrate" it because it's not a god.

Hmmmm, well there's that and then there's this,

Definition of desecrate
desecrated; desecrating
transitive verb
1: to violate the sanctity of : profane

• desecrate a shrine

• a cemetery desecrated by vandals

2: to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously

• … the kind of shore development … that has desecrated so many waterfronts …
• —John Fischer

Definition of DESECRATE

Those are metaphorical. What I posted was direct.

Besides which, your own link also reports:

>>
Definition of desecrate for English Language Learners

• : to damage (a holy place or object) : to treat (a holy place or object) with disrespect
  <<

Funny how you left that part out.

Again, the prefix de- negates the verb which refers to sacredness (derived from consecrate, to invest with sacredness)... ergo it means to nullify or negate the sacredness of (whatever). That sacredness didn't get there by itself and it didn't ask to be born. It was put there. It was invested. And that is idolatry.

Well, I did have to go to another link to find what you were talking about. I also found that YOU left something out of that link, but here it is for all to see.
— desecration
/ˌdɛsɪˈkreɪʃən/ noun [noncount]

• The law forbids desecration of the flag.
• Desecrate - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Not at all --- that's exactly where this examination of the term "desecration" BEGAN. Hoss brought it up, and I took the ball and ran with it.

Once AGAIN ---- you cannot "desecrate" something until you invest it with sacred power. I'll just keep posting that until it sinks in. Take your time.

Get it? Only "holy" objects can be desecrated, specifically because they have previously been consecrated.

THEREFORE --- if it is possible to "desecrate" a flag (or anything else) --- then that object *MUST FIRST* be regarded as "sacred".

And THAT IS IDOLATRY. It's also called "fetishism" although the latter doesn't necessarily involve "the sacred". It's investing feelings, honor and deity-qualities into an inanimate object. An object which obviously possesses NONE of those qualities, any more than a pencil does.

And there's no way around that.

Now what does all that mean?

It means that we have Congresscritter demagogues boldly trying to pass laws establishing a religion -- call it the religion of the sky-cloth god or whatever you want --- in spite of the United States Constitution's specific PROHIBITION of that in its First Amendment. And the Supreme Court strikes it down citing exactly that Amendment. And then they try another end-around, and again the SCOTUS strikes it down.

But the demagogues don't give up, they continue to weasel their way into erecting a sky-cloth god with Appeals to Emotion inciting mob mentality e.g. "fire the sumbitches", e.g. "break their knees with baseball bats", e.g demanding that a citizen "kiss a flag".

WHY do they persist with this demagoguery, trotting it out as a mandatory exercise before you can watch a baseball game played by Venezuelans and Dominicans and Japanese and Cubans and Canadians?

Because they know, as the "divine right" kings before Liberalism created that Constitution knew (and which is why Liberalism sprang up to oppose it) that when you impose a religion on the masses you can lead them around by the nose under fear of "blasphemy", "desecration", "fire the sumbitches", "kiss the flag" or whatever you'd like to call it. With a sacred object you can hoist and go "Look! Sacred object will get you! Booga booga!" -- you have control.

THAT is why they do it. It's all about control. It's all about obedience to the State. And that's also why the penalty for defiance is always ostracism, "fire the sumbitches", "break their knees", or in Starr's case hard labor in prison for having the temerity to defy a mob of yahoos bent on mob mentality emotion.

JUST SAY NO to that bullshit. It ain't gonna kill you to honor the First Amendment to your Constitution instead of genuflecting before some demagogues sky-cloth god. Capitulating to that sort of demagoguery, however, just might.

Again, Pogo, you misunderstand the 1st Amendment. It doesn't say you can deny religion. It says you can't favor one religion over another. That's where the SCROTUS is screwed up. Bunch of old, dying farts who are going to hell too. IN GOD WE TRUST

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Hmmmm, well there's that and then there's this,

Definition of desecrate
desecrated; desecrating
transitive verb
1: to violate the sanctity of : profane

• desecrate a shrine

• a cemetery desecrated by vandals

2: to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously

• … the kind of shore development … that has desecrated so many waterfronts …
• —John Fischer

Definition of DESECRATE

Those are metaphorical. What I posted was direct.

