The American flag is flying this weekend at our house. It’s a flag that has flown over the USS Arizona memorial in Pearl Harbor. We put it out on all the major holidays, especially the Fourth of July. And we’re not about to burn it to protest anything.
We recognize that the flag is only the symbol of an ideal, not the ideal itself. But Congress has chosen this time of year to revive its periodic attempts to make flag-burning an exception to the expressions of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
It’s a cynical ploy. Those who vote against a flag-burning amendment could be labeled unpatriotic the next time they’re up for election.
This time, thanks to Democrats like Colorado’s Salazar brothers, Senator Ken and Representative John, it may have the two-thirds vote necessary to send it to the states for ratification.
Mature, self-confident governments don’t need laws like this. It’s what one might expect of insecure, authoritarian regimes.
Ironically, this comes on the heels of a national debate about mistreating Korans. To many non-Muslims, it may seem overwrought of the Guantanamo prisoners to be so exorcized about the mistreatment of the holy book of Islam. The explanation for their fervor is that Islam does not regard the Koran as a mere publication but as an embodiment of the word of Allah.
Should the American flag be treated the same way? Is it the embodiment of a remarkably successful philosophy of governance? Does disrespecting the flag somehow damage that noble idea? Or is it just as overwrought to be so passionately protective of a symbol?
The most liberal of Colorado Democrats always have been suspicious of Ken Salazar. They worry that he could be another Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Democrat who is only too willing to go over to the Republican side when it’s politically advantageous. The senator’s support of the flag-burning amendment probably increases the number of Democrats who are having second thoughts about voting for him.
But he is joined by such liberal icons as Dianne Feinstein, the U.S. senator whose home is in San Francisco. As one of five Democrats co-sponsoring the amendment in the Senate, she has written: “I view the burning of our national flag as conduct – not speech – and I support the constitutional amendment that will treat it as such. I realize that, in order to avoid unduly infringing on legitimate forms of expression, the language of this amendment must not be vague or over-inclusive.”
In the Boy Scouts, we learned that the proper way to dispose of a flag was to burn it. This year, there was an elaborate flag “retirement” ceremony on Flag Day, June 14, which involved cutting dirty and tattered flags into pieces and burning the shards.
So why is this burning the ultimate way to put a flag out of commission and anything else a potentially illegal act? Apparently it comes down to what the burner is thinking as he lights the match. Is it a respectful cremation? Or is it a despicable insult?
In other words, the United States would punish people who have impure thoughts when they burn a flag as a form of political expression. Nothing could be further from the protections envisioned in the First Amendment.
And what, exactly, is a flag? Is it a cocktail napkin with red and white stripes and white stars on a blue background? And what of rodeo cowboys who wear star-spangled red, white and blue shirts as they roll around in the dirt and animal poop? Is that desecration?
One of the abiding principles of democracy is that critics should be allowed their say. The best response to their criticism is a reasoned counter-argument; the free exchange of ideas. Setting fire to a piece of cloth is an obnoxious way to engage in a debate, but it’s worse to respond to such obnoxiousness by tinkering with the nation’s basic principles.
This amendment is a bad idea. It’s wrong to honor the symbol by dishonoring the principle for which it stands.
