R
Reep
Guest
One refers to massive organized killing of young men (as well as many innocents) and the other refers to spiritual warfare?
- Status
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Hear, hear. The second even explicitly says “the Cross is our only sword”.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Pope Pius IX didn’t necessarily agree:
catholicknight.blogspot.in/2009/02/pope-pius-ix-and-confederacy.html
C
Contarini
Guest
Why? If you think that the United States is a sacred commonwealth and its unity is a holy cause to be defended with blood, then sure. That conclusion would follow. Otherwise it would not.
The war was not, initially, fought to free the slaves, although it was fought to prevent the Southern states from breaking away from a national government that wanted to limit slavery, so it was in some sense “about” slavery from the beginning. (Partisans of the Southern cause will sometimes claim that it wasn’t–I’m not making that claim.)
With your libertarian views, it seems odd to me that you would support the right of the central government to use force to prevent people from declaring their independence.
Of course, what taints the Southern cause irreparably is their attachment to the vile institution of race-based chattel slavery. I’m not making a pro-Southern argument here, just saying that the war seems to me like a tragic mess on both sides. I don’t think killing half a million people was the way to free the slaves. It would have been much better to let the Southern states go, establish an economic blockade (specifically, refute to buy their cotton, on which their slave-based economy depended), and establish stations all along the border where fugitive slaves would be welcomed and sheltered. Slavery would almost certainly have collapsed in a few decades anyway, and without a bloody war to make Southern whites angry and resentful the process of integrating freed slaves into Southern society might have been less painful than it was. What happened in fact was that a kind of de facto slavery prevailed for decades after the war in the form of “Jim Crow laws” and the dependence of most blacks on white landowners via sharecropping. It certainly wasn’t as bad as chattel slavery, but it wasn’t the ideal outcome either.
But the bottom line is that attitudes to the war on both sides were idolatrous. The nation emerged from the Civil War as a sacred object of piety because blood had been shed for it.
Harry Stout’s Upon the Altar of the Nation: A Moral History of the Civil War is very good on this.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
It’s not as bad, but as a British citizen I’m not a huge fan of that song’s message either, especially the rarely-sung third stanza which gloats about the deaths of British soldiers
That song talks about the Queen, but above you refer to the American National Anthem as yours. Are you Canadian maybe? I myself have a complicated national identity, since I was born in England but have lived in the States since I was six.
I’m not a big fan of your school song’s identification of faith and nation, but as other posters pointed out it doesn’t seem to be talking about actual warfare that kills people.
I said originally that I love the “Battle Hymn,” and parts of it are fine as an apocalyptic poem if you take it out of its original context.
But identifying your side in a bloody, messy war (which is at least in part a war to establish a stronger, more centralized national government) with the cause of God is pretty uniformly a bad thing to do. This is not Catholic just-war theory. This is a Crusade–but not a Crusade on behalf of Christianity against unbelievers (that’s bad enough) but a Crusade on behalf of the national government against fellow Christians. (The author was actually a Unitarian.)
The worst line of the Battle Hymn is “As he died to make men holy, let us die to make them free.” It’s inspiring, but it’s blasphemous.
Edwin
R
RPRPsych
Guest
The second song is an anthem for a Catholic youth organization (Catholic Action), not a patriotic song. The “Queen” is the Blessed Virgin Mary (hence the “white and blue”).
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
Why would a song that refers to something spiritual contain so much war and military symbolism?
I maintain that the ideals of the Battle Hymn of the Republic inspired such songs as An Army of Youth.
Fighting for right/good. Physical or spiritual
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
I thought British were subjects not citizens.It’s not as bad, but as a British citizen I’m not a huge fan of that song’s message either, especially the rarely-sung third stanza which gloats about the deaths of British soldiers
I am rather proud of that third stanza, since I have ancestors who probably shot some of those British soldiers.
So do you remain a subject and SERVE your queen or are you an American Citizen?
And…NO, I am not a Canadian. I’m an American.
And your complicated national identity explains a lot.
Oh you would have loved it, Edwin. All us kids marching 'round the classroom singing while Sister Teresa played the piano. It was inspiring. We all wanted to go out and fight for good and kick the devil’s butt.
That is the most moving and spiritually intrinsic line of the whole song. To call it blasphemous is …is…well its …unthinkable.
Awww, forget it Edwin. You are a bright, intelligent guy who expresses himself very clearly and concisely. I fear, however, that we will never agree on anything. Too bad. You are OK…for a Brit.
PS.The author was actually a Unitarian…Really? Wow! I thought he was a protestant.
C
Contarini
Guest
The distinction is one that matters to Americans for some strange reason
I am not willing to give up my British citizenship. My disagreement with American political principles has something to do with it.
If Scotland becomes independent next year, I’m not sure what will happen to my citizenship. I suppose I’ll automatically be English/UK since I was born there, but the British side of my family is Scottish (actually Shetland–Shetlanders only became part of Scotland in the 15th century and are still not sure what they think about that).
Then why did your song talk about the Queen?
Oh, it was Mary you were talking about.
Light just dawned!
Much better (much as I love the Queen–the BVM is much more important and devotion to her much less likely to be idolatrous
).If you want to be on a discussion forum, you will probably find yourself pushed to think unthinkable thoughts from time to time.
