ResQgeek

I've been thinking about writing about Colin Kaepernick and the issues raised by his refusal to stand for the national anthem as a gesture of support for the Black Lives Matter movement. The public reaction to his actions appear to have ended his career, since he has not been offered a new contract by any NFL team for this season. Around the league, a number of other players have begun to take a knee for the national anthem in support of Kaepernick and Black Lives Matter. It has been a couple of decades since I followed the NFL, but the cultural and economic impact of the league make it impossible to remain completely unaware of the controversy.

After the President dove into this issue this weekend, with a series of tweets (including coarse, vulgar language) calling for the owners of the NFL teams to fire any players who refuse to stand for the national anthem, I feel compelled to comment. It may take me a couple of posts to say everything I need to say, and even then I'm afraid that I won't be able to articulate all of what I'm thinking in ways that make sense.

Since the act of taking a knee or refusing to stand for the national anthem is, in my opinion, a form of protected free speech, I think it would be helpful to talk about the First Amendment. I suspect that there aren't many people who wouldn't recognize that the First Amendment protects our right to free speech (among other things), but I'm not sure how many understand that the First Amendment only prevents the government from restricting our practice of free speech. The First Amendment does not prevent employers from restricting the speech of their employees. In other words, you do NOT have an unrestricted right to free speech in the workplace.

So, if the NFL teams want to discipline players for protesting during the National Anthem, they have every right to do so. This is why Kaepernick cannot find a job in the league, and why he hasn't filed a lawsuit claiming that his free speech rights are being infringed. I have an opinion about whether Kaepernick deserves to be sanctioned for his protest, but the league and its teams can choose to do so if they wish.

But, when the President of the United States, who took an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, demands that players who express themselves in ways that he dislikes be fired, the equation changes. Now the players' speech rights are being infringed by government fiat, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. It defies belief that our President either does not seem to understand or does not care that his demands are in direct conflict with the oath of office he took at his inauguration. Regardless of the merits of the protest (which I will address in a separate post, I think), the President simply has NO business injecting himself into the matter.

Beyond that, I find it troubling that so many people are so strongly offended when people don't stand for the national anthem. Many will argue that this is simply patriotism, but I would think that a true patriot would respect the rights of others to express themselves this way. It feels to me as if we've elevated respect for the flag and anthem to the position of a nationalist religion. Any action perceived to disrespect the flag or anthem thus becomes heresy, subject to the harshest sanction. This hardly seems to be a reflection of a healthy society to me. Wouldn't it better for us to embrace a patriotism that cares less for symbolic actions and focuses instead on acknowledging our shortcomings and working together to overcome them?

Most people in the US know that the official national motto is "In God We Trust". However, I suspect that many don't realize that this motto was only officially adopted with the enactment of legislation signed by President Eisenhower in 1956, only two years after the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance. While the words "In God We Trust" did appear on US coins and currency intermitently prior to 1956, it was not an official motto.

Last week, a number of people posted warnings on Facebook not to accept certain $1 coins because they allegedly omit the national motto. As I pointed out in my response, this allegation is NOT true, as a quick search on Snope.com will show. However, both the allegation and my rebuttal fail to address a more central problem.

I know that some people will (strongly) disagree with me about this, but both the national motto and the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are clear and unambiguous violations of the First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion. While neither of these invocations of "God" is sectarian (in that they broadly apply to many, perhaps most, religions), they nevertheless represent an establishment of religion because they necessarily presuppose the existence of some "God". The very notion of 'freedom of religion' requires that we also acknowledge that in some cases this is embodied as a 'freedom *from* religion'. Just as government cannot promote any specific form of religion over any other, the government likewise has no business addressing the very existence (or not) of any "God". Such matters are rightly the domain of religious institutions, and the government has no authority or right to intrude into this realm.

We have had a long history of denying the patriotism of groups of people because of their religious views (or lack thereof). For that matter, we often question the loyalty of those who hold differing political views. Perhaps we should (finally) acknowledge that while we might not share common beliefs (whether religious or political) and our ideas for what might be best for the country may be different, it does not mean that either side is any less loyal or patriotic. I have many friends who are atheists, and I have not found that their lack of faith to be any threat to my own beliefs. I will defend their right to *not* believe as a fundamental component of the principle of religious freedom.

Removing the phrase "In God We Trust" from our money and the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is NOT an attack on religion. Such changes in NO way impose any barriers to the free exercise of religion or harm religious institutions. Instead, it is an acknowledgement that not everyone believes in any god, and that they are perfectly free to so believe. So to everyone out there that has been fussing about the (non-existent) removal of "God" from our currency, please take a moment and honestly ask yourself how such a measure would really hurt you or your faith. As for me, my faith does not require confirmation by the government, and I find any efforts by the government to encroach into this domain to be much more of a threat, because it would endanger my freedom to choose what I believe.