Besides which, your own link also reports:

>>
Definition of desecrate for English Language Learners

• : to damage (a holy place or object) : to treat (a holy place or object) with disrespect
  <<

Funny how you left that part out.

Again, the prefix de- negates the verb which refers to sacredness (derived from consecrate, to invest with sacredness)... ergo it means to nullify or negate the sacredness of (whatever). That sacredness didn't get there by itself and it didn't ask to be born. It was put there. It was invested. And that is idolatry.

Well, I did have to go to another link to find what you were talking about. I also found that YOU left something out of that link, but here it is for all to see.
— desecration
/ˌdɛsɪˈkreɪʃən/ noun [noncount]

• The law forbids desecration of the flag.
• Desecrate - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Not at all --- that's exactly where this examination of the term "desecration" BEGAN. Hoss brought it up, and I took the ball and ran with it.

Once AGAIN ---- you cannot "desecrate" something until you invest it with sacred power. I'll just keep posting that until it sinks in. Take your time.

Get it? Only "holy" objects can be desecrated, specifically because they have previously been consecrated.

THEREFORE --- if it is possible to "desecrate" a flag (or anything else) --- then that object *MUST FIRST* be regarded as "sacred".

And THAT IS IDOLATRY. It's also called "fetishism" although the latter doesn't necessarily involve "the sacred". It's investing feelings, honor and deity-qualities into an inanimate object. An object which obviously possesses NONE of those qualities, any more than a pencil does.

And there's no way around that.

Now what does all that mean?

It means that we have Congresscritter demagogues boldly trying to pass laws establishing a religion -- call it the religion of the sky-cloth god or whatever you want --- in spite of the United States Constitution's specific PROHIBITION of that in its First Amendment. And the Supreme Court strikes it down citing exactly that Amendment. And then they try another end-around, and again the SCOTUS strikes it down.

But the demagogues don't give up, they continue to weasel their way into erecting a sky-cloth god with Appeals to Emotion inciting mob mentality e.g. "fire the sumbitches", e.g. "break their knees with baseball bats", e.g demanding that a citizen "kiss a flag".

WHY do they persist with this demagoguery, trotting it out as a mandatory exercise before you can watch a baseball game played by Venezuelans and Dominicans and Japanese and Cubans and Canadians?

Because they know, as the "divine right" kings before Liberalism created that Constitution knew (and which is why Liberalism sprang up to oppose it) that when you impose a religion on the masses you can lead them around by the nose under fear of "blasphemy", "desecration", "fire the sumbitches", "kiss the flag" or whatever you'd like to call it. With a sacred object you can hoist and go "Look! Sacred object will get you! Booga booga!" -- you have control.

THAT is why they do it. It's all about control. It's all about obedience to the State. And that's also why the penalty for defiance is always ostracism, "fire the sumbitches", "break their knees", or in Starr's case hard labor in prison for having the temerity to defy a mob of yahoos bent on mob mentality emotion.

JUST SAY NO to that bullshit. It ain't gonna kill you to honor the First Amendment to your Constitution instead of genuflecting before some demagogues sky-cloth god. Capitulating to that sort of demagoguery, however, just might.

Again, Pogo, you misunderstand the 1st Amendment. It doesn't say you can deny religion. It says you can't favor one religion over another. That's where the SCROTUS is screwed up. Bunch of old, dying farts who are going to hell too. IN GOD WE TRUST

Again, Pogo, you misunderstand the 1st Amendment. It doesn't say you can deny religion. It says you can't favor one religion over another.

Amendment I DOES NOT speak to favoring or disfavoring religion AT ALL. It is all in the first clause, the Establishment Clause.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
~~ First Amendment ~~

How do you come up with this Bullshit?

 

[Hossfly]

Those are metaphorical. What I posted was direct.

Besides which, your own link also reports:

>>
Definition of desecrate for English Language Learners

• : to damage (a holy place or object) : to treat (a holy place or object) with disrespect
  <<

Funny how you left that part out.

Again, the prefix de- negates the verb which refers to sacredness (derived from consecrate, to invest with sacredness)... ergo it means to nullify or negate the sacredness of (whatever). That sacredness didn't get there by itself and it didn't ask to be born. It was put there. It was invested. And that is idolatry.

