[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 130 (Saturday, August 5, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1691-E1692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       O'ER THE LAND OF THE FREE

                                 ______


                           HON. GLENN POSHARD

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, August 4, 1995
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with the House a 
recent article that was written by one of the finest newspaper men in 
the business. Mr. Dan Hagen, managing editor of the Sullivan News 
Progress, shared with his readers a thoughtful, and persuasive article 
dealing with one of the most highly controversial issues facing 
America. The debate over a constitutional amendment to prevent flag 
desecration has left the House, but is not over. I hope that my 
colleagues will take this opportunity to read Mr. Hagen's views--they 
are truly insightful.

         [From the Sullivan (IL) News Progress, June 28, 1995]

                       O'er the Land of the Free

                             (By Dan Hagen)
       Too often, we confuse the shadow with the substance, the 
     symbol with the reality.
       This is certainly the case in the current debate over the 
     proposed amendment to ban flag burning as a form of political 
     expression. The reality is that the flag is merely a symbol 
     of the United States, which means a symbol of the 
     Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The latter are the 
     charter and the expression of the guiding principles of the 
     U.S., dedicated to the ideal of human liberty.
       Such confusion reigns when amendment supporters claim that 
     people have fought and died for the flag. That would be 
     horrible, if literally true. But presumably they did not, in 
     fact, fight and die for a piece of cloth, but for what the 
     piece of cloth represents.
       The flag could fly on every street corner of the United 
     States, but if the Constitution and Bill of Rights were to be 
     repealed, the United States would be destroyed. Conversely, 
     every flag in the United States could be lost, but if the 
     Constitution and the Bill of Rights were still in force, the 
     U.S. would stand inviolate.
       The flag is not even the most eloquent symbol of the United 
     States. The eagle, the Liberty Bell and the Statute of 
     Liberty are more expressive. The flag is an arrangement of 
     colors and patterns which do not, in and of themselves, 
     convey meaning. This is a source of the flag's widespread 
     popularity, because a great deal can be read into it. But it 
     is also the flag's weakness as a symbol, because too much can 
     be read into it. While I can look at the flag and see the 
     ideal of human liberty, nothing prevents someone else from 
     looking at it and seeing the necessity of blowing up a 
     federal building.
       The energies spend in this amendment campaign would serve 
     the United States for better if they were redirected into a 
     campaign of public education concerning the only dimly 
     understood meaning of the flag. Patriots may be irritated 
     when someone burns a flag in protest, but they should shudder 
     in horror the next time a survey reveals great numbers of 
     ignorant mall dwellers who not only fail to recognize the 
     Bill of Rights when it is presented to them, but believe that 
     it should be opposed on the grounds that it seems 
     ``radical.'' Free and robust debate can never harm the U.S., 
     but ignorance of its basic principles can destroy it.
       Flag burnings have declined since the Supreme Court wisely 
     noted that they are a protected form of free expression. In 
     part, this is because many of today's political protesters 
     regard themselves as patriots. But it's also because the 
     Supreme Court's ruling, in acknowledging the legitimacy of 
     flag burning, effectively defused its power as a symbol. If, 
     in response to the threat of flag burning, American society 
     merely responds, ``Go ahead. It's your right,'' the would-be
      flag-burners are quickly off to find some more innovative 
     means of getting people's attention. Ironically, through, 
     if flag burning is banned, it will inevitably increase. 
     The creation of jailed martyrs is a sure attention-getter, 
     and an irresistible temptation to protesters.
       Nor would the banning of flag burning as political 
     expression do anything to prevent the far more common insults 
     daily endured by Old Glory. The flag is routinely employed in 
     advertisements as a tool to sell floor tile and used cars 
     and--even worse--politicians. 

[[Page E1692]]

     Any flag that can survive the contamination of being draped 
     around the shoulders of Spiro Agnew is surely impervious to 
     mere flame.
       Is the flag damaged when it is burned by political 
     protesters? No, but the reputation of the protesters is, by 
     virtue of the fact that they have revealed themselves to 
     ignorantly hold in contempt the nation which has been and 
     continues to be the last, best hope for human liberty.
       Nor is flag burning a protest which leaves the frustrated 
     patriot without an answer. If a flag is burned, the proper 
     and effective response is to fly your own.
       A symbol is just that, a symbol, and not the thing itself. 
     To presume that one can do damage to what is symbolized by 
     damaging the symbol is to engage literally in voodoo 
     thinking, and one might as well start sticking pins in dolls.
       So the purpose of banning flag burning is not to protect 
     the United States of America. It is to protect the feelings 
     of those who are offended when they see a flag burned in 
     political protest. But the protection of free expression is 
     precisely what the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and 
     therefore the flag itself, is all about. Inoffensive speech 
     is never in danger of being banned, because no one has a 
     reason to ban it. And anything actually worth saying is sure 
     to offend someone, somewhere. Therefore, if free speech has 
     any meaning, it means the protection of offensive expression. 
     The distance between banning the burning of flags and 
     requiring the burning of books may be much shorter than we 
     think.
       We do the United States no favors when we undermine the 
     reality of its achievements--among which is free expression--
     in an effort to protect the symbol of its achievements, the 
     flag.
       ``But is nothing sacred?'' amendment proponents ask. Well, 
     the flag certainly isn't. It is a secular symbol deliberately 
     lacking religious weight, and therefore can't be ``sacred,'' 
     in the strict sense. But if a supernatural analogy is needed, 
     we would be seeing the situation more clearly if we viewed 
     the fag in terms of the mythological phoenix, which always 
     files--whole and renewed--out of its own ashes.
     

                          ____________________