Posted on 02/20/2010 2:30:21 PM PST by JoeProBono
GOSHEN, Ind. (AP) -- For more than a century, there was no playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" at Goshen College - a small Christian college with ties to the Mennonite Church.
That's about to change. For the first time in the school's history, Goshen College will play an instrumental version of the national anthem before many campus sporting events.
The decision to reverse the ban on the anthem is aimed at making students and visitors outside the faith feel more welcome, but it has roiled some at the 1,000-student college who feel the song undermines the church's pacifist message and puts love for county above love for God.....
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Stupid Mennonites...
I kinda think they should have stuck to their guns, so to speak. Mennonites don’t have anything to apologize for.
“I kinda think they should have stuck to their guns, so to speak. Mennonites don’t have anything to apologize for.”
I have mixed feelings on this but I tend to agree with you. Being born and raised in that part of the country I’ve seen the contribution these people have made through their selfless devotion to peaceful betterment of their communities and Americans as a whole.
God before country is understandable and accepatble when that God does not promote the mass extinction of non-believers (you know who I mean).
I think it was Vicksburg that did not observe the Fourth of July until well into the 20th Century, and after the last Civil War veteran had died...
Its difficult to respect them either way. On the one hand, Pacifism is an inherently ridiculous ideology because those who believe in it can only remain free ‘because of the exertions of men better than themselves’ or as Orwell put it, because ‘Rough Men stand by ready to do violence on their behalf’.
On the other hand, they compromised their religious beliefs to fit in with secular society, which, even if you think their beliefs are a load of cobblers, demonstrates a certain level of moral cowardice on their part...
yes, I thought of Orwell immediately.....
In my foolish adolescence I lived a fair amount of time around some Quakers, although not one myself.
In my foolish adolescence, I actually thought there was something noble and upright about their pacifism.
It didn’t take too long for me to come to Orwell’s obvious and incontrovertible conclusion, that pacifists and all kinds of leftist “conscientious objectors” can only enjoy their tender pangs of conscience because of all those who ARE ready to risk their lives to defend freedom.
Gandhi could achieve much against the British because they were relatively civilized.... but Gandhi’s idea that non-violent resistance could do anything against Hitler is contemptible, not merely laughable.
On the other hand, Mennonites have maintained that commitment to pacificism throughout history even when it has meant the loss of the kind of freedom you are describing. For them, it is considered blasphemy against God to give credit to human beings for what they believe the Bible says God has already done: give them freedom.
As I understand it, the singing of the national anthem is not a “compromise of their religious beliefs”, it is a change of stance about how those beliefs are applied. The national anthem and flag have never been a set religious dogma for Mennonites and for years Mennonites have had a wide variety of responses to both.
Right, wrong or in between they’re no more stupid than you.
God before country is understandable and accepatble when that God does not promote the mass extinction of non-believers (you know who I mean).
God before country is an interenting concept......but without the Revolutionary WAR, the WAR of 1812ivil WAR, the micellaneous wars, The First World WAR, the Second world
WAR, Korea, Vietnam, Irag, Afghanisan, etc etc etc....they would not even have their Pacifist college in Goshen to begin with. I do not understand pacifism at all....I do not agree that you must be a pacifist to love God..throughout history, God has even participated in wars (remember Moses having his arms held up while the battle went on) we live in the world, and it is not necessarily a nice place.....if we don’t defend our freedoms, including the freedom of religion, we will lose them......try having Goshen College in such places as Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or Jordan, or any other country in the world that does not respect (and defend) freedom of religion.......sometimes the people who want to take advantage of all the freedoms that we have, do not realize that freedom is not free
“I think it was Vicksburg that did not observe the Fourth of July...”
In Richmond, VA the black population celebrated the fall of Richmond to the Union troops for many years after that happened.
Gandhi had little to do with India’s independence.
More than not, Gandhi was precisely whom the British needed, to prevent any violent military uprising in India. Remember, just prior to independence was a 2-3 million-strong British Indian military which had just fought on behalf of Britain in WW2 and were instrumental in the victories in many battles for them (Burma Campaign, Italy, Iraq, North Africa and France), awarded dozens of Victoria Cross medals for their efforts, and getting increasingly itchy about continued British rule. The best the British could hope for, was a relatively peaceful exit, and Gandhi provided them with a strategy to do just that.
As for “relatively civilised”, are you referring to the same Britain that was not hesitant to bomb and execute at will, as was what happened in the American Revolution?
WW2 was instrumental in Britain’s exit from the Subcontinent, much more so, than any perceived civility.
The irony was, Ghandi joined the British Army as an Ambulance corps member and aided the British fight against the Boers, a greed-oriented and morally unjustifiable war from a British perspective compared to the Second World War, in which Ghandi urged an Indian boycott of the war effort and even advised the British to let Hitler invade Britain without resistance to maintain moral superiority over the Nazis. I suppose some people don't grow wiser as the grow older...
Have you been getting your history from Mel Gibson films or something? Britain did not pursue the war against the colonists with anything like as much ruthlessness as it could have done, especially by the standards of the day. They weren't even as ruthless as they might have been with foreigners, as the colonists were viewed as fellow Englishmen at that time, and many of the officers, even the ones who didn't refuse to fight against them, were, like Cornwallis, sympathetic towards the colonists' grievances....
Land o’ Goshen! (I’ve always wanted to write that)
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.