Well, I did have to go to another link to find what you were talking about. I also found that YOU left something out of that link, but here it is for all to see.
— desecration
/ˌdɛsɪˈkreɪʃən/ noun [noncount]

• The law forbids desecration of the flag.
• Desecrate - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Not at all --- that's exactly where this examination of the term "desecration" BEGAN. Hoss brought it up, and I took the ball and ran with it.

Once AGAIN ---- you cannot "desecrate" something until you invest it with sacred power. I'll just keep posting that until it sinks in. Take your time.

Get it? Only "holy" objects can be desecrated, specifically because they have previously been consecrated.

THEREFORE --- if it is possible to "desecrate" a flag (or anything else) --- then that object *MUST FIRST* be regarded as "sacred".

And THAT IS IDOLATRY. It's also called "fetishism" although the latter doesn't necessarily involve "the sacred". It's investing feelings, honor and deity-qualities into an inanimate object. An object which obviously possesses NONE of those qualities, any more than a pencil does.

And there's no way around that.

Now what does all that mean?

It means that we have Congresscritter demagogues boldly trying to pass laws establishing a religion -- call it the religion of the sky-cloth god or whatever you want --- in spite of the United States Constitution's specific PROHIBITION of that in its First Amendment. And the Supreme Court strikes it down citing exactly that Amendment. And then they try another end-around, and again the SCOTUS strikes it down.

But the demagogues don't give up, they continue to weasel their way into erecting a sky-cloth god with Appeals to Emotion inciting mob mentality e.g. "fire the sumbitches", e.g. "break their knees with baseball bats", e.g demanding that a citizen "kiss a flag".

WHY do they persist with this demagoguery, trotting it out as a mandatory exercise before you can watch a baseball game played by Venezuelans and Dominicans and Japanese and Cubans and Canadians?

Because they know, as the "divine right" kings before Liberalism created that Constitution knew (and which is why Liberalism sprang up to oppose it) that when you impose a religion on the masses you can lead them around by the nose under fear of "blasphemy", "desecration", "fire the sumbitches", "kiss the flag" or whatever you'd like to call it. With a sacred object you can hoist and go "Look! Sacred object will get you! Booga booga!" -- you have control.

THAT is why they do it. It's all about control. It's all about obedience to the State. And that's also why the penalty for defiance is always ostracism, "fire the sumbitches", "break their knees", or in Starr's case hard labor in prison for having the temerity to defy a mob of yahoos bent on mob mentality emotion.

JUST SAY NO to that bullshit. It ain't gonna kill you to honor the First Amendment to your Constitution instead of genuflecting before some demagogues sky-cloth god. Capitulating to that sort of demagoguery, however, just might.

Again, Pogo, you misunderstand the 1st Amendment. It doesn't say you can deny religion. It says you can't favor one religion over another. That's where the SCROTUS is screwed up. Bunch of old, dying farts who are going to hell too. IN GOD WE TRUST

Again, Pogo, you misunderstand the 1st Amendment. It doesn't say you can deny religion. It says you can't favor one religion over another.

Amendment I DOES NOT speak to favoring or disfavoring religion AT ALL. It is all in the first clause, the Establishment Clause.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
~~ First Amendment ~~

How do you come up with this Bullshit?

 

[Pogo]

Hmmmm, well there's that and then there's this,

Definition of desecrate
desecrated; desecrating
transitive verb
1: to violate the sanctity of : profane

• desecrate a shrine

• a cemetery desecrated by vandals

2: to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously

• … the kind of shore development … that has desecrated so many waterfronts …
• —John Fischer

Definition of DESECRATE

Those are metaphorical. What I posted was direct.

Besides which, your own link also reports:

>>
Definition of desecrate for English Language Learners

• : to damage (a holy place or object) : to treat (a holy place or object) with disrespect
  <<

Funny how you left that part out.

Again, the prefix de- negates the verb which refers to sacredness (derived from consecrate, to invest with sacredness)... ergo it means to nullify or negate the sacredness of (whatever). That sacredness didn't get there by itself and it didn't ask to be born. It was put there. It was invested. And that is idolatry.

