BCT Editorial – 6/26/05

This page was last updated on June 26, 2005.

Burning issue; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 26, 2005.

I agree there’s no need for an anti-flag burning amendment to the Constitution. Where the Times and I part company is in our reasons for opposing the amendment.

The Times is worried about how such an amendment would be enforced. That’s a pretty weak defense.

I believe the U.S. flag represents freedom and other American ideals. Symbols of these beliefs do not need protection of mere laws. Indeed, the U.S. flag demonstrates the power of American ideals by withstanding attacks. The flag is merely a physical representation of our ideals, not the ideals themselves. As such, it needs no protection.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Nationalists in the U.S. House of Representatives, few of whom have sons or daughters or grandchildren serving in the military in the war against terrorism and the occupation of Iraq let alone put their own bodies on the line, have decided that the nation needs an amendment to the Constitution to protect the American flag from being desecrated.”

[RWC] The way the author uses “nationalist,” you are led to believe there is something wrong with being a nationalist. According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, nationalism is “loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” What’s wrong with that?

Regarding “few of whom have sons or daughters or grandchildren serving in the military in the war against terrorism and the occupation of Iraq let alone put their own bodies on the line,” what’s the purpose of that comment?

“Never mind that 16 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was a form of political speech and therefore covered by the First Amendment, or that incidents of flag desecration are few and far between in the United States.”

[RWC] This is a pretty stupid argument. If the Supreme Court rules something is constitutional/unconstitutional, we shouldn’t take action to remedy the situation if it makes sense? Using the author’s logic, we should not have passed the 19^th Amendment giving women the right to vote because the Supreme Court already ruled denying women the vote was constitutional.

“As it is, reality is not being allowed to get in the way of the fast track of political opportunity.

“The New York Times reports the proposed amendment would exempt flag-desecration from the protection of the First Amendment by granting Congress ‘power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.’

“Instead of focusing on the actual need for this amendment or its constitutional consequences, let’s look at what would happen if this measure became the law of the land.

“To start with, what constitutes a flag and how is desecration defined?

“Would people violate the law if they burned a bed sheet that had been painted to look like the American flag? What if they burned to-scale cardboard replicas of the flag?

“What if they stomped on T-shirts or sweatshirts that clearly had white stars on a field of blue and red and white stripes? Would it be desecration to paint a black X on the flag or the circle-bar that is the international sign for ‘no?’

“Would those who did such things be prosecuted for desecrating representations of the flag?

“This brings up the punishment end of this alleged crime.

“What punishment should be meted out to flag desecraters? Would it be a crime or a misdemeanor?

“Should offenders be fined, as is the case with misdemeanors? And if they refused to pay their fines, as seems likely, would they be imprisoned? Or, after their arrest, are they treated as criminals?

“Do we want flag offenders doing hard time for what amounts to a nonviolent, political crime?

“That’s what they do in places like communist China, not the United States of America.

“True patriots understand that; the easy-answers nationalists who dominate the political landscape don’t.”

[RWC] This is intended to read that no “true patriots” support an anti-flag burning amendment. I could be wrong, but I suspect that is an incorrect assessment.

“Unfortunately, patriotism is on the wane and nationalism is on the rise in the United States. This measure is a reflection of that, and its outcome, if successful, would set the course for years to come.”

[RWC] I believe the author needs to reference his dictionary. According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, patriotism is “love for or devotion to one's country.” Patriotism and nationalism aren’t synonyms, but they’re pretty close.

It’s too bad the author didn’t provide any evidence to support his claim that “patriotism is on the wane.”

Regarding “nationalism is on the rise in the United States,” read the definition of nationalism and tell me how that is a bad thing if true.