Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 1225.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> stand and pray during the playing of the national anthem.
            ^^^^

        And pray?  (Are they requiring him to pray, or has he said
        that that's what he'll do during the anthem, or is that your
        interpretation of standing for the anthem?)

        Bob

    .1
    
    As I understand it, it is what Abdul-Rauf indicated he was willing
    to do.
    
    Richard
    

    It's not idolatry to show some respect for your fellow countrymen,
    especially those who gave their lives so that ours might be better.
    Refusing to simply stand for a few minutes during the national anthem 
    is a statement of disrespect unbecomming a professional athlete.  If 
    this Abdul-Rauf guy feels this strongly about this, then why the hell 
    doesn't he just leave.  Leave the NBA and leave my country while he's 
    at it.   
    
    -dave
    

    If we require that people stand for things, then what we are doing is
    attaching a metaphysical power to these things.  While manners wuold
    say that standing might be the thing to do, enforcing manners  devalues
    this IMO.
    
    meg

    Standing during the anthem is a requirement imposed by the NBA.  The
    rules and regulations which all players are required to observe are
    lengthy and extend beyond what happens on the court.  Standing during
    the anthem is just one more of the requirements.  All the players read
    the rule book before joining.  No one is forcing them to join.  If they
    don't like the rules, then they don't have to join.  The NBA is not a
    democracy.  Neither should it be.  Those are the rules.  If there's a
    mechanism for players to petition for change, then that would be the
    way to go.  If not, too bad.  Obey the rules or leave.  
    
    How would you respond to someone who refused to pay taxes because they
    didn't like the way the money was being spent?  What would you say to 
    someone who lights a cigarette under the No Smoking sign in a
    resteraunt, protesting the imposition being made on them?  
    
    -dave
    
    

    RE: .5 Dave

    Yeah.  And if someone wants to work at Digital and if we
    put in our rulebook that everyone says the pledge of allegience
    every morning, even in other countries, then if people don't
    want to do it then they don't deserve a job here.  Those are
    our rules.  If they don't like it, leave.

    And, just to be fair, any company can put in their rules that
    all employees pray toward Mecca 5 times a days.  If you don't
    like it, leave.

    Yeah.  Right.

>    How would you respond to someone who refused to pay taxes because they
>    didn't like the way the money was being spent?  

    Each person has a voice, however small, in deciding how taxes are
    spent.  It is different.

>    What would you say to 
>    someone who lights a cigarette under the No Smoking sign in a
>    resteraunt, protesting the imposition being made on them?  

    There are usually pragmatic reasons (fire hazard/air quality) that 
    require that smoking be restricted.

    The NBA rule is unconstitutional.  It violates a person's first
    amendment rights.  Their livelyhood is made contingent on their
    accepting a certain set of political views.

    Tom Baker

    As I mentioned, the NBA is not a democracy.  When a ref tells you to
    get off the court, you can't raise the bill of rights claiming that you
    didn't recieve a fair trial before being convicted of the offense.  If
    a defenseman in a hockey game sends you into the boards when you're
    charging his goalie with the puck, you can't claim that he was
    interfering with your right to pursue happiness.  And if you use your
    freedom of speech too vigorously with the refs, you'll be kicked out 
    of the game.  A whole different set of rules apply, many of which are
    "unconstitutional".  But working in that environment is optional.  
    
    As for the example with DEC, the federal government has it's nose in 
    what a company can and cannot do in the workplace.  Rules that violate
    federal guidelines and laws are illegal and you are not obliged to obey
    them.  For practical and understandable reasons, some of these rules do 
    not apply on the field/ice/court.
    
    Standing up during the anthem is something that takes place on the
    court, field or ice.  If the players can't demonstrate this small token 
    of respect, then they can think of it as part of the game, like a jump 
    ball or a faceoff.
    
    -dave
    
    

>    As for the example with DEC, the federal government has it's nose in 
>    what a company can and cannot do in the workplace.  Rules that violate
>    federal guidelines and laws are illegal and you are not obliged to obey
>    them.  For practical and understandable reasons, some of these rules do 
>    not apply on the field/ice/court.

    The RITUAL of standing for the anthem has no effect on the smooth
    progression of the game.  There is NO pragmatic reason for insisting
    that a player buy into your political views in order to play
    basketball.
    
>    Standing up during the anthem is something that takes place on the
>    court, field or ice.  If the players can't demonstrate this small token 
>    of respect, then they can think of it as part of the game, like a jump 
>    ball or a faceoff.

    Bowing to Mecca 5 times a day.  Just think of it as being part
    of your job.  Everyone here does it.   You can show at least that
    much respect for Allah and Mohamud, His prophet.

    Sorry.  It doesn't wash.

    Tom Baker

.3

>    It's not idolatry to show some respect for your fellow countrymen,
>    especially those who gave their lives so that ours might be better.

Of course, there are some who would say that those who gave their lives
did so to protect the right to refuse to stand.

I take it by "those who gave their lives" you are referring to those who did
so in the line of getting armed (foreign or sometimes domestic, as in the
case of the War between the States) enemies to forfeit their lives.

>    If 
>    this Abdul-Rauf guy feels this strongly about this, then why the hell 
>    doesn't he just leave.  Leave the NBA and leave my country while he's 
>    at it.
    
The church, too, has sometimes been quick to ex-communicate the troublesome
and the non-conforming.

Love it or leave it?  Are these the only options?

