DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Stray Pooch on February 20, 2010, 11:17:15 PM
-
I'm not really sure how I feel about this. I completely support the National Anthem and playing it at public events. And being in a Mennonite-heavy area, I am confronted by their annoying attitudes about the country frequently. Yet I still think a religion, or anybody for tat matter, has the right to refrain from being patriotic. I may not respect THEM but I still respect the right. So this is a little complicated.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100220/ap_on_re_us/us_star_spangled_college (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100220/ap_on_re_us/us_star_spangled_college)
Ind. college lifts 116-year ban on national anthem
GOSHEN, Ind. – 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 country above love for God.
Since college President Jim Brenneman announced the decision in January, about 900 people have joined the Facebook group "Against Goshen College Playing National Anthem," hundreds have signed an online petition protesting the move and letters sent to administrators and the campus newspaper have overwhelmingly voiced opposition to the change.
"We're very aware that not everyone on our campus that's part of this community shares the same views," said college spokeswoman Jodi Beyeler. "We believe that everyone here should feel like this is home."
John Roth, a Goshen College history professor, said Mennonites have historically avoided the song because its lyrics describe using war and military might to defend the country.
"The link between the national anthem and the military identity of the nation is made very explicit," Roth said.
Mennonites, whose church is rooted in a 16th-century movement in Europe known as Anabaptism, also believe singing a "hymn of allegiance" like the national anthem implies a deeper loyalty to country rather than to God, Roth said. However, Mennonite Church USA — which represents the largest and most mainstream group of Mennonites in the U.S. — does not specifically prohibit the anthem.
Goshen College officials say discussions about whether to change the policy began in September 2008 when the athletic department asked Brenneman to reconsider the school's stance. Brenneman said the teams often bore the brunt of criticism about the policy because the anthem's absence is most visible at sporting events, where it has become part of American culture.
Two months later, a parent from a visiting team game complained to the athletics director when the anthem wasn't played, said Vice President for Student Life Bill Born. Her complaint caught the attention of conservative talk show host Mike Gallagher, who featured the issue on his show. More than 300 people called or sent e-mails to the school, most urging the school to change its policy.
Beyeler said the choice to lift the ban had nothing to do with the national attention generated by Gallagher's show and stemmed instead from the work of a task force assembled last spring. The group recommended playing an instrumental version of the song, followed by a prayer.
The college approved the change, effective with the spring sports season that begins next month. It plans to review its policy again in June 2011.
Brenneman said he thinks the athletic teams are relieved by the decision.
"Sometimes they've been about the only ones who have been on the front lines of this to defend this position. I think we all recognize that that hasn't necessarily been fair to them," he said.
Freshman baseball player Mike Milligan, a Catholic, says students and athletes can choose how much they want to participate. About 45 percent of Goshen students are not Mennonite.
"I don't think that everyone has to show their respect, but we need to at least have the choice to show our respect," said Milligan, who started a Facebook group in favor of the decision. It has more than 200 members.
Some students said choosing an instrumental version of the anthem was a good compromise.
"You're not offending anybody, and everybody kind of gets a little of what they want," said junior Sabrina Swain.
But Allen Shenk, a senior music major who is Mennonite, isn't sure that solves the issue.
"It's a good compromise in the sense that it doesn't specifically mentioned the bombs bursting in air," he said. "But everybody listening is going to be thinking those words to themselves anyway, so is it really helping that much?"
-
Are there only Mennonites in your area and do you have WoMennonites living there too?
-
Are there only Mennonites in your area and do you have WoMennonites living there too?
I just don't understand how you can start a whole religion based on after shave. . .
-
Wonder if the school gets govt money.
-
Wonder if the school gets govt money.
Interesting question, but I'm not sure that makes a difference. It doesn't appear that this decision was a result of any legal pressure - just pressure from outside sources. It seems like a no-win situation anyway. If you don't play the anthem, outside people get offended. If you DO play the anthem, your own people get offended. Seems to me in that situation you fall back on Rick Nelson's "Garden Party" theory.
-
Seems to me in that situation you fall back on Rick Nelson's "Garden Party" theory.
Exactly. You can't please everybody, might as well please yourself.
And they had been pleasing themselves for 116 years.
The fear of someone other than some outside busybodies might have prompted the decision.
I'm not sure Patriotism is a group thing, my country right or wrong is a valid mantra, though certainly groups can be patriotic.
-
my country right or wrong is a valid mantra
Is it? Why?
-
did I say it was?
-
<<Wonder if the school gets govt money. >>
Why, does the government have a mandate to make everyone sing the national anthem in unison at sporting events?
I thought conservatives want a smaller, less intrusive government.
-
did I say it was?