Well, I did have to go to another link to find what you were talking about. I also found that YOU left something out of that link, but here it is for all to see.
— desecration
/ˌdɛsɪˈkreɪʃən/ noun [noncount]

• The law forbids desecration of the flag.
• Desecrate - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Not at all --- that's exactly where this examination of the term "desecration" BEGAN. Hoss brought it up, and I took the ball and ran with it.

Once AGAIN ---- you cannot "desecrate" something until you invest it with sacred power. I'll just keep posting that until it sinks in. Take your time.

Get it? Only "holy" objects can be desecrated, specifically because they have previously been consecrated.

THEREFORE --- if it is possible to "desecrate" a flag (or anything else) --- then that object *MUST FIRST* be regarded as "sacred".

And THAT IS IDOLATRY. It's also called "fetishism" although the latter doesn't necessarily involve "the sacred". It's investing feelings, honor and deity-qualities into an inanimate object. An object which obviously possesses NONE of those qualities, any more than a pencil does.

And there's no way around that.

Now what does all that mean?

It means that we have Congresscritter demagogues boldly trying to pass laws establishing a religion -- call it the religion of the sky-cloth god or whatever you want --- in spite of the United States Constitution's specific PROHIBITION of that in its First Amendment. And the Supreme Court strikes it down citing exactly that Amendment. And then they try another end-around, and again the SCOTUS strikes it down.

But the demagogues don't give up, they continue to weasel their way into erecting a sky-cloth god with Appeals to Emotion inciting mob mentality e.g. "fire the sumbitches", e.g. "break their knees with baseball bats", e.g demanding that a citizen "kiss a flag".

WHY do they persist with this demagoguery, trotting it out as a mandatory exercise before you can watch a baseball game played by Venezuelans and Dominicans and Japanese and Cubans and Canadians?

Because they know, as the "divine right" kings before Liberalism created that Constitution knew (and which is why Liberalism sprang up to oppose it) that when you impose a religion on the masses you can lead them around by the nose under fear of "blasphemy", "desecration", "fire the sumbitches", "kiss the flag" or whatever you'd like to call it. With a sacred object you can hoist and go "Look! Sacred object will get you! Booga booga!" -- you have control.

THAT is why they do it. It's all about control. It's all about obedience to the State. And that's also why the penalty for defiance is always ostracism, "fire the sumbitches", "break their knees", or in Starr's case hard labor in prison for having the temerity to defy a mob of yahoos bent on mob mentality emotion.

JUST SAY NO to that bullshit. It ain't gonna kill you to honor the First Amendment to your Constitution instead of genuflecting before some demagogues sky-cloth god. Capitulating to that sort of demagoguery, however, just might.

Again, Pogo, you misunderstand the 1st Amendment. It doesn't say you can deny religion. It says you can't favor one religion over another. That's where the SCROTUS is screwed up. Bunch of old, dying farts who are going to hell too.

First ten words:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"​

When you declare a fetish object to be capable of being "desecrated" --- ergo "sacred" --- you're establishing a religion. PERIOD. Which is why SCOTUS shooed it away --- because you can't do that.

IN GOD WE TRUST

So fickle. A few posts ago you were claiming to worship a piece of cloth; now you're back to "God".
I believe they're going to want you to pick one.

 

[Hossfly]

Those are metaphorical. What I posted was direct.

Besides which, your own link also reports:

>>
Definition of desecrate for English Language Learners

• : to damage (a holy place or object) : to treat (a holy place or object) with disrespect
  <<

Funny how you left that part out.

Again, the prefix de- negates the verb which refers to sacredness (derived from consecrate, to invest with sacredness)... ergo it means to nullify or negate the sacredness of (whatever). That sacredness didn't get there by itself and it didn't ask to be born. It was put there. It was invested. And that is idolatry.

Well, I did have to go to another link to find what you were talking about. I also found that YOU left something out of that link, but here it is for all to see.
— desecration
/ˌdɛsɪˈkreɪʃən/ noun [noncount]

• The law forbids desecration of the flag.
• Desecrate - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Not at all --- that's exactly where this examination of the term "desecration" BEGAN. Hoss brought it up, and I took the ball and ran with it.

Once AGAIN ---- you cannot "desecrate" something until you invest it with sacred power. I'll just keep posting that until it sinks in. Take your time.