Richard

The funny thing is that he's been doing it all season, without making a big 
deal out of it. It is only recently that someone noticed and asked and it 
became a big deal. Personally, I'd prefer his actions to those of the folks 
that start screaming at the top of their lungs before the end of the song.

It is his right to refuse to partake of the ceremony if he wishes. Like it 
or not that is what we are supposed to be about here. I would much rather 
have someone that follows their beliefs in a non-violent way than a group 
of people that follow the herd. America, love it or leave it has always 
sounded stupid to me. We are as capable as doing the wrong thing as people 
anywhere, and we must always be on guard against this. How about America, 
love it and strive to fix things when they are wrong. I may not agree with 
his perceptions, but then I am not a black muslim. If he gets enough people 
to agree with him through non-violent means to change things then perhaps 
he had a point, if not then where's the harm?

As to the contract, it was never ratified by the players union, most of 
those rules were imposed by the NBA outside of the collective bargaining 
agreement, which is why the players union was willing to back him up. It 
seems strange that the NBA is satisfied as long as he stands, even though 
he spends the time praying and not looking at the flag. What has really 
changed, other than you have forced someone into the appearence of 
conforming. For some reason I guess this was enough...

Steve

    Re .8 (Tom)
    
    >There is NO pragmatic reason...
    
    That's right.  But no "reason" is needed for making it a rule.  Reasons
    may exist, but they're not necessary.  Debate is moot because the rules 
    committee is a dictatorship which does not answer to the desires of the
    players.
    
    >...insisting that a player buy into your political views...
    
    No one can make anyone buy into other's views.  They're just forcing
    them to make it appear so.  Maybe it's antiquated and maybe it should
    be changed.  But that sort of change comes from the rules committee.
    
    >...in order to play basketball.
    
    No one is denying anyone the right to play basketball and not stand for
    the national anthem.  They can play and not stand OUTSIDE the NBA... in
    a sense a PRIVATE club with private rules.
    
    >Bowing to Mecca... Just think of it as being part of your job.
    
    If there were no labor laws barring that sort of mandate, I guess I
    would have to.  Then I'd use due process to try to get that changed.
    Due process is available for me to use as a tool for change.  If there
    is such a mechanism for change in the NBA, that'd be the way to go.
    Violating a rule which you agreed to abey when you signed up is not.
    
    >Sorry.  It doesn't wash.
    
    It does.  You're just not accostomed to thinking in terms of a
    dictatorship without due process for change.  
    
    God said "Thou shall not kill".  You don't argue with the validity of
    the commandment, you simply obey it.  There is no room for debating 
    God's commandments.  They are what they are and you obey if you want 
    to be in his grace.  PERIOD!  It's a moral dictatorship where God's 
    the dictator.  
    
    The rules committee of the NBA is a dictatorship which operates inside
    the allowances of labor guidelines, guidelines which allow for all
    sorts of things, including punching (in boxing) body checking (in
    hockey), judgement without trial (referees) and making athletes stand 
    during the anthem.  The players can petition their congressmen to have 
    the labor laws changed to remove the anthem standing mandate for 
    professional athletic events.  Until then, the rules stand!
    
    We are given all sorts of rights under the constitution.  One of those
    rights is the right to temporarily waive any of them if that's what we
    agree to do.  I signed a paper when I started at DEC waiving my right 
    to free speech when it comes to divulging trade secrets.  NBA players
    signed a paper that waived a lot of their rights.
    
    Re .10 (Richard)
    
    >Of course, there are some who would say that those who gave their lives
    >did so to protect the right to refuse to stand.
    
    Yes they did.  And instead of a "thank You" this is what they get. 
    You're christisn, think of it in terms of those who mocked Jesus when
    he died for their sins on the cross.  Did he deserve that?  
    
    Sure.  These NBA players are within their rights to mock those who have
    died on their behalf.  The NBA is just requiring that it's players at
    least appear to have respect.  It's within the rights of the NBA to
    require players to do this.  Remember, it's a private club with
    priovate rules.
    
    >I take it by "those who gave their lives" you are referring to those
    >who did
    >so in the line of getting armed (foreign or sometimes domestic, as in
    >the
    >case of the War between the States) enemies to forfeit their lives.
    
    One can debate the moraility of war and the validity of the sacrifice 
    made by those who have fallen. Perhaps this is not the place for that.  
    Point is that many made the ultimate sacrifice believing they did so 
    for the sake of others.  Contrary to popular belief, I'm sure most of 
    them did not take pleasure in killing others.  There have been many
    acounts of soilders throwing up on the battlefield after realizing that
    they killed their first human.  
    
    Like it or not, we live in a physical world with physical realities.  
    If someone is going to come over and kill your family, you do what you
    have to to stop them.  If you find that to be immoral, fine.
    
    >Love it or leave it?  Are these the only options?
    
    In the NBA, the options are "Obey it or leave it", there is no
    requirement for love.  In the US many times the options are "Obey it or 
    we'll make you leave it".  E.g. If you don't pay your taxes you're
    removed from society and put in jail.  
    
    Got to get some work done.
    
    Good debate
    
    -dave

re Note 1225.12 by CNTROL::DGAUTHIER:

>     Sure.  These NBA players are within their rights to mock those who have
>     died on their behalf.  The NBA is just requiring that it's players at
>     least appear to have respect.  

        It isn't mockery simply to sit in silence.  A refusal to make
        a show of respect isn't the same thing as an act of mockery. 
        If a Protestant refuses to kiss the Pope's ring, is that
        person thereby mocking the Pope?  It is not right to regard
        anything other than an overt "thank you" as a show of
        disrespect.

