Patriot Games 

Supporters of the flag-desecration amendment have little faith in freedom.

Pin It

What does it mean when a country cannot tell the difference between freedom’s symbol and freedom’s substance? What does it mean when a country no longer knows the difference between the material and the ideal?

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in 1989 that desecrating or burning the American flag was political expression protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment, whole legions of politicians have beat their chests in patriotic fervor. Is nationalism the last refuge of the scoundrel? No, it’s the first resort of those elected to the House of Representatives, who this month voted 286-130 in favor of a constitutional amendment prohibiting “the physical desecration of the flag of the United States,” which now moves to a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate sometime after July 4.

Ignoring our nation’s larger problems for the quick and easy hustle of a lustful tryst with simple-minded patriotism, some congressmen arrogantly invoked the names of the Sept. 11 terrorist-attack victims in their crusade for Old Glory. But in a post-Sept. 11 America, that sort of tasteless exploitation is par for the course. And now our own Sen. Orrin Hatch, the flag-desecration amendment’s biggest sponsor and therefore biggest fan, will have yet another chance to shake and strut his “patriotism” for his most fanatic pet project on the Senate floor. Hatch and his ilk will no doubt state that they’re doing this for our war veterans, even if nearly 1.7 million American vets have no access to government hospitals, let alone health insurance. They’ll no doubt say the civic pride of future generations will be damaged unless this execrable amendment passes, despite the fact that civic pride is at such a seemingly low ebb that we’ve made the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory in most intermediate and high schools. “You don’t respect your country?! We’ll teach you respect, by God. We will require it!”

At this point in the editorial you no doubt expect me to trot out the usual pronouncement that burning the U.S. flag is an offensive action best left ignored than outraged about. That it is. But that’s hardly the point.

The point is that if our nation takes the dangerous next step of amending the true bulwark of our freedom, the U.S. Constitution, with a law giving government the power to punish those who would desecrate the mere symbol of our freedom, we have embarked on a slippery slope from which it will be most difficult to turn back. Grant government the power to punish the expression of political speech, however offensive, and how long will it be until government has the power to punish political speech itself? Whose criteria will we use when measuring its “offensiveness”? Right now, it’s conservative Republicans who see their political ideas gaining supremacy. They might view the potential abuses of this amendment with very different eyes when, and if, the Democrats or some other party gains the upper hand. Left wing or right, no political ideology holds a monopoly on abuse of power. That is why the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights must remain neutral and untampered with. That is why Sen. Hatch’s flag-desecration amendment is such a very bad idea.

There was a time, not long ago, when Americans knew their country was strong enough to withstand the most vehement and offensive of criticisms'be it the burning of our flag or the attacks of Sept. 11. We knew the strength of any nation resides in the freedom of its citizens, not the totalitarian might of the government. Gradually, we are turning away from this vital belief. We seem amazingly unafraid or unaware that the intolerance of our own government is chipping away at the freedom of individual conscience. You’ve got to hand it to the genius who gave the USA Patriot Act its title. If you support it, you’re a patriot. If you don’t, you’re a traitor. So it is that “patriots” support the government’s right to know what books you’ve purchased or borrowed from the library. A “patriot” likes and supports a government that detains people without due process, bars entry of foreign journalists, or collects information on anti-war protestors.

Should this amendment to the Constitution pass, we will be perilously close to forming a society that moves in lockstep, with little room for disagreement. The dynamic, open forums of discussion and dissent that nourish our democracy will calcify and atrophy into a congealed mass of imposed agreement. It may be a safe society. But it will be false, and built on bad faith.

The politicians who support this amendment know full well that totalitarian nations such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the People’s Republic of China and Cuba punish dissidents who dare deface national flags. Intoxicated by the belief that our nationalism is somehow better and more tractable than anyone else’s, they don’t care. They’ll tell you our enlisted men and women fight for the glory of our flag. That is a bald-faced lie. Our enlisted men and women swear an oath to “protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.” Our Founding Fathers knew the Constitution, of which the First Amendment is a part, could just as easily be attacked from inside as out.

What does it mean when a country cannot tell the difference between freedom’s symbol and freedom’s substance? What does it mean when a country no longer knows the difference between the material and the ideal? We may soon find out.

Pin It

More by Ben Fulton

  • Right and Right

    After finally getting around to viewing Napoleon Dynamite at the local theater—yes, I am the spittin’ image of him, just as Music & TV Editor Bill Frost maintained during my brief absence—the only other event I’m looking forward...
    • Sep 6, 2007
  • Urban Art Guerrillas

    Borrowed Walls mix art forms in space and time. Won’t you lend them your mind?
    • Sep 6, 2007
  • Arts & Entertainment - Sad, Sad. Joy! Joy!

    • Sep 6, 2007
  • More »

Latest in News

  • Heavy Pedal

    Road to regulate bike taxis bumpy, protracted.
    • Oct 19, 2016
  • Thanks for Nothing

    Tragic details of a young man's suicide in a Utah prison cell are brought back to life by his grandma's lawsuit.
    • Oct 12, 2016
  • Balk the Vote

    Nonprofit sets sights on re-energizing young voters.
    • Oct 5, 2016
  • More »


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Readers also liked…

  • No Limits

    A pair of Republican gubernatorial candidates bemoan and protect Utah's loose campaign cash laws.
    • Jun 22, 2016
  • Gone But Not Forgotten

    Utah's first nonprofit homeless hospice will provide a peaceful end to a hard life
    • Apr 22, 2015

© 2016 Salt Lake City Weekly

Website powered by Foundation