Chapter 7 seventh letter

Brother Lu: Hello! This time, without waiting for your letter, I want to continue writing. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution involves a lot of content. Let me tell you about the associations here, which is also very interesting.I remember that it was not long after President Clinton of the Democratic Party was elected. One day, I found a letter from the new president to me from a pile of emails.Existing versions such as "Twenty-two Sons" and "The Collection of Zhuzi". , I looked around and saw that the one printed on the front was indeed my name, and the one on the back was indeed Clinton's name (of course, this is a handwritten print).

At that time, I was used to taking out a bunch of various sales letters from the mailbox every day, which Americans call junk mail.These letters sell everything.If you ever buy a mail-order item, various other mail-order companies will obtain information about you, name, address, etc., from networked computer systems.All kinds of sales letters poured in.If you have donated money to some disabled fund, then various organizations that protect cats and dogs, protect animals you have never heard of, protect children, protect the environment, etc., will send letters asking for donations.At the same time, they will send a well-designed "logo" of the organization, usually a sticker, you send the donation and stick the "organization logo" on the car, you will join the organization Once the process is complete, you have earned membership for that year.In the second year, you receive such a letter again. You may have no money, or you may disagree with the views of this organization, or you are not interested. If you no longer send money, your membership will be reduced. cancelled.Nobody cares.

Americans often say a word is: change your mind.If you think about it, in a society with such a large flow of information, people are exposed to so many new and old ideas and opinions every day. Of course, it is normal for people to change their minds often.Americans generally accept "changing their minds".Accept the state of "changing your mind" yourself, and tolerate the "changing your mind" of others.However, in the United States, if you look at the general donation trend of young people, you can also see the ideological trend of Americans.Donations to organizations that protect the environment and protect wildlife are disproportionately high among young people in the United States.Sometimes I feel quite moved. They are not rich themselves, and it is not easy to earn every dollar, but a donation to these organizations is tens of dollars.It's really hard to imagine the enthusiasm of young people here for wild animals.There are also some non-political human rights organizations that receive more donations from young Americans.

Due to the popularization of computer technology, the name of the recipient can be directly printed on the name of the general sales letter or donation letter to increase the "intimacy".For example, the "Time Magazine" here uses computer processing to combine the names of each subscriber on the cover, originally written by Tang Hanyu.Thinking that human nature is born with upper, middle and lower grades, love makes you feel like this magazine is specially prepared for you.Strictly speaking, the "Clinton Signature Letter" I received is just such a fundraising letter.The letter describes the party's various propositions and how they will bring hope to the United States, and then I hope you will send a few dozen dollars (you can do it according to your ability, ten yuan, twenty yuan, or more, all are fine).You can say that this money is party dues, support for the organization, or donations, whatever.At the same time as I received this letter, I also received a hard card like a credit card. If I forcibly translate it into a concept that both you and I are familiar with, then I can probably call it a credit card. "Party card".If I had signed it, I would have been a member of the ruling party for at least four years of the Clinton administration.Do you think this is a bit funny, or would you say, is it too casual.

When I was in China, I also heard that the political parties in the United States are not strictly organized, and it is very easy to join and quit.Only when I actually received such a letter did I realize the degree of "casualness".It should be said that this is a completely different concept.Here, a political party is just a kind of group. There are thousands of such groups in the United States, including religious groups, academic groups, and groups held together by various goals, viewpoints, beliefs, interests, and so on.Between them, there is a difference in size, but there is no difference between high and low.In the American concept, a political party is nothing more than a group of people who are interested in various principles and policy goals of the United States, and it is also one of many groups.Hierarchically, a party member is no more "senior" than a member of the Whale Society or the Wolf Society.Therefore, no one thinks that joining a political party, even a ruling party, is a particularly "honorable" thing.