        Bob

    Re .13
    
    True.  I stand (or not) corrected.  
    
    One more thing on this topic, the sincerity of athlete's patriotism is 
    shrouded in question "because" rules committees REQUIRE them to stand 
    during the anthem.  You look at them and wonder which ones think this is
    a waste of time and which ones have real respect.  I fine MUCH more
    sincerity in the few spectators you see who remove their hats, place
    their hands over their hearts or just stand, simply because it's
    optional for them to do so.  
            
    It's a double edged sword the rules committees are weilding.
    
    -dave

    re: .6
    
    This rule is hardly unconstitutional.  No one is forcing this man to
    play pro-basketball in the NBA.  If he wants to play for the NBA then
    he better stand.  If not, he is free to get a job elsewhere.
    
    
    -steve

>    This rule is hardly unconstitutional.  No one is forcing this man to
>    play pro-basketball in the NBA.  If he wants to play for the NBA then
>    he better stand.  If not, he is free to get a job elsewhere.

And if DEC required you to bow to Mecca 5 times a day you always
have the right to quit DEC.  No one's forcing you to work here.
You could get a job elsewhere.  If you want to work for DEC then
you'd better bow.

Tom Baker

    Tom, there are federal labor guidelines which prohibit DEC from pulling
    a stunt like that.  Allowances in these guidelines are sometimes made for 
    different industries, like professional athletics.  This is what I was 
    trying to drive at earlier when I said that punching other people in the 
    nose was perfectly acceptable in boxing but not in a place like DEC, even 
    if DEC said it was.  This standing for the national anthem issue probably 
    lies in a gray area but the current envelope of allowances may allow the 
    NBA to define protocol and unacceptable conduct on the court... including 
    not standing for the anthem.  If this thing were really pushed, the
    labor board would probably disallow the NBA from mandating this rule.
    Until then, it's legal and not unconstitutional.  
    
    -dave
    

DEC could make everyone stand while the National Anthem is played on the
loudspeaker, because there is no law which prohibits such a policy.

DEC could even make you face towards Maynard at 12:45pm every day to
acknowledge the great and glorious Maynard Suits Organization (MSO).

But DEC could not make you bow to Mecca five times because of the laws
which prohibit religious discrimination in employment.

/john

    re: .16
    
    Apples and oranges.  Bowing to Mecca 5 times is a religious practice,
    something that cannot be forced upon a worker.  Standing during the
    national anthem is not a religious act.
    
    
    -steve

    
    > Standing during the national anthem is not a religious act.

    But what if it is an act that violates one's religious belief? 

    Eating pork is not a religious act, but forcing one to eat pork may
    violate their religious beliefs. Killing in wartime is not a religious
    act, but forcing one to kill may violate their religious beliefs. So
    no, standing for the Star Spangled Banner is not a religious act, but
    it can easily be analogous to an anti-religious act.      

    Nationalism is a funny thing. It has many of the trappings of a religion
    - creed (pledge of allegiance), prayers (national anthem), and
    ceremonies/feast days. The fact is, historically most national
    identities have been tied to some sort of religious identity (remember
    the crusades). Even today England has a national church, Germany too
    has an official religion. Heck isn't America a "Christian Nation?" Isn't
    it "based on Christianity?" The are both contemporary arguments made by
    conservative Christians. Is the anthem of a "Christian Nation" not a
    religious expression at some level?

    Eric

    You can only play the "violation of religion" game so far before the
    supreme court puts it's foot down.  You can't avoid paying taxes, for
    example, by claiming that it's against your religious beliefs.  I guess
    the rule of thumb is that your religion can't interfere with others
    (like human sacrifice) and you've got to pay your dammed taxes, because
    the IRS rules supreme!
    
    Not sure about whether or not DEC could make us stand and salute the
    flag or not.  Again, that would be up to the labor board.  Their rules
    and regs are complex, dynamic and apply differently to different
    industries.  I know that this anthem issue has come up before with
    regard to schools.  Not sure what the labor board's position on this
    is.
    
    How about this one... An employer has the right to physically detain
    you for days in isolation for as long as it sees fit.  Outrageous!
    Not if you work in a biological weapons lab and you're contaminated.
    
    This country was founded by christians who fought for it's citizen's
    right to practice a religion of their own choosing (amoung other
    things).  There ws no stipulation that religion had to be some flavor
    of christianity.  

.12

>   Re .10 (Richard)
    
>   >Of course, there are some who would say that those who gave their lives
>   >did so to protect the right to refuse to stand.

>   Yes they did.  And instead of a "thank You" this is what they get. 
>   You're christisn, think of it in terms of those who mocked Jesus when
>   he died for their sins on the cross.  Did he deserve that?

Let's consider nationalism in yet another light.  Not just a few
Jehovah's Witnesses were carted off because they refused to "Heil Hitler"
(Hail Hitler), a nationalistic custom in Nazi Germany, probably regarded
by many as simply a gesture of respect.  Hitler bore a special hatred for
Jehovah's Witnesses.  There's little doubt in my mind that Hitler considered
their uncooperative behavior a demonstration of mockery.

Shalom,
Richard

 Mr.  Abdul-rauf is free to leave this country, whose flag he believes
 represents oppression and tyranny.  The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jews
 did not have that freedom.  Mr Abdul-Rauf is also free to choose another
 occupation, or start his own basketball league, or even play for the
 Iraq Basketball Assocation should he wish to flee the oppression and
 tyranny here in the US.