Get it? Only "holy" objects can be desecrated, specifically because they have previously been consecrated.

THEREFORE --- if it is possible to "desecrate" a flag (or anything else) --- then that object *MUST FIRST* be regarded as "sacred".

And THAT IS IDOLATRY. It's also called "fetishism" although the latter doesn't necessarily involve "the sacred". It's investing feelings, honor and deity-qualities into an inanimate object. An object which obviously possesses NONE of those qualities, any more than a pencil does.

And there's no way around that.

Now what does all that mean?

It means that we have Congresscritter demagogues boldly trying to pass laws establishing a religion -- call it the religion of the sky-cloth god or whatever you want --- in spite of the United States Constitution's specific PROHIBITION of that in its First Amendment. And the Supreme Court strikes it down citing exactly that Amendment. And then they try another end-around, and again the SCOTUS strikes it down.

But the demagogues don't give up, they continue to weasel their way into erecting a sky-cloth god with Appeals to Emotion inciting mob mentality e.g. "fire the sumbitches", e.g. "break their knees with baseball bats", e.g demanding that a citizen "kiss a flag".

WHY do they persist with this demagoguery, trotting it out as a mandatory exercise before you can watch a baseball game played by Venezuelans and Dominicans and Japanese and Cubans and Canadians?

Because they know, as the "divine right" kings before Liberalism created that Constitution knew (and which is why Liberalism sprang up to oppose it) that when you impose a religion on the masses you can lead them around by the nose under fear of "blasphemy", "desecration", "fire the sumbitches", "kiss the flag" or whatever you'd like to call it. With a sacred object you can hoist and go "Look! Sacred object will get you! Booga booga!" -- you have control.

THAT is why they do it. It's all about control. It's all about obedience to the State. And that's also why the penalty for defiance is always ostracism, "fire the sumbitches", "break their knees", or in Starr's case hard labor in prison for having the temerity to defy a mob of yahoos bent on mob mentality emotion.

JUST SAY NO to that bullshit. It ain't gonna kill you to honor the First Amendment to your Constitution instead of genuflecting before some demagogues sky-cloth god. Capitulating to that sort of demagoguery, however, just might.

Again, Pogo, you misunderstand the 1st Amendment. It doesn't say you can deny religion. It says you can't favor one religion over another. That's where the SCROTUS is screwed up. Bunch of old, dying farts who are going to hell too.

First ten words:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"​

When you declare a fetish object to be capable of being "desecrated" --- ergo "sacred" --- you're establishing a religion. PERIOD. Which is why SCOTUS shooed it away --- because you can't do that.

IN GOD WE TRUST

So fickle. A few posts ago you were claiming to worship a piece of cloth; now you're back to "God".
I believe they're going to want you to pick one.

Ah, go fly a porch swing. My last post on this OP.

 

[Darkwind]

i think you are a little confounded.....many here over those 10 years have accused jake of not being what he claims he is....maybe after you have been here awhile and get to know whats going on you wont be so confounded....

It doesn't make sense that he would do that. What a monumental waste of fucking time. Why would a person spend 10 years and untold hours pretending to be a Republican on an internet forum? I won't say it's impossible because some people do some strange shit, but it seems infinitely more likely that he's just an outlier with an unusual set of views and that you and those others are just paranoid and created a conspiracy so you can ignore him based on your belief that he's illegitimate.

geezus ....you have no idea what im talking about do you?....you picked your name well....

Maybe you could elaborate and explain why my view on it is wrong?

ok will do it real slow....jake has always claimed he is a republican.......through the years he always seemed to side a great deal of the time with the left....still with me?....so many righties here have always accused him of NOT BEING what he claims he is.....hence his nickname....fakey jakey....now do you get it?...

Has Jake ever taken a conservative position? I put him on ignore about 8 years ago so I don't really know the answer to that.

 

[Pogo]

Well, I did have to go to another link to find what you were talking about. I also found that YOU left something out of that link, but here it is for all to see.
— desecration
/ˌdɛsɪˈkreɪʃən/ noun [noncount]

• The law forbids desecration of the flag.
• Desecrate - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Not at all --- that's exactly where this examination of the term "desecration" BEGAN. Hoss brought it up, and I took the ball and ran with it.

