I sent this letter to the editor in response to aWashington Post editorial.
Your June 14 editorial opposes a Senate Judiciary committee bill outlawing “physical desecration” of the flag. Your opposition is based on first amendment grounds of freedom of speech. You would be better advised to base your argument on religious freedom.
Webster’s defines “desecrate” as “to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office”. If congress passes a law banning “desecration” it will be declaring that the flag is now sacred. Some lawyer will then challenge the law. The argument will be: “Congress has violated the first amendment by passing a law establishing the flag as sacred. My client is willing to honor the flag as a symbol. Establishing the flag as sacred requires my client to worship, rather than honor, the flag. By worshipping the flag my client would violate the first commandment. My client is being denied protection under the free exercise of religion clause of the first amendment.”
By insisting on the word “desecration” the Senate will create an opportunity for lawyers to earn large fees. If the Senators want to engage in patriotic rhetoric over this bill, they should change the word “desecrate” to “dishonor”. They can still make their speeches - but no one will charge them with making the flag into a religious idol.
/s/ Herbert Ely
I'm proud to honor the flag. However, it looks to me as if the Senate is engaged in political posturing withouth regard to the damage to the constitution and religous freedom.
Comments