Reponse to something I saw on Facebook...

[alexpgp]

A graphic distributed by the Citizens Corporation states that on

June 13, 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that no one can be forced to participate in patriotic rituals such as the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem.

When you call for an NFL player to be fired, you are calling for the law to be broken.

It's not open for debate.

It's established LAW.

What I commented:

FWIW, in the case referred to, the Supreme Court ruled that the *government* did not have the power to compel public school students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The National Anthem was not an issue, and the last time I checked, the NFL was not a government agency.

Personally, I don't care what players do. Take a knee, flip the bird, or sing an aria from Turandot. But the Citizens Corporation is being a bit disingenuous here.

P.S. BTW, the NFL has, in the past, dictated how players may express themselves when wearing team uniforms. That they choose not to in this instance is, well... interesting.

I chose not to go into details, but I found it interesting that the case arrived at the Supreme Court because the children of Jehovah's Witnesses were being penalized for hewing to their religious beliefs.

I am also allergic to the idea that any subject is "not open for debate."

Poppycock.

Should the Dred Scott decision of 1857 been "not open for debate" after the ruling was made? Obviously not.

That said, I'm not arguing that the Court's decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette was wrong. I'm arguing that nothing, ever, should be labeled "not open to debate."

vale