Goshen College Board of Directors ask for alternative to playing the national anthem

GOSHEN, Ind. — The Goshen College Board of Directors announced today that it has asked President James E. Brenneman to find an alternative to playing the Star-Spangled Banner that fits with sports tradition, that honors country and that resonates with Goshen College's core values and respects the views of diverse constituencies.

The Board took the action during its regular meeting, June 3-4, and today released a Decision Statement, which is available at www.goshen.edu/anthem.

The Board expressed a strong commitment to advancing with President Brenneman the vision for Goshen College to be an influential leader in liberal arts education with a growing capacity to serve a theologically, politically, racially and ethnically diverse constituency both within and beyond the Mennonite church. The Board concluded that continuing to play the national anthem compromised the ability of college constituents to advance the vision together.

@ DoughtyOne,

...we have no disagreement on this country being brought about by the power of the sword, and I happen to believe it was a just use of the sword by lesser magistrates to throw off the yoke of an oppressive King and Parliament which had broken faith with its colonies. Taxation without representation was one of many violations of the colonists’ liberties as British citizens, and the lesser magistrates had the biblical right to defend their people against abuse. Then case closed. Thanks for playing.

However, we need to pay serious attention to Constitutional original intent. Yep, let's pull out our copy and the rectal exam gloves shall we. Why is it that the Quakers and Mennonites, who existed here at the formation of the United States, were not expelled from the United States or held to lesser level of privileges because of their refusal to bear arms? Here we go. How does singing the national anthem of the United States relate to this line of reasoning? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. There's no oath involved. There's no implied reverence of nation over God. There's no promise to involve yourself at some future point in military action, or inflicting harm on others in any way shape or form. Other than that, Mennonites have a great case. /s The Quakers were even — by the text of the Constitution itself — allowed to affirm rather than swear their oaths of allegience to the Constitution upon election to office. What has this to do with refusing to act as any other U. S. Citizen to call into rememberence of the price paid, the price that continues to need to be paid for this nation to exist? You're seeking to wrap the institution in a very important document, to justify something for which there is absolutely no justification. I'm not going to stand there with my hand over my heart and check individuals out while I sing the national anthem, but that's not what we're discussing here at all. You want to defend this institution (college) for issuing an edict to prevent any singing of the anthem in administration sponsored events at the school. That is a public declaration that the administration and thereby the institution as a whole does not respect our nation's inception, our troops, the men and women who died to give it's freedoms life. Today the affirmation rather than oath is sometimes used by atheists, but at the time of the Constitutional Convention there can be no doubt that “affirm” language was written to allow for the scruples of the Quakers, without which they would have been barred from participation in government. Once again, you are rambling all over the place, with superfelous recitations that have absolutely no bearing on what we're discussing. This is not a matter of declaring an oath. It's not a matter of allegence to some entity over God. It's not a matter of placing nation over God. It's not a matter of promising you will join in military action. It is not even the glorification of war. It is reverence for the birth of our nation and the men who birthed her. And as old as you are, you still can't grasp that?

It may have bene a mistake to allow Quakers, Mennonites and others to have the full privileges of citizenship despite their refusal to bear arms. However, if it was a mistake, it was a mistake of the Founding Fathers. You certainly have a knack for talking about things so far off topic, that they don't relate to our discussion at all. Using the Founding Fathers in this manner is quite disrespectul in light of the arguement you are making. Seventh-Day Adventists don't bear arms either. I am one. When it comes to defending our nation, count me in. Those that don't can still contribute. The church supports that. They can involve themselves in state-side support or battlefield medical suppport. You are so warped (mistake, but I think it fits perfectly here) up in your defense of what people shouldn't be asked to do against their will, that you don't give loyalty, compassion, or personal obligation any thought at all. "The government can't make them..." "It shouldn't be right to force them..." "They have rights and shouldn't be held to account..." "religions freedom..." Where is the part where they feel compelled to reverence those who paid the ultimate price, or the fielty to a nation that was formed so that they could exercise their rights at will? What obligation do they have? You don't think they have any obligation whatsoever do you. If they're held to account, it's all of a sudden a Constitutional matter. They don't seem to think they have any obligation to the collective whatsoever. Being a fellow citizen believing in liberty, I can buy that to a point. When it gets to the point of refusing to honor men that died for both of them, my only reaction is very negative toward them. This is nothing but a toned down version of the religious inspired disrepect, along the same lines of the Kansas Church group that protests at the funerals of our military members. By refusing to show respect for the men who died to bring this nation into being. This group does the same thing. By refusing to honor them price that continues to have to be paid, they also dishonor our current military members.

