BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Thou shalt hold no red, white, and blue idols before me

6 comments on Thou shalt hold no red, white, and blue idols before me

Thou shalt hold no red, white, and blue idols before me
: I like this argument: Passing laws to forbid desecration of the flag is not only an unconstitutional infringement of free speech but also:

By elevating the flag to an object of transcendent veneration — an untouchable idol — the proposed amendment strikes at the core of Jewish, Muslim and Christian belief systems.

The Ten Commandments apply to Jews and Christians alike. Heading the list is the commandment to have no other god, meaning no other absolute allegiance. The Second Commandment extends that prohibition to veneration of material objects — it forbids “bowing down to” or worshipping graven images of any kind. The point of all this is that no temporal power is worthy of the veneration that must be reserved for God alone.

A virtually identical prohibition applies to Muslims. The First Pillar of their faith, repeated daily in prayers, is “There is no God but God and Muhammed is the messenger of God.” The greatest sin for a Muslim, comparable to idolatry for a Jew or Christian, is “shirk,” which means associating something with God. That includes associating a state or nation with God, or assigning transcendent importance to a symbol of that state or nation.

6 responses to “Thou shalt hold no red, white, and blue idols before me”

  1. Jeremy Avatar
    Jeremy

    Passing laws against things like polygamy (or marriage and divorce laws as a whole), human sacrifice, drug use, stoning people (er, with rocks, not the previous), etc, violates various religions as well. So there’s no prohibition against passing laws that religions don’t like or are against or “stikes at their core values” (nice bit of hyperbole, that).
    I mean, by the same logic, banks, stores, etc, could no longer charge interest. That’s technically against Islam, Christianity, and Judaism (or at least the first two, and both of those have taken that very seriously throughout history.)
    It also singles out 3 religions out of many. That’s wrong in of itself.
    It’s also theological debatable, at least from a Christian standpoint, but that’s another argument.

  2. Eye Opener Avatar
    Eye Opener

    “It also singles out 3 religions out of many.”
    Just for a possible eye opener, Jeremy, how would you feel about allowing Judaism, Christianity and Islam to be 3 chapters of THE SAME RELIGION? Not many, but 1? Revealed by (The Essentially Unknowable Creator) at different times and under different social conditions, but ALL being differing expressions of the same love of God, the same knowledge of God?
    Would that change some of the other assumptions brought to bear in your arguments? Would that imply that Jesus told the truth about the Coming happening a)when the Gospel was first taken to every nation, 1844; b)when the ‘times of the Gentiles’ was ended, Edict of Toleration, 1844; at the time that the ‘2,300-year prophecy of Daniel…Abomination of Desolation’ ended, counting from the Second Edict of King Artaxerxes in 457 BC?
    You see, it makes it Jesus-THREE, Christian clergy, ZERO. Especially when you consider the Holy One Who came, as Jesus promised, May 23rd, 1844. One religion, different chapters.
    Welcome to this New Day.

  3. Diana Avatar
    Diana

    Jeff,
    There are all kinds of flag laws.
    Judaism says, “the laws of the land are the law,” meaning, when the law of the country a Jew lives in conflicts with Jewish law, you must follow the law of the land. If there is a huge discrepancy, then the Jew must move.
    There’s no discrepancy between flag laws and Judaism.

  4. cheezwiz Avatar
    cheezwiz

    If I’m not mistaken, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have a similar belief system as regards not venerating anything worldly, including the American flag. (One kid I knew in school was of the JW persuasion and he alone got to sit out the Pledge of Allegiance; so if I’m mistaken, blame him. Or if you like you may blame me for not willingly having long discussions with the Witnesses when they make their rounds.)

  5. MadJayhawk Avatar
    MadJayhawk

    This is hogwash. The amendment could easily be opposed on the grounds that the words flag and desecrate are not defined and their definition is left up to the Congress to fill in the blanks for us. That could get scary. There is no need to oppose this amendment by dragging religion into the debate via the word desecrate which has legimate secular as well as religious meanings.
    This amendment is a no brainer for Congress. Only honest people who either are not running next term or are from super safe districts would oppose it. I pity the poor Congressperson who votes against it and runs in 2004.

  6. Camassia Avatar
    Camassia

    Back when this issue first came up — in the late ’80s, I think — I read a column in Christianity Today that made the same point. The author wrote that when he was growing up in Texas, religion and patriotism got blurred together quite a bit. At his Christian school they would start off each day by saluting the Cross and the flag in turn, and “God and country” were frequently spoken of in the same breath. While he didn’t go so far as to call this idolatry, he did criticize confusing America with “the kingdom of Christ.”
    I think that’s why, contrary to some of the comments here, it is worthwhile to “drag religion into it.” It’s not a legal or a constitutional argument, but it bursts the bubble of those who may think they’re doing the Christian thing in supporting the amendment.