At the same time, if you want to form a group or political party, it is very simple.Forming a so-called "non-profit organization" goes through some scrutiny because a "non-profit organization" is meant to raise money for a purpose, and sometimes it is involved in the business, with all profits going to the goals it sets instead of going into Private pocket, so its income is also tax-free.It is also under scrutiny not because of the goals its fundraising serves, but because of the tax exemptions involved.This simple way of association in the United States is the result of the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution.No one is going to interfere with your religion, belief.As long as you are not a drug cartel, and you are not aiming to do illegal activities, no one will interfere with associations, or cliques, that arise out of shared religion, beliefs, and interests.

In the United States, the difficulty in forming a political party is not that there is interference from the government, but that it is difficult for you to attract a group of people to follow you.Because in front of ordinary people in the United States, they can attract their targets, whether the slogan is falsified by the facts of empirical observation.All falsifiable theories are scientific, and there are too many viewpoints.Their various ideas are also very big.For example, if you have an organization or a political party and want to attract more people, you find a suitable publicity target and tell him your ideas, and he feels good after hearing it. When you already feel that it is almost done, Perhaps, he will ask you out of the blue, do you approve of the use of animals in circuses?If you say yes, and you feel that such a trivial matter is irrelevant, you are likely to lose all your efforts.Because, for him, this is a serious matter that is absolutely no less important than your national affairs.Because it means that you are in favor of cruelty to animals, how could he go with you?Don't you think I'm kidding, because I have more than one friend like that.

The popularity of associations has not only increased the opportunities for Americans to discuss and express their concerns, but also greatly enriched their lives.Americans generally like light topics, they like to have fun, and they like to study and ponder some interesting things.All kinds of "professional associations" or "thematic associations" not only deepen the research on many topics, but also really add a lot of fun to them.You must remember that I said that there are many people who study atomic bombs in their spare time. On TV yesterday, we saw a group of people from an amateur rocket-making organization. With the assistance of the local government, they are releasing them into the sky one by one!

Various religions and beliefs add depth and depth to this society. When people follow their own way of thinking, they also notice that others have many different interpretations and understandings of the world. Americans I believe that this kind of reference is beneficial to the development of any kind of belief. However, on this issue, there are also many cases of abuse of freedom. Generally speaking, American groups are very loose. They don't have strong binding control over their members, and they don't require their loyalty. They understand that its members may "change their minds" anytime and anywhere.In a political party or group, the words and deeds of its ordinary members are only responsible to themselves, and have nothing to do with the organization to which they belong.On the contrary, if a group of any nature has a very strict organizational structure or has a strong ability to control its members, Americans will find it strange and even worry that something has gone wrong with it.

This worry is not without reason, because in the United States this kind of problem happens from time to time.When we were in China, we all read about the tragedy of the "People's Temple".This religious group shocked the world by inducing and forcing their members to commit suicide when their inside story was exposed by the press, causing hundreds of deaths.After I got here, I saw a TV documentary about this incident on TV.It should be said that this is a typical example of "freedom of religion" and "freedom of association" being abused by some people in the United States.Those deluded members of the "People's Temple" and their relatives paid a heavy price for this.

