Rally Around the Flag Amendment?

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
Proposed 28th Amendment to the US Constitution,
passed by the House of Representatives

If you made a list of major problems facing America today (record deficit, terrorism, Iraq, outsourcing of jobs, oil prices, health insurance, etc.) ranked in order of urgency, where would flag-desecration come in? On my list it is right after bears feasting on garbage in our national parks. But our representatives in Congress found the issue important enough to amend the Constitution, by a vote of 286-130 on June 22.(1) All Democrats from Wisconsin plus Republlican Tom Petri voted No, the other three Republicans (Ryan, Green and Sensenbrennner) voted Yes. (2)

Our Constitution has been amended only 27 times in the entire history of the document, and only 17 times in the last 200 years. Amendments after the Bill of Rights have abolished slavery, granted women the right to vote, limited presidential terms, and provided for direct election of US senators. The most recent amendment, passed in 1992, made pay raises voted by Congress effective after the next election.

In recent decades Democrats have tried and failed to add one new amendment to the Constitution: the Equal Rights Amendment. Meanwhile, Republicans have made serious efforts to pass four other amendments (Balanced Budget, School Prayer, Human Life, and Defense of Marriage ), of which President Bush is now pushing the Marriage Amendment. Republicans seem to have lost interest in the Balanced Budget Amendment, even though we need it now more than when first proposed in the 1970's.

In 1968 a federal law banned desecration of the flag, several of which had been burned in demonstrations against the Vietnam War. In 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, since burning a flag is a form of symbolic political speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

If the proposed 28th Amendment is passed by the Senate (by two-thirds majority) and ratified by three-quarters of the states, the flag-desecration law could be passed again and could not be overturned. With this Amendment, we could stop people from doing what nobody is doing anyway. Have you noticed the smoke of Old Glory-burnings in the air in the past 35 years? Do you feel better already?

Even without the proposed amendment and related legislation, it is already illegal to destroy a flag belonging to someone else, or to burn it in an area where open fires are prohibited. In my view, if someone wants to show his hatred or contempt for America by making or legally acquiring an American flag and desecrating it, the law should permit him to do so. Those who are offended by the sight can leave the scene or switch TV channels. If confronted by someone doing this, I would ask him, "Where else in the world can you express yourself this way? Is this freedom what you hate about this country?"

I am not against any amendment to the protect the honor of the flag; in fact I would back the following " Glazerbeam Amendment":
"All statements made by officers of the United States less than twenty feet from an American flag shall be considered to have been made under oath. Making false statements in the presence of the flag shall be punishable by impeachment and removal from office, prosecution for perjury, or both."

With the Glazerbeam Amendment in force, Americans could judge how much confidence future presidents place in their claims by estimating the distance to the nearest flag. Now that is an amendment we can all rally around!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 23, 2005
(2) Same paper, June 26, 2005.

Mad House

On June 15 the US House of Representatives passed a bill (242-182) that would bar the US Marshals Service from enforcing a federal judge's order that a Ten Commandments display be removed from an Indiana courthouse lawn. All four Republicans from Wisconsin voted for the bill, all four Democrats voted against it. (1) The bill was passed only two days after American Jews celebrated the anniversary of the giving of the Commandments on Mount Sinai.

In my judgment, this bill is a typical example of the tendency of the Republican Party in recent years to please its rightwing Christian base at all costs, flouting the separation of Church and State that is so vitally important.

Q. Are the Ten Commandments specific to any one religion?
A. The First Commandment states " I am the Lord, your G-d, who took you out of Egypt, from the House of Slavery." Although billions of people across the globe believe in one G-d, only the Jewish people have the tradition of redemption from slavery in Egypt.
The Second Commandment forbids the use of graven images, which are used in Catholic Churches.
The Fourth Commandment calls for observance of the Sabbath, which Jewish law holds was given only to Israel. Although some Christian denominations (such as Seventh Day Adventists) have voluntarily accepted a religious obligation to rest on Saturday, most Christians consider Sunday their Sabbath.
The Ten Commandments are a Jewish document.

Q. If the Ten Commandments are a Jewish document, why should American Jews object to their display on government buildings and grounds?
A. Most American Jews are descended from immigrants from Europe, where government policies were hostile to Judaism. Government neutrality on the subject of religion has been a blessing to American Jews, especially in view of this history. Most white American Christians, on the other hand, have ancestors from countries where government policies were supportive of their religious beliefs and practices. Besides, in America, Jews have always been a small minority, and will always be a minority. Therefore we Jews realize that if any religion in this country is supported by government, it will be the religion of the majority, Christianity.
If a person truly supports the separation of Church and State, he cannot accept an exception for State actions supportive of his own faith. Our system of jurisprudence is built upon legal precedent, and approval of a display that we like can lead to subsequent approval of another display that we do not like.

Q. What has been the connection between religion and American politics?
A. If a person has religious convictions, they will likely affect his attitudes toward sexual behavior, abortion, gambling, racism, poverty, and other social problems. These "hot-button" issues are often the subjects of legislation and court decisions, so they are naturally debated in the political arena.
Long before George W Bush, many past Presidents (such as Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter) have been devout Protestants, and their religious convictions have affected their policy decsions. On the other hand, John F Kennedy, the only Catholic President (s0 far), insisted that "the Church does not speak for me."

Q. How do the major parties today differ on the role of religion in politics?
The Democratic Party, which includes large numbers of Jews and secularists (2), avoids raising issues based upon religious conviction.
In contrast, today's Republican Party favors conservative Christian positions on issues of sexual and reproductive morality (e.g., homosexual conduct, abortion, and pornography), tax-support for religous schools and "faith-based" socical programs, and prayer in public schools.
The Texas Republican platform in 1996 even declared the US to be "Christian country." The Christian Coalition is devoted to mobilizing devout Christians to vote Republican. In many southern and midwestern states evangelical Christians constitute about 40% of the Republican vote, too large a segment to ignore.
Yet many of the stands backed by the Christan right on matters of personal morality are at odds with Republican opposition to big and intrusive government. (3) As long as the Christian agenda is advocated, but never enacted into law, the GOP can hold onto its more libertarian support; but if faith-based restrictions on American life actually pass and are enforced, the libertarians will bolt and the Republicans will lose big-time.

Q. A Jewish chaplain at the Air Force Academy was transferred to Japan after complaining about "proselytizing" by staff at the Academy. How have the major parties responded to this issue?
A. Democratic Representatives David Obey (WI) and Steve Israel (NY) offered an amendment to a Pentagon funding bill that would "condemn......coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the Air Force Academy".
Republican John Hostletter (IN) accused the Democrats of "denigrating and demonizing Christians" (He later retracted the comment). The Obey amendment was rejected by a vote of 210-198, with Republicans voting to kill the criticism.(4)

Q. Should the US Senate pass the bill that would bar enforcement of the decision to remove the Ten Commandments display in Indiana?
A. No, because the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches would be eroded if Congress interferes with the enforcement of federal court orders. If signed into law, I believe this act would be quickly struck-down as a ploy to allow an unconstitutional activity to go on.
If the law were upheld, that would encourage Congress to pass similar laws to thwart enforcement of unpopular federal court decisions in other future cases.

Q. If the Senate Judiciary Committee approves this bill, how long should the Democrats filibuster against passage?
A. Till Hell freezes over, if enough Democrats can be convinced that Hell exists.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 19, 2005.
(2) People whose political positions are not derived from religious convictions. The term includes atheists, agnostics and many others.
(3) Libertarians value individual freedom, and hate government intrusion into their private lives. Many, such as former Senator Barry Goldwater, are very conservative on economic issues.
(4) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 21, 2005