Not sure if you’re objecting to the rampant militarism, or the implicit divine endorsement of militarism, or the enthusiastic crowd response to the aforementioned, or maybe something went right over my head.
I’m not really objecting to anything. I’m just cracking a joke because in situations like this, normally if someone starts making a speech, the moderator will say, “Do you have a question for our speaker, sir?” But in this case, that would have been wildly inappropriate.
I can appreciate that people want their treasured nation to be divinely inspired/generated, but that gets into really dangerous territory. The very song is combining deific significance to CONQUERING another group of people–as long as it is JUST, of course. That, to me, is kinda terrifying.
Terrifying, because the justice of the cause is being determined/discovered by some non-human (divine) position, or by an appeal to faith–both of which would be invalid arguments for a notion of justice. Following this standard of justice there is then violence to be committed.
I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I want people to be free to believe in it, and to do so peacefully. In order to do so, a nation and its laws need to have their basis in reason–not in faith. Otherwise, violent conflicts will necessarily arise. Each side will claim that their position is divinely inspired, whether by a god, a devil, the inevitable perpetuation of history, or the collective will of the nation/state/class/race–outside the realm of reason–and when differences arise, violence will ensue.
Whether or not a nation can be founded upon and sustain laws in a manner appealling purely to reason is questionable. I’d like to think it is possible, but it may be that the anarchist’s position is the only viable one.
Until then, we’re left in a tenuous state in which people will claim to love a deity, while also conquering in the name of divine justice.
I think you are reading a bit much into the lyrics of that verse. It appears to me that it’s glorifying free men defending their homes from foreign aggression and conquering the invaders.
Faith/belief in some kind of “divine providence” or “nature’s God” is arguably essential to the premise of natural and unalienable rights. This notion was at the core of the philosophy that generated the declaration of independence and the constitution.
It should not be troubling that this same standard was used to justify defending one’s homeland from tyranny.
I’m pretty sure Francis Key Scott wasn’t advocating crusading.
Nah. I can see some jeers tho’.
Not sure if you’re objecting to the rampant militarism, or the implicit divine endorsement of militarism, or the enthusiastic crowd response to the aforementioned, or maybe something went right over my head.
That’s why I still read this blog.
I’m not really objecting to anything. I’m just cracking a joke because in situations like this, normally if someone starts making a speech, the moderator will say, “Do you have a question for our speaker, sir?” But in this case, that would have been wildly inappropriate.
I can appreciate that people want their treasured nation to be divinely inspired/generated, but that gets into really dangerous territory. The very song is combining deific significance to CONQUERING another group of people–as long as it is JUST, of course. That, to me, is kinda terrifying.
Terrifying, because the justice of the cause is being determined/discovered by some non-human (divine) position, or by an appeal to faith–both of which would be invalid arguments for a notion of justice. Following this standard of justice there is then violence to be committed.
I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I want people to be free to believe in it, and to do so peacefully. In order to do so, a nation and its laws need to have their basis in reason–not in faith. Otherwise, violent conflicts will necessarily arise. Each side will claim that their position is divinely inspired, whether by a god, a devil, the inevitable perpetuation of history, or the collective will of the nation/state/class/race–outside the realm of reason–and when differences arise, violence will ensue.
Whether or not a nation can be founded upon and sustain laws in a manner appealling purely to reason is questionable. I’d like to think it is possible, but it may be that the anarchist’s position is the only viable one.
Until then, we’re left in a tenuous state in which people will claim to love a deity, while also conquering in the name of divine justice.
I think you are reading a bit much into the lyrics of that verse. It appears to me that it’s glorifying free men defending their homes from foreign aggression and conquering the invaders.
Faith/belief in some kind of “divine providence” or “nature’s God” is arguably essential to the premise of natural and unalienable rights. This notion was at the core of the philosophy that generated the declaration of independence and the constitution.
It should not be troubling that this same standard was used to justify defending one’s homeland from tyranny.
I’m pretty sure Francis Key Scott wasn’t advocating crusading.
Interestingly, this clip adds to my dislike of that song.
Oh. I didn’t quite understand that this was a Q&A.
BTW: Aren’t you supposed to be in Toronto? Ha! Ha! I kill me.