Organizations like the People's Temple are referred to here as sects.There are many small religious sects here, and those who are not engaged in special research on them will not be able to figure it out at all.I also met a small sect that preached to me, emphasized to me that the end of the world was coming, and then, left some pamphlets and went away.Ordinary small sects do not have much influence, and there is no harm in believing in them or not.However, after we came here, we really encountered a small sect incident like the "People's Temple" that caused tragedy.I think you must have heard about such a big event in China, and this event became the cause of another tragedy two years later, which is really unexpected. Here I am, referring again to the Oklahoma explosion.It happened on the same date as the Davidic massacre two years ago in a place called Waco, Texas.Therefore, from the beginning of the Oklahoma bombing, sensitive people have been talking about it, wondering if there is any connection between the two tragedies.Within a few days, with the arrest of the bombing suspect McVeigh, this guess was confirmed.In addition to McVeigh's usual dissatisfaction with the federal government, what made him most angry and excited was the bombing of Vaco's Davidian estate two years ago.For this reason, he also went to the explosion site of David Manor to pay his respects.His attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City was almost revenge for the bombing two years ago. The leader of the Branch Davidians is a middle-aged man named David Ke Ruixi. Such people generally have a characteristic, that is, eloquence.He bought a manor in Waco, and a group of believers gathered in it.If they just gather like this, no one will be interested in whatever religion they are promoting.The problem is that they illegally stockpile weapons and ammunition inside.The United States can privately own weapons, but there are a set of regulations on management, and there are also regulations on the types of weapons. If the regulations exceed the regulations, they can be arrested and prosecuted for the crime of illegal possession of weapons.So it was the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that came to the door.As soon as they went, gunfire opened inside and resisted, killing four agents and six Branch Davidians on the spot.It immediately became a sensation in the United States. Since there were many women and children (female believers and their children), the authorities did not dare to act rashly, because in the United States, women, especially children, are a very sensitive social concern. It is difficult to explain to ordinary people.In this way, the 51-day confrontation between the two sides began.During this period, the TV reported live every day, and also played the video of Keruixi's previous missionary work.Many others rushed to the scene.At the same time, various investigations into this small sect have been widely reported.Several female devotees left the estate during the standoff.However, they just didn't come out, and it was useless to persuade them.What do you say? At that time, some Davidians who were not in the manor, in an interview and investigation, mentioned that Keruixi had sexual relations with many female believers and molested children. If the situation is true, the latter is a serious illegal act.It was also this clause that made the Attorney General, who had just taken office at that time, agree to use tear gas to attack the manor.Because, so to speak, the action was to rescue the children inside.But, as I said before, as long as there are children, there is always trouble. According to a former Branch Davidian, Koresh often mentioned the possibility of a fight with the federal government and said that in the end all believers would die.But he declares that they will come again to take the world back.The latter prophecy seemed unlikely to come true, but the former prophecy happened unfortunately.The whole process was played on the TV, under the watchful eyes of everyone, just after the tear gas bomb was released, a ball of fire exploded inside, making it impossible to get close at all.The entire building collapsed in flames, and more than 80 people, including more than two dozen children, perished in the flames. From my eyes, I can only see that Ke Ruixi is a mentally abnormal guy, and the group of foolish people who followed behind were also given ecstasy soup. The most unlucky ones are those children, who are all mothers They were too confused and hurt them.These people didn't want to live, and they killed four federal agents, which is "heinous" enough.Tragedy is tragedy, but what can be done about it? However, in the United States, some expressed dissatisfaction and anger at the government's handling. Among them, McVeigh, the most extreme, went so far as to attack the federal building for this reason two years later.For two full years, the Waco tragedy has plagued the American government and the opposition.Regarding this action, the government and the Minister of Justice have always admitted that "there is no doubt that there was a mistake" and "we will not do it again."However, if this happens again, I think that the future Minister of Justice will still feel that "to attack or not to