Flag Burning

I doubt there is anyone on the fence regarding the “Flag Burning Amendment“. Debated last week and defeated once more in congress, this idea has been voted on by every congress since 1995. Bringing up the issue of flag desecration is a quick way to stir the passions of people. Walk into any diner in the country say: “So how about that flag burning amendment?“ and off they go. Both sides will be quick to say why we should or should not allow desecration of our flag. This is a subject of passion but very little substance. We do not have thousands of young people addicted to burning flags. We don‘t worry that our flag insurance premiums are rising due to excessive flag burning. Nor do we worry about foreign fighters coming over the border and burning flags in town squares to express their hatred. This is an amendment in search of a problem. When is the last time you saw a flag burning in this country? The number of flags burnt by protesters peeked after George Bush Sr. proposed the amendment in 1989. Chief Justice Rehnquist once referred to flag burning as an “inarticulate grunt”. I think that is a fair description of the exercise. A grunt is not an argument nor does it help to advance any dialog, but is that a reason to ban such expression through constitutional amendment? The ability to speak freely is what makes us free. This basic principle, the first of all amendments is what makes the flag worth defending. One burnt flag or even a hundred could never damage the meaning and value of our flag. Making it the only symbol in the entire world not covered by the principles we aspire to will cost us dearly. When we allow our flag to be sacrificed to an angry “grunt” we show how strong our ideals really are. To show the world that liberty is stronger than anger is worth any hurt an anti-American expression might bring.
As members of this great society we have responsibilities. Often the greatest challenge of liberty is to allow those that would offend us to be offensive. Soldiers that go off to war make the choice to defend their country. Those that run for public office have a similar choice to make when giving themselves up to the criticism and ridicule that comes from the title politician. As common citizens we are called upon to pay our taxes without being asked if we would like to. Always painful we participate knowing the value of contributing to the common good. We vote for representation. This is especially painful when our candidate looses. As citizens of this great nation we accept these burdens are part of living within a system greater than ourselves. The most important responsibility we have is to put democracy and freedom above the hurt that can be caused by those that challenge our most deeply held beliefs. These are the burdens of liberty, whether we like it or not. Opinion writers, like myself, don’t take individual sensibilities into account when expressing ideas. If we did, no opinion could ever be expressed. All opinions run the risk of offending someone. The hurt that opinions cause is what is protected by the first amendment. The hurt we allow ourselves to feel is contribution the common person gives to the defense of our democracy. This is why the destruction of the flag as a form opinion must be protected. Defending the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution is why we fly our flag so proudly. Sometimes free speech causes real hurt. All of us deserve to take pride in the hurt we allow ourselves to feel when confronted by dissent. My thanks to those that would allow an occasional “inarticulate grunt” in order to contribute to the greatness of our nation.