Replies

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.

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!