Monthly Archives: June 2006

Desecrating the Flag

Nothing demonstrates the differences in Americans’ worldviews more vividly than disagreements over periodic efforts to ban flag “desecration.”

 

Many officeholders who are currently promoting this effort are, of course, doing so cynically, in a frantic effort to change the national dialogue and divert attention from a government that looks more dysfunctional every day. But many people support a constitutional amendment out of a sincere belief that such a move would demonstrate respect for the country and recognize the sacrifices so many of our soldiers have made over the years.

 

Many, if not most, of the amendment’s supporters readily acknowledge that flag-burnings are rare (according to the numbers I’ve seen, there have been fewer than 45 documented cases in the last half-century). Some of them will even concede that the passage of such an amendment is likely to spur more such acts of defiance rather than reducing that already low number. But putting a halt to some epidemic of civil disrespect is not the point; supporters don’t want to control social behavior, they want to send a “patriotic message.”

 

Those of us who look at this proposal with dismay are not—as the Ann Coulters of the world insist—traitors, terrorists or anti-American provocateurs. Actually, we believe we are the real patriots. We just define patriotism differently.

 

The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights gave America the best, most workable, most enlightened governing structure yet devised. Certainly, it is the system most respectful of individual dignity and autonomy. The flag—the cloth emblem that legend tells us was devised by Betsy Ross—is a physical symbol of that system. People honor the flag by respecting the Constitution, and they desecrate it when they elevate the piece of cloth over the principles and values that make it worthy of respect.

 

When we approve government actions inconsistent with our most basic governing premises, we are desecrating the flag.

 

When those we elect to high office routinely ignore the foundations of republican government—separation of powers, accountability, the insistence that—as John Adams put it—we are “a government of laws, not men,” they are desecrating the flag.

 

When our lawmakers intrude in areas that are simply no business of the government, whether it’s Congress insisting that fourteen state court decisions have been wrong, and Terry Schaivo’s feeding tube cannot be disconnected, or South Dakota lawmakers deciding that it is their place to criminalize a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy, or a Pennsylvania school board deciding that their religion should be taught in lieu of science in public school classrooms, those lawmakers are desecrating the flag.

 

A President who unilaterally designates people as “enemy combatants” and imprisons them indefinitely without permitting review of that designation by the courts, or who issues “signing statements” declaring that he has no obligation to comply with acts of Congress he doesn’t like, is desecrating the flag.

 

I have a radical suggestion: let’s honor the flag by insisting that our elected officials respect the Constitution it symbolizes. 

Comments

Making War on Making Love

A blog that I read fairly regularly calls it the “War on Fucking.” 

 

I think the blogger is on to something. As she points out, it is a mistake to look at the right-wing attacks on gays, abortion, “pornography,” “non-traditional” families and the like as separate issues; at base, what these people are against is sex, sexuality, and anything that smacks of acceptance of the role sex plays in human existence.

 

Her explanation for this war is that those waging it are people who have terrible difficulty controlling their own urges, and who assume that everyone else is having an equally difficult time controlling theirs. If there are not strict—indeed, inviolable—social controls to keep these passions in check, they are sure the result would be social chaos. (This theory may or may not be true, but it sure would help to explain all those child molesting cases involving pastors and choir directors…….). As a result, they live in a state of fear, and they cling tightly to the “eternal verities” provided by highly restrictive religious doctrines and punitive laws, which they see as the only alternative to social disintegration.

 

A glance at history will demonstrate the effect this fear has had on women and our place in society. Women were seen as uniquely and mysteriously powerful—as magical beings whose appeal could make strong men weak. Thus, the notion that “good” women might actually enjoy sex has been an especially terrifying idea. This is the real root of support for “abstinence education” rather than accurate and effective sex education, of the campaign against Plan B, the “morning after” contraceptive, and more recently (and incredibly) the opposition to inoculation against cervical cancer. In case you haven’t read about this latter controversy, medical scientists have developed a highly effective immunization against cervical cancer. But it must be given to girls before puberty. As the Washington Post recently reported:

 

“A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity.

 

Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed…

 

Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty. But because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.”

 

This war on sexuality and sexual desire is the larger context within which we must understand the ferocious resistance to "legitimizing" gay relationships by allowing same-sex adoptions, marriage or civil unions, even laws protecting gays against discrimination. Because of their single-minded preoccupation with sex, social conservatives do not see the other elements of human relationships; thus they equate any legal recognition of gays with an endorsement of sex—and, in their worldview, “deviant” sex to boot.

 

It must be hard to live in a world where some sex fiend is hiding behind every bush, waiting to pounce—waiting to defile “pure” women and molest small children. And when you are terrified all the time, it is really hard to be logical, let alone fair or loving.

 

I’d pity them, if the rest of us weren’t civilians in the line of fire in their War on Fucking.

 

 

Comments