 Jim

>Germany too has an official religion.

No it doesn't.

/john

	As a Jehovah's Witness I had refrained from commenting in this
	string, mainly because of the points made by Jim in .23. I believe
	that back in the seventies a high profile soccer player, here in 
	the UK, became  one of Jehovah's Witnesses and left the club he played
 	for shortly afterwards. No doubt, he weighed up the potential conflicts
 	that could occur if he carried on playing, such as being called to play
 	for his country or playing a match in a cup final where ofcourse the 
	national anthem would be played. He was a good player and left a 
	promising career to practise his religion.

	Richard, mentioned that the German Jehovah's Witnesses refused to
	"Heil Hitler". For it meant salvation was only in Hitler, to the
	Witnesses salvation was only in Jehovah and his chief agent Jesus
	Christ, their Fuhrer (leader). For this they suffered severe 
	persecution, including their children, and yet all they had to do
	was sign a paper recending their faith and they would have had
	freedom. As a whole, the majority refused to do so and many lost
	their lives being executed. In atleast one case, the German 
	authorities steeped so low as to report an executed person as 
	dieing a hero's death on the battle front to his family, they 
	hoped to deceive them into thinking their loved had broken 
	their integrity so as to weaken their resolve (Witnesses also 
	refused to take up arms). Through all this persecution the 
	Witnesses kept relative subjection to the authorities.

	Nazi Germany and Facist Italy haven't been the only countries
	that have persecuted Witnesses for their neutral stance, in this
	turbulent century. Even so we are grateful to court decisions
	in places such as the US of A, that have given us religious
	freedom. 

	Dave mentioned that persons are obliged to pay taxes, with this in
	mind and Jesus words at Luke 20:25 NWT "... 'By all means, then,
	pay back Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God.'" In
	otherwords, one should be lawful and pay taxes but if it conflicts
	with God's requirements then one should pay it to God. Exodus 20:4,5b
	NWT reads "You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form
	like anything that is in the heavens or that is on the earth underneath
	or that is in the waters under the earth. You must not bow to them
	nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God, am a God
	exacting exclusive devotion,". Many see the flag symbolising a
	"living country" (or image) for this reason we refuse to salute
	(eg place a hand on ones heart) a flag, for we wouldn't want to be
	induced to serve it when our devotion should be for Jehovah God alone.
	Ofcourse, many see this as a grey area but to a Witness it is black
	and white. 

	Many view our behaviour as disrepectful. A Canadian school teacher,
	decided to test this assertion through an experiment. Two children
	were chosen from a class, one a Witness child and the other whom
	would be willingly salute the flag. The experiment was that the
	children were instructed to enter the principal's office, separately,
	and commanded to spit on the flag. The first child did so without any
	hesitation. However, the Witness child refused to. Why, because she
	said that though it was wrong for her to salute the flag, it would
	be disrespectful of her to follow the teachers command to spit on it.

	Personally, I see nationalism as causing divisions. For example,
	the German national anthem is "Deutshland uber alles" words to
	the effect of "Germany over all". Does a professing Christian 
	really believe they are in anyway superior to another Christian
	of a different nationality?. I don't know the words of the "Star 
	Spangled Banner" (hope I got this right), but for me it is Jesus 
	whom I want to reign for a long time over us and not the Queen 
	(compare Daniel 2:44).

	Please don't get me wrong, if persons wish to salute a flag then
	they are entitled to do so. We are all free to chose whom we
	serve be it Caesar or God (compare John 19:15, Acts 5:29 & Matt 6:24).

	Phil.

Re .25

Phil:  Let me begin by admitting that I'm not terribly familiar with the 
beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.  From reading your note, it seems that there's
an aversion to recognizing anything but Jehovah as being worthy of devotion. 
How far does this get pushed?  For Example, is it permissible for a parent to
demonstrate some measure of devotion to his/her children?  Cannot a Jehovah's
Witness be devoted first to Jehovah, then to some smaller degree to other
things, like family and/or perhaps country?  

I see the national anthem, the flag, the words "United States", etc... as being
symbols which represent the group of people, past and present, who comprise my
country. We're a group who share a common homeland (amoung other things) and
I'm proud to be part of the group.  I have and will demonstrate some level of
devotion to the group (not the symbols) just as people may show devotion to
a much smaller group... their family.  Or just as a soccer player will wear
the team uniform or perhaps sing the team song or make sacrifices on the field
for the good of the team.  Is not this devotion in some degree?

And so, the basketball player is asked to wear the uniform, make sacrifices and 
also stand for the anthem... (showing respect for a much larger team).  It's 
interesting to note that athletes remain standing even when the anthem of other
countries are being played, as they do in the NHL (both American and Canadian
anthems are played). 

The words to the American national anthem are from a poem written by a soldier
named Francis Scott Key while he was in prison during a battle in the war of 
1812.  Not being able to see what was going on in the battle he inferred that
the US flag was still standing as the explosions of the battle continued.  The
poem was about the resolve of his countrymen in battle, symbolized by the flag.
On the battlefield the flag is often used as a rallying point and a token
that your side is still standing (especially in earlier times when soldiers
were clashing in groups on the field).  Group cohesion improves one's chances
of victory and tools like flags, bugles, bagpipes, whatever, were used to
foster troop cohesion during these very very streeful times.  

Hmmmm... I wonder.... If it is improper for soldiers to rally under their flag
during battle because it did not represent anything holy, were the crusaders
justified in rallying under the cross in their battles?

