-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Goshen College in Indiana, a member of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, has banned The Star Spangled Banner at all sporting events. The main value with which the college seeks to be identified with is: Christ-centered.
Although Christianity and patriotism do not appear mutually exclusive, there are inherent philosophical conflicts. Devotion to one’s god and devotion to one’s country can be opposing forces. Many Christians place devotion to God above all others, including country.
The Christian denomination, Jehovah’s Witnesses, is a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God. Hence, they refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
The first of the Ten Commandments, “you shall have no other gods before me,” is in direct conflict with the First Amendment guarantee that an individual has the right to freely express their religious beliefs. Many military chaplains, sworn to uphold the constitution, are resigning rather than support the equal protection that is manifested by the repeal of DADT.
Same-sex marriage, opposed by many Christians as being against God’s will, is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The principles that constitute this country, as enumerated in the constitution, and the principles of God’s law, as enumerated in the Bible, are often irreconcilable.
Ironically, religion and patriotism have many similarities. Both eschew reason. Both treat submission as a virtue. The Pledge of Allegiance is recited like a catechism. George Washington is often called the father of this country. Like the Bible, the Constitution is treated like a object of reverence. Like the Bible, the Constitution is cherry-picked to suit the biases of the individual reader.
Samuel Johnson famously referred to patriotism as “the last refuge of the scoundrel.” The same can be said about religion.
H/T: NBC Washington.
66 thoughts on “Christian College Bans National Anthem”
Regarding an animal’s personal preferences, consent as you say, as the rationale for the law, do you feel animals consent to be killed and eaten? Or is the difference in the two cases, as Woody Allen says, “we need the eggs”, so we won’t examine what the animal wants in that case. This would be similar to the need for cheap labor, aka slavery, bad but what else can we do?
The First Amendment is “germane to this thread”.
I don’t have opinions on all issues.
I think you have gone too far because you single out religious lobbyists for special scrutiny. It is true that the church can be a community that stands in opposition to the moneyed class, and as such can be counter-cultural, but I see bigotry and irrationality on all sides. Say, for example, here.
“Yes. It does. Doesn’t it?”
“His views are not consistent.”
Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
In this instance I would also add that a refusal to answer one’s own questions with the the sufficiency requested of the one questioned, is the response of one acting disingenuously.
“At the moment I am more focused on the First Amendment, and the right to demonstrate in front of the White House.”
Fine cause to be focused on, but one not germane to this thread, which you have also added some focus to, even if only to merely asked questions and provide very vague statements of personal belief. You may disagree with my thoughts, but still hesitate to be specific as to your own.
“I don’t believe that Mike believes that necrophilia should be illegal because the corpse cannot consent, yet that is what he says. But who knows.”
Actually I do. A person in life usually doesn’t give consent to have sexual acts performed on their body after death. This should be a legal assumption unless specific written directions are left requesting otherwise. As to bestiality I don’t think it is a pleasant experience for a sheep to be “shanked”, so to speak. Laws against animal cruelty inherently speak to acts of violence or unlawful force upon the animal. To make bestiality illegal is in line with that and the act certainly is a coercive one.
“You have said that you feel that all laws lobbied for by Christian organizations are suspect. I think you have gone too far in this”.
Why do you think I’ve gone too far in this? That is a legitimate question and in the context of your varied remarks I think an important one. Is it perhaps because your have strong religious beliefs that you would see enacted?
“At some point the baby becomes protected by law, and killing the baby becomes murder. What point should that be? I don’t think that is a religious question; it is a legal question”.
So assuming it’s a legal question what is YOUR opinion as to the answer? I’ve given you mine Martin. This is a further example how while demanding specificity of me, you have absolved yourself from acting in a like manner.
re;Again Martin, what do you think?.
I think the current laws are ok.
At the moment I am more focused on the First Amendment, and the right to demonstrate in front of the White House. Everyone who tries to is getting arrested. Maybe it is our ‘Tahrir Square’
After that, I think we need to redevelop Nationals Park as a minimum security facility to hold the previous administration.
Nada I see your point. His views are not consistent.
It is a very strange problem. People demand logic and then espouse contradiction.
I am at a loss for the moment.
I don’t believe that Mike believes that necrophilia should be illegal because the corpse cannot consent, yet that is what he says. But who knows.
Comments are closed.