A “religious service” was held this week at First Assembly of God located on Merle Hay Road in Des Moines. There was little religious symbolism present in the theater-like room where the congregation gathered to worship: a lone Christian flag and cross-shaped pulpit.

These religious symbols were inconspicuous, however, amid the two dozen U.S. flags which filled the room. Even the programs for the service were graced by pictures of the U.S. flag.

I do not bring this up to imply that churches should be prohibited from displaying as many flags as they desire. There is nothing to fear in this regard, since freedom of religious practice in the U.S. is protected by the Constitution.

Nor do I bring it up to imply that there is something unsavory going on in Protestant Churches. Though, on second thought, it does seem strange that many of the groups which have reacted most violently against the importance of religious symbols in Roman Catholicism are so eager to display the U.S. flag.

I mention this unfortunate incident only to bring to mind the absurd things that many are willing to do with and for the U.S. flag. More significant than the idolatry of a church in Des Moines is the House’s recent call for a constitutional amendment prohibiting “physical desecration” of the flag.

Given that this proposed amendment targets flag burning, we should consider why people burn the U.S. flag. The two main reasons are: 1) to give a flag a good death, and 2) to make a negative political statement. The only distinction between these two forms of flag burning is the message each conveys. This means that any attempt to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag is nothing more than an attempt to prohibit a certain message from being conveyed. Thus, any law that prohibits the burning of the U.S. flag, short of a constitutional amendment, would be a violation of the freedom of speech accorded by the Constitution.

Since 1791, all but one of the constitutional amendments have either extended or been neutral in regard to civil rights. The only real exception was the 18th Amendment, which ushered in the Prohibition Era. It was repealed not long after being passed.

Amendments like the nullified 18th and the proposed 27th create an unhealthy atmosphere. We should ask today what the 28th Amendment will prohibit U.S. citizens from doing tomorrow. Perhaps it was incorrect for me to claim that the First Assembly of God should not fear being prohibited from displaying as many flags as they want to every Independence Day. If this proposed constitutional amendment is passed, we should all fear that other arbitrary whims will be made part of the nation’s highest law.

There might, after all, be a little merit in the question, “If you hate the U.S. so much, why don’t you move to another country?” Though its use against those who oppose the wars of presidential administrations is unwarranted, it seems valid (just a little) to ask this question of those who seek to undermine the document upon which the U.S. is built. After relocating in less than democratic nations like Iraq and Singapore, I am sure that the supporters of the proposed 27th Amendment would find their newly-adopted flag to be well protected under the law.

Tyler Roach is senior in English, philosophy and religious studies from Des Moines.