attack" is "the most difficult decision in her life" just like her predecessor. Of course, such extreme incidents are rare, but I believe that there are abuses of freedom of religion and association in the United States now, and there will be in the future, and many people will become victims of this abuse of freedom, which is inevitable.There will always be madmen, and there will always be those who are fooled for various reasons.However, Americans do not doubt that freedom of religion, belief and association are the natural rights of everyone.That is to say, as an adult, you have many rights as a person. As for whether you want to use it correctly, abuse it, or give up your rights and let others manipulate it, this is your own choice, and you also You must bear the consequences of your choices.In fact, as a society as a whole, pursuing such an ideal and pursuing a common game rule is also a choice, and the whole society is also paying the price and bearing the consequences. The United States was not what it was in the beginning.I want to take religious freedom as an example.You know, there are many religions that have a history of persecuting heretics, and there are often such religions or sects that still provide us with examples of persecuting heretics from time to time.The American continent has also experienced such a process. The beginning of large-scale immigration to the American continent was caused by the religious persecution in Britain.From 1629 to 1640, more than 75,000 Puritan refugees fled England, and one-third of them came to North America.These persecuted Puritans did not thus understand tolerance.In their eyes, the world still needs an "orthodox religion" and the elimination of heresy.They only feel that they are the losers in the battle for religious orthodoxy in Britain, but they never think that they are the victims of the concept of "intolerance".Therefore, when they came to the American continent, they still regarded themselves as orthodox, requiring those who followed them to follow their rules and regulations, and also could not tolerate religious views different from theirs.The most famous is the persecution of the Quakers by the Puritans in North America.At that time, the Quakers in Massachusetts were punished and expelled, so that they were not allowed to enter the country at all. Within two or three years, four people died for violating the entry order.A lady was hanged in a Boston meeting hall for defying expulsion.You said this place is not barbaric enough.Although there was no United States at that time (before the United States became independent), this was on the same land, which happened in the generation of Americans' parents, or in other words, the generation of grandparents. In the process of the United States moving from such a situation to religious freedom, there is a very important figure, and he is Roger Williams.While in England he was known in religious circles for his integrity and devotion.When he came to the American continent, he was warmly welcomed by the Puritan churches, but he surprised them by rejecting the available positions because he could not tolerate their connection with the Church of England.When he came to the New World, he hoped to completely break away from the British church and create a brand new American church.He is an idealist and was once a very radical secessionist.In terms of personality, he is a person who pursues purity and perfection.However, this kind of personality advantage is very easy to go astray in the immature stage, which is intolerance.To put it bluntly, the reason is very simple, just because he is a good person, he can't tolerate sand in his eyes.The problem is that if he pursues not only the perfection of personality, but also the perfection of religious belief, he will not be able to tolerate beliefs, viewpoints, and opinions that are different from his own. When the pursuit of perfection goes to the extreme, it finally becomes a shortcoming.He is strict with himself and demands the same standard from others. He cannot tolerate the shortcomings of his surroundings, including those of his colleagues. He cannot tolerate any ideas and behaviors different from his own. Therefore, he has to leave his own The laity and the church, finally came to a dead end.It is precisely because this road is blocked that he has the opportunity to reflect.He finally came to his senses, realizing what is still very "modern" today: the key to religious freedom is tolerance and coexistence. (Actually, the key to freedom of association is the same.) He admitted that there are different people, different ideas, different concepts in the world, and even people can believe in different gods and gods.He then came up with a whole set of ideas.He was eventually expelled by the authorities because his proposition included the separation of church and state, denying the authority of administrative officials to religious matters.Fortunately, there was still a vast wilderness in America at that time. He bought Rhode Island from the Indians, so that the United States had an experimental site for religious freedom before independence. At this time, the advantages of his personality are truly reflected.Just because he is an idealist, and because of his integrity and