It never ceases to amaze me, the people who think that if they refuse to show any reverence of our nation whatsoever, they still have a right to wrap themselves in the same nation's founding documents.

Were' talking about folks who wish to cast off any respect for our nation. Thus they don't respect the very document they want to protect them. How is that reasoned?

In a Constitutional republic, we need to live with the text of the Constitution, including anything we may believe is flawed, until and unless we can follow the prescribed procedure for amending it. There you go again. If warranted, I agree that the Constitution is the skirt to hide behind. You're just looking for any excuse to justify these people doing as they please, disrespect this nation and disrespect their fellow citizens, even the ones that have died for them. They can't muster respect for those men, our government's birth, but they want us to respect them and their pin-head ideas.

If this were truly a Constitutionally protected matter, I would support the college. It is not. A church should not be able to come up with any whacked out policy whatsoever, then claim that policy is Constituionally protected? Human sacrifice comes to mind. There are exceptions to Constitutional protections.

If this group can't show respect for men that died for them, or the birth of our nation, I've got no use for them. I WILL NOT defend them. Nobody fought to privide an avenue for whiners and self-loathing citizen to show disrespect for the founding of our nation and those who died on their behalf. If they can't show them or our nation respect, then they should find a place where they can respect their fellow citizens, the government that exsists there, and the documents that it has developed to protect them. Failing that, don't claim that the documents of a nation that isn't worthy of their respect, should protect them.

Hell no.

DoughtyOne, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re saying that this college should not be allowed to refuse to sing the National Anthem or should not be allowed to replace it with something else. A little less drastically, I think I see others saying that there should be some sort of penalty imposed by the government on a college if it does things like that.

As for me, I don’t want the government making that kind of decision for our churches and for our church-run colleges. Imagine what kind of power that precedent would give President Barack Obama over our Christian schools to require things that our churches might find just as offensive as some (not all) Mennonites find the “warlike” references in our National Anthem.

Again, if all you were saying was that we don’t have to like Goshen College’s decision, I’d say to that “yea and amen!” The Mennonites are dead wrong on this issue. No doubt about it. But I don’t think it is the government’s job to tell them to cut it out.

I totally disagree with Goshen College’s objections to singing the National Anthem. I am strongly opposed to pacifism on both biblical and pragmatic grounds, and I have additional major problems with Anabaptism that go beyond that. If all we’re doing is saying this college is doing a really, really bad (and dumb) thing, okay. I'm going to have to be honest here, I don't have a problem with pacifism at all. If the church and the University wish to ahere to and teach a pacifist policy, I'm okay with that. I think accomodations can be made. I advocate for that. It's when they start acting like spoiled children refusing to show a love of country and their fellow citizens that I take offense.

DoughtyOne, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re saying that this college should not be allowed to refuse to sing the National Anthem or should not be allowed to replace it with something else. Yes, you're reading me right. I support your individual right to refrain from something if you think you must. I do not back an institution handing down an edict that no institutional events will ever include the national anthem of the United States. If that institution doesn't respect the nation and it's war heros, then it is preposterous for it to claim it has any protections under the Constitution of our nation. Sorry, they put themselves out there. They'll just have to deal with it.

A little less drastically, I think I see others saying that there should be some sort of penalty imposed by the government on a college if it does things like that. I agree with that too.

