Defense of Burning the Flag
This is an excerpt from the paper...
"Joseph Goebbels," in the essay "The Torch of Freedom" presents a poorly reasoned defense of an act (burning the flag of the United States) which has been properly delineated by the Supreme Court as an expression of free speech as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The argument in the essay is full of fallacies and simply inaccurate statements, some minor and some very significant. Again, this reader agrees with the basic position of the paper---that the Supreme Court is correct in finding that burning the flag is protected by the Bill of Rights. However, the argument is undermined by many of the claims and "evidence" used to support that position. In fact, "Goebbels'" supporting claims are so fallacious, preposterous and/or outright incendiary and dangerous, that the result is to make a person agreeing with his basic position begin to rethink that agreement. The outrageous reasoning of the essayist calls to mind the semi-insane arguments of the various "militias" around the nation after the disasters of Waco and Oklahoma City. This analysis will take the essay at face value, ignoring the fact that the essayist is deliberately trying to provoke the reader's critical facilities with his ironic, facetious, and deliberately outlandish arguments. At the heart of the writer's argument is hypocrisy and irrationality. For example, the writer argues that the Court decision is correct because it affirms the First Amendment right to free speech. At the same time,
. . .
reedom." Then he puts Teddy Roosevelt at Dresden, Germany, in World War II, decades after his death, and misquotes him, replacing "Speak softly and carry a big stick" with "Speak freely and carry a big torch" (Goebbels 2). The insane suggestion is that the burning of Dresden by firebombing was an expression of Americans' freedom of speech.
He then begins what might be hoped would be a reasonable discussion of the symbolic nature of the flag. This would be especially pertinent today when President Clinton is attacking militia extremist by asking "How dare you call yourself patriots and heroes? If you appropriate our sacred symbols for paranoid purposes, . . . you are wrong" (Richter 1). Clinton refers to, among other sacred symbols, the flag. Goebbels argues that "there is nothing sacred about symbols anyway. Yes, our nation is sacred, but the flag is not" (Goebbels 3). His argument would be an interesting one---if it were not for the fact that he takes his views to such extremes, suggesting, for example, that the White House is also only a symbol and can and should be burned as well if it were a statement in favor of freedom!
Goebbels attacks as "paranoid alarmists" those who would suggest that other symbols could or should b
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, White House, Bill Rights, Lincoln Memorial, President Clinton, Oklahoma City, War II, Lincoln Goebbels, White House---and, Code United, supreme court, court decision, white house, lincoln memorial, burning flag, goebbels 4, supreme court decision, goebbels argues, goebbels makes, sacred symbols, goebbels 3, supreme court decisions, burning lincoln memorial, white house symbol, criticism supreme court,
Approximate Word count = 1601
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Defense of Burning the Flag
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
