Agreed. I feel the same way.
Just one more reason I’m not surprised whom you’re voting for. :rolleyes:
Small anecdote. I am an Australian. I was at a conference in Atlanta in 2004. One of the conference events was at a baseball game. Braves were playing someone, can’t remember which team.
I was in a room talking earnestly with some people from South East Asia, mainly Singaporeans and Malaysians. It was a networking thing. They were getting very animated and laughing at the conversation. Vaguely in the background the US anthem starts playing, before the game as it does. Other people in the room, Americans, fell silent and stood to attention. Our conversation became louder. I glanced at an overhead TV and see a camera focussed on a man in the stadium, holding his son’s hand with his left hand and covering his heart with his right hand, singing the anthem. I thought, “Huh, how interesting, must be an ex-serviceman.”
Then I started noticing the utterly filthy looks we were getting from the other occupants of the room. I told my colleagues to hush and to show respect o orthe US anthem. There were some confused looks and once person whispered, sotto voce, “Well, I’m not American.” But we all stopped talking and laughing. The dirty looks subsided. Once the anthem was over, noise resumed and we started talking again.
But no one came near us for the rest of the night.
I rarely hear the Australian anthem played except at my children’s school, and I have started standing for it recently because the other parents do. I wouldn’t remove a cap or hat if it started playing and certainly wouldn’t cover my heart. I think there is a gap there between a sense of Australian national identity and showing deference to the Australian anthem which I never considered until I got caught out that time in Atlanta.
For what it’s worth, I chuckled.
Well f**k them, then.
There’s some reason to stand with your hand over your heart:
Because there is no penalty for non-compliance, it’s certainly fair to say that no one is compelled to act thusly, but it’s hyperbole to say that no reason at all exists. It’s simply not a compelling reason.
Or it may be that you are drawing a distinction between a military salute and the civilian hand-over-heart with that latter not constituting a “salute?”
It seems to be that way, given the emphasis on the word “salute,” (which is also a distinction I would make, as I wouldn’t call the hand-over-heart thing a “salute,” although I suppose it accomplishes the same thing that a salute would–just not how I think of a salute colloquially.)
Out of curiosity, does the word “should” carry legal meaning there? I mean, I understand there’s no penalty associated with not saluting or anything, but I’m curious if, in general, the word “should” has legal meaning as opposed to “shall” or “must” or whatever.
This is what i remember. (late 60’s)
I noticed the ‘should’ and ‘may’ also. Seems more like a suggestion than a rule. And we already know enforcing won’t hold up under the 1st amendment.
That’s one fucking law that needs to be repealed, penalty for non compliance or not. The government wants to tell me what I should do when a particular song is played? Can they also make me do the stupid YMCA dance?
Damn straight. When the hell did “God Bless America” becomes the country’s secondary anthem, anyway (I know, 9/11, but still …)?
I’m beyond irritated at the PA announcer at ball games telling the crowd to “please rise, and remove your hats” for the singing of “God Bless America.” I’ll stand for our national anthem, thank you, don’t tell me what else I have to stand up for. Soon it’ll be “please rise for the singing of Rock and Roll Pt. 2, and remain standing for the performance of Seven Nation Army by the Pleasant Valley Middle School choir.”
My family is aware of my ranting. They’re mostly tolerant.
At least it isn’t God Bless The U.S.A.
That is a relatively recent change. Military personnel were not allowed to salute out of uniform until that change. We always stood at attention and nothing else. I don’t know if the hand over the heart part changed then too.
So far as I am aware, it simply makes clearer that the statute’s dictates are aspirational and not mandatory.
Prior to 2008, sub-paragraphs A-C read as follows:
The most recent change prior to 2008 was from 1976, and that also contained similar language, although not broken out by paragraph. See this page image.
Prior to 1976, the most recent amendment was in 1942.
A law that compelled this speech (or expressive speech-like conduct) would be impermissible.
But a law that suggests without mandating? Sorry, can’t agree.
They can’t make you do the dance, either, but then again you already knew they couldn’t make you do the salute when you asked about the dance, so I suspect you were trying to strengthen your rhetoric with an inapposite comparison.
Again, the difference between what they can do and what they should do.
The government should not be prescribing means for expressing patriotism or loyalty for the public, whether in the form of a suggestion or not.
The language of the law is poor. The government can establish reasonable voluntary protocols but the law should make the voluntary part clear. Or not have the law, other than the requirements for the military there’s no need for it.
Of course they can’t compel it. But they also shouldn’t.(to borrow a term) even suggest it. It’s not a proper role of govermpnment
What if you don’t have a right hand?
Or a heart? Y’know… like Republicans.