Originally Posted by 5kgLifter
Freedom is obviously a complicated issue since it appears to revolve around only being permitted to do what everyone else feels is correct, permissible, or more to the point "socially permissible" which by essence is not really freedom. He fought and died for her freedoms, as well as everyone else's, yes she should show some respect but insisting that she act in a set manner denies her the very freedom he fought for.
Exactly so. The US Supreme Court has spoken on similar issues, for example desecrating the flag
Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental fact that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.
Soldiers do not have freedom of speech - charges of insolence, etc prevent that. Soldiers do not have freedom of association - you can't form a military union, or join various militant organisations. And of course soldiers must obey orders. Soldiers give up freedoms to protect the freedoms of others.
Soldiers exist to risk their lives for others, to protect the civilian population. Soldiers die so civilians don't have to die. Soldiers die to protect civilians who hold them in contempt.
Soldiers don't expect gratitude or respect for this. Historically, soldiers have not been given either. 1 stupid girl flips the bird to a man's grave. But 1,000,000 others dodge their taxes, taxes which go to rehabilitate wounded soldiers or care for their graves or offer mental health treatment, and petition the government to end programmes which employ veterans - is that not also ingratitude and contempt? Should all those 1,000,000 people lose their jobs, too?
No. Her contempt for soldiers is at least open and honest, the contempt of most of the population for soldiers is sneaky and craven.