You are welcome not to discuss with me, of course. But I think that all people, being created in God’s image, ought to be able to communicate rationally with each other, however great their differences.
She was brought up Calvinist but, like a number of New England intellectuals in her day, became a Unitarian as an adult. Whether we count Unitarians as Protestants are not is a matter of definition. I’d say that, like several other similar groups, they are more Protestant than they are Christian
Again, the poem moves me greatly too. But so does some Hindu devotional poetry. On the whole, I think it’s less clearly idolatrous to worship Krishna than to worship the state.
But then, you think taxation is theft, so shouldn’t you think the same thing? If the government has the same moral status as another private individual, how can the government ask you to kill for it?
Edwin
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
The CC’s teaching is quite clear: we work for peace and war is a tragic failure of that default position.
Nonetheless, pacifism, understood as the choice of a country (not individuals) never to take up arms is condemned, given that even the CCC stresses that there are circumstances where armed defense as a last resort is obligatory.
Even the US Bishops’ Peace pastoral, which had to go through several revisions–one demanded by Rome to correct a draft that asserted collective pacifism is the only Christian option–taught the following:
“The Christian has no choice but to defend peace, properly understood, against aggression. This is an inalienable obligation. It is the how of defending peace which offers moral options. . . .
In all this discussion of distinct choices [for or against taking up arms], of course, we are referring to options open to individuals. The council and the Popes have stated clearly that governments threatened by armed, unjust aggression must defend their people. This includes defense by armed force if necessary as a last resort.” [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, *The Challenge of Peace, 1983, #s 73, 75]
J
JustaServant
Guest
As several have pointed out, pacifism and peace are not the same thing. The problem is, in our new century, we are rapidly progressing toward an Orwellian belief that “war is peace”. And that is very dangerous.
Since WW2, we have allowed the military industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned us against, to florish here in ths country. In fact…its a little concerning to me as a baby boomer (late boomer) just how MILITARIZED we are becoming. Historically we have always supported our military, but never to the near-worship I see today. That was a product of countries like WW2 Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union.
This is going to be an alfully unpopular thing to say, but wearing a uniform does not make one instantly a “hero”. That’s how the Nazis viewed the world. Historically we have never mirrored, until the “war on terror”, the propaganda popular in facist countries. It paints an inaccurate picture, and does nothing to truly “support” the troops.
If we truly supported them, we would stop these endless wars overseas and bring them home to their families.
We have a military that is well-funded, that is popular, with far greater firepower and reach than has ever been seen before.
Ike, a general himself, warned us.
Since WW2, we have allowed the military industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned us against, to florish here in ths country. In fact…its a little concerning to me as a baby boomer (late boomer) just how MILITARIZED we are becoming. Historically we have always supported our military, but never to the near-worship I see today. That was a product of countries like WW2 Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union.
This is going to be an alfully unpopular thing to say, but wearing a uniform does not make one instantly a “hero”. That’s how the Nazis viewed the world. Historically we have never mirrored, until the “war on terror”, the propaganda popular in facist countries. It paints an inaccurate picture, and does nothing to truly “support” the troops.
If we truly supported them, we would stop these endless wars overseas and bring them home to their families.
We have a military that is well-funded, that is popular, with far greater firepower and reach than has ever been seen before.
Ike, a general himself, warned us.
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
I am speaking about principles. Certainly each concrete situation has to be evaluated in its particularity.
I see nothing wrong with holding up our military men and women for admiration given the sacrifice they are prepared to make to defend our freedoms. Whether a given operation is just or not is, of course, subject to debate.
While we are militarized, I would observe with Samuel P. Huntington in the Clash of Civilizations and the mountains of data he presents that Islam is the most militarized civilization in the world and its borders are bloody. And I would also note that a significant minority of that civilization urges the violent overthrow of the (nominally and at one time historically Christian) West and its replacement with a Sharia based society. They have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate a willingness to try. Witness statements by the Muslim Brotherhood among others.
I would also note Russian and Chinese pretentions.
I see nothing wrong with holding up our military men and women for admiration given the sacrifice they are prepared to make to defend our freedoms. Whether a given operation is just or not is, of course, subject to debate.
While we are militarized, I would observe with Samuel P. Huntington in the Clash of Civilizations and the mountains of data he presents that Islam is the most militarized civilization in the world and its borders are bloody. And I would also note that a significant minority of that civilization urges the violent overthrow of the (nominally and at one time historically Christian) West and its replacement with a Sharia based society. They have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate a willingness to try. Witness statements by the Muslim Brotherhood among others.
I would also note Russian and Chinese pretentions.
R
Reep
Guest
I don’t especially care for militaristic hymns myself, but I recognize their metaphorical nature.
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
That is perfectly legitimate.
I have a few misgivings myself. However I believe that our form of a Constitutional Democratic Republic government is far superior to any other present form of government…even with it’s shortcomings.
Were I to live in a foreign country and maintain my U.S. citizenship, I would never criticize that government. It would not be my place since I could not participate in it.
I am sure you feel the same way. You, as a non-voting British “citizen” would never be presumptuous enough to be publicly critical of a government that is providing you with the blessings of liberty and security. Am I right?
And as to Pacifism…my outlook is simple:
Wolves don’t lose sleep over the opinions of sheep
- Status