Leonard Pitts On the Proposed Flag Burning Amendment
It’s so nice to hear the voice of reason in the midst of pseudo-patriotic hysteria.
Thank you, Dianne Feinstein.
Composition teachers all over the country are indebted to the Democratic senator from California for an editorial published Tuesday in USA Today. Instead of tearing their hair out trying to instruct students in the finer points of logic, rhetoric and critical thinking, teachers will henceforth be able to simply pull out Feinstein’s piece and say, ”Don’t do this.” They will never find a better illustration of a bad argument badly made.
Feinstein is co-sponsor of something called the Flag Protection Amendment, the latest congressional effort to amend the Constitution to protect the American flag from ”desecration” — an interesting word, given its connotations of religious devotion.
Her editorial in support of the amendment certainly hits all the patriotic sweet spots, invoking the image of Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima, reminding us that the flag is a symbol of “our democracy, our shared values, our commitment to justice and our eternal memory of those who have sacrificed to defend these principles.”
But there’s more. Feinstein notes that Congress has the power to protect the Lincoln Memorial from defilement, so surely it should have a similar power to protect the flag, ”our monument in cloth.” She denies the amendment would infringe free speech because “there is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner.”
As arguments go, this one has it all — pathos, tears, drama. Everything except actual, you know, logic.
Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., each their party’s second-ranking Senate leader, don’t support the amendment, but that won’t stop our elected officials from spending a week bloviating, name-calling and pandering. As Mr. Pitts says,
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands. But there’s a big difference between honoring the flag and fetishizing it. Especially at the cost of doing violence to the Constitution.
Apparently nobody cares if we desecrate that.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Genius.
But there’s a big difference between honoring the flag and fetishizing it. Especially at the cost of doing violence to the Constitution.
Apparently nobody cares if we desecrate that.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:47 am
I have never understood flag burning. If the USA has done something so vile and horrible to you that you feel you have to demonstrate your anger by burning the flag you have serious issues. If I am mad at the good old USA and want to demonstrate this anger, going out and buying a flag and some matches are at the bottom of my “to do” list. What sense does it make to go into public and say “this country sucks, its repressive, imperialistic and wants to control everyone! watch me burn this flag to demonstrate this!”, then ask for that same country to protect you while you burn the flag or conduct a demonstration. It just seems that you are defeating your own argument for whatever reason you may have to burn the flag. Sadly the main problem I have with America today is that we are negating the effects of Darwinism and people like this should be allowed to be “naturally selected” to be removed from the gene pool.
I really think we have better things to do than this flag amendment. Let the idiots burn it and then enjoy the protection it offers. Hopefully they will burn themselves when they do it and save us the trouble of worrying about it. Then again the people that would hurt themselves burning the flag are probably the same people that would sue the fire department for not arriving in time to extiguish their dumb ass from burning. Maybe its just me.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
BL, I agree it’s a stupid way to protest. It’s not very prevalent either:
“There have been three [flag burnings this year]. This is according to the Citizens Flag Alliance, a group that supports the proposed amendment. Three. More people were struck by lightning. Heck, I bet more people spontaneously combusted. So essentially what we have here is an effort to amend the Constitution and abridge the First Amendment in order to stop people from doing what people aren’t doing. Am I the only one who finds this more than faintly ridiculous?”
You’re absolutely right that we have better things to do.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Amen, BL.
As you know, I often dissent with the decisions of my government. But I hope there are more productive ways to voice that dissent that burning a symbol of my county that many of my fellow citizens hold dear. Having said that, the Constitution should be held in higher esteem than worrying about a few idiots. In fact, it largely deserves its well deserved esteem because it protects idiots.
June 26th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
I feel that seeing a flag being burned may be less offensive than seeing it reproduced hither and yon on denim jackets, license plates, lunch boxes, tote bags, boxer shorts, what have you. At least burning it is a solemn act, in that the burner takes the heavy symbolism of that bit of cloth very seriously. Printing it on a beach towel reduces it to just a pleasant design.
Isn’t there a short list of the only countries to prohibit flag burning–something like: China, Iran, Cuba (?) I think that little factoid bears repeating over and over as long as this faux debate is visited upon us.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:25 am
Good point Del.