When the “Star-Spangled Banner” plays at an NFL game, pride for the U.S.A. usually overcomes the crowd and gets everyone on their feet. The raw excitement for the game, a quintessentially American pastime, gets everyone riled up and screaming as soon as the tune comes to a close. However, San Francisco 49s quarterback Colin Kaepernick has recently made headlines for refusing to stand during the National Anthem in an attempt to shed light on the current racial situation in the United States. Athletes, fans, politicians, and even NFL executives have been vocal about Kaepernick’s “Anti-American” and “disrespectful” decision. Many believe that by disrespecting the national symbol, he is in turn disrespecting the military men and women that have
…show more content…
Followers of this ideology believe that citizens are allowed to do as they please, so long as they act within the public law. As stated by Title 36 of the United States Code, “during rendition of the national anthem […], all present should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart” (Lord) This, however, it is not a law under the United States government – it is merely a suggestion, as showcased by the use of the word “should.” This entails that Kaepernick, a man in accordance with the law, has every right to refuse to stand as the tunes of the “Star-Spangled Banner” vibrate through the stadium. Not only is San Francisco’s #7 exercising his “constitutional right to make a statement,” as Obama put it (TV-Novosti), he is also acting in accordance to the foundation of the Liberal belief system. Kaepernick is doing “whatever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself and others within the permissions of the law” (Locke, 16) and thus is not only abiding the Liberal principle, he is excelling in it. He is doing what few citizens have done; he is shedding light to a social issue that demands attention in order to strengthen the laws around it that will prevent racial discrimination from being tolerated by the
Followers of this ideology believe that citizens are allowed to do as they please, so long as they act within the public law. As stated by Title 36 of the United States Code, “during rendition of the national anthem […], all present should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart” (Lord) This, however, it is not a law under the United States government – it is merely a suggestion, as showcased by the use of the word “should.” This entails that Kaepernick, a man in accordance with the law, has every right to refuse to stand as the tunes of the “Star-Spangled Banner” vibrate through the stadium. Not only is San Francisco’s #7 exercising his “constitutional right to make a statement,” as Obama put it (TV-Novosti), he is also acting in accordance to the foundation of the Liberal belief system. Kaepernick is doing “whatever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself and others within the permissions of the law” (Locke, 16) and thus is not only abiding the Liberal principle, he is excelling in it. He is doing what few citizens have done; he is shedding light to a social issue that demands attention in order to strengthen the laws around it that will prevent racial discrimination from being tolerated by the