RE: Student sits during pledge of allegiance; gets chair kicked out from beneath him
October 26, 2017 at 8:33 am
(October 26, 2017 at 8:09 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:(October 25, 2017 at 2:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I think it is disrespectful if you are not protesting for a particular cause. Not standing up for no other reason than just because you "can't be bothered" is disrespectful. So many people have died for this country and risked their lives for it. Meanwhile someone else can't even be bothered to stand up for 2 minutes? I see that as disrespectdul to those people and especially to those people's families who have to deal with the fear for, and absense/loss of, their loved ones.
It's an unconstitutional piece of rabble rousing rhetoric more suited to somewhere like Nazi Germany.
I think that is what she is not getting.
This is not spitting on the service of her husband, not one bit. The western concepts of the ability to dissent as an individual citizen, and protesting power, isn't an indictment of service. It is what her husband defends, the First Amendment is not a demand to always agree.
I value her husband's service, regardless of his personal political views. But no matter what the personal beliefs of the individual soldier there is no party oath to serve, every soldier takes the same oath, and that oath is to the Constitution, not voluntary ritual.
I can't stand McCain's economic views, but have NEVER nor will ever question his service just like I don't question the service of Khan.
The D-Day soldiers were not politically monochromatic. They were from BOTH parties and came from every state in the Union. The soldiers of Nam, same thing. And that pluralism in service still remains today as it should be.
There is absolutely no point in having the First Amendment if we demand blind loyalty through forced ritual.