Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Goshen College Declares War on National Anthem
GOPUSA ^ | 06-16-11 | Paul A. Ibbetson

Posted on 06/16/2011 11:36:15 PM PDT by 1pitech

Officials at Goshen College, a Mennonite college in Indiana, have banned the use of the Star-Spangled Banner during sporting events. The reason school officials gave for the ban was that America’s National Anthem was deemed too violent. Specifically, according to Todd Starnes of FOX News, the school’s online fact sheet stated, “Historically, playing the national anthem has not been among Goshen College’s practices because of our Christ-centered core value of compassionate peacemaking seeming to be in conflict with the anthem’s militaristic language.” Professor John Blosser, an art instructor at Goshen, attempted to clarify the school’s opposition to the national anthem by saying, “It’s obviously about a battle. It’s rather violent. It’s about using violence to conquer and that would be something that many people would have problems with.”

(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: goshencollege; nationalanthem

1 posted on 06/16/2011 11:36:18 PM PDT by 1pitech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

Old


2 posted on 06/16/2011 11:41:48 PM PDT by Havisham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Havisham

Stupid too.


3 posted on 06/16/2011 11:42:29 PM PDT by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it's the new black. Mmm mmm mmm...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

I hate when people don’t know their history.

Yes the battle at Ft. McHenry in Baltimore was violent. But it was not an act of conquest by the Americans. The British were trying to invade and occupy Baltimore. The Americans successfully defended the port of Baltimore. We were fighting in self-defense. Even peace loving religious people like this Goshen college group recognize the right to fight in self defense.

They are probably just liberal, dressed up and hiding behind some notion of pacifism, for which they really aren’t even adhering to Christian standards in expressing. And they don’t know the history of the Star Spangled Banner or the battle at Ft. McHenry. But if one is liberal enough, one appears to get a pass on such concepts as knowing the history of what allegedly inspired you to take the position you hold and publicize.


4 posted on 06/16/2011 11:45:01 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
Religious extremism is a mental illness.
5 posted on 06/16/2011 11:59:10 PM PDT by BigCinBigD ("We hold it in our power, to begin the world anew")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

“Officials”

“school officals”


6 posted on 06/17/2011 12:05:20 AM PDT by wolficatZ (Somebody once wrote "Revenge is a dish that has to be eaten cold".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
Mennonites are pacifists. This is a denomination that goes back to the 16th century. They have practiced non-violence for centuries. During the Protestant Reformation, they were persecuted by both Catholics and other Protestants because they believed in a strict separation of church and state. They were also persecuted because they were Anabaptist--they only baptized adults, not children or infants. Many were killed since they refused to defend themselves when attacked.

They are not anti-American. They just don't believe in using violence of any sort. They are conscientious objectors. When drafted into the armed services during past wars, they served in non-combantant roles.

This is a private college. My guess is that they take no government funding. Given their traditions, there is no reason why they would play the national anthem at sporting events.

7 posted on 06/17/2011 12:22:07 AM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
“It’s obviously about a battle,

It's about liberty, and liberty is not in conflict with Christian core values. Liberalism however, is in conflict with both...which may explain why this dumbass is confused.

8 posted on 06/17/2011 12:29:49 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

Mennonites=Wimps


9 posted on 06/17/2011 12:39:16 AM PDT by dupree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

You utterly lame, moronic, daffy loser; you just TALK peace - the United States Marine Corps MAKES and MAINTAINS the peace you enjoy.

Pull your head out of your effin’ *ss, you inspid buttmunch.


10 posted on 06/17/2011 12:39:39 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I hate when people don’t know their history.

How much history do you know about the Mennonites? This is a Protestant denomination that goes back to the 16 century. If you know your history you would know their long commitment to non-violence. You would also know that many were persecuted and killed in the past centuries since they refused the defend themselves when attacked.

They are probably just liberal, dressed up and hiding behind some notion of pacifism, for which they really aren’t even adhering to Christian standards in expressing.

Mennonites are not liberals. They are hard-working conservative people. Their understanding of Christianity may be different from yours and mine. They take a very literal view of the passages of the New Testament that advocate non-violence. They also believe in a strict separation of church and state.

How many Mennonites will you find on welfare and food stamps? I would say zero.

11 posted on 06/17/2011 12:40:11 AM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

You are wasting your time. The people you are trying to reason with are incapable of reason. They would rather throw around venom and seek virtual high fives because it makes them feel better about their own lives.

