I've been saying this for a while. Of course, either one is 1st-amendment abhorrent, but it's a nice counterproposal to spike the amendment.

Anti-flag-burning amendments are idolatrous. But if they're going to legally declare that flags are magical objects, rather than physical vehicles for the conveyance of a sign, they might as well be logically consistent about it.

Patrick,

What a great observation. I can't wait to drop that on the next person who says something about burning the flag.

Preacher

But two wrongs don't really make a right. This may be fun to fantasize about, but if would-be Constitution amenders evolved to the point where they actually got a ratification apparatus in place, I'd be worried about all the junk that would come next ....

If people had any sense they'd respectfully burn the flag every July 4th, just to show off what they can do in the U.S. but can't do in most of the rest of the world. Burn it, raise it again. Why does anyone think that lighting a fire can extinguish America?

And speaking of idolatry, don't laws requiring heathen children to say "under God" every morning wind up breaking the commandment about taking the Lord's name in vain?

I love Teresa's observation that "anti-flag-burning amendments are idolatrous." They certainly are, and no self-respecting Christian should support them.

I've been wondering about the idolatry content of flag worship for some time. An amendment against flag burning can't be idolatrous -- after all, we all know the government is forbidden from meddling in religion -- but somehow I've never heard of a preacher telling his flag-worshipping congregation where they were disobeying a Commandment....