On Respect for the Flag
I've resisted getting entrenched in the debate over whether the kneeling protests of NFL players show disrespect for the flag, mostly because I think it more important to point people beyond that relatively small problem to the much larger one these protests are really about. On one hand, you have the question of whether or not it's okay for certain athletes to kneel during a patriotic ceremony, and on the other hand you have life or death questions about racially motivated violence. It seems obvious where our focus should be, regardless of how you feel about the flag.However, since the issue doesn't seem to be going away, perhaps it's time to weigh in. Sigh.
As a youth I was involved in the Boy Scouts of America, eventually earning my Eagle rank and becoming a member of the leadership arm known as the Order of the Arrow. Prior to becoming an Eagle, every scout has to complete some sort of service project with lasting value to the community. Interpreting "lasting value" to mean more than the typical yard work or park bench maintenance done by many aspiring Eagles in my hometown, I undertook the following project: I studied the history and proper care of the US flag, compiled a book about it and donated that book to local elementary schools, after giving a presentation on the flag to the students there. I also retired the flag that had flown over my church for about twelve years. I was a patriotic teenager, and the project was enthusiastically approved. I learned a lot in the course of that project.
I learned, for instance, that the commonly held idea that a flag that touches the ground must be burned is a myth. I also learned that the design for the 50 star flag was created by a young Robert G. Heft for a social studies project. Heft was given a B-, then told that if congress approved the design, his grade would be changed to an A. The rest is history, and Heft also got designs for 51 and 52 star flags approved.
More significantly, I learned that a section of US law known as the flag code outlines proper use of the flag and specifies uses and behaviors that are considered disrespectful to it. Here are some of the highlights from section 176 of the US code, made law in 1942, entitled "Respect for the Flag."
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.
(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard.
(c) The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
(d) The flag...should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free.
(b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
(e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.
I assume by now we've gotten the point. I haven't mentioned all the rules or posted images of some of the most appallingly disrespectful acts. A quick Google search will reveal unceremonious flag burning, naked people seductively draped in the flag, and more. My goal isn't to provide a comprehensive collection of flag code violations, but to demonstrate that quite a few common behaviors regarding the flag are specifically prohibited. Yet in many cases we tend to receive these actions as acceptable or even as a mark of superior patriotism.
While the flag code does indeed specify in earlier sections (171 and 172) that people should stand for the recitation of the pledge or the playing of the national anthem, at no point in the section specifically dedicated to respect is this behavior mentioned. The code states that the flag "represents a living country and is itself a living thing," but on the extensive list of things the code writers found offensive enough to specifically prohibit, kneeling during ceremonial recognition of the flag is not found.
While the flag code does indeed specify in earlier sections (171 and 172) that people should stand for the recitation of the pledge or the playing of the national anthem, at no point in the section specifically dedicated to respect is this behavior mentioned. The code states that the flag "represents a living country and is itself a living thing," but on the extensive list of things the code writers found offensive enough to specifically prohibit, kneeling during ceremonial recognition of the flag is not found.
But come on, let's think about the spirit of the law, right? I agree. Let's go back and look again at section 176, article a.
"The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property" (emphasis added).
This article clearly outlines a behavior that is offensive to the flag. It also clearly outlines an exception to that rule. Another section in the flag code (178) grants the President authority to make any additions or alterations he sees fit to the rules and customs of handling the flag, as long as he issues an official declaration explaining the change. In other words, the writers of this code weren't all-knowing. They recognized that there would be exceptions: times when violation or alteration of the code would be appropriate to communicate distress, warn of danger, or other uses they may not have been able to foresee.
It's true that the authority to determine those exceptions is not granted to most citizens. Only sitting Presidents and Governors may order the flag flown at half staff. Flags flown at night, even at private residences, must be properly lit at all times. But the spirit of the law indicates that one of the times it's acceptable to break the usual rules is to signify a significant threat to life or property.
And now it's time to ask ourselves: what is the purpose of the NFL players' protest? Is it not to signify the "dire distress" of the black community? The "extreme danger" they perceive to the lives of certain American citizens, whether you share their perception or not?
No, their specific actions are not the ones prescribed to signify this concept. Can you imagine if the football players came on the field carrying upside down flags? But neither are their actions specifically prohibited. What they are is perfectly in line with the spirit of the US flag code, as well as other, more sacred laws that guarantee our right to peacefully petition the government for the redress of grievances.
So you can call it disrespectful if you want. You can complain about how some members of the armed services and their families are taking it as a personal insult (though others wholeheartedly support it). You can acknowledge the right of the team managers to fire the players. You can talk all you want about their wealthy, privileged status as though that had anything at all to do with it, except perhaps giving them a moral imperative to speak out for those whose voices are not so easily heard. You can even point out, and quite truthfully, that they are not doing what the law of our country specifically says you should do during the pledge.
I'm going to look beyond that, and ask myself if I ever violate the letter of the laws of our land, perhaps when I'm running late or feeling particularly upset at how I've been treated by someone. I'm going to ask if I have ever done anything "on the clock" that my employer might not specifically endorse because I had another priority pressing on my mind. I'm going to recognize that what these players are doing isn't disrespecting the flag, it's crying for help. I'm going to listen to what they have to say. And when I'm confident I understand to the best of my conscience and ability, I'm going to find a way to help them.
No, their specific actions are not the ones prescribed to signify this concept. Can you imagine if the football players came on the field carrying upside down flags? But neither are their actions specifically prohibited. What they are is perfectly in line with the spirit of the US flag code, as well as other, more sacred laws that guarantee our right to peacefully petition the government for the redress of grievances.
So you can call it disrespectful if you want. You can complain about how some members of the armed services and their families are taking it as a personal insult (though others wholeheartedly support it). You can acknowledge the right of the team managers to fire the players. You can talk all you want about their wealthy, privileged status as though that had anything at all to do with it, except perhaps giving them a moral imperative to speak out for those whose voices are not so easily heard. You can even point out, and quite truthfully, that they are not doing what the law of our country specifically says you should do during the pledge.
I'm going to look beyond that, and ask myself if I ever violate the letter of the laws of our land, perhaps when I'm running late or feeling particularly upset at how I've been treated by someone. I'm going to ask if I have ever done anything "on the clock" that my employer might not specifically endorse because I had another priority pressing on my mind. I'm going to recognize that what these players are doing isn't disrespecting the flag, it's crying for help. I'm going to listen to what they have to say. And when I'm confident I understand to the best of my conscience and ability, I'm going to find a way to help them.
Comments