Goshen College Declares War on National Anthem

GOPUSA ^ | 06-16-11 | Paul A. Ibbetson

[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.”

[stripes1776]

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.

[paudio]

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!

[HiTech RedNeck]

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

[paudio]

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.