Replies

I have been wrestling with this for decades.

Do I rejoice in knowing a personal right is preserved never to be tested, that when exercised, turns my stomach, insults my pride, and is an act specifically reserved to denigrate my country and belittle my family's way of life?

Or do I rejoice in knowing my Democratic Republic has accepted or maybe excepted a specific right for the preservation of national honor and civil rest?

For it or against it, no patriot is going to stand by while some jerk torches a flag. So, the question is who goes to jail? The flag burner or the patriot who gave him a beating for exercising his 1st amendment?

If you said both, we all win! Don't we?

It becomes a tough issue when emotions enter. The New York times sucks as a paper but should the current government ban it when it protests in ugly Maureen Dowd form? Most would say no. If some goof decided to protest the election by painting himself blue and walking through the red states - should that be banned?

Burning the flag is an obnoxious, emotional punch to the stomach - and that's part of the reason such protesters do it. If it is their own flag, as in purchased and owned by them, the only laws broken would be any burn ordinances in the area.

The fact that the flag can be and is a center of protest or expression, even when burned, points to the strength of commitment to the ideals behind the first amendment. We as a republic are strong enough to allow such emotionally laden protest against our own government. banning such protest is an acknowledgment of weakness - weakness in our belief in freedom and weakness in our ability to endure dissent in a democracy.

The flag burner should be shamed for destroying the symbol of freedom the was created and defended with blood. The 'patriot' that wants to ban a freedom should feel shame for being willing to abolish the same freedom the flag and shed blood represent.

So in answer to your question, "If you said both, we all win! Don't we?" - both would lose.