Date: Fri 07-Jul-1995

Publication: Bee

Author: CURT

Quick Words:

edink-flag-burning-July-4th

Full Text:

PROTECTING THE FLAG

The US Senate is currently considering a joint resolution already passed by

the Hous, that proposes an amendment to the Constitution that would give the

Congress and the states the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the

flag of the United States. The issue comes up routinely, and when Memorial

Day, Flag Day, and Independence Day come in quick succession in a year when

presidential politics is in the air, it is almost inevitable that someone will

start talking about cracking down on flag burners.

As we reflect on the meaning of independence in this week when we celebrate it

most, there is something that about this issue that seems artificial - and

article of politics and not principle. Comments made by Sen Bob Kerrey

(correct spelling) of Nebraska, one of the few bona fide war heroes in the

Senate, helped us understand why. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary

Subcommittee on this issue, Senator Kerrey took note of the almost

irresistable lure of this issue for politicians. ½It's easy to oppose a flag

burner,¾ he said. ½It's easy to get up and say `I've decided what I'm going to

oppose, what behavior I'm against. I'm against people who burn flags.' Well,

run the flag up for you. That takes an act of courage, doesn't it? To oppose

people who burn flags.¾

Sen Kerrey's point was that there are many difficult jobs in this world, and

true patriots tend to take them on, even in the face of great opposition and

overwhelming odds of success, or even survival. He pointed to the men who

marched into the gaping maw of Nazi hate and hostility on the beaches of

Normandy half a century ago. ½Those men who went in on D-Day in World War II

were young men who were given a basic amount of training and went in on a day

when the weather wasn't all that good. They conquered their fear of sickness

and their fear of dying. Those men had courage. They didn't succeed at D-Day

because they took on an easy job. They took on one that was tough, and we

revere them as a consequence.¾

House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who supports the amendment, explained on ½Larry

King Live¾ Monday night that the First Amendment surely could withstand this

one exception to free expression for the sake of protecting a revered symbol

of our freedom. This comment, however, pinpoints the one drawback in extending

constitutional protection beyond freedom itself to include a symbol of freedom

- even the most revered one.

In a society in which all ideas are fair game, in which expression is free and

unfettered, ideas, opinions, and ideologies compete on a level playing field.

That competition, quite often is made manifest in symbols. The value of

vigorous debate on the symbolic level is that rather than tearing each other

apart, we limit it to tearing each others ideas and symbols apart. So far in

its 200 year history, this nation has seen fit to leave freedom, and freedom's

flag in the rough and tumble competition of ideas and not to set it in some

protected place, beyond challenge and assault. In all this time, the flag and

the freedom its stands for have proven to be far more durable than any of the

pitiful ideologies espoused by flag burners.

No one appears more misguided, more pathetic, more singularly stupid than

someone in a free society using their freedom of expression to assail that

same freedom. Flag burners incinerate their own arguments. They are not a

threat to our country, and our Congress and our states should not give them a

special place in our Constitution where they are treated as such.

The proposed amendment to the Constitution is intended to be patriotic, but

ultimately, that may not be its effect. As Sen Kerrey pointed out, ½Respecting

the rights of individuals to express themselves is in the end one of the

freedoms that is associated with and a part of patriotism.¾