I coulda sworn you did. The post with the phrase "my country right or wrong is a valid mantra" in it says it is your post. Is there some reason I should believe you did not say it?
-
my country right or wrong is a valid mantra
Is it? Why?
yes it is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Decatur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Decatur)
You don't abandon your freinds when they are wrong , and they don't abandon you when you are wrong either.
Stephen Decater copuldn't have agreed with the Congress every time he got orders , but what should his attitude have been?
That he would obey when he agreed, and would love his country when it was doing things his way?
-
<<You don't abandon your freinds when they are wrong . . . >>
So if they need someone to be the lookout or drive the getaway car when they decide to rob a bank, you don't abandon them?
<< . . . and they don't abandon you when you are wrong either.>>
And if you kill someone they'll help you to bury the body and ditch the weapon? That makes sense - - I heard it said that a friend is the guy you call when you need help to bury the body.
-
<<You don't abandon your freinds when they are wrong . . . >>
So if they need someone to be the lookout or drive the getaway car when they decide to rob a bank, you don't abandon them?
<< . . . and they don't abandon you when you are wrong either.>>
And if you kill someone they'll help you to bury the body and ditch the weapon? That makes sense - - I heard it said that a friend is the guy you call when you need help to bury the body.
This is true , but with a qualifier, a real freind wnats to be good for you too and sin't useing you to your detrement any more than you are useing him to his detriment.
A freind in need is a freind indeed , but a mooch isn't really a freind.
When a freind doesn't care about what is right and doesn't care whether you are hurt , the definition of "freind " has escaped its envelope.
-
my country right or wrong is a valid mantra
Is it? Why?
yes it is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Decatur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Decatur)
You don't abandon your freinds when they are wrong , and they don't abandon you when you are wrong either.
Stephen Decater copuldn't have agreed with the Congress every time he got orders , but what should his attitude have been?
That he would obey when he agreed, and would love his country when it was doing things his way?
I wonder what people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams would have said about that idea. Hm.
Anyway, is your assertion then, Plane, that all patriotic Americans always support and obey the government?
-
<<When a freind doesn't care about what is right and doesn't care whether you are hurt , the definition of "freind " has escaped its envelope.>>
Yeah and when my country doesn't care about what is right, then it is no longer "my" country.
-
If you are a civil servant or a Military officer , NCO or enlistee.
Yes definately.
The military is the servant of the government and sworn in loalty to the Constitution.
If orders are Un-constitutional or unlawfull they should be disobeyed , but this is a hard decision.
What Attitude should the servants of the people have in reguards to the orders that they get from the government?
The people controll the government , and the government controlls the military , what other arrangement could we accept?
If you are a citizen ?
Yes definately.
The law of the land is the product of the Congress and the State Legislatures , it isn't possible to craft law that everyone agrees with , but it is reasonable to expect a good level of obedience from all good citizens , includeing those who disagree with the law.
We have this gooing on pretty well , and if we didn't , could we tolerate dissent?
-
<<When a freind doesn't care about what is right and doesn't care whether you are hurt , the definition of "freind " has escaped its envelope.>>
Yeah and when my country doesn't care about what is right, then it is no longer "my" country.
If it is that bad , then the government must have seperated from the people , or less likely , the people don't care what is right or wrong.
My Country is a brotherhood , I really can't agree with every law, policy , or choice of leader.
Should I have moved to Canada when Clinton was re-elected? Or Obama was elected?
Clinton and Obama are deeply in disagreement with me , but I am still a brother American with the Idi... I mean ... Fellow citizens , who elected them.
-
If orders are Un-constitutional or unlawfull they should be disobeyed , but this is a hard decision.
Doesn't that contradict the whole "my country, right or wrong", "You don't abandon your freinds when they are wrong" thing? I mean, you seem to have just given yourself a loophole for disobedience when you personally decide the government is wrong.
The law of the land is the product of the Congress and the State Legislatures , it isn't possible to craft law that everyone agrees with , but it is reasonable to expect a good level of obedience from all good citizens , includeing those who disagree with the law.
We have this gooing on pretty well , and if we didn't , could we tolerate dissent?
I wonder how Martin Luther King, Jr., would have answered that. Hm.
-
did I say it was?
I coulda sworn you did. The post with the phrase "my country right or wrong is a valid mantra" in it says it is your post. Is there some reason I should believe you did not say it?
What was the preceding phrase?
-
Don't you know? Anytime you want to explain your phrasing, feel free to do so. No need to wait on me to tell you what you said. I've done the whole round-and-round on intended meaning versus word usage, and it's a waste of time if you don't eventually just go ahead and explain your intended meaning. No part of the sentence in question implies that your use of the phrase "my country right or wrong is a valid mantra" meant anything other than "my country right or wrong is a valid mantra". If I'm wrong, tell me why. Go ahead. I can take it. I may or may not argue the point, but I can still take it. So let's cut the stupid guessing games about what you might have meant, and just get to the part where you actually explain your meaning.
