@ Chickensoup: Thanks for your note.
@ Reeses: We certainly agree about free speech rights to voice our opinion and criticize the Mennonites. My concern is not speaking out against the inconsistency of Mennonite doctrine — I’m **VERY** willing to do that for a whole long list of reasons.
My real concern centers on the comments by some who, by their comments, seem to believe that pacifists should be told to get out of the United States or that the government should take action against people who refuse to sing the National Anthem. That goes down a very slippery slope I do not wish to go down, unless we’re talking about a Christian nation formally committed to biblical obedience. Maybe I’d trust a President Oliver Cromwell or a President John Knox or a President Abraham Kuyper to do that in the context of a Christian nation, but I do not trust even the best-intentioned of Christian elected officials in a secular government to tell our churches and our church-related colleges what they must do or to levy penalties for noncompliance with a government edict that contradicts teachings of a specific church. We have no Constitutional way to assure that their successors will share their values.
You’re quite right in questioning how it is that the Mennonites even have a football team, or for that matter, other forms of contact sports. I had that argument a number of times with Mennonites who were cheering and applauding sharp-elbowed basketball players on their school teams. Their argument is twofold: nobody is intentionally hurt in playing sports, and the people on both sides are volunteering, not drafted. Nobody makes a Mennonite play contact sports, and those who have conscientious objections to contact sports are not (or at least are not supposed to be) pressured to participate.
Well, seems to me like the second half of that argument applies quite well to the current wars between volunteer American soldiers and Islamofascists who in most cases have volunteered to become insurgents. Is it really a violation of pacifist principles if we help the Islamofascists who want to be martyred accomplish their goal of getting 72 virgins via martyrdom? It seems to me like the best way to accomoplish peace, which is the goal of pacifism, is to support our soldiers who volunteer to give the insurgents what they want before they can kill or maim anyone else.
Of course, the Mennonites have no consistent answer to that because their religion is biblically inconsistent. They fundamentally misunderstand that not all killing is murder, and once they’ve made that error in their doctrine, they have to come up will all sorts of explanations of how a just God could order the Old Testament Israelites not only to go to war but to exterminate entire nations of wicked evildoers.
@ 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.
However, we need to pay serious attention to Constitutional original intent. 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? 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.