Mark Steyn doesn't worry 'cause "Old Glory can take the heat"

Technorati has a lot of buzz on this one. The Canadian columnist for the Sun Times, Telegraph and other papers weighs in on the anti-flag-desecration ammendment that passed in the House this past week. As usual, he offers a unique insight:

For my own part, I believe that, if someone wishes to burn a flag, he should be free to do so. In the same way, if Democrat senators want to make speeches comparing the U.S. military to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, they should be free to do so. It's always useful to know what people really believe.

For example, two years ago, a young American lady, Rachel Corrie, was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza. Her death immediately made her a martyr for the Palestinian cause, and her family and friends worked assiduously to promote the image of her as a youthful idealist passionately moved by despair and injustice. ''My Name Is Rachel Corrie,'' a play about her, was a huge hit in London. Well, OK, it wasn't so much a play as a piece of sentimental agitprop so in thrall to its subject's golden innocence that the picture of Rachel on the cover of the Playbill shows her playing in the backyard, age 7 or so, wind in her hair, in a cute, pink T-shirt.

There's another photograph of Rachel Corrie: at a Palestinian protest, headscarved, her face contorted with hate and rage, torching the Stars and Stripes. Which is the real Rachel Corrie? The "schoolgirl idealist" caught up in the cycle of violence? Or the grown woman burning the flag of her own country? Well, that's your call. But because that second photograph exists, we at least have a choice.

He continues his case with these reflections:

One thing I've learned in the last four years is that it's very difficult to talk honestly about the issues that confront us. A brave and outspoken journalist, Oriana Fallaci, is currently being prosecuted for ''vilification of religion,'' which is a crime in Italy; a Christian pastor has been ordered by an Australian court to apologize for his comments on Islam. In the European Union, ''xenophobia'' is against the law. A flag-burning amendment is the American equivalent of the rest of the West's ever more coercive constraints on free expression. The problem is not that some people burn flags; the problem is that the world view of which flag-burning is a mere ritual is so entrenched at the highest levels of Western culture.

Mr. Steyn sounds like he (along with lgf), doesn't want to "force them underground." Them, of course, being the Reasonable people that so love the country most responsible for saving the West that they'll gleeful burn her most heartfelt symbol in public.

Mark Noonan of Blogs for Bush has a different take, one that they claim has more support among Americans:

this would allow us to, once again, protect our national symbol from desecration at the hands of sundry groups and individuals who hate America so much that they'd burn our flag at a demonstration....We bury our heroic dead underneath that flag and I'll never agree that some lousy demonstrator has a right to burn it.

A new poll provided by the Legion indicates that 80% of Americans support protecting the flag

The situation regarding Old Glory is for Americans analogous to why the Catholic Church defines doctrines at particulary times. Mark Shea had once explained that the doctrines that the Church defines had been a part of the Deposit of Faith since the beginning. Being a part of Tradition, they are believed by the Faithful, and thus do not need to be formally defined. However, when times of great doubt about that doctrine exists, then the Church defines the doctrine so as to make clear that such belief is part of the Faith and deserves a Catholic's assent.

Americans have long known that the symbolism of the flag as representative of the Country--and the freedoms for which the country stands--makes it unique. Desecration has long been anathema, particularly to Foolish Americans that understand the importance of patriotism. These days, however, the unity to which Americans once subsribed regarding the flag no longer exists. If Mr. Noonan's figure is correct, that means 20% of American's oppose the ammendment. That's about 60 million people. Granted, not all of these people are flag-burners, but surely some of them are. If even 1% of these 60 million are hardcore flag-burners, that's still 600,000 people! In other words, a potential population of flagburners that exceeds the total population of all of Rockland County, NY may exist within America.

Americans may need a reminder of how important the flag is to our sense of legitimate patriotism. A just love of one's country serves to bolster the Solidarity that allows any society to survive and prosper. American respect toward the flag manifests this just love of America. Would any one today argue that Americans today respect the flag as well as their grandfathers did before? In such an cultural environment, American society should take whatever steps are necessary to renew respect for this important symbol. This anti-desecration ammendment is an important example of such a step.

Mr. Steyn believes that its strength--not its weakness--is the reason for which Reasonable folk burn Old Glory. His point is well taken, but it's also irrelevent. The strength or weakness of the flag does not matter if people don't consider it a symbol that's worth thinking about. Passing this ammendment controls no one's thoughts; it declares formally why Americans cherish the flag. It reminds all Americans of why Old Glory deserves our respect. It denies foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Americans the legitimacy of legal protest that centers on desecrating the flag.

This ammendment will not deter the true believers in the Agenda. The Reasonable believe that so many of the laws and policies of the US government are illegitimate. There's no reason to believe they'll allow some contitutional ammendment to silence them. Many willingly and publically tresspassed the Republican National Convention, in spite of whatever Federal charges they faced. Fools will still be able to tell who the Reasonable are. The Reasonable can't help themselves. They have to get their message across any way they can.

I respect Mr. Steyn. He writes eloquently and true. His unique perspective offers numerous insights. I think, however, that on the issue of the anti-flag desecration ammnedment, I'll pass on his take. Passage of the ammendment would help America. It should be supported.