 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here we go again...
Once more riding full-charge into the breach, the House of Representatives has voted in favor of a Constitutional amendment to stop folks from burning their flags whenever, however, and why ever they choose to do so. For emotionally charged issues, this one ranks right up there with drugs, abortion, and discrimination. Facts, principles, and consistency are tossed out the window as proponents attempt to push their agendas onto an unwilling public.
The proposed Constitutional amendment is one backed by the American Legion. It has the (single) virtue of being short: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
Right away we run nose-first into a few problems with this sentence.
First of all, what will be the penalty if someone does the "prohibited" and "physically desecrates" the flag? Will he be fined? Imprisoned? Shot and killed? We should think long and hard on any law that attempts to halt behavior that violates no one's rights, that is, does not initiate coercive force against someone else.
Secondly, what precisely will qualify as "physical desecration"? My Webster's says that to desecrate something is to "divest of sacred...character or office." It includes actions that "divert [X] from a sacred to a profane use or purpose" or that treats "X" with sacrilege.
Well, that's a start. But what does it mean to be "profane" or "sacrilegious"?
The "profane" is "characterized by irreverence or contempt for...sacred principles or things." It also refers to that which is "secular," "common or vulgar." You're "profane" if you misuse, defile, debase, or employ unworthily "anything that should be held in reverence or respect" or treat it with contempt. ("Sacrilege" pretty much covers the same conceptual territory.)
You have to hand it to today's politicos. Leave it up to them to serve up a single sentence that strikes at the very heart of our Constitution and freedoms.
Given past experience on how those in power can twist things into the worst conceivable incarnation, you would no longer be "permitted" to have, say, a swimsuit decorated in stars and stripes. How "sacred" is viewing a flabby behind swathed in the flag? What about those silly straw hats, balloons, and "flag" shirts that the attendees of presidential nominating conventions purchase in great quantities? Making a buck off the flag? Sounds pretty secular to me. Shall we outlaw flag napkins? Wiping greasy fingers and lips on the flag could well be construed as defilement.
What about those radical souls who do find the flag unworthy of "reverence of respect"? Is their demonstration of contempt for a flag they dislike to be squashed? Apparently so. The protesters who torched the Stars and Bars because it "represents slavery" certainly have their vociferous counterparts when it comes to the Stars and Stripes. After all, the latter flew over a slave nation far longer than did the Confederate flag.
I assume "physical" desecration refers to tearing or burning the flag. Of course, how will you decide whether the ripping or burning is "sacrilegious"? What if someone merely burns the flag or cuts it up without saying a word? Are the authorities to be mind-readers now, imbued with the ability to ferret out intent and emotions from within the dark chambers of a transgressor's mind?
(Oops. I forgot. Our overlords already believe they possess that mystical ability when it comes to exposing "hate" crimes.)
What if you burn the flag on your own lawn? In your basement, alone? Will the SWAT teams come barging in, machine guns cocked and ready as they stop your depravity?
What if you claim you're just burning the flag as you're supposed to because it's all tattered and old but deep within your heart you're laughing at the chumps seeking to arrest you? Will the cops decide you're lying and bust you anyway? What if you resist?
Third, what does it really mean to talk about "the flag" of the United States? Usually "the" refers to a specific thing. Where does "the" flag of the United States hang? Gee, I could understand why the politicians might resist someone coming into that unknown place to "physically desecrate" that flag. That would be a criminal act of destruction.
Of course, I am blissfully unaware of any such single real flag that is "the" flag.
What those models of propriety in Congress mean, of course, is that they want to prohibit the physical "desecration" of any and all flags, and, especially, those flags that belong to private citizens who oppose the might, power, and wisdom of the United States government.
That action is what these people really want to prohibit. The tin-dictators of the world just hate it when you oppose their prerogatives, when you threaten -- no matter how ineffectually -- their dominion over the plebeians, i.e., you and me.
If they were truly concerned solely with people burning U.S. flags, then that's what they should say: "No citizen of the United States may burn or otherwise destroy or damage his flag without the express permission of us, your bosses."
Nope, nope. Can't see it happening.
These "leaders" seek to outlaw freedom of expression. I realize the First Amendment is none too popular among the sheeples in this country (where nearly half oppose its provisions), but you'd hope for better from men and women who have sworn to uphold the Constitution. Rather than prohibiting "flag burning," this amendment would, in the full course of time and via the back door, repeal the First Amendment.
