Flag Burning: A Political Statement

By: Bridge Madison
Submitted: 2007-01-17 16:24:14
Print this article | Tell a friend | For publisher |

Rating:

 

Am I against burning the American flag? Yes. Am I for any amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the burning of the American flag? Absolutely not. The only conceivable reason any individual can have for burning the flag is to show his or her disgust with our government. That’s a political statement. Do people have reason to be disgusted? You bet. Any government that calls itself a democracy but promotes free speech only when it is convenient and supportive is disgusting. If conservatives are so incredibly fearful of opposing views, then they need to develop a thicker skin.

In a recent article, Senate Opens Flag-Burning Debate, CNN reported that our democratic government is currently discussing a proposed Constitutional amendment which would allow Congress to prohibit desecration of the American flag. Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, whom I have found at times to be a reasonable man, actually supports this amendment because he sees no “social value” in flag burning.

“Flag burning is a form of expression that is spiteful or vengeful,” he said. “It is designed to hurt. It is not designed to persuade.”

If that’s the criteria for the prohibition of things, what’s next? Maybe Congress will pass a law restricing the publication of hateful and spiteful books not designed to persuade, but written solely for the purpose of hurting, shocking and making money. I’m thinking, for example, of Ann Coulter’s recent cage-liner, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, in which she makes some very hateful comments against liberals and others; or maybe Senator Specter sees her outrageous comments regarding the 9/11 widows as having social value.

You see, Senator Specter, Miss Coulter and all you conservatives who agree with revising our country’s Constitution for your own political ends, that’s the problem with restricting free speech: you can’t offer any argument, any adequate support, any words at all that can’t be used against you, the President, Congress, or any citizen anywhere to shut you up as well. That’s the problem with making new laws, they apply to all of us, right? Or will conservatives be exempt? Now, that wouldn’t be very democratic.

Free speech is intended to protect controversial and even outrageous words; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.

– General Colin Powell

The President and the Republican Congress continue their attempts to re-write the Constitution. Frankly, they aren’t up to the task. They don’t have the foresight the writers of the original Constitution possessed. They don’t have a clear understanding of democracy as something that must equally apply to everyone, not just to those who say or do as conservatives please. They’ve forgotten the true and only definition of American values, replacing traditional principles such as liberty, freedom, equality and tolerance, with something they also call family values which seek to control the way people conduct themselves in private, especially in the bedroom. Does anyone really want Congress in their bedrooms? Personally, I’m not that pressed for company.

Worst of all, through these efforts to re-write the Constitution, the President and the Republican Congress give the false impression of working on important issues, while avoiding any real work, anything truly meaningful, life-altering or beneficial to the American people, though stifling free speech is arguably life-altering. I really wish they would stop wasting time and taxpayer money on revising a 200-year-old document. It’s waited this long, people. We have more pressing matters. The best way to stifle discord is to fix the problems causing discord.

Somewhere over the rainbow is that perfect place where everyone agrees with everyone else and says and does kind things. I think I understand Conservatives now. They want to create that world by force — or at least by an act of Congress. They want a Stepford community with a bunch of Stepford Wives flittering around in their aprons baking cupcakes and ironing their husband’s underwear. There’s only one problem: way before Republicans declared a war on terrorism, they declared a war on drugs, and the only way to have this perfect community of Brave New Stepford where there are no unkind words or discord is to medicate the populace. Ironically, that perfect world is worth having only if people behave that way of their own volition.

Creating laws restricting the non-violent ways people protest breaks down democracy. It’s offensive and unConstitutional. Simply amending the Constitution won’t fix that. The only way that a prohibtion on flag burning could be Constitutional is if Congress seeks to abolish freedom of speech altogether.

No. I don’t like it when anyone burns the American flag, but the minute our government passes any law that prohibits flag burning, that flag is worth nothing.

[Add your comments to "Flag Burning: A Political Statement."]

Bridge Madison is a writer and political commentator with backgrounds in corporate and professional liability law, critical analysis, and cultural studies. Visit author's blog site: AmericanValues101.Org.

Article source: Expert Articles