-dave

        The conservative Christian radio programs I've heard lately
        (see Note 124.100 and following) have made me think about
        this a lot.  The common theme running through them seems to
        be that American nationalism is in a battle with idolatry,
        i.e., that the forces of idolatry are trying to tear down the
        American nation, and that the preservation and advancement of
        the American nation is one of the chief ways to combat
        idolatry.

        I really do hear American nationalism held up more than Christ
        in these programs.

        It would certainly be ironic if Satan managed to convince so
        many sincere people that what was actually idolatry was not
        that at all.

        A few other thoughts inspired by Note 124.100 and this:

        One of the anti-environmentalist Christians' criticism of the
        environmental movement is that it often regards the earth as
        a living thing as a whole, and that it teaches loyalty to the
        living earth, etc.  Yet undoubtedly many of those same people
        espouse an American nationalism that seems to regard the
        United States as a living thing as a whole, worthy of loyalty
        beyond loyalty just to the individuals involved.

        One of the reasons that I'm very glad to be a Roman Catholic
        is that it is one of the very few major denominations that is
        truly global, as opposed to national.  It would seem to me
        that Christ's church should transcend borders, and that
        membership in the body of Christ would come above and before
        membership in any nation.  In contrast, the most vital
        non-Catholic Christian groups in America are considerably
        nationalistic, and becoming more so.  I have no confidence
        that if there were a conflict between following Christ or
        following the nation's interest (as they see it), that they
        would follow Christ or even acknowledge the conflict.

        Bob

re .26


Dave,

Yes, we have a sense of devotion to our families and our neighbour.
But it is a relative one in that, as you say "devoted first to 
Jehovah,". 

We see the flag as more than a symbol but an image, and for this
reason obey the command in Exodus 20:4,5. You appear to agree that
it represents a group of people, and therefore from a dictionary
definition is an image. We do not use any images in are worship 
but worhip God through spirit (John 4:24), that is we live our 
faith rather than devote ourselves to any image. Yes, we should
live our lives in helping the community around us, but we don't 
need a flag to remind us for we gain instruction from God's Word.

Not saluting the flag is a choice we have made, just as many choose
not to worship Jehovah. If one is enforced to salute the flag, then
in my opinion one is giving it reverence as was the case with the
3 Hewbrew lads recorded in Daniel 3.

;The words to the American national anthem are from a poem written by a soldier
;named Francis Scott Key while he was in prison during a battle in the war of 
;1812.  Not being able to see what was going on in the battle he inferred that
;the US flag was still standing as the explosions of the battle continued.  The
;poem was about the resolve of his countrymen in battle, symbolized by the flag.
;On the battlefield the flag is often used as a rallying point and a token
;that your side is still standing (especially in earlier times when soldiers
;were clashing in groups on the field).  Group cohesion improves one's chances
;of victory and tools like flags, bugles, bagpipes, whatever, were used to
;foster troop cohesion during these very very streeful times.  

Thanks for the explaination, one is often not taught about countries history
at school.

;Hmmmm... I wonder.... If it is improper for soldiers to rally under their flag
;during battle because it did not represent anything holy, were the crusaders
;justified in rallying under the cross in their battles?

I would question if there was anything holy regarding the crusades, for
it spilt much blood including those who were meant to have been their
brothers.

Phil.

re Note 1225.25 by RDGENG::YERKESS:

>         Two children
> 	were chosen from a class, one a Witness child and the other whom
> 	would be willingly salute the flag. The experiment was that the
> 	children were instructed to enter the principal's office, separately,
> 	and commanded to spit on the flag. The first child did so without any
> 	hesitation. However, the Witness child refused to. Why, because she
> 	said that though it was wrong for her to salute the flag, it would
> 	be disrespectful of her to follow the teachers command to spit on it.

        My first reaction was "personal integrity is superior to
        loyalty and patriotism any day".

        My second reaction was "this seems so neat an illustration,
        are you sure it isn't a parable, an urban legend?"

        My third reaction was that any public school teacher who
        tried that in the U.S. would be immediately fired.

        Bob

re .27

;        My first reaction was "personal integrity is superior to
;        loyalty and patriotism any day".

;        My second reaction was "this seems so neat an illustration,
;        are you sure it isn't a parable, an urban legend?"

Bob,

I read this from the pages of the Watchtower yesterday evening. It has
been my experience that they are thorough in checking their source.

A parable, hmm, perhaps the parable of the Good Samaritan was a real
event.

There are often experiences, recorded in the pages WT, from those who 
have gone through persecution, such as in Nazi Germany. They are no doubt 
recorded as an encouragement to those who may have to under go, or are 
under going (WT is published worlwide), persecution helping them to stand 
firm as integrity keepers.

Phil. 

Hundreds of Quakers were imprisioned in the late 1600's for refusing to
swear an oath of allegiance to the king of England.  Many were incarcerated
for not removing their hats in the presence of governmental officials.

Many modern Quakers and other Christians still take seriously Jesus' injunction
to refrain from swearing to an oath.

Shalom,
Richard

	The "Star Spangled Banner"

	Written by Francis Scott Key, while a "guest" of British forces on
	the Patapsco River during the aerial bombardment of Fort McHenry,
	13-14 September 1814.  Distributed in handbill form on 15 September.