Once AGAIN ---- you cannot "desecrate" something until you invest it with sacred power. I'll just keep posting that until it sinks in. Take your time.

Get it? Only "holy" objects can be desecrated, specifically because they have previously been consecrated.

THEREFORE --- if it is possible to "desecrate" a flag (or anything else) --- then that object *MUST FIRST* be regarded as "sacred".

And THAT IS IDOLATRY. It's also called "fetishism" although the latter doesn't necessarily involve "the sacred". It's investing feelings, honor and deity-qualities into an inanimate object. An object which obviously possesses NONE of those qualities, any more than a pencil does.

And there's no way around that.

Now what does all that mean?

It means that we have Congresscritter demagogues boldly trying to pass laws establishing a religion -- call it the religion of the sky-cloth god or whatever you want --- in spite of the United States Constitution's specific PROHIBITION of that in its First Amendment. And the Supreme Court strikes it down citing exactly that Amendment. And then they try another end-around, and again the SCOTUS strikes it down.

But the demagogues don't give up, they continue to weasel their way into erecting a sky-cloth god with Appeals to Emotion inciting mob mentality e.g. "fire the sumbitches", e.g. "break their knees with baseball bats", e.g demanding that a citizen "kiss a flag".

WHY do they persist with this demagoguery, trotting it out as a mandatory exercise before you can watch a baseball game played by Venezuelans and Dominicans and Japanese and Cubans and Canadians?

Because they know, as the "divine right" kings before Liberalism created that Constitution knew (and which is why Liberalism sprang up to oppose it) that when you impose a religion on the masses you can lead them around by the nose under fear of "blasphemy", "desecration", "fire the sumbitches", "kiss the flag" or whatever you'd like to call it. With a sacred object you can hoist and go "Look! Sacred object will get you! Booga booga!" -- you have control.

THAT is why they do it. It's all about control. It's all about obedience to the State. And that's also why the penalty for defiance is always ostracism, "fire the sumbitches", "break their knees", or in Starr's case hard labor in prison for having the temerity to defy a mob of yahoos bent on mob mentality emotion.

JUST SAY NO to that bullshit. It ain't gonna kill you to honor the First Amendment to your Constitution instead of genuflecting before some demagogues sky-cloth god. Capitulating to that sort of demagoguery, however, just might.

Again, Pogo, you misunderstand the 1st Amendment. It doesn't say you can deny religion. It says you can't favor one religion over another. That's where the SCROTUS is screwed up. Bunch of old, dying farts who are going to hell too.

First ten words:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"​

When you declare a fetish object to be capable of being "desecrated" --- ergo "sacred" --- you're establishing a religion. PERIOD. Which is why SCOTUS shooed it away --- because you can't do that.

IN GOD WE TRUST

So fickle. A few posts ago you were claiming to worship a piece of cloth; now you're back to "God".
I believe they're going to want you to pick one.

Ah, go fly a porch swing. My last post on this OP.

You've served admirably as a straight man.

 

[Mousterian]

And he's hoisted the White Flag, and run away grumbling.
As with a lot of these extremists, only death will free them from their delusions.

 

[Hossfly]

And he's hoisted the White Flag, and run away grumbling.
As with a lot of these extremists, only death will free them from their delusions.

 

[Two Thumbs]

That attack on American education is simply your opinion, Two Thumbs. So what.

It's not the schools job to turn our children against the very country they live in.

I'm 51, my American history teacher spent 15 minutes on the Korean war so he could spend time bragging about how he lied and stole his way out of being drafted.

that was 1983 and the school already refused to do anything to him.

So your hasty generalization accurately describes American education?

considering how common it's become and the fact you have to ignore it, on purpose, to not know it's common...


seriously, the fact you're acting like it's not common is idiotic

 

[JakeStarkey]

That attack on American education is simply your opinion, Two Thumbs. So what.

It's not the schools job to turn our children against the very country they live in.

I'm 51, my American history teacher spent 15 minutes on the Korean war so he could spend time bragging about how he lied and stole his way out of being drafted.

that was 1983 and the school already refused to do anything to him.