The internet has brought this mentality upon us. People simply are becoming incapable of anything other than bumper sticker slogans and superficial thought.

When you point out to them that: “Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only a unanimity at the graveyard.” They find themselves utterly incapable of understanding what that means.


12 posted on 06/17/2011 12:54:37 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

Then I guess they really don’t like “Onward Christian Soldiers.”


13 posted on 06/17/2011 12:57:43 AM PDT by Rocky (REPEAL IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
our Christ-centered core value of compassionate peacemaking seeming to be in conflict with the anthem’s militaristic language.

If this is the only reason, they must have a different Bible than the one I have. Mine has a lot of militaristic language.

14 posted on 06/17/2011 2:26:29 AM PDT by paudio (The differences between Clinton and 0bama? About a dozen of former Democratic Congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

I’d sooner see a private school choose to abstain from a song that it believes glorifies wrongful violence (even though that’s not at all the intended meaning in context, good grief the last line even qualifies it with “when our cause it is just”) than to teach that trampling flags and carrying out other obscene anti-patriotic street drama is cool.


15 posted on 06/17/2011 2:32:37 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rocky

Prolly not but so?


16 posted on 06/17/2011 2:33:05 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Broadly put, there is little in the New Testament to suggest a bellicose bent to Christians, although Jesus warned his disciples to take at least a minimum of self defense, and Christian principles would suggest this be carried out to protect at least family and fellow believers, if not an arbitrary home land. The armies of Revelation are of heavenly origin, and the Old Testament read at face value is centered around a one-off earthly arrangement for a particular race (actually, set of races — Ishmael is quite busy fulfilling his role as trouble maker today).


17 posted on 06/17/2011 2:39:36 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

Then your also aware of their fabrication work for the drug cartels in Mexico an central an south America ?

Given they won’t touch drugs but they know the false compartments they build are for smuggling. they know what the end product they build is used for.

Violence, suffering etc...

Yeah there are good ones true to their core beliefs yet not all nor many.

Lots of bad folks hide an work within such groups. Back then an now.

Stay Safe...


18 posted on 06/17/2011 2:54:57 AM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I am aware that NT doesn't have much reference on militaristic language. My point is that we will see a lot of military language, especially in the OT. If the presence of military language alone is enough ground for banning the National Anthem, like the quote says, they should also ban the OT.
19 posted on 06/17/2011 3:22:56 AM PDT by paudio (The differences between Clinton and 0bama? About a dozen of former Democratic Congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
"Those who would beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who didn't."...somebody well known.
20 posted on 06/17/2011 3:45:48 AM PDT by Tainan (Cogito Ergo Conservitus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
Well said. I see use for this sentiment and these words very frequently. Perhaps I should copy and save for use.
With attribution, of course...;)
21 posted on 06/17/2011 3:51:28 AM PDT by Tainan (Cogito Ergo Conservitus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

And the horse sh-t gets deeper, we’ve far surpassed the 1st 11 years of the last century. And this from a supposedly religous institution.


22 posted on 06/17/2011 4:23:41 AM PDT by Waco (Nominate Palin or forget 2012 you lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
It seems that a little violence is needed against these vermin... perhaps a boot well applied to their collective arses.

LLS

23 posted on 06/17/2011 4:31:16 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES... a Conservative subsidiary of Reagan's party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio

My Bible teaches that GOD HIMSELF can get pretty violent when he is angry.

LLS


24 posted on 06/17/2011 4:34:06 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES... a Conservative subsidiary of Reagan's party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tainan

A hope a biblical scholar can help me. I believe the statement that they will beat their plowshares into swords preceeds the swords into plowshares. Was it Amos? Or one of the prophets?


25 posted on 06/17/2011 4:42:22 AM PDT by Melchior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tainan

A hope a biblical scholar can help me. I believe the statement that they will beat their plowshares into swords preceeds the swords into plowshares. Was it Amos? Or one of the prophets?


26 posted on 06/17/2011 4:43:37 AM PDT by Melchior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

Given their traditions, there is no reason why they would play the national anthem at sporting events.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Correct...this is really ‘old news’. Even the article cites “Historically, playing the National Anthem has NOT been among Goshen Colleges practices...etc”
So this isn’t a practice that was thought up yesterday.