	O say can you see by the dawn's early light,
	What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
	Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
	O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
	And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
	Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
	  O say does that star spangled banner yet wave
	  O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

	On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
	Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
	What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
	As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses;
	Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
	In full glory reflected now shines in the stream.
	  'Tis the star spangled banner, O long may it wave
	  O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

	And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
	That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
	A home and a country shall leave us no more?
	Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
	No refuge could save the hireling and slave,
	From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.
	  And the star spangled banner in triumph doth wave
	  O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

	O thus be it ever, when free men shall stand
	Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
	Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
	Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
	Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
	And this be our motto, "In God is our trust."
	  And the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave
	  O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

    And the melody, as I recall, is from a drinking song from England.
    
    Richard
    

    Re .29 (Phil)
    
    Well, what's the difference.  If it's OK to show devotion to family, or
    to neighbors, what's the problem with showing devotion to one's
    contrymen?  It's just another group.  
    
    You mentioned that perceiving the flag, anthem, whatever as an image
    poses the problem... one should not show devotion to an image.  Why an
    image and not a collection of symbols?  I mean this is a subjective
    thing.  You and I decide whether a flag is an image or a symbol.. to
    us.  It's not one or the other on it's own.  Right?
    
    >I would question if there was anything holy regarding the crusades...
    
    From what I've read, there wasn't much holy about those campaigns. 
    Popes were leading men into battle against perfect strangers.  And
    some of the post battle pillaging was positively disgraceful.
    
    -dave
    

    re .24

    I misspoke. I should have said Austria, not Germany. Furthermore, I was
    basing that on what Derek Button had written about "church tax" and
    state subsidies for the Roman Catholic Church.
    
    Eric

    RE .23

    And Mr. Abjul-Rauf should also be free to follow his conscience in
    matters of faith without it affecting his ability to bounce a ball.
    If this guy really believes the flag is used as a symbol of tyranny,
    using the "love-it-or-leave-it" argument only serves to prove his
    point.

    Eric

 So those who are offended by his views (and who contribute to his $35K/day 
 salary) should just keep their mouths shut when he insults those of who
 love our country?


 Jim

re .35

Neither does Austria have a state Church.

Any religion can apply to the government under the Kirchenrecht to be
included in the government program of tax and spend.  Any citizen may
declare himself to not belong to a religion or to belong to one which
does not participate and be relieved of paying the church tax.

/john

>    And Mr. Abjul-Rauf should also be free to follow his conscience in
>    matters of faith without it affecting his ability to bounce a ball.
>    If this guy really believes the flag is used as a symbol of tyranny,
>    using the "love-it-or-leave-it" argument only serves to prove his
>    point.

 
     and so the talk show hosts in Denver who walked into a mosque and
     played the star spangled banner on horns should not lose their jobs
     as they were only following their consciences in a matter of faith, right?



     Jim

re .34

;    Well, what's the difference.  If it's OK to show devotion to family, or
;    to neighbors, what's the problem with showing devotion to one's
;    contrymen?  It's just another group.  

Dave,

By neighbour, I meant one's coutrymen. But this stops when it involves 
nationalism, Jehovah's Witnesses take a neutral stance in such instances.
As a Jehovah's Witness I enjoy fellowship with all my brothers and sisters
worldwide, nationalism would rob me of such fellowship. Shouldn't a
christian have more affinity with persons who share their faith, rather
than those who are born in their same nation who may not share in their
same convictions and friendship with God?.

;    You mentioned that perceiving the flag, anthem, whatever as an image
;    poses the problem... one should not show devotion to an image.  Why an
;    image and not a collection of symbols?  I mean this is a subjective
;    thing.  You and I decide whether a flag is an image or a symbol.. to
;    us.  It's not one or the other on it's own.  Right?

Sorry Dave, I should have been clearer. Exodus 20:4,5 is clear that one 
should not pledge allegiance to anything man made. Jehovah's Witnesses do 
not use any images or anything man made that symbolise things in their worship.

Many flags have the origins of being religous banners, take for example
the cross of Saint George. Persons view them with reverence and are induced
to serve them. To me personally, a flag is just a bit of cloth, but I respect 
that others view the flag differently. Jehovah's Witnesses cannot show any
reverence that is due solely to Jehovah God and therefore refuse to salute
the flag. People may find such a attitude disrespectful but one can't please
everyone, as long as we are pleasing Jehovah God that is what matters.

For a discussion I had with Jack regarding the flag, see note 369.272.

Phil.

 

    This is entering the realm of the absurd.

    RE: .39

>     and so the talk show hosts in Denver who walked into a mosque and
>     played the star spangled banner on horns should not lose their jobs
>     as they were only following their consciences in a matter of faith, right?

    This act of belligerence was a publicity stunt that is trying to
    shove one person's values upon another.  It is trespassing and
    insulting and flies in the face of everything the flag and the
    Star Spangled Banner stands for.
    
    Mr. Abjul-Rauf is not trying to insult anyone or cause any problem.
    He is only trying to remain true to his faith.  I hope that is
    something you can relate to.
    
    If you can't see the difference then you do Adolph proud.

    Tom Baker

    
    re .38
    
    Thanks for the clarification/education.
    
    Eric

    RE .39
    
    I fail to see any relationship - except as one of juxtaposition -
    between the silent protests of an NBA player in a public arena, and the
    actions of thugs to intimidate and harrass worshipers in a church.

    Eric

    RE .41
    
    >    Mr. Abjul-Rauf is not trying to insult anyone or cause any problem.
    >    He is only trying to remain true to his faith.  I hope that is
    >    something you can relate to.
    
