The American flag, which has been shot at, set afire, sunk with foundering ships, vilified, belittled and scorned, remains a flawless symbol of the United States. The flag remains unscathed not because of its material but because of the freedoms and responsibilities it represents. By protecting the material of the flag through a constitutional admendment, we risk weakening those freedoms and responsibilities.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling making unconstitutional a law that would prohibit flag burning looked beyond the emotional support for the flag to the freedom for Americans to express dissent and to challenge the government. Though burning the flag is an ugly act that many would call a type of political pornography, this is not a question of taste but of rights.

Despite the intelligent ruling by the Supreme Court, the House Constitutional and Civil Rights Subcommittee approved Wednesday a constitutional amendment that would abridge the freedom to express dissent by burning a flag, a freedom now protected by the First Amendment. The law struck down by the court was created to avoid the question of an amendment, but was rejected because, Justice William Brennan concluded, “punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered.”

In disagreeing with the majority, four members of the court argued that the law was “content neutral,” meaning that the law prohibited only the act of flag burning, not the reasons behind the act. But the extreme and offensive act of burning an American flag always carries a specific negative message directed toward the United States and its government, so the law cannot be made neutral.

What is disturbing about the current proposed amendment is its inherent belief that respect and loyalty to the United States, as demonstrated by protecting its flag, can be legislated. Those feelings are learned through the experience of living in this country, and are strengthened through school history lessons and, in Maine, through a wise education policy that should be brought to the forefront:

“It shall be the duty of instructors to impress upon the youth by suitable references and observances the significance of the flag, to teach them the cost, the object and principles of our government, the inestimable sacrifices made by the founders of our Nation, the important contribution made by all who have served in the armed services of our country since its inception and to teach them to love, honor and respect the flag of our country that costs so much and so dear to every American citizen.”

President George Bush, who figured prominently last year in the push for a constitutional amendment, has been quiet so far. The president’s misguided belief that free expression should be curtailed to protect an indestructible symbol created a false test of patriotism and mislabeled those who disagreed with his position. Such smear tactics designed to protect the flag are the basest possible misuse of a revered national symbol.

A Gallup Poll recently commissioned by the American Legion showed that most Americans favored legal protection for the flag, but limiting the First Amendment should not be carried out as a result of a popularity contest or at an emotionally charged moment. Just how emotional the issue has become was suggested by a report from a group called the Flag Research Center in Winchester, Mass. In the 198 years leading up to the proposed amendment, the center reported, 50 flags had been reported burned; in the last 12 months, 24 flags have been burned. This is the sad result of publicity seekers on both sides of the question who have insisted on keeping debate of the issue at a fever pitch.

One of the dangers of limiting a freedom to protect a symbol that we hold dear is that the symbol itself becomes separated from what has made it so important. The flag and the freedom it represents are too important to be torn apart.