As for me, I don’t want the government making that kind of decision for our churches and for our church-run colleges. Frankly, I don't like it eather. Who instigated this? Was it the government? Is it a rational policy? It's obviously a policy change? How did they survive singing the anthem before this? Were they sinning big-time then? This is idiotic. Is it pushing folks who are already so angry with foreign nationals and others who dis our nation, that they're ready to thump anyone on the head to tries to do something like this? Imagine what kind of power that precedent would give President Barack Obama over our Christian schools to require things that our churches might find just as offensive as some (not all) Mennonites find the “warlike” references in our National Anthem. I'd have to see some examples, because most objections by churches are done without trashing our government or our military heros. All the more reason why this college should rethink it's pin-head plan. It is setting up a very digsuting confrontation, where citizens are going to be asked if they back the college or the government. Is that a choice we should be making here? Is the college making a reasoned stand, or is it opening the door for public opinion to side with the government against them, a very childish juvenile thing to push when there's no valid call for it whatsoever?

Again, if all you were saying was that we don’t have to like Goshen College’s decision, I’d say to that “yea and amen!” And I appreciate the jesture. The Mennonites are dead wrong on this issue. No doubt about it. Yes they are. And you know what, I generally defend folk's right to be dead wrong when I can. Here the church is opening up a big can of worms. That could mean a re-evaluation of many church/state church institutional policies. How inspired is the plan to instigate this argument? IMO, it's about as stupid as it gets. But I don’t think it is the government’s job to tell them to cut it out. Okay. Was the government causing a problem for this college before this? I doubt it. So what does this college do? It's board out of the blue decides it's a great idea to telegraph that it can't stand to see the U. S. national anthem be a part of it's college life anymore.

That really angers me. I'm sorry, but if the government decides to ract negatively on tax policy or federal funding policy, I'm not going to have much sympathy for the college.

It doesn't want to respect my nation. It doesn't want to respect the men who died to bring it into being, and die every day to keep it strong. Then it doesn't respect me and I respond in kind.

By the way, since you brought up that you’re Seventh Day Adventist, I want to take a moment to thank you for your church’s long history of defending biblical teaching on creation and for helping set some of the legal precedents in court that make it somewhat easier for those of us who have biblical convictions on Lord’s Day or Sabbath observance to fight for our jobs when threatened by employers. Well you've touched on some important reasons why I am sympathetic to religious freedom, and the need for government and businesses to make some allowances. At the same time, as Christians, I believe that we should go out of our of our way to be respectful of the government that provided documents to us that grant us those rights rights. I don't believe you provoke the government when you don't need to.

Is it the policy of the Mennonite Church to allow evil people to do anything they want to their breathren? Can an evil man force himself on a Mennonite woman without her objection? Is the husband supposed to stand by as his child or his wife is abused by an evil person? Is the Mennonite man supposed to stop at some point, if the evil person puts up too much of a fight, and an "it's him/or me" situation develops? To allow this would be pure evil. To watch your loved ones be abused or fatally wounded without resisting would make the person refraining from takeing action, to be nothing less than an accomplice during the fact. That's how I see it when raised to a national level. None the less, I do support people refraining from taking up arms.

It’s a side point, but I ought to thank you for the good work that your church has done in these areas. Well, I'm not so sure it's a side point, because defending church/patron's rights is fundamental. It's not of my doing, but I do appreciate the acknowledgement of something good the church has done.

It’s been a while, but I think I also remember reading the biography of a Seventh Day Adventist who served as a combat medic and received the Medal of Honor for saving a large number of American soldiers who otherwise would have become victims of the Japanese. He was Private Desmond T. Doss. His heroics and citation can be found by clicking on the left, and more resources can be found here. I’m somewhat aware of the SDA heritage of alternative service, and from what I know of it, it looks like an honorable tradition that can be respected as an alternative way to show patriotism. I agree, and again I appreiciate you bringing this aspect of my church's teachings and public service to light. Like other churches, possibly yours too, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church has a strong drive to provide community aide through it's Dorcus Society, and even disaster and international aide through ADRA. The global outreach for our denomination is quite impressive considering the meager size of the total global congregation. ADRA operates in over 100 nations. Last year it disbursed over $120 million dollars worth of aid and assistance. At least I believe that's the figure I read over there. There are 16.7 million SDAs. There are 232 nations and areas recognized by the U.N., and the SDA church operates in 206 of them.

Thank you, DoughtyOne, for both of your notes. I think we’re now on the same page, if perhaps not the same place of the page.