Go to a ball game with multiple fields and ‘the norm’ is if a game is in progress and another is just starting they DON’T stop the game in progress to observe the Anthem being played for the game just starting....(at least at the majority of the HS games I have been to this spring).
I really figure in this case better to let the kids get used to it. Oh yes, the kids do have a ‘team meeting’ prior to their games with no coaches present...heads bowed etc...don’t imagine they are praying now do you....

Few years back - as a civilian - I was exiting Fort Dietrick MD when Evening Colors were being observed...I exited my vehicle and stood at attention while the car behind me started blowing his horn. (I wasn’t impeding anything because the MP’s had ‘stopped’ what they were doing). Last I saw of the ‘horn blower’ was a couple of MP’s had him pulled over “inspecting his vehicle” etc...


27 posted on 06/17/2011 4:56:25 AM PDT by xrmusn ((6/98) Time to clean House (and Senate) again. Incumbents begone!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

Goshen College better close their doors. History is much more violent then the national anthem.


28 posted on 06/17/2011 5:07:25 AM PDT by chainsaw (I'd hate to be a democrat running against Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

“Christ-centered core value of compassionate peacemaking”

Contrast that drivel with The Word: “His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword” (Revelation 1:16)

and:

“the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
[8] Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
[9] Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” (Psalm 2:7)

and:

“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)


29 posted on 06/17/2011 5:12:24 AM PDT by RoadTest (Organized religion is no substitute for the relationship the living God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melchior
My quote was a paraphrase of the original words. The original wording is from a Biblical character. I do not know exactly who or where.
I feel confident that one of the Freepers will be able to locate and quote the exact words.

I found this at wisegeeks.com...for what its worth:
In the Book of Joel, one verse refers to beating plowshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears, in a verse in which people are encouraged to rise up to defend themselves and their values. The same phrasing is used again in the Books of Micah and Isiah, with an opposite meaning, in verses which tell people to beat swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, referencing the need to return to peace. A sword is a potent symbol of military efforts, while a plowshare symbolizes agrarian life and community.

The contrasting uses of this term in the Bible could be used to illustrate the need to defend oneself when appropriate, but to dismantle the tools of war after a mission has been accomplished. “Swords into plowshares” is often taken to mean a return to peaceful ways, and a very final way of turning one's back on war, by literally destroying the weapons with which war could be waged. One could also theoretically take it to mean that the tools of war are potentially always ready to hand, given the verse in which people beat plowshares into swords, although this interpretation is not widespread.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-origins-of-beat-swords-into-plowshares.htm
30 posted on 06/17/2011 5:45:55 AM PDT by Tainan (Cogito Ergo Conservitus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xrmusn
Last I saw of the ‘horn blower’ was a couple of MP’s had him pulled over “inspecting his vehicle” etc...

Perhaps the 'horn blower' will think next time!

31 posted on 06/17/2011 7:49:44 AM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

Perhaps the ‘horn blower’ will think next time!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I seriously doubt he would ‘learn’ anything.
Usually that ‘stoopid’ is unteachable.

Of course, he did ‘win’ in the long run.

Now have civilians at most DOD gates - Guess you could call them “TSA light”.

At least with Military on Gate, if you had VN or some such tags on Vehicle you were treated with a little courtesy.
My VN tags ALWAYS drew a salute when going onto Quantico.
Especially if you had all your ‘stuff’ in order when the MP got to your vehicle....


32 posted on 06/17/2011 9:11:24 AM PDT by xrmusn ((6/98) Time to clean House (and Senate) again. Incumbents begone!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776
Mennonites are pacifists.

I believe that strict pacifism is fundamentally evil. They depend upon others to protect them, while indulging in feelings moral superiority over the "violent" defenders.

Finally when a situation arises where one of them must use force to protect those he loves, he is proclaimed as being sinful for practicing violence. They give their members a choice between laying down their lives, or laying down their souls.

33 posted on 06/17/2011 10:29:58 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

Violence is the only reason Americans are still somewhat free. Over a million Americans have died in war to defend that freedom.


34 posted on 06/17/2011 11:10:16 AM PDT by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Generally, pacifist (and many not so pacifist) Christian followings take spiritual metaphor and illustration from the Old Testament when seeing what it has to teach them, without necessarily denying a secondary literal meaning for a limited people group. When preaching verses out of the Old Testament to a congregation on Sunday, the preacher has ample time to explain his context. I don’t think they would want to have to follow The Star Spangled Banner with a cautionary exegesis every time they sing it.


35 posted on 06/17/2011 3:26:23 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Doormattery doesn’t really work unless you have an enemy that can be shamed at the sight of carnage. Such instances in history are limited.


