NEWSCORE - A mob of angry protesters chased a would-be flag burner at Louisiana State University (LSU) off campus Wednesday to chants of "USA, USA."
Graduate communications student Benjamin Haas had earlier been given permission by the school to burn the flag. But because he lacked a local burn permit, he agreed instead to read a statement in an area of the university known as free speech alley.
As Haas read the statement, a crowd around him erupted into cheers and jeers, many shouting "Go to hell, hippie, go to hell."
"You had a lot of people on both sides of the debate getting into a lot of fights," said James Haralson, manager of Tiger TV, the university television station. "The students started yelling obscenities at him. People started throwing bottles at him."
Fox News reports that Haas' actions were in response to the arrest of another student, who was charged with taking and burning the American flag once posted at LSU's War Memorial. That incident came just hours after Osama bin Laden's killing by US Navy SEALS last week.
Haralson, who filmed the protest, said Haas was surrounded by police officers on horseback and as they protest swelled, they moved him to a safer location.
"At that point, all the students began rushing him, continuing to throw trash at him," he said. "He was finally escorted into a cop car in the street and students were banging on the cop car."
Fox News
I'm still not sure that this is not some sort of a joke or prank. If the crowd actions were those of the Left, then there would be no news coverage because they are so common. Conservative speakers are commonly threatened off the campus. But for patriotic responses like this to occur, it is either a prank or an indication of a sea change. Really, when did a Leftist ever need a burn permit?
5 comments:
The only two thing I'm passionately political about: drug legalization, and flag burning. Keeping flag burning legal, that is.
Who the hell burns flags anymore anyway?
I was at "Ask the Atheists" today and came across this thread on Deism.
The idea that a supreme being created the universe but has had no other interaction with it is called deism. This deist creator is highly specified and therefore highly unlikely. The universe may have a "cause", but it's quite a leap from there to say that this cause is at all god-like. To start with, a creator has some sort of personal identity, but it would be simpler to assume nothing or that the cause was more along the lines of a random fluctuation.
Deists often believe that the creator has some special intentions, such as making the universe suitable for intelligent life. The mere assertion that the cause of the universe is capable of having intentions is highly specific, entirely baseless, and how much worse to assume what intentions those might be! On what evidence!
So, the belief that the universe was caused by an intelligent being is highly suspect and should be rejected. If you do not hold this belief, or if you treat it as merely one possibility, then calling the cause of the universe "god" is very confusing. God, by any definition, is some sort of intelligent being, and you're not communicating your beliefs by misusing the word "god" to refer to your concept of first cause.
- "George Locke"
I think the clarification is on point. But, my favorite line here is "it would be simpler to assume nothing or that the cause was more along the lines of a random fluctuation."
I think I'm gonna buy something VERY expensive without telling my wife and when she sees it, I'll just say "the cause of this is more along the lines of a random fluctuation, honey. The quantum field produced this, didn't you know?"
Okay, Okay. Maybe not an accurate analogy, but, essentially all the same.
Interesting.
"The mere assertion that the cause of the universe is capable of having intentions is highly specific, entirely baseless, and how much worse to assume what intentions those might be! On what evidence!
So, the belief that the universe was caused by an intelligent being is highly suspect and should be rejected."
No amount of evidence can convince the pre-judicial of order in the universe pointing to intent over accident. It is always interesting that they rely on that order to facilitate a "science" which they claim leads to knowledge, all based on their basic cosmic accident.
So what they have to do is to merely deny evidence while also accepting it as the basis for their knowledge. Twisting is not a new phenomenon in Atheist thought processing: it is essential to twist the process, or it will not fit the narrative.
Always, always, the narrative comes first.
It all comes down to what constitutes "knowledge". It seems that, for the skeptic, knowledge is power. If one can't make a prediction and/or control phenomena, it is not knowledge. Period.
God/transcendence/non-temporality is all outside of humanity's "power", so it, in effect, doesn't exist.
To the relativist, knowledge of absolutes can only be a mechanism of oppression. It CANNOT exist for them.
Slavery with no hope of emancipation- bodily and mentally.
Excellent points!
Post a Comment