clarification.
why i support flag burning.
[*]there is only one solid reason in my mind as to why people are against burning the american flag. ok, there are those who simply do not support burning anything, and i suppose if they are going to make a blanket anti-burning statement then flags will be included in that. notwithstanding that argument, however, there seems to be only one reason: burning the flag dishonors the flag, therefore dishonoring the united states. and dishonoring the united states is a bad thing.
[*]first of all, the flag, in and of itself, is a simple piece of fabric. any symbolism attached to it is a pure human construct. the essence of a flag is not its inherent american-ness - it is simply the fabric it is made of. burning a piece of fabric is not akin to burning the united states. what's more, if we are allowed to attach a symbol as grandiose as 'the essence of american life' to the flag, then we sure as hell can deconstruct that symbol, or express distate at american life in general, by burning away the flag. free speech is not a form of birth control - if we are going to claim it as a principle of american civil society, then we are going to claim it unconditionally.
[*]more foundationally, dishonoring the united states is only a bad thing if the definition of a 'good american' is one who never questions or criticizes the states, and moreover, if a 'good american' is something to be aspired to. the idea of honoring one's state, to me, is a dubious one, given that [a] we've constructed the notion of 'state' ourselves, and [b] we seem to forget that it is ourselves who actually make up the state. honoring a state implies that there is some sort of essence of state floating about somewhere. and what is a 'good american', by the way? if a good american adheres to the founding principles of the united states, and if one of those principles is freedom of speech, then he or she should be critical of the state as a way of attempting to better it. dissent can only add to the range of opinion. why, again, are we forced to be good americans in the first place? i'll burn a flag to that.
why i am an atheist.
[*]simply put, a supreme being of any kind does not exist. the reality that exists around us is a socially constructed reality, and the notion of god is a socially constructed one. there is no such thing as an 'essence' that stands at an archimedean point outside of this world or any other. even if there were, we would have absolutely no way of knowing because of our inability to access that type of 'truthful' [if we can even use that word] knowledge outside of pure belief and speculation.
[*]a more concrete argument as to why i am not christian or jewish [or even muslim]: take the bible. written very long after even the last historical events occurred. yes, some of the events are historically accurate - but there is a difference between historical accuracy and absolute truth. let's not forget the number one problem - the bible was written by men. it is speculation. not one of the writers [and of course there were many] actually witnessed any of the events written about, much less has the authority to quote anyone directly. i have no problem with the bible as a metaphor, as inspiration, as a story with deeper meanings - but if this is acknowledged then at the same time it must be acknowledged that the bible was written by men with the intention of being interpreted as a story with multiple meanings rather than as a spiritual authority. to accord it divine inspiration is to ignore its own historical truth.
[*]in the end, i can't argue with faith - argument is rational dialogue, and faith is inherently irrational. there's no way for the two to speak to each other. but i can argue with blind belief in a social construct.
why i do not support the united states military.
[*]ok, that's a bit unfair. the military has done some wonderful, courageous, awe-inspiring things, and national defense on the whole is a desirable thing. but really now - the military is not the defender of the freedom, nor the guarantor of the constitution. it is not the soldier who provides constitutional stability. a soldier is a mercenary, a paid war machine. there are idealists [and ideologues] in the military, as with all professions - but it is not the soldier who is directly responsible for the provision of constitutional freedoms to the citizens of the united states.
[*]wake up! the constitution, and the politics surrounding it, are the real guarantors of the american version of freedom. freedom of speech exists because the constitution declares it necessary and the court system constantly defines and reaffirms this declaration. americans are free to travel because the constitution and lawmakers have decided that it is appropriate and acceptable. soldiers are the practical mechanism for national defense, and so they are responsible for the continued physical existence of the united states. without them the american type of freedom wouldn't exist, but then again, neither would we. if you want to be reverent of soldiers for some reason, be reverent for their desire to die in order for you to survive - but beyond that they can do nothing. the survival of constitutional freedoms is dependent upon the existence of politics and those willing to participate within the public sphere.
[*]one last thing - the military right now is a puppet to dubya's war strategies. this is nothing new. the military is always a puppet to the president's foreign missions. however, since i *do not* in any way support generalissimo bush, i also do not support his appointments to key decision-making positions within the military leadership. there's your non-theoretical argument.

i thought it necessary to put these on the table so as to back up and enable future bitching sessions.

and please don't stick thy servants, lord,
in a rotissomat.
[monty python, "o lord please don't burn us"]