selflessness, when he understands the meaning of tolerance and coexistence, he can try his best to implement it.Rhode Island has since become the first land on the North American continent to legally enjoy religious freedom.The most difficult thing is that he not only accepts various sects, but even paganism, which can be said to be the most hostile party in terms of his personal beliefs.Although he was a Puritan himself, when the Quakers were persecuted by the Puritans outside, he accepted them without hesitation.In order to ensure freedom of religion, he also established a set of corresponding democratic political system in theory and practice.The tradition of Rhode Island and the theory of Roger Williams provided a long-lasting olive for the later United States.The ideas of Rhode Island three hundred years ago also took a long way to become generally accepted in the United States.Now in America, people are much more relaxed.Actually, relaxing is good for everyone, for all religious denominations.I really live in an environment of tolerance and coexistence. Looking back at those years of bloody battles due to different beliefs, religions, and ideas, and looking at some tensions that have not yet been realized, today you put a bomb in my temple. , I will set a fire in your temple tomorrow, I really feel very, very unworthy. When we first arrived in the United States, we were very interested in the relationship between the major religions here - Catholicism and the various denominations of Christianity.Because we have read many stories about the confrontation, persecution, and even war between these sects in history, and seeing the names of different sects erected in front of different churches here, it is inevitable to have some "historical associations".Later, after chatting with American clergymen of different denominations, I found that their attitude towards this difference is very relaxed. The basic attitude is to understand other people's different understandings of the Bible. We have a good friend named Francis, who is a monk.The sect of the monastery to which he belonged was the strictest branch of Catholicism.Before the 1960s, they never spoke except to God.They still have their own beliefs, rituals and way of life today.What impresses us deeply is their simplicity, humor and kindness, as well as their understanding and interest in different cultures and religions, as well as their tolerance to the secular outside world.They treated non-religious people like us with a completely understanding attitude, and never once carried out religious propaganda or persuasion to us.As for themselves, Francis said that when he first entered the monastery, one of the elderly monks whom he respected the most, Father Ball, told him that in every historical stage of human civilization and in every society, there are always Some people consciously keep a distance from the secular life in order to facilitate thinking and dialogue with transcendent gods.Therefore, they are only out of their own choice, taking the initiative to distance themselves from the world in order to seek their philosophical thinking.Father Ball was one of the first enthusiasts in the United States to start learning and teaching Oriental bonsai.He had been to China with a delegation of college students in his early years, and he loved oriental art very much.He has taught bonsai students all over the United States.When the elderly monk passed away, we went to the funeral together, and we were surprised to find that the Catholic Church, known for its cumbersome ceremonies, has very simplified ceremonies here.They take death lightly, and their eulogies are still rich in humor, serenity and gratitude.When we came to the cemetery, we saw that they didn't even use a coffin when they were buried, truly "from dust, to dust".In this peaceful and peaceful religion, you will feel an irresistible spiritual power. This monastery also made me think that if religion can treat atheists in such a friendly and tolerant manner, then the secular world does not seem to need to treat them very nervously.Each of them can carry out their own thinking and introspection in different worlds. In the United States today, not only are churches of various denominations living in harmony, churches in different communities have their own different styles.The hymns of some churches are mixed with a lot of modern music. The black churches are even more lively. Their hymns are sometimes completely rock music. Singing and dancing together with a strong rhythm, the sound vibrates beyond the mountains.When I saw it for the first time, I was really shocked. I never dreamed that the church would make such a scene during worship.Of course, there are also very solemn churches.Sometimes they belong to the same denomination, and I used to worry, how can those traditional worship people accept the reality that they don't think their faith is profane?However, it seems my worries were unfounded.There is nothing wrong with them, because no one in America now sees the need to interfere with the way other people worship God. There is a movie here that used to be very popular, called "Crazy Nuns".It reflects the situation of Catholicism and Protestantism in the United States.It is about a black female singer. Because