36 posted on 06/17/2011 3:27:39 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
“It’s obviously about a battle. It’s rather violent. It’s about using violence to conquer and that would be something that many people would have problems with.”

Morons.

The song is about people defending themselves against conquerors!

I believe it was during the War of 1812. The English attacked Fort McHenry, which defended itself, and F. S. Key, who was on a ship anchored in the harbor, was inspired to write the verses which became our national anthem, if I remember correctly.

37 posted on 06/17/2011 3:46:23 PM PDT by sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for halcyon skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!

O beautiful for pilgrims feet,
Whose stem impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through
wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!

O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man's avail
Men lavished precious life!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!
Much better.

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears! America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!


38 posted on 06/17/2011 3:56:12 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Doormattery doesn’t really work unless you have an enemy that can be shamed at the sight of carnage. Such instances in history are limited.

Early pacifistic Christianity was moderately workable in the context of the Roman Empire. Despite the "Christians to the lions" stories, if you paid your taxes and didn't try to openly undermine Roman authority, you could live your life in peace and relative security.

When Rome fell, you needed a class of people who could rationalize being Christian with the necessity to respond with extreme violence towards raiders, pirate, and barbarian invaders. These people became the feudal nobility, ruling over the rest who lived as serfs.

39 posted on 06/17/2011 4:07:18 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Drawing a line at which no enemy dare cross against your family and fellow Christians (without their consent) isn’t quite the same as keeping the serfs down. Fortunately God willed it that the Christians comprising the church, in the same manner as the Jewish race today, survive on God’s promise and not on lack of blunders or things that would be regretted in hindsight.


40 posted on 06/17/2011 4:24:57 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
I believe that strict pacifism is fundamentally evil. They depend upon others to protect them, while indulging in feelings moral superiority over the "violent" defenders.

I am not a pacifist, but I respect the Mennonites. They have been living this way for 400 years. So it becomes my responsibility to protect them, and I would do so gladly.

Finally when a situation arises where one of them must use force to protect those he loves, he is proclaimed as being sinful for practicing violence. They give their members a choice between laying down their lives, or laying down their souls.

Many of the early martyrs of Christianity didn't believe in using violence to protect themselves and willingly surrendered to death by the state. Their model of course was Christ who surrendered to the guards of the High Priest and died willingly on a cross. If Jesus had organized an army and killed people, he would have founded Islam. But he didn't. Mohammed did that instead.

41 posted on 06/17/2011 4:53:03 PM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Somehow I don't think practicality argument (not being able to explain the context every time the song is sung) is enough to prevent them from singing it. It is the idea of militarism associated with the song that they reject. I don't agree with this position, but I have no problem it. I do, however, have problem with the argument the person offers that it is the presence of militaristic language that make them ban the song. I think it's disingenuous, as our discussion shows, since the Bible has big share of similar language but is not banned. I think it is the contexts, in other words, the meanings or the understanding of those very similar languages for them that lead to the ban.

Offering this as an answer, of course, might create trouble for them as it opens them up to the issue of patriotism and acceptance of (some) American ideals that are encapsulated in the song. Anyway, have a nice weekend!

42 posted on 06/17/2011 8:28:06 PM PDT by paudio (The differences between Clinton and 0bama? About a dozen of former Democratic Congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Are you now saying there has to legally be a religiously compelling reason in your eyes before they are not guilty of some crime?


43 posted on 06/17/2011 9:47:58 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Not that they are guilty for some crime, but I'd prefer people representing religious group to simply say what they have in mind without beating the bushes. It has nothing to do with my opinion on their theological position. It's more about when sharing their beliefs, they better say what exactly they beliefs are and say it in sincere way. If they feel 'shame' or for whatever reasons they don't want 'outsider' or 'new people' to understand it, I think there's something problematic with the way they share it.

For instance, I once encountered a lady from a Christian group that approached me in a park asking if I'd like to participate in a survey. I said yes. Then the lady started to ask whether I believe in God, and so on, without having any questionnaire. It turned out she wanted me to go to her church. So, they use a standard opening for people to talk to them to cover their real intention.

I have a feeling the way this person answered also had similar issue. If they have problem with the US being militaristic society, they should say it clearly.

44 posted on 06/19/2011 4:47:07 PM PDT by paudio (The differences between Clinton and 0bama? About a dozen of former Democratic Congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson