I am curious.
I have been having fun with CoG by using adjectival curse words with the constitution.
He got really upset.
It was just me having fun stirring a hornets nest, it provoked the reaction I expected.
It then made me remember you in the US take your constitution very seriously.
You seem to take it so seriously it is treated like the Word of God.
It makes me wonder whether the constitution is a servant of the people or the people are a servant of the constitution.
It makes me wonder whether the constitution is treated in the same way as fanatical Muslims or Christians treat the bible.
Never to be questioned.
I'm not talking about whether it is a good constitution or not (I believe it is an excellent constitution), but whether it should be treated so reverentially.
I asked my son, who has studied politics and knows a bit about the US constitution.
He said americans are nuts the way they venerate the constitution, it is because they have nothing else, they don't have any tradition.
Also he said americans don;t even believe in it, the constitution has a very clear separation between church and state, and yet they are constantly being mixed in practice.
In the US I understand it is an offence to burn the stars and stripes, and you are likely to be prosecuted. Similarly you cannot burn a dollar note.
In the UK nobody would care if you burnt the union jack. I think there may be an old law which forbids burning an image of the monarchy, but nobody would dream of enforcing it. We have a lot of old useless laws on the statute books.
note - I am not promoting any of these activities, just noting the differences in approach. I was disgusted when the greeks burnt the stars and stripes a few years ago (I think it may even have been following 9/11).
So, can anybody explain why the constitution has such quasi-religious significance, and why freedom of speech is restricted?
When I come through immigration I am always reminded that I have to keep my mouth shut on certain issues.
The son of Pink Floyd guitarist Gilmour was prosecuted and jailed for things he did in a demonstration whilst drugged up, but I think he was prosecuted for throwing a bin through the window of a car (which happened to be carrying senior members of the royal family, which was irrelevant from the point of view of the law) and smashing a shop window rather than disrespecting a war memorial.
Just curious.
I guess in the UK our religion is freedom of speech.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...e-Gilmour.html
On sentencing the judge said:
Judge Nicholas Price QC said Gilmour's behaviour at the Cenotaph was "deeply offensive" and that his actions had caused public outrage.
He added that to "ignore what you did would be wrong, but to sentence you on it would be improper".
which I think supports the fact that denigrating the flag may be very offensive to most people (including me), but it is not illegal.
Similarly, this kind of nonsense
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rincesses.html
is treated with the derision it deserves. What a tosser the queen is. No, I don't believe in the divine right of kings and queens.
Religion and the constitution