she is an important witness in a certain case, the police arrange her to be protected in a Catholic monastery.The monasteries are all very strict white nuns, and of course the style is completely different from that of black singers.At first, it was difficult for them to get used to each other.Later, because there was no one in the monastery's choir who was knowledgeable, and there was no improvement, the singer was pushed to the position of tuning the choir, and they began to blend together in the music.The black female singer has greatly reformed the hymns, making them "rock and roll". The conservative dean was skeptical at first, but he did not expect to be affirmed by the church's senior management during a singing.So everyone is happy.Black singers and white nuns also established a deep friendship.The movie has bandits and police chases, conflicts, a lot of jokes, and a very nice "rock anthem".A typical "Hollywood" movie.The movie was a hit, and it reflected the lighthearted state of American orthodox religion in lighthearted form.The U.S. government cannot intervene in religious affairs, and must also maintain "an even bowl of water," because church and state are separated.Not only can the government not limit or interfere with a certain religious belief and religious activities, but it also cannot appear to be inclined to or encourage a certain religion.Therefore, public schools in the United States, that is, schools run with taxpayers' money, are not allowed to teach subjects such as the "Bible".Private schools have their own decision-making power. For example, St. John's University is a private church school. It once set up a branch school in China. Many older Chinese are familiar with this school.Now in the United States, "Bible" is still a compulsory course. When you enter this school, you must study and pass the "Bible" exam. If you don't want to study, you can choose another school.But public schools, including middle and elementary schools, are not allowed to have such lessons, and teachers are not allowed to lead children in prayer in classrooms.You may not think it's a big deal, but you know, this is in a country where the Christian tradition used to be strong.When the school has been used to preaching the Bible and leading students to pray every day for hundreds of years, to prohibiting this, it will experience a big shock.For example, whether students can pray in school has always been a hotly debated topic.President Clinton, when he was governor of Arkansas, signed a measure that allowed "quiet hours" in public schools as a compromise solution to this debate.That is to say, in public schools, a time period can be set, such as five minutes or ten minutes. During this time, everyone is silent. Students with religious beliefs can pray silently, and students without religious beliefs can meditate quietly.However, any teacher-led prayers are considered religiously obligatory and banned.But private expression of religion is also allowed in public schools.Individuals can pray privately, and students can also organize collective prayer outside the classroom. They can bring "Bibles" or other religious books to school, and they can write reading notes on religious works. Students' religious groups can also be like other student groups. Similarly, use the school bulletin board or public address system to announce their party activities. This year, in the Supreme Court, there was also a public school religion-related case.The University of Virginia is a public school, and the school has always had a fund dedicated to student publications.But when a student group applied for funding for a Christian magazine they owned, it was turned down.Of course, the school has a basis, and this basis is that public funds cannot be used to fund religious activities.The student body, however, thinks this is unfair, and they have their reasons, because religious expression is part of freedom of speech, and they think it would be unfair if this fund could fund all the other student publications and exclude them alone interfere with their right to free speech.Religious expression is of course part of freedom of speech, and there is little doubt about that in the United States.Sometimes, I feel that Americans’ understanding and implementation of these concepts are a bit pedantic. For example, on the streets of New York, you can see many plants selling incense or certain incense, and some are said to be related to religion. I don’t think anyone can tell what kind of religion this is, but young people like to buy these things, and they feel quite mysterious after buying them.The problem is that these small stalls are "special stalls" that are different, and they don't need to apply for a license, because the authorities recognize that they are "religious expression" and "freedom of speech" and are not considered "stalls for business."Therefore, we can see that there are quite good reasons to stand on either side of the school and the students, and only look at it from one angle, and they all involve the understanding and implementation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.Therefore, as long as both parties insist on such a matter, there is no other way but to sue the court.In the eyes of Americans, this kind of