More on the Flag Amendment

Having vented my ire over this last night, I was surprised by the reaction in other blogs, particularly the right-wing sites. Sad to admit that it was a surprise, but a very welcome one. Many are coming out against it. Arthur Chrenkoff admits to being of two minds on it, which is a fair position; its never easy to tolerate offensive people. Charles Johnson and his commenters are also against it, and for the right reasons. I usually don't bother with commenters at LGF, they are often the right-wing equivalent of the ranting left, but I followed the link in Arthur's post and I very much like some for the comments. I'll even quote one of the LGF Lizardoids:

I guess what I'm trying to say is, as unfortunate as it is that people feel a need to desecrate the ideals of the country, we have to allow them to do so, so as to identify them and ignore them.

Exactly so. The key sign that burning a US flag is political speech is the reaction it generates. Don't bother to scroll down too far. After a while the typical style of the commenters at LGF becomes apparent.

If you want to eliminate burning of flags Reduce the power of the act. They are trying to upset you, and have apparently succeeded. Turn your back on fools who so deeply insult so many Americans. Never listen to a thing they say afterward. They don't deserve their own amendment in the founding document of the nation. And for goodness sake let's not turn them into political martyrs. Trying to enforce laws like this would be a nightmare.

Wen a soldier or patriotic citizen shows honer to the flag, the act is moving because it is unforced and genuine. Mandatory honors are meaningless, and they extend that meaninglessness to the genuinely honorable and meaningful actions. If in some frenzy of foolishness this passes the States, it won't last a decade. It will be a counterproductive disaster that the left will use to humiliate the right, and the flag will end up less respected.