Pros And Cons Of National Anthems
According to Colin Kaepernick ,he said I refuse to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people. There has been a lot of controversy concerning Colin Kaepernick’s, the quarterback for San Fransico, decision for the pledge (Florio). According to Mike Florio of NBC Sports, Kaepernick has caused many problems in football, but he also has many people on his side. The national anthem is played before every football game and people must stand when it’s being played (Lutz). Americans should not be forced to pledge the flag because it contradicts the reality of society, infringes on the freedom of speech, and religion.
“Kaepernick refuses to show pride in a country that oppresses black people.” San Francisco 49ers quarterback, Colin
Kaepernick, has caused many problems in football for not standing for the national anthem (Florio). He may start a new legacy on not standing for the pledge. Many people may agree with him and do the same. “This is not something that I am going to run by anybody, I am not looking for approval.” According to Donald Trump, “ I think it’s a terrible thing, and maybe he should find a country that works better for him.” This is not necessarily true, however, you can’t make someone leave the country just because they aren’t following your rules” (Florio). Kaepernick is waiting on an “significant change” if not, he will continue to kneel for the national anthem. Kaepernick isn’t in agony, he is just trying to prohibit what happens in the future (Lutz). Many people are going to disagree with each other and maybe stay on the same side, there’s always ups and downs to things.
Second, imposing the pledge infringes on the freedom of speech. The NCAA defending champs, Connecticut, played against Arkansas. An extremely rare request came in about the national anthem (Longman). “ Pendergrast said, “ Gets more people focused on the anthem itself” (Longman). According to Douglas Laycock, he said, he is not aware of the pledges being recited before sporting events. Some people say if they weren’t American, they would be put in an awkward position, it’s true they would but that doesn’t have anything to do with reciting the pledge (Longman). This has been difficult to many people. The bottom line is people have the choice to say the pledge or not under their constitutional right to the speech (Lutz). In summary, start a new legacy allowing people to exercise their right to free speech.
Meanwhile, people who opposed saying “under God” would be put in agony at any sporting event (Longman). The professor at University of Virginia of Law and Authority, Douglas Laycock, said, “problematic but probably entirely legal.” The university is asking people for a quick statement to acknowledge one nation under God. Some people say no one has to say this if they don’t want to, it’s true, however, no one should be forced to say this (Longman). Some people aren’t “under God” like others. The pledge is starting a new legacy; making people kneel to the pledge. People who are uncomfortable saying “under God” wouldn’t have to say it if they didn’t want to. This phrase was made in 1954 (Longman). If you prohibit people from getting upset saying “under God” many people would be happier.
“Kaepernick refuses to show pride in a country that oppresses black people.” San Francisco 49ers quarterback, Colin
Kaepernick, has caused many problems in football for not standing for the national anthem (Florio). He may start a new legacy on not standing for the pledge. Many people may agree with him and do the same. “This is not something that I am going to run by anybody, I am not looking for approval.” According to Donald Trump, “ I think it’s a terrible thing, and maybe he should find a country that works better for him.” This is not necessarily true, however, you can’t make someone leave the country just because they aren’t following your rules” (Florio). Kaepernick is waiting on an “significant change” if not, he will continue to kneel for the national anthem. Kaepernick isn’t in agony, he is just trying to prohibit what happens in the future (Lutz). Many people are going to disagree with each other and maybe stay on the same side, there’s always ups and downs to things.
Second, imposing the pledge infringes on the freedom of speech. The NCAA defending champs, Connecticut, played against Arkansas. An extremely rare request came in about the national anthem (Longman). “ Pendergrast said, “ Gets more people focused on the anthem itself” (Longman). According to Douglas Laycock, he said, he is not aware of the pledges being recited before sporting events. Some people say if they weren’t American, they would be put in an awkward position, it’s true they would but that doesn’t have anything to do with reciting the pledge (Longman). This has been difficult to many people. The bottom line is people have the choice to say the pledge or not under their constitutional right to the speech (Lutz). In summary, start a new legacy allowing people to exercise their right to free speech.
Meanwhile, people who opposed saying “under God” would be put in agony at any sporting event (Longman). The professor at University of Virginia of Law and Authority, Douglas Laycock, said, “problematic but probably entirely legal.” The university is asking people for a quick statement to acknowledge one nation under God. Some people say no one has to say this if they don’t want to, it’s true, however, no one should be forced to say this (Longman). Some people aren’t “under God” like others. The pledge is starting a new legacy; making people kneel to the pledge. People who are uncomfortable saying “under God” wouldn’t have to say it if they didn’t want to. This phrase was made in 1954 (Longman). If you prohibit people from getting upset saying “under God” many people would be happier.