What makes you thankful to live in a free country?

[jerseydevil]

BTW Nurv - I don't think it's a matter of not appreciating the freedoms (large AND small) we have - but that we basically take them for granted. I'm beginning to think that a lot of people are spoiled and don't really realize how great we have it here (meaning America, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc).

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well a lot of people don't consider it a religion. But anyway - it doesn't matter - the president doesn't decide what is or is not a religion anyway. I never heard him say he didn't consider it a religion though.

Well, a lot of people are wrong. Saying Wicca isn't a religion is like saying Christianity or Hinduism aren't religions! But anyway, that doesn't matter in this thread.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BTW Nurv - I don't think it's a matter of not appreciating the freedoms (large AND small) we have - but that we basically take them for granted. I'm beginning to think that a lot of people are spoiled and don't really realize how great we have it here (meaning America, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc).

I think we would only truly appreciate how good we have it if we had to live in a country that didn't have a lot of freedoms for a while. This isn't always a good idea/practical, but we can still try to do something to help the world, even something small. Maybe that would be a nice gesture of appreciation.

[Count Comfect]

I love the fact that we can argue about whether we appreciate our rights enough instead of arguing whether we should be given those rights (see: Belarus, other nations struggling to establish constitutional rule).
EDIT: It helps to spell Belarus right.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Something I find interesting with some people, is how they exercise their right and freedom not to stand for the national anthem, or to burn the flag, but give it no thought that that right is coming from the very thing they are protesting. But it's these kinds of rights and freedoms that make this country great.

[Rían]

Yeah, I agree, SGH - pretty dim-witted and selfish, IMO. At least now most soldiers get respect across the board, as opposed to back in the Vietnam days.

[Nurvingiel]

Well it's not completely irrational. Not that I'm about to burn my own flag (I love the flag!), but you can be extremely dissatisfied with your current government whilst at the same time appreciating your right to be extremely dissatisfied.

Personally, I think flag burning etc. is a bit too extreme, but people should have the right to do that (as long as, as JD pointed out earlier, they aren't vandalizing someone else's flag).

Now let's all go watch Born on the 4th of July, starring Tom Cruise. Protest the war, not the soldiers. That's my motto.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well it's not completely irrational. Not that I'm about to burn my own flag (I love the flag!), but you can be extremely dissatisfied with your current government whilst at the same time appreciating your right to be extremely dissatisfied.

Again, regardless of who is president or if there is an election - wstill have the same government. So I don't see where you can say - in terms of US - "dissatisfied with your current government". You can be dissatifified by some policy or congressional decision, but to be dissatisfied with the government would basically mean that you are against the Constitution. When people burn the flag in the US - it is against a symbol which stands for the freedoms they enjoy. The flag is not a symbol of our governmental entities (of congress, the president, the judicial branch) - it is a symbol of our country and the freedoms the constitution allows us to enjoy. It's the same with the Pledge of Allegiance and with the national anthem. It seems that many people do not understand this though. Our government isn't one person, nor is it a particular policy decision. Our government is the people of the United States and is the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I am however glad that we have the freedom to burn the flag, we also have the freedom to join the nazi party or the communist party or anything in between. There is only under one circumstance I would consider buring the US flag at this moment - that is if they had the nerve to make it illegal.

[Nurvingiel]

Okay, (now that I understand) replace "government" with "administration" in my post. That's what I really meant.

I agree with you about the flag though JD. I would probably never burn the flag, but I'd burn something if our government made flag-burning illegal.
EDIT: Maybe a flag effigy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Okay, (now that I understand) replace "government" with "administration" in my post. That's what I really meant.

The flag doesn't represent the adminstration either. It is OUR flag - our country's flag. The flag that represents the freedoms we enjoy in the Constitution. You burn the flag - it's shows a hatred and distain for the people of America and the Constitution and the freedoms it represents. Wheh we see people buring our flag across the world - it doesn't show that they hate our government - it shows that they hate us as a people. You may be disconnected from your government, from your flag - but it means something entirely different in the US. So again - burning the flag does not demonstrate a hatred toward a particular policy decision.

[Hemel]

S'pose it depends on what is meant by 'free'. Those of us fortunate enough to be in particular societies don't necessarily have to look over our shoulders all the time ... who's listening, who's watching ... and yes, there are a lot of things we can do that in other places would not be accepted and would even lead to the most severe punishments.

But although there is apparent freedom in the macrocosm this way (and let's be fair, it isn't total freedom because there will be some things that cannot be done, some things that we will not even think of doing because we have been taught not even to consider such possibilities, some things that we can do only to a certain extent) I'd suggest that the microcosm is very different. A clear and obvious example is those who are disadvantaged in some way ... maybe they don't have enough money actually to do the things that in theory they could. Even afford nail polish ...

