When American Flags Burn, the ACLU Smells Religion
Desecrate: to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously. - Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
The long-awaited vote in the U.S. Senate on the constitutional amendment to protect the American flag is scheduled for June. The House handily passed the measure last year. If the amendment is approved by the Senate, it will still face ratification by the states. It’s intentionally not easy to amend the Constitution.
A key component for the argument against protection of the flag is this: how do we define desecration? So many common items from beach towels and baseball caps to postage stamps feature the image of the American flag. Does wearing a pair of boxer shorts with the likeness of the flag constitute desecration?
According to at least one respected source, however, the definition is cut-and-dried. Black’s Law Dictionary defines desecration of the flag as: “The Act of mutilating, defacing, burning or flagrantly misusing a flag.” The implication is that there must be intent.
Sensing that the desecration argument is ultimately a dead end, the ever-inventive ACLU is steering the issue in a new direction in an attempt to salvage something from it. ACLU lobbyist Terri Schroeder has injected the left-wing group’s famous aversion to religion into the mix. According to Schroeder, the very word “desecration” has a repugnant religious connotation and therefore, has no standing to be included in serious discussions of law.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary along with every other dictionary you can name would disagree with Schroeder’s paranoid definition of “desecration,” but concepts such as “truth” have never interferred with the judgement of the ACLU.
May 31st, 2006 at 1:14 am
Agreed, a low-blow on ACLU’s part. But, really, isn’t this whole flag-burning amendment simply an attempt to get Republicans all-riled up before the elections. For god sake’s don’t we have better stuff to worry about. Isn’t the arguement against flag-burning completely tired and illogical? How can you make the desecration of an idea illegal? That is all the American Flag is. A symbol of an idea. And that idea is different for everyone. To some, it symbolizes hypocrisy. To others, freedom. Guess what–flag-burners aren’t actually burning the 50 states or the actual Constitution or whatever. They’re burning an idea, and in America you can express or burn an idea if that suits you. Or cloth with red and stripes for that matter.
May 31st, 2006 at 9:00 am
You’re one busy guy Dave, but thanks anyway for all the feedback.
The point is this: In 1989, an activist Supreme Court effectively changed the First Admendment of the Constitution to include physical actions in the definition of “speech” under the heading of “expression.”
I’m in total agreement with you that if an individual takes issue with the idea the flag represents, that person’s right to disagree is protected by the Constitution.
The danger is in recognizing behaviors or actions as speech. If you were to light, let’s say a cardboard box, on fire on the street corner, you would likely be arrested for arson because lighting fires in public is inherently dangerous. But lighting an American flag on fire should be protected by the Constitution?
The logical extension in recognizing the burning of objects in public places as political “speech” will be to require that other actions also be given the same consideration. The framers of the Constitution were very smart guys and there’s a reason why they used the word “speech” and left out the word “expression.”