    Mr. Abjul-Rauf is failing to do something he agreed he'd do when he
    signed up with the NBA.  Just as religion is not beholding to the NBA,
    neither is the NBA beholding to religions.  If he had felt that strongly 
    about it, then he shouldn't have signed up to begin with.  Phil mentioned 
    a soccer player who decided to give up a promising career in the sport
    because he felt that it would  conflict with his religion.  He knew the 
    rules, he felt that he couldn't participate and still remain true to his 
    religion, so he didn't sign on.  It's unfortunate that this is the way it 
    had to be but at least he had the personal integrity not to join while
    intending to disregard rules/regulations at his personal disgression
    after the fact of joining.  
    
    And where does it end?  We were talking about a pre game ceremony,
    something which lies in a gray area.  But what about the rules/regs
    designed for conductiong play on the field/court/ice?  Can players
    excercise personal religious disgression when it comes to them?  
    
    No Tom.  We don't live in a world where everyone has limitless personal
    freedom.  Abjul-Rauf voluntarily surrendered some of his liberty to
    play basketball in the NBA.  He has no right to take them back
    as if he never surrendered them in the first place.  
    
    The last time I tried to pull a stunt like that, I got a spanking.
    
    -dave
    

>    And where does it end?  We were talking about a pre game ceremony,
>    something which lies in a gray area.  

    It has nothing to do with the actual playing of the game.

>    But what about the rules/regs
>    designed for conductiong play on the field/court/ice?  Can players
>    excercise personal religious disgression when it comes to them?  

    Of course not.  The rules are there to protect people and to
    ensure that the game moves forward.  They are essential to the
    game.
    
>    No Tom.  We don't live in a world where everyone has limitless personal
>    freedom. 

    I never said we did.  But what freedoms we do have are worth
    protecting.

>    Abjul-Rauf voluntarily surrendered some of his liberty to
>    play basketball in the NBA.  He has no right to take them back
>    as if he never surrendered them in the first place.  

    There are some rights you cannot sign away.

    Tom Baker

re Note 1225.46 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

>     It has nothing to do with the actual playing of the game.

        You may be going too far in assuming that the game is the
        only point of the whole exercise.  It is also entertainment; 
        it is also community ritual.

        Bob

    >    It has nothing to do with the actual playing of the game.
    
    It doesn't matter.  Those are the rules and participation in the NBA
    extends beyond what happens between the start end end of the game.
    
    
    >     There are some rights you cannot sign away.
    
    Interesting question.  Does someone have the liberty to surrender some
    part of their liberties?  I did when I started with DEC.  I signed a
    paper that said I couldn't blab trade secrets, yet I have a
    constitutional right to free speech.   I surrendered a small portion of
    that liberty to work for DEC.  
    
    -dave

    So what some people are saying is that it is alright for the NBA and
    other sports and governmental enterprises to make a mockery out of the
    true feelings one might have around the flag and anthem?  Demanding a
    show of "patriotism" from an individual as a requirement for their
    contract, to me invalidates the premise that I was taught our flag,
    country and anthem stand for.  
    
    However, I was also taught that our country was founded by people who
    were willing to rebel against a state-run church, a king who wanted
    nothing more than a "pittance" to show support for his government and
    people who were willing to stand by and profit by doing same.  Silly
    me, I guess the whole history of the original colonies was incorrectly
    taught when I went to school.  
    
    meg

    If I understand the structure correctly, there's a federal labor board
    which sets guidelines regarding what's allowed or not allowed in the
    workplace.  Within those guidelines (WITHIN THOSE GUIDELINES) the
    companies can set their own rules.  Different industries may have different
    guidelines, depending on what's appropriate.  The extreme example I
    gave earlier about someone being detained for days in isolation by an
    employer is appropriate for a biological weapons lab.  It's not
    appropriate for someone who works as a clerk at a Hallmark store.  
    
    If an employee doesn't like them, they can approach the leadership of the 
    company, or, the labor board.  For whatever reason, the NBA was given 
    the authority to require it's players to stand for the anthem.  If
    that's unacceptable, discontent should be expressed to the powers that
    be where change may come about via due process.  
    
    the founders of the country wanted a nation wherepeople have the
    freedom to speak, worship, etc... .  Mr. Abjul-Rauf has all of those 
    rights unless and until he provisionally surrenders them (as he did).
    
    1) The NBA was within the law to require players to stand for the anthem.
    2) He agreed to stand for the anthem when he signed up into this
       private group of athletes, the NBA.
    
    If he wants to regain his right NOT to stand for the anthem during
    pregame, he can leave the NBA and sit down (or stand on his head for 
    all I care) whenever he hears the anthem.  Till then, he's obliged by
    contract to obey the rules/regs of the NBA... a set of rules which were
    allowed to exist by a federal agency appointed either directly or
    indirectly by we the people.  You see, it all comes back to us because
    we put the "powers that be" into place and we did nothing about the
    laws and regulations that they passed in this regard.  We have the
    power to change anything we want in our government (with due process).
    If we don't excercise that power, we get what's there.
    
    -dave
    
    

    1) The NBA was within the law to require players to stand for the 
anthem.

Unless this has gone to court it may not be true. The past is full of 
'required' practices that stood until challenged, then were struck down by 
the courts. If Abdul-Rauf had decided to stick with his protest, the NBA 
players union was on record as backing him.

Steve

    Going to court about it is fine. That's due process.  If the player's
    union is the mechanism of disputing this sort of thing, fine.  Ignoring 
    regulations that one agreed to abey is not so fine.  
    