But the microcosm I specifically want to address, and this perhaps comes under the 'teenage stress' thread as well, is the fearful pressure to conform, and the reprisals that happens if you don't. I'm basing this on tales I hear from one of my cousins, still at school. That cousin and her sibling both happen to be creative people - they also tend to be rather different in the way they express themselves. Nothing too wild, nothing too extraordinary ... simply occasional expressions in dress, in the things they say, critiques they bring. Both of them tend to eschew material possessions. One of them is gay. And what happens? They get denigrated, mocked, laughed at by their peers - one became totally isolated, convinced she was worthless, and ended up needed psychotherapy - and still has severe problems now - the other underwent bullying so severe that she ended up in hospital. Both of them did themselves considerable harm and both were suicidal at one or several times. They have theoretical freedom to be who and what they wish ... but in practice for them it's very different.

Or - another specific incident that happened in class. This was a discussion on which particular perspective students found most appealing. Various things were cited - conservative, liberal, post-modern - but when one girl said feminist she was immediately downcried by a number of the boys. The teacher (female) effectively sided with the girl. However, when, in a subsequent lesson on political movements some of the boys decided to form a 'masculinist' party, complete with logo and manifesto the (different) teacher (male) was angry. He failed to see that it was a good critique, he failed to see that some of the things they'd said were amusing, he failed to praise them for a certain degree of independent thought (albeit reactive). Indeed, he censured them.

Both of these examples, in my opinion, reveal the weight that is put upon us all to conform, with what is deemed acceptable, with what is deemed correct. So yes, we have very many freedoms - and far more than a number of other societies. But I'm not convinced that we're necessarily as free as we might be.

[Rían]

Great post on the horrors of conformity

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

excellent post hemel, i agree wholeheartedly, and from perosnal experience.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Hemel

S'pose it depends on what is meant by 'free'. Those of us fortunate enough to be in particular societies don't necessarily have to look over our shoulders all the time ... who's listening, who's watching ... and yes, there are a lot of things we can do that in other places would not be accepted and would even lead to the most severe punishments.

But although there is apparent freedom in the macrocosm this way (and let's be fair, it isn't total freedom because there will be some things that cannot be done, some things that we will not even think of doing because we have been taught not even to consider such possibilities, some things that we can do only to a certain extent) I'd suggest that the microcosm is very different. A clear and obvious example is those who are disadvantaged in some way ... maybe they don't have enough money actually to do the things that in theory they could. Even afford nail polish ...

You seem to be one of the many people who have a problem decerning the difference between freedom and the feeling of entitlements. There is NO guarantee that you will get the job you wish, that you will have the money you wish, or that you will succeed at what you wish to do - however - you are free to try - and you are free to fail.

But the microcosm I specifically want to address, and this perhaps comes under the 'teenage stress' thread as well, is the fearful pressure to conform, and the reprisals that happens if you don't. I'm basing this on tales I hear from one of my cousins, still at school. That cousin and her sibling both happen to be creative people - they also tend to be rather different in the way they express themselves. Nothing too wild, nothing too extraordinary ... simply occasional expressions in dress, in the things they say, critiques they bring. Both of them tend to eschew material possessions. One of them is gay. And what happens? They get denigrated, mocked, laughed at by their peers - one became totally isolated, convinced she was worthless, and ended up needed psychotherapy - and still has severe problems now - the other underwent bullying so severe that she ended up in hospital. Both of them did themselves considerable harm and both were suicidal at one or several times. They have theoretical freedom to be who and what they wish ... but in practice for them it's very different.

Or - another specific incident that happened in class. This was a discussion on which particular perspective students found most appealing. Various things were cited - conservative, liberal, post-modern - but when one girl said feminist she was immediately downcried by a number of the boys. The teacher (female) effectively sided with the girl. However, when, in a subsequent lesson on political movements some of the boys decided to form a 'masculinist' party, complete with logo and manifesto the (different) teacher (male) was angry. He failed to see that it was a good critique, he failed to see that some of the things they'd said were amusing, he failed to praise them for a certain degree of independent thought (albeit reactive). Indeed, he censured them.

Both of these examples, in my opinion, reveal the weight that is put upon us all to conform, with what is deemed acceptable, with what is deemed correct. So yes, we have very many freedoms - and far more than a number of other societies. But I'm not convinced that we're necessarily as free as we might be.

You are free NOT to conform though and many people choose not too. Anyway - you haven't said anything you are happy for regarding the freedoms you enjoy and what you stated isn't even a matter of freedom - it's a matter of your own choosing. The government isn't saying you must conform - that you must buy a certain kind of clothing or act a certain way.

It's ironic how so few peopel can look at the good things and only can think of bad things to post- which ironically have nothing to do with freedom anyway. Oh well - it just shows what a negative outlook people have I think.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yeah, I agree, SGH - pretty dim-witted and selfish, IMO. At least now most soldiers get respect across the board, as opposed to back in the Vietnam days.