But the politicians are too cowardly to do any such thing openly and honestly.
The First Amendment was designed specifically to protect unpopular ideas and, specifically, expressions of those thoughts. Contempt, disdain, irreverence for the flag may not be nice. Neither is vulgarity, profanity, or debasement. Still, the First Amendment means squat if it protects only notions endorsed by the Great Unwashed.
If you don't like what others do or say, ostracize them, ignore them, argue with them, denounce them.
But don't cut off your own nose in a fruitless attempt to spite their faces.
In a story reported by Jim Abrams of the Associated Press (7-18-01), Representative Henry Hyde is quoted as saying that, "Vandalizing a no-parking sign is a misdemeanor, but burning a flag is a hate crime, because burning the flag is an expression of contempt for the moral unity of the American people."
Whoa! Talk about your load of...non sequitur and begging the question. Vandalism (as a crime) is damaging someone else's property; in this example, a sign owned by the State. (We'll leave aside for the moment the problems with the State "owning" anything.) But since when is it a crime to damage your own property? If I want to smash my stereo, what law have I broken? Whose rights have I violated?
Notice also Hyde's use of "a" flag (i.e., your flag) then the abrupt switch to "the" flag. So "a" flag now is equivalent to that mythical "the" flag? Nor does he question for a second the validity of "hate" crimes. And since when has there ever been "moral unity" in this country? What fantasy world does Hyde inhabit that he believes such a nonsensical notion? I know he missed the War Between the States. Did he miss the Sixties, too? Or the last presidential election?
If he merely refers to you burning someone else's flag, then the need for a Constitutional amendment evaporates. Deliberately destroying the property of others is already covered under the penal code.
"The" flag is a symbol. Period. It is physically impossible to destroy an abstraction. Forgive me, but any person has the right to show contempt, disrespect, or any other attitude he prefers to a symbol.
My father served in Europe in WW II, so I understand the emotional connotations people have for the flag. I respect the original ideals symbolized by the flag. I wouldn't wantonly destroy my own flags. Not yet, anyway. (Though I have decided to forego saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" after learning of its statist origins...though even that modest act of rebellion can get you punished if you're a student in some state-run schools.)
I'll say it again: Protesters do not burn the U.S. flag. They burn a U.S. flag. Assuming the flag is their personal property, they have a right to dispose of that property as they see fit...on their own property (though not necessarily elsewhere).
Respect for property rights is a fundamental foundation for a free society. Once you grant the principle that one group of people may dictate to other people how they may or may not peacefully use their property, there is no stopping that process. Without the recognized and respected right to decide how to use (or misuse) your property, you become nothing more than a serf, acting only in ways sanctioned by those with more power than you.
Sadly, respect for property rights has become virtually nonexistent in this country. Governments at all levels tell us how to utilize our homes and our property. Politicians tell us what we can or cannot buy or sell or build. They can even decree what color we may paint our homes. Our income is seen as not belonging to us but rather to the government that permits us to keep some small percentage of what we earn. We become part-time slaves as others dictate how our work, how our lives will be led. Whether the issue is gun rights, the food we eat, who we can hire or fire, or any other peaceful behavior, government seeks to intrude its tendrils into every nook and cranny of our existence.
Freedom demands that we fiercely protect unpopular opinions and unpopular choices or it means nothing. Protecting the "safe" is no test of liberty. Each of us has the right to be wrong. The proper role of government is to protect our rights, to respect our moral autonomy, to guarantee the conditions that enable each of us to be free. Government has no right to impose one set of morality on us all...because that always boils down to the biggest, strongest gang imposing its will on the rest of us.
I respect the freedom symbolized by the U.S. flag too much to support a flagrant violation of those principles of liberty. Persuasion -- not force -- is the proper way to handle disagreements in our society...even and especially over something so significant to the American psyche as "the" flag.
I've no doubt that (most) of the people pushing for this amendment have good intentions. "Good intentions," however, are not what we need more of today. We're drowning in a sea of good intentions while we swim down that dark river to hell.
What we need is less slavery and more freedom.
Now, that's a flag I'll gladly rally 'round.
