Reject the flag amendment
Which makes the current debate over a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, sponsored by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a confusing argument over whether or not to protect the nation against a problem that doesn't exist.
It's more than that, of course. It's also an argument over whether or not to allow Congress to stifle a form of expression against the United States, which would violate one of the basic tenets of American freedom through the ages. This is a country in which people long have proudly touted the freedom to call their leaders and their government finks. It is no small irony that the flag represents, among other things, that precious freedom.
The flag-burning amendment (actually, it would merely authorize Congress to pass laws against flag desecration) has been tried before. This time, however, it is one vote short of passage, according to some measures. That is a small margin to overcome. The amendment already has passed the House by the necessary two-thirds vote. If the Senate passes it, 38 states would have to ratify it in order for it to become a part of the Constitution. Many people think such ratification would come easily.
To be sure, few things are as reprehensible as watching someone protest the government by burning a flag. While the flag is a symbol of American freedoms, it also is a symbol of the brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives to preserve those freedoms, and who continue to do so today in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
But protests against the American government and way of life take many forms. Those sentiments wouldn't disappear if flag desecration were illegal. American-style freedom always has relied on the idea that good ideas should rise on their merits, not by compulsion. Forced loyalty is worthless.
The flag-burning amendment comes too close to punishing disloyalty. It doesn't deserve a place in the nation's most hallowed document.
You can be the first to comment on this story.