This question is about the article "American flag stands for tolerance"
Answer and Explanation:
Allen shows that he believes that an individual can present better ways to show his discontent with the government instead of disrespecting the national flag by burning it, with that, we can see that he does not agree with the Supreme Court's decision to allow the burning of flags is a fair protest against the government, but quickly Allen claims that the Supreme Court is correct in allowing this, since even presenting a form of disrespect, the burning of flags is part of a peaceful protest, in addition to allowing freedom of expression in the country.
This shows that Allen's arguments are based on the country's ethical and legal standards and not on his own opinions, or on the sentimetalism he may feel for national symbols. He addresses the counterargument as a justification as to why he should not evaluate the Supreme Court's permission, but rather support it. This can be seen through the paragraph:
<em>"The American flag is a cherished symbol of our national aspirations [...] iven the widespread and deeply felt reverence for this symbol of what we perceive to be the best of our civilization, what is the harm in insisting upon a modicum of respect for it? [...] Any messages that burning the flag might convey easily can be communicated in other ways. </em>
<em>The Supreme Court was not wrong. Indeed, a decision contrary to the one reached would have been a definitive step away from our national aspirations. A commitment to the intertwined freedoms of conscience and expression is at the core of those aspirations. What most distinguishes our civilization from both its predecessors and its contemporary competitors is a belief in the sanctity of the human conscience. Each individual is to have the freedom to develop by his or her own lights, and not by the command of officialdom. That requires not just the right to be let alone, but also the right to communicate with, to learn from and test views in conversations."</em>
