Amen! The idea that the armed forces should be able to trumpet their imperialistic adventuring abroad for free is truly disturbing to me. Then again, the fact that the military spends untold millions on advertising (the branding firm that came up with the slogan "Army Strong" back in 2006 was on a $200-million-a-year contract !) is equally, if not not more, disturbing to me.

---

I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness. So I was not allowed to stand for the anthem or say the pledge of allegiance.
I was punched and kicked by other kids. And even belittled by one of my teachers in front of the class.
I never understood, because I loved my country. Years late after I left the JWs, I talked with my Mom and she had felt as I did.
So i guess I’m a little more proud to show my love for this country then some who seem to take it for granted. When I got to sing the anthem at the Brewers game in 2010, it was one of the proudest moments in my life.

---

Why can't JW's stand for the pledge?

---

That's a real cool story Cheesy! Just remember though that other people have different experiences and different ways to show love of country. I find the anthem and its traditions to be a lot like church. You can still have faith and not go to church. You can still believe the tenants of a particular religion but not partake in organized religious activities. If the troops defend our freedom, then why are we asking people to not exercise those rights in the name of the troops?

---

Some Jehovah's Witnesses object to the taking of oaths , and most consider outward displays of respect for a national flag to be a form of idolatry .

Frankly, it doesn't bother me when people choose not to participate in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. I find the whole practice of essentially coercing young children into mindlessly swearing allegiance to a concept as abstract as a republic somewhat creepy and even borderline repugnant. It smacks of medieval feudalism to me. I think a person should have the capacity to grasp the profound implications of swearing an oath of fealty to a power much greater than themselves before they're asked to do it. Imagine if a teacher started leading schoolchildren in the oath of enlistment!


I know this is an extreme example, but how is it really any different? How would the children know not to simply follow along?

If you don't get goosebumps while taking an oath (as I did and I'm sure most soldiers do when taking the oath of enlistment), you probably shouldn't be uttering it. Oaths are serious business. They aren't meant to be recited by rote.

---

What current Packers knelt during the National Anthem? I recall two or three sitting, and from then on interlocking of arms.

---

Perhaps, but the flyovers, the flag waving, card sections, and other activities, which were prominently shoved in our faces to illustrate how pro-American the league was were likely charged to the Armed Forces by the NFL. For the in game ads, the Armed Forces, or anyone else, should pay. The NFL policies on which ads they accept is also irritating.

Why did they NOT want the fact that they were charging the AF or other activities known??? Because NFL wanted to sell the image of begin pro-armed forces, when actually, they are just whores maximizing revenue... just another entertainment outlet. (Not certain individual players, the league.) They don't care about anything but revenue. If the Nazis were running the country, or the Socialists (oh that's right, they were) they would take their money and waive whatever flag they were paid to waive...all for the buck.

If sports figures want to opine and advocate, that's great. I just don't want to tune in to entertainment program to have it shoved in my face. They should do it on their own time, on their own venue. Sports is entertainment, and the more sports figures try to influence people during entertainment times, the more they will alienate their audience.

---

Through the first amendment, we imply the existence of a separation between church and state. Should we also have a separation of business and government and military? I know which way I lean.

---

The first amendment has NOTHING to do with this issue. The first amendment provides that the GOVERNMENT can not impinge upon our freedom of speech. It does not apply to an employer. These players are employees.

If you’re an employee of Starbucks, try yelling “Dunkin donuts coffee is better”, and see how long you’re still employed. During the period of employment, especially during the hours of appointment when one is at the job, your employer has the ability to dictate what you can and cannot say.

Prohibition of what an employee can or cannot say was not, it was never meant to be, part of the First Amendment.

---

Businesses absolutely have the right to fire you for whatever they want, although there are certain protections for employees, but that wasn't exactly what I was trying to say in my post. I'm essentially asking about the government or the military's involvement in businesses to this degree. If they want to be involved like they are, then it is unfair to expect the employees not to consider expressing themselves in their own way, as well. So not only do you have the employer telling you what to do in this scenario, but you have the government telling you what to do. I don't like that, in theory. I like freedom.

---