Of course, if you had bothered to do that back when I asked "Is it?" then we wouldn't be having this conversation now. And rest assured, when I said, "Is it?" what I really meant was, "Is it?"
-
I'm not sure
1. Patriotism is a group thing,
2. my country right or wrong is a valid mantra
Perhaps that helps.
-
Ah. You were making a list, not inserting a nonessential clause. And no, that was not clear before.
-
If orders are Un-constitutional or unlawfull they should be disobeyed , but this is a hard decision.
Doesn't that contradict the whole "my country, right or wrong", "You don't abandon your freinds when they are wrong" thing? I mean, you seem to have just given yourself a loophole for disobedience when you personally decide the government is wrong.
Not at all.
Disagreeing with an order personally is no excuse for disobedience, realiseing that an order is cohntrary to law or Constitution changes the duty from obedience to disobedience.
Unlawfull orders are a hard probolem, if I decide to disobey a tecnical order for example, I have to be ready to justify it to an official inquiry. Standing on what is right at risk of penalty.
Have you ever read the oath given to the enlisted?
http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Note that the primary loyalty is to the Constitution itself. Obeying the orders of officers is normally expected , but if a reasonable person were to see a reasonable case that an order was unconstitutional he would have a good case to make later at his corts martial.
-
The law of the land is the product of the Congress and the State Legislatures , it isn't possible to craft law that everyone agrees with , but it is reasonable to expect a good level of obedience from all good citizens , includeing those who disagree with the law.
We have this gooing on pretty well , and if we didn't , could we tolerate dissent?
I wonder how Martin Luther King, Jr., would have answered that. Hm.
With what other attitude would civil disobedience matter?
I don't think that MLK Jr would have advocated lawlessness , he was keen on improveing the law.
Civil Disobedience will not work to repeal laws against bank robbery , forceing the government to enforce evidently odious law pulls the public to disagree with the law, forces the government to bear the shame and expense of the unjust law.
Threau broke a law he had to walk into town to break , and he paid the penalty according to the law , then he wrote about it , which was the real point of the exercise. MLKjr nd Threau were indeed loyal Americans , even though they were critics .
Someone who trys to use them as justifacation for disobedience for just law has missed the point entirely , and will suffer a loss of credability .
-
Someone who trys to use them as justifacation for disobedience for just law has missed the point entirely , and will suffer a loss of credability .
Yes. So? I don't recall anyone trying to justify disobeying just law. As I recall, this conversation was about whether "my country, right or wrong" is a valid mantra.
I don't think that MLK Jr would have advocated lawlessness , he was keen on improveing the law.
Who said anything about advocating lawlessness? Granted my knowledge of MLK is limited, but I feel safe in saying he was not an advocate of obedience to government regardless of whether the government is right or wrong.
-
Disagreeing with an order personally is no excuse for disobedience, realiseing that an order is cohntrary to law or Constitution changes the duty from obedience to disobedience. [...] Obeying the orders of officers is normally expected , but if a reasonable person were to see a reasonable case that an order was unconstitutional he would have a good case to make later at his corts martial.
This does not contradict "my country right or wrong" exactly why?
-
Hmmmm...
I must be on a wrong tack.
It is pretty simple.
When your country is wrong , is it still your contry?
-
Hmmmm...
I must be on a wrong tack.
It is pretty simple.
When your country is wrong , is it still your contry?
Is that what we have been discussing? I ask because you have building a case that the phrase "my country right or wrong" is about obedience to government authority. That is not the same thing as saying when your country is wrong it is still your country. Which argument do you want to make?
-
Hmmmm...
I must be on a wrong tack.
It is pretty simple.
When your country is wrong , is it still your contry?
Is that what we have been discussing? I ask because you have building a case that the phrase "my country right or wrong" is about obedience to government authority. That is not the same thing as saying when your country is wrong it is still your country. Which argument do you want to make?
They are quite related,
Why do people band together in tribes and nations?
Why respect the institutions thereby established?
It seems to be human nature itself that requires this.
That my nation has worth to me as an individual even when I disagree with a policy of the government or a custom of the people is what Stephen Decator seems to have been getting at.
Loyalty and obedience are a part of the job description of an officer comissioned by the Congress to defend the Constitution , that is what Stephen Decater was.
Can you imagine a better attitude or philosophy for Military or Civil servant persons to have?
You can dwell on the exceptions , but these exceptions are the times when the nation is better served by disobedience , the basic idea is still good service to the whole.