I was muzzled

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Here is one in Arizona:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad38V-0XujU

[jnjnelson]

Our national anthem can also help engender feelings of unity, patriotism, and loyalty.

My question in response to your above statement is: To whom and to what?

Our national anthem can help each of us engender feelings of unity for each other, as children of God. Feelings of unity in this sense is associated with the concepts of faith, hope, and charity. Without faith, hope, and charity for our fellow man, there is no faith, hope or charity in our Savior.

I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

As we act together in unity using true principles, we have much more spiritual strength than if we attempt to act individually. That spiritual strength can be the source of all other strength through following the Gospel of the Savior.

Our national anthem can also help each of us engender feelings of patriotism for, and loyalty to, the country in which we reside. The opposite of patriotism and loyalty, in this context, is sedition and rebellion.

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

If I fail to recognize the multitude of rights that are protected by those entrusted with the government of the country, focusing too much on those few rights they may be lax in protecting, I may become guilty of sedition and rebellion. Patriotism is the cure for sedition and rebellion against one's duly appointed leaders. There must also, of course, be a proper balance between "absolute Despotism" and patriotism. As the Declaration of Independence says, "patient sufferance" is the precursor to the need to "alter the former Systems of Government." Patriotism and loyalty to one's country are still virtues, even when such patriotism and loyalty leads one to revolution; and sedition and rebellion are still condemnable actions, even when the object of the rebellion is worthy of revolution.

I think the important thing here is to maintain the proper balance in our own personal perspective. I should maintain patriotism for the country, maintain loyalty to the people protected by the government of the country, be active in ensuring that our inherent and inalienable rights are protected, and hold sacred the freedom of conscience. One can do all at the same time if one is diligent in fighting the deception of the adversary.

Our national anthem was written in a way that helps me keep this proper balance. When conspiring individuals violate inalienable rights or desecrate the freedom of conscience, the national anthem inspires me to act within the principles of the Constitution in protecting those inalienable rights.

I should always answer the question, "O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?" with a resounding, "YES!" And the banner still waves because God protects it. "Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us as a nation!" How does He preserve us? Usually through the actions of His servants. We are His servants.

[buffalo_girl]

How did a personal preference for America the Beautiful over The Star Spangled Banner as a National Anthem become a lecture on "Sedition and Rebellion"?

You feel unified, loyal, and patriotic when you hear the Star Spangled Banner. I do not. Simple as that.

The fact that I don't particularly like the tune or the words should not be equated to sedition or rebellion on my part. In fact to do so, is treading very closely to the sort of 'nationalistic' fervor which separates citizens into 'enemies' and 'patriots'. Please consider the consequences of that line of thinking. It has happened in other nations within the past 100 years.

Stephen posted a link to a wonderful Fourth of July talk by Elder Neal Maxwell given in 1993. I strongly recommend it.

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1378

My unalienable rights insure that I may have an opinion other than yours. My opinion - whether you agree or not - should never be the basis for assuming criminal, immoral, or unpatriotic conduct - on either your or my part.

[jnjnelson]

How did a personal preference for America the Beautiful over The Star Spangled Banner as a National Anthem become a lecture on "Sedition and Rebellion"?

I was merely explaining in detail some of the reasons I enjoy our national anthem. I made no assumptions at all as to why you do not share my opinion of our national anthem, only that you do not share my love for the hymn. I made no assumptions as to any sedition or rebellion on your part, and I apologize if you interpreted my comments to be criticism in any form. I did my very best to word my comments so as to apply generally, not specifically. I feel my comments apply to me and you and every other individual equally.

My unalienable rights ...

I found it interesting that you underlined that particular portion of the word. In definition, the two words are extremely similar. Personally, I almost exclusively use the word unalienable; I generally only use inalienable when it has previously been used in the same conversation. In this case, I used inalienable because that was the word used in the Doctrine and Covenants passage I referenced.

My opinion - whether you agree or not - should never be the basis for assuming criminal, immoral, or unpatriotic conduct - on either your or my part.

You and I are in complete agreement on this point. Again, I made no such assumptions on any level. I would not have consciously made any such assumptions even if you had explicitly declared that your conduct had been less than perfect. I am sincerely sorry if my words portrayed to you something otherwise.

[buffalo_girl]

We have come through our difference of perspective with no real harm done.

I will certainly be more cautious in the future when expressing an opinion in regard to popular US icons.

Perhaps you aren't aware of HR1955 passed last October. I'm not sure of its standing in the Senate as S1959 the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.

Congressman Ron Paul had this to say in regard to the threat of such legislation:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congr ... 20507h.htm

What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

We have entered the era of 'thought surveillance'. If our social order collapses as we have been told it might well do - our lives will depend on those in whom we may have to place complete trust. My prayer is that we may be able to trust members of the church even when we don't see eye-to-eye.

[J]

[...]

[ROB GIBBSEN]

go to the temple and pray and follow

[ROB GIBBSEN]

awesome