I still see a lot of "anti-soldier" attitudes among some of my acquaintances. I remember one of my coworkers (who is my age) comment on how he saw some soldiers in gear getting food or something, so he started chanting "Go back to Iraq, go back to Iraq" and then swore at them. He went on an angry diatribe about the war and the like. A lot of the people he was talking to were at least mildly angered. I remember saying something like "that was incredibly rude. I know a lot of people in the military aren't necessarily supportive of the war, but they're doing their JOB and following orders." He replied with "Well, what about the officers?" He shut up pretty quickly when I asked him if any of the soldiers he was taunting were high ranking officers.

On topic:

I'm grateful that I can show my face and hair, go to a university, choose whether or not I wish to have children and at what time, choose my romantic partners without being forced into any relationship, and be able mingle with the opposite sex without having people consider me a whore or the like. I would go NUTS if I could only be in the company of women.

[Hemel]

Edited - Oops, double post thanks to computer glitch

[Hemel]

Well, if you say so, JD. Though I think that you will find the things I cited have a lot to do with freedom in practice. I think too that you might discover beneath the examples the working of powerful ideologies ... as I said, freedom is not absolute and our freedoms, even our thoughts, are shaped - even if we ourselves don't think so.

Anyway, I'd like to ask a couple of questions, as we've been talking about the American flag. I have several family in the USA, one of whom is another cousin. This cousin wished to fly the Union Flag on a little stick on the wall by his front door. I gather that he was told to remove the Union Flag, that he could fly it only if the US flag were also flying, the UFlag was not bigger than US flag, and they were at at least the same level in height, but if not then the US flag must be higher. Firstly, is this sort of thing actually true? And secondly, if it is, then does this have any ramifications for the considerations of a free country?


Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

[Count Comfect]

That is part of the US flag code, I believe. However, it's pretty common in all countries to require that their flag be flown within their borders if another flag is being flown - comes out of an old tradition that what flag you fly indicates your allegiance (which is still generally true). I don't think it has too much impact on freedom, personally.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Hemel

Well, if you say so, JD. Though I think that you will find the things I cited have a lot to do with freedom in practice. I think too that you might discover beneath the examples the working of powerful ideologies ... as I said, freedom is not absolute and our freedoms, even our thoughts, are shaped - even if we ourselves don't think so.

Of course you will be influenced by things around you - but that is not a lack of freedom. And no - I don't think they have to do with freedom in practice.

And again you still don't mention any freedoms you enjoy which you are happy for - which is the sole purpose of this thread. Again - I guess it's too difficult for some people to look around and appreciate things. It's easier to bitch than to feel appreciation for the things one has.

Anyway, I'd like to ask a couple of questions, as we've been talking about the American flag. I have several family in the USA, one of whom is another cousin. This cousin wished to fly the Union Flag on a little stick on the wall by his front door. I gather that he was told to remove the Union Flag, that he could fly it only if the US flag were also flying, the UFlag was not bigger than US flag, and they were at at least the same level in height, but if not then the US flag must be higher. Firstly, is this sort of thing actually true? And secondly, if it is, then does this have any ramifications for the considerations of a free country?

And yes -there is protocol on the flying of the flag. As there are with all flags. The flag must not touch the ground, must not be lower than any other flag, etc.

As to the comment about flying the Union jack - there isn't a problem with flying other flags, just as long as the protocols are adhered to on the display of the American flag. For instance - there is a colonial house in Kingston and they fly both the American flag and the Union jack - they're both the same size and they're on either side of their door.

The flag is more than just a piece of clothe - it represents the soveriegn terrority of where it flies. So as with CC - I don't see how that has a bearing on freedom, by having rules on how a flag can be flown.

Service Flag/American Flag Rules and Tips
UNITED STATES CODE
Flag Rules and Regulations
Boy Scouts of America

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

I'm thankful to live in America because anyone who's anti-American and lives in America is concidered nutty, at least by me.

I've only seen a flag burned once. A flag was retiring and there was a long cermony.

Originally Posted by LCoU

thankful for right to follow whatever political ideology i like

That too.

[Hemel]

Thank you

Well, as I say, it depends on how one defines freedom.

I was particularly interested in the flag situation because it seems we had a couple of incidents over here where people were asked to remove St George or Union Flags in case they were considered offensive by ethnic minorities. In both these instances (the US one and the UK one) freedom to do exactly as we might wish was constrained.

btw, I note my freedom to use the term 'USAmerican' has also been constrained as my post above was edited so that the word became merely 'American' and my abbreviation 'USAm' has been rendered 'US'. Perhaps my point that freedom is not absolute has been demonstrated?