So your hasty generalization accurately describes American education?

considering how common it's become and the fact you have to ignore it, on purpose, to not know it's common... seriously, the fact you're acting like it's not common is idiotic

Your anecdotal evidence is only that. I don't doubt that's how you remember it, but that is meaningless without more evidence.

 

[Harry Dresden]

i think you are a little confounded.....many here over those 10 years have accused jake of not being what he claims he is....maybe after you have been here awhile and get to know whats going on you wont be so confounded....

It doesn't make sense that he would do that. What a monumental waste of fucking time. Why would a person spend 10 years and untold hours pretending to be a Republican on an internet forum? I won't say it's impossible because some people do some strange shit, but it seems infinitely more likely that he's just an outlier with an unusual set of views and that you and those others are just paranoid and created a conspiracy so you can ignore him based on your belief that he's illegitimate.

geezus ....you have no idea what im talking about do you?....you picked your name well....

Maybe you could elaborate and explain why my view on it is wrong?

ok will do it real slow....jake has always claimed he is a republican.......through the years he always seemed to side a great deal of the time with the left....still with me?....so many righties here have always accused him of NOT BEING what he claims he is.....hence his nickname....fakey jakey....now do you get it?...

Has Jake ever taken a conservative position? I put him on ignore about 8 years ago so I don't really know the answer to that.

i can put it like this.....over those 8 years i have yet to see a righty here claim the guy as one of them....but that could be because he never has anything good to say about the right....nothing....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cons, a Q. What does the US Flag mean to you

 

[Wry Catcher]

It doesn't make sense that he would do that. What a monumental waste of fucking time. Why would a person spend 10 years and untold hours pretending to be a Republican on an internet forum? I won't say it's impossible because some people do some strange shit, but it seems infinitely more likely that he's just an outlier with an unusual set of views and that you and those others are just paranoid and created a conspiracy so you can ignore him based on your belief that he's illegitimate.

geezus ....you have no idea what im talking about do you?....you picked your name well....

Maybe you could elaborate and explain why my view on it is wrong?

ok will do it real slow....jake has always claimed he is a republican.......through the years he always seemed to side a great deal of the time with the left....still with me?....so many righties here have always accused him of NOT BEING what he claims he is.....hence his nickname....fakey jakey....now do you get it?...

Has Jake ever taken a conservative position? I put him on ignore about 8 years ago so I don't really know the answer to that.

i can put it like this.....over those 8 years i have yet to see a righty here claim the guy as one of them....but that could be because he never has anything good to say about the right....nothing....

What tangible good does the right do?

 

[Harry Dresden]

geezus ....you have no idea what im talking about do you?....you picked your name well....

Maybe you could elaborate and explain why my view on it is wrong?

ok will do it real slow....jake has always claimed he is a republican.......through the years he always seemed to side a great deal of the time with the left....still with me?....so many righties here have always accused him of NOT BEING what he claims he is.....hence his nickname....fakey jakey....now do you get it?...

Has Jake ever taken a conservative position? I put him on ignore about 8 years ago so I don't really know the answer to that.

i can put it like this.....over those 8 years i have yet to see a righty here claim the guy as one of them....but that could be because he never has anything good to say about the right....nothing....

What tangible good does the right do?

we are talking about jake wry not the right....i would expect that if a guy claims he is a republican that he would once in a while back them on something and other republicans would back the guy....show me one of those posts....i cant find one....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Maybe you could elaborate and explain why my view on it is wrong?

ok will do it real slow....jake has always claimed he is a republican.......through the years he always seemed to side a great deal of the time with the left....still with me?....so many righties here have always accused him of NOT BEING what he claims he is.....hence his nickname....fakey jakey....now do you get it?...

Has Jake ever taken a conservative position? I put him on ignore about 8 years ago so I don't really know the answer to that.

i can put it like this.....over those 8 years i have yet to see a righty here claim the guy as one of them....but that could be because he never has anything good to say about the right....nothing....

What tangible good does the right do?

we are talking about jake wry not the right....i would expect that if a guy claims he is a republican that he would once in a while back them on something and other republicans would back the guy....show me one of those posts....i cant find one....

I understood that, however, my question was generic. I can't think of a thing the right does that benefits We the People.