Mark

Absolutely, I second that

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Public criticism of Dubya's War may have the negative effect on morale that you imagine--although you're only guessing--but has no bearing on patriotism, which is regard for one's country--not it's current leaders or their policies.

Also--the people (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Abrams, etc) behind the emerging Dubya Doctrine of waging war against possible, future threats are not elected representatives over which we can exercise any control in the normal democratic fashion.

Majestyk

No. I wasn't guessing. But, since my previous statement gave the impression of enevitable causation which, I did not intend and I do not have links to the source for that position, I'll revise my statement to say that, I believe the possibility exists.

This is a false statement, an attempt to deny responsibility.

It is well known that each newly elected executive will assign persons of similar ideologies to fill the roles of their administration, from Supreme Court nominees and cabinet officers to department heads. To claim that we had no control over their appointment is specious.

Furthermore, the executive branch cannot act alone. It must have the support of the congress. For congress to give its support they must believe that they have the support of the people. Again this puts the responsibility for the actions, of the government of a republic, on the governed.

If, you believe that you are being patriotic by making flippant remarks about the situation while our troops are killing and being killed, fine. I don't.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Sigh....
Thanks for the chat.

Majestyk

Welcome.

Chuck

This is something that I do not understand at all.

I resent the notion that because our President unilaterally and systematically alienates the US from our allies, I must rally behind him and wear his T-shirt.

So. What's to be done? Should my right to criticize be suspended during wartime? Or should I just not exercise it?

Outside of empty emotionalism, enemy fire kills our troops, not my disagreement with this administration and its divisive policies.

Please elaborate.

Chuck

Majestyk

I should revise that statement "Public criticism" is too broad a term. Being critical of policy is one thing. Criticising the character and competence of the leaders we have selected to represent us is another. Criticising the character and history of country itself is not being patriotic. Specifically when these criticisms are unfounded and speculative.

I never said you must do that. That is one of the things you should do, depending on how you view the situation.

It's not a matter of a right. It is a matter of what is the right thing to do? You should exercise your right while taking care to keep your criticism to the issues and not personally attacking the competence or motivation of the selected representatives unless, you are prepared to file suit in court or engage in civil disobedience which are also acts of patriotism in my book.

Really? Then, morale has no affect on combat effectiveness?

I already have. Look through my previous posts and point out which part you are failing to understand.

What I'm failing to understand is why people think that patriotism is automatic? There isn't any inherent right that I know of that bestows the title of patriot on an individual simply because they have a pulse.

Chuck

Not when that character or competence, or failings therein, put my country on what I believe to be a very dangerous road. How can I avoid questioning their competence when their policies are, to me, so very incompetent?

See above. Why are the motivations of our officials above criticism? I think they should be checked constantly by the public. If they are not, corruption will surely ensue.

Huh? I made no such statement. I stated that my public criticism of leaders does not hurt our troops. I had no idea it makes them cry into their combat blankets at night.

This continues to bother me. I did not vote for the President, and he does not represent me. I have written letters to my representatives, signed peace petitions, and done everything reasonably feasible for someone of my station to keep this war from happening. How am I responsible for them being there? Because I pay taxes?

One one thing we can agree:

Yes, it is. And I think we have done something very wrong.

Chuck

Majestyk

Ya see that's the thing. He does represent you so long as he holds the office under the rules of our constitution. And the constitution is our country. So, your position is either you reject the Constitution, in which case you are most certainly not being patriotic, or he is holding the position in violation of the Constitution, in which case your duty as patriotic citizen would be something between petitioning the courts or open rebellion (aren't you lucky patriotism isn't mandatory).

What? We're living in 19th century England? We don't