    -dave

>        You may be going too far in assuming that the game is the
>        only point of the whole exercise.  It is also entertainment; 
>        it is also community ritual.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A point that is at the heart of the matter and that has been largely
disregarded thus far.

Richard

    Yes it is a ritual.  But can you think of anything more replete in
    ritual that athletic events (aside from religion that is)?  Tossing the
    coin to see who kicks off, announcing the players, half time events,
    honoring retired players, awards ceremonies and yes, playing the
    anthem.  So this is just one more ritual of the sport.  

    .54
    
    A local sociology professor has lectured and written extensively
    on the connection between sports and religion, particularly football.
    
    Most of the rituals you mention serve a function.  What function would
    you say is served by the flag ceremony and pledge of allegiance?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Re .55 (Richard)

    Some rituals and practices bind a particular team together (uniforms,
    songs, mascots, etc...). They serve to foster a sense of belonging to
    the team.  Other rituals bind all players in a league together, again
    serving to foster a sense of belonging.  And so I would expect that
    the flag/anthem ceremony is just the next step up, one that allows
    the audience to participate in as well.

    I really don't see it as being much more than a statement of belonging
    and respect. A player won't object to be identified as a "defenseman",
    on the "2nd line", of the "Bruins", in the "Adams Division" of the
    "NHL".  He's pigeonholed on many levels.  He participates in all the
    rituals/ceremonies required of him in all these levels and does so without
    objection.  But heaven forbid if you call  him an American or a
    Canadian or whatever and ask him to stand for a couple minutes before
    each game while his anthem is being played.  They'll shake hands with
    some jerk running around in the mascot's uniform but can't manage to
    stand for the anthem.

    The leagues and teams exist inside and under the protection of a country.
    This is NOT the case in all countries.  Maybe along with "belonging", it
    might be a simple expression of recognition of that fact.  If you walk
    into a synagogue, you wear a yarmulke.  It's a token of respect that you
    yield to even if you're not a practicing Jew.  If you play in the NBA,
    in the US, you stand for the anthem.  It's a token of respect as well
    as belonging.

    I dunno.  When I think of some professional athletes, making and keeping
    millions of dollars, getting into fights on the court/ice/field, bad
    mouthing opponents, yelling at referees and then refusing to stand for
    the anthem on religions grounds! all that comes to mind is "You strain 
    for a gnat yet swallow a camel".  (I dunno the gospel/chapter/verse)

    -dave

Well, Dave, do you think it's possible to see the issue in any other light?

Shalom,
Richard

    >Well, Dave, do you think it's possible to see the issue in any other
    >light?
    
    Sure.  I can also see why non-christians might get upset when town funds
    are used to put christmas lights on the town firebarn.  But you can't
    both put the lights up and not put them up.  You do one or the other.
    Same with the athletes.  They either all stand as a team or not.  Some
    standing, some sitting, some lying, some talking, some in the locker
    room just doesn't hack it.  They either do it or they don't.
    
    -dave

Re .56

>    Some rituals and practices bind a particular team together (uniforms,
>    songs, mascots, etc...).

Interesting that the root of the word 'religion' means 'to bind together.'

Is it not possible for nationalism to be a surrogate religion?

Shalom,
Richard

Incidentally, I really didn't intend this topic to focus so much on professional
sports.  It just worked out that way.

Shalom,
Richard

    I wouldn't think nationalism is a "surrogate" religion.  IMO, religion
    addresses the metaphysical questions which we all have.  It poses the 
    notion of a god or gods as intangible creator(s) which are somehow worthy 
    of worship.  Nationalism doesn't play in that area at all.  Nations are
    artificla creations. 
    
    But I agree that it does serve to bind together.  Then again, there are
    many social institutions that do this... families, street gangs,
    schools, social clubs, militaries, ethnic groups, etc... .  Many (if not 
    all) have a system of rules by which it expects it's members to abide and
    many use symbolism as a means to bind the group together.  
    
    -dave

re: .61 Dave Gauthier

    I wouldn't think nationalism is a "surrogate" religion.  IMO, religion
    addresses the metaphysical questions which we all have.  It poses the 
    notion of a god or gods as intangible creator(s) which are somehow worthy 
    of worship.  Nationalism doesn't play in that area at all.  Nations are
    artificla creations. 

There are some of us that see religion as an artificial creation, also :^)

    But I agree that it does serve to bind together.  Then again, there are
    many social institutions that do this... families, street gangs,
    schools, social clubs, militaries, ethnic groups, etc... .  Many (if not 
    all) have a system of rules by which it expects it's members to abide and
    many use symbolism as a means to bind the group together.  

And to this list you can add religion without changing your definition.

Steve

    Ya.  I agree that they're similar in a lot of ways.  But nationalism 
    still doesn't replace religion anymore than an affiliation with the
    "Elks" replaces a family.  There are important areas where they
    don't overlap.  Nationalism is not a surrogate religion (IMO).
    
    -dave
    
    

	"I was taught in seminary to be very suspicious of the nation-state.
People have a great propensity to idolize it, to make it god and fall down
in worship before it.  It is wise to practice the hermeneutics of suspicion
when dealing with the nation-state."

					- Tex Sample
					  U.S. Lifestyles and Mainline
					  Churches

    Z                                        - Tex Sample
    Z                                          U.S. Lifestyles and Mainline
    Z                                          Churches
    
    Tex...Tex...wasn't he one of the Manson Family members?

    .65
    
    I believe it was Watson, but maybe that was the car dealer.
    

    :-)