Shadowy Man

So, you feel that partaking in customs unrelated to the actual playing of the basketball game is mandatory? One should not be allowed on the team if one does not want to stand for the national anthem?

I can understand not being on the team if one doesn't want to practice, but what does the national anthem have to do with playing basketball?

To me, it is a dangerous precedent to set to say that one can't be on the team if one doesn't agree with the political ideology of the rest of the team.

Ensign Steve

Why not? I disagree, but it is possible that I am wrong and you are right. How will I never know if you don't make an argument for your position?



That's a good question. I don't know either. I thought it was in Political Discussions!

Feather

Okay, now I'm just confused here. Being a somewhat enthusiastic online person, I have come across the famed "!!!111!!1!" in your quote more often as a sarcastic/caustic remark aimed at the originator with the intent to compare him to some lame script kiddie hacker (i.e. with the intent to argue that his point is invalid because he is an immature/dumb little child).

Were you trying to clarify that my argument is not, in fact, that the basketball player has no rights, or were you "clarifying" that my argument is that the fans paying to see a game have more right to see her not protest than she has a right to protest (which is not, in fact, my argument).

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Philosoft

In what text is this "right" delineated, so that I may read it for myself?

Harumi

Sorry about being another on your case, but I have to ask.

Do the students then, who refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school because they are protesting the word "God" actually had no right to do this? The Pledge is, after all, a customary pre-school ceremony.

Majestyk

Basketball is an extra-curricular activity, not considered to be a part of the education that is mandated by law for the school to provide or the student to acquire. Hence it is not subject to the same rules of inclusion that govern the school’s primary function. The exclusionary nature of the activity has been established and accepted to include denial of participation for reasons other than the ability to perform in the actual event. Although there are a number of exceptions to the team administrator’s right of exclusion, willful disruption of or refusal to participate in a legitimate pre-game activity is not amongst them.

Furthermore, the refusal to participate in the pre-event activity would reasonably include refusal to participate in the activity to which the event was associated. The school being an extension of the government that is being protested, the National Anthem is recognition of that association. It would not seem reasonable that one could protest thru refusal to recognize one portion of the event and expect to participate in the other. Such desire to participate in an activity, that was sponsored by the entity under protest, would at the very least indicate a rather shallow commitment to the issue being protested.

Smith has every right to protest. She should also protest the education she has received so far for its failure to teach her the difference between the current government administration and the American flag, as she seems to be able to separate the pre-game activities from the game itself.

Shadowy Man

Never mind...

Harumi

I'm very very very sorry. But could you rewrite this into something more comprehensible? You completely lost me after the first activity...

And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I sincerely wish to understand what you're trying to say. Thank you.

Shadowy Man

He is saying that since school athletics is not part of the government-mandated curriculum, that the school reserves the right to refuse any student's participation in that activity based on issues that have nothing to do with that activity.

Harumi

Oh! Well why couldn't Majestyk just write that?!

Stupid verbose people trying to confuse those of us who are more easily overwhelmed...Amos clones!