A recent comment neatly summarizes the distance between supporters and opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw flag desecration, which passed in the House and is currently before the Senate.

Sen. Susan Collins, a supporter of the amendment, recently observed, “There are countless ways that Americans can — and do every day — express dissent, without desecrating a symbol that has such a powerful meaning to most Americans.”

Both sides agree with that last part: The flag is a symbol with powerful meaning. Where they disagree is over just what that meaning is. Does the flag represent, among other things, the right to protest or does it represent the right to protest unless the majority agrees that the protest is offensive? Sen. Collins, noting that there already are laws concerning libel and slander or acts that lead to violence, added, “The question is not really whether there should be limits on the right to dissent, but what those limits should be.”

Flag burning takes the stereotypes about political leanings and flips them over. The side often accused of trying to create the nanny state generally opposes the amendment; the side that urges unabridged freedoms generally wants a limit when it comes to U.S. flags. Perhaps the difference in this issue is how people regard symbols.

It is impossible to physically hold a freedom, a right, the ideals that founded the government of this country. The flag is the nearest and most recognizable thing anyone has to protect. Soldiers in battle are said to fight for the flag, although it is understood that they do not fight for the arrangement of red, white and blue cloth but for the reasons this nation and its flag were created. That idea seems to get lost during congressional debate.

A constitutional ban on flag burning immediately puts the flag in a more revered place than other important national symbols. Does Congress next ban burning a copy of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence? How about the writings of the Founding Fathers? If these documents are not also protected, does that mean Congress believes they are less important than the flag?

Part of the debate over this amendment is pure politics. The public overwhelmingly supports the amendment, so protecting the flag comes just after honoring motherhood on the congressional care-o-meter. Members of Congress who would not seek this amendment on their own are forced to take a position that, if they say yes, will get them votes, and, if they say no, will get them angry mail. Many would like to avoid the angry mail.

These pages have opposed the limitation on the First Amendment because it is unneeded (what few flag burnings there are these days usually are in response to the proposed amendment); because it invites regulatory mischief — the ways to inspect for intentional desecration of a flag are vague; and because the flag has done pretty well for itself without the help of well-meaning members of Congress.

When the amendment was first proposed in 1990, Sen. George Mitchell had other reasons for opposing what he described as “stampeding those who love America to take the unwise action of changing the Bill of Rights for the first time in our history.”

“The Bill of Rights,” he said, “secures the liberty of the individual by limiting the power of government. Across the sweep of human history, there is no better, clearer, more concise, more eloquent or effective statement of the right of citizens to be free of the dictates of government than the American Bill of Rights.”

Before the Senate votes to abridge those rights, it should reconsider what it is giving up and what else it would give up using the same thinking. Sen. Collins’ comment is correct: Even with a ban on desecrating the flag, there would remain countless ways to express dissent. For now.