I don’t want to speak on the modern Mennonite position on pacifism because I could easily get details wrong, but I believe what you’re describing (nonresistance even in cases of murder, rape, and similar levels of horrific abuse) is the historic Mennonite position. I have major problems with that. While I can understand the reality that Menno Simmons’ pacifism was what led to the end of persection against the Anabaptists because some of the Protestant civil governments decided the Anabaptists didn’t pose a threat, it’s still wrong.

From what I’ve read of this National Anthem controversy, it sounds like the college had never used the National Anthem until this year, and started doing it this past school year with instrumental music but not singing the lyrics. That was apparently at the initiative of the college president, who then got criticized by his constituency.

I believe in being under church authority and following the doctrinal standards of one’s denomination. However, this is flat-out ridiculous. There must have been many ways to settle this quietly without it getting on FOX News and the rest of the major media. If we had a more conservative federal administration, it would be asking for a controversy with the state when none is needed, which I think is one of your major concerns. Yes, we render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, but we don’t go poking Caesar in the eye unless we’re forced to do so.

Goshen College did this to themselves, and they’ll have to reap the fruit — most of which is going to be quite bitter.

On the SDA matter, I will read your links to information on Pvt. Desmond Doss. It’s been a while, and I think it’s important in our current conflicts to remind ourselves of the stories of our soldiers, especially those with particularly compelling stories, and that’s virtually always the case with Medal of Honor recipients.

Thank you for your great responses. I do tend to go ballistic when we’re talking about folks who trash the U. S. these days. Illegal aliens are a huge concern of mine, and some of them come here, wave the Mexican flag, and flip off U. S. Citizens who object.

That’s why I bristle so easily when I see our own citizens that do something that shows disrespect for the nation. Look, our nation isn’t perfect. It just hasn’t been surpassed by any other nation to this point. I think we would do well to support the best nation to come along, with regard to personal rights.

You raised some good points, and advocated for them. I think those points are reasoned. I share some of the same concerns. I do however thing it’s reasonable to defend the case I made, and I’d rather have someone like me defend it, than someone who doesn’t like Christianity at all.

Desmond Doss was a special guy. Not carrying any weapon at all, he crept up withing 30 yards of machine gun nests, on a number of occasions. Wow.

Hey, thanks for the back and forth. I appreciate it.

BTW: I also appreciate your mention of historic accounts that may have impacted Mennonite policy, and their absolute position on pacifism, something I wasn’t quite sure about when I mentioned those issues. Take care.

Not a problem, DoughtyOne. Soft words are almost always my first response (and usually my continuing response) to people who I can tell agree with me on the basics but disagree on specifics. I usually reserve my anger for liberals who know what they’re doing to destroy the country, not for conservatives who may disagree with me on how to save it.

I’ve spent most of my adult life in the news media. I’ve often been the only political conservative in the newsroom, and almost always have been the only evangelical. I’m used to having to defend everything I say, to think beforehand about what holes somebody can shoot in what I want to say, and to think through the logical conclusions of what might initially appear to be a good idea.

Part of that is because liberals in government are often really, really good at agreeing with a conservative idea, having a hand in crafting bipartisan legislation to accomplish it, and then using the resulting laws in ways that were never intended.

That’s why I raised my concerns. Liberals have already gotten a precedent established with Bob Jones University that a sincerely held religious belief which contradicts public policy can disqualify a private Christian college from tax exempt status and from most forms of federal financial aid available to students at other private colleges. (I happen to be married to a Korean, so I obviously disagree with Bob Jones University’s traditional position, since changed, on barring interracial dating, but I realize many Southerners sincerely believed for a long time that interracial marriages were forbidden by several biblical passages.)

So far, that precedent has been almost entirely limited to Bob Jones University because virtually no other college agreed with them on that narrow issue, and they themselves have finally changed their position. See here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/marchweb-only/53.0.html

However, expanding that precedent that the government can penalize colleges for sincerely held religious convictions could become disasterous to Christian higher education, and I don’t want to see anything done to make it harder for Christian colleges to operate in accord with their beliefs — even if those beliefs are dead wrong.

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.