case is by no means a trivial matter for a few students to run a publication.The whole country will be waiting impatiently for the verdict.This is a typical case: it is a question of which takes precedence when two principles collide in a situation.This happens occasionally and amounts to a paradox. On the way to the Supreme Court of the case, the Court of Appeals once made a judgment. The judgment found that the university's refusal to fund students' freedom of religious speech, although discriminatory, is in order to maintain the fundamental interest of "separation of church and state". It is still in line with the spirit of the constitution. In the end, such a difficult case still has to go to the Supreme Court, and the voting situation of the verdict also reflects the difficulty of unraveling this paradox. The verdict was passed by 5 to 4.It concluded that the University of Virginia's refusal to fund the student body's religious publications had violated their right to free speech.The student body finally won the case.A judge's judgment was very vivid. He wrote: "If religion is not included in freedom of speech, it is like the lack of the role of prince in Hamlet." The Supreme Court also stated that this only means States should take a detached stance on student groups, whether they are religious or non-religious groups, should be supported in the same way, not that the government can start funding churches from now on, the courts must prevent "abuse of power" in this regard ". The final ruling has come out, but this is only at this stage, a legally enforceable conclusion, and the debate has not stopped.Even in the religious circles, it did not arouse unanimous applause.A consultant to the Joint Baptist Public Affairs Committee of the United States put it this way: "This is an unfortunate day for religious liberty. For the first time in the history of our country, the Supreme Court has upheld public funding of religion. Our nation's The founders understood that, for religion to be meaningful, it must be voluntary, free from government assistance and control." Of course, there are completely opposite views.The Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, published such a statement, "In the fight for religious freedom, we have crossed an important threshold. The message is clear: Religious speech and teaching people, It must be treated exactly like any other group. The content of religious speech should not be a reason for not being funded." Introducing these two different views to you is not asking you to make a judgment from them.Of course, like all people, you may have your own tendencies, or you may feel that "both parents and in-laws are right" and cannot get out of this paradox.None of this matters.I think the reason why I introduce this case that just happened to you is to enable you to understand the cautious attitude of Americans towards the First Amendment to the Constitution, and to understand that more and more groups and factions in the United States have learned to use the Constitution The rights given to oneself to legally promote themselves and expand themselves, including religion, form a "fair game" and "fair competition" situation. I also want you to understand that there are many issues in the United States that do not have a final conclusion.People just revolve around the principles established more than 200 years ago and try their best to implement them.Every age has its limits and brings its new problems.Perhaps, what is important is not today's understanding, but the process of continuous thinking and understanding.Some issues have been repeatedly discussed in the United States, but they are still in the process of discussion. For example, when discussing "free expression" related to freedom of speech in the United States, there has always been a question about "burning the national flag" that has troubled everyone there. When I first came to the United States, I found a very unusual sight, that is, many American people voluntarily hang the national flag at the door of their homes.Although not every family hangs up, there are quite a few people who hang up.Some people hang it on big festivals such as National Day, and some people hang it all year round, and the national flags are available in large and small sizes.Later, I gradually learned that this situation was more common in the United States before the 1960s. Especially after World War II, Americans were full of pride and reverence for the national flag.But in the 1960s, during anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, it was common to burn flags to express anti-war sentiment.此后，用焚烧国旗的行动来表达对政府的某项政策不满的情况并不多，比如在去年，全美只发生了3起这样的焚烧事件，前年则一例也没有发生。但是，自从六十年代的自由派思潮流行，美国基本上认同这是一种“自由表达”的方式，属于言论自由的范畴。 对于这个问题也始终有不同意见。保守派对此一直是耿耿与怀。有一个众议员曾经气愤地说，这简直是美国的咄咄怪事，我们烧垃圾算违法(指环境保护法)，甚至有的州规定在自己的后院烧枯枝都算违法，可是我们在大街上，在白宫前面烧国旗的反而不算违法，真是岂有此理。又例如挂国旗的人当中，有一些是从越南战场回来的老兵，不论战争如何，他们至少相信自己是曾经为美国战斗，因此，他们常常以挂国旗来表达自己的思想和感情。如果两种观点的人各自“表达”，也就算了。问题是有一些州的法律可以找到一些类似的条文处罚“烧国旗”之类的举动。于是也引发了一些官司。在1989年和1990年美国最高法院分别作过裁决，推翻了禁止亵渎国旗的州法律和联邦法律，理由是这些法律违宪，侵犯了人民的言论自由和表达自由。 此后，美国相继有49个州要求国会以通过一项宪法修正案的形式，禁止亵渎国旗。结果，该项宪法修正案今年国庆之前在美国众议院以压倒多数通过。但是，却在参议院投票的时候受挫，没有被通过。反对的参议员说，国旗固然重要，但是言论自由更重要。 相信这样的争执并没有结束，还会一年一年争下去。我觉得重要的是这种争执所表现出来的美国人的思考方式以及对于宪法的谨慎态度。 今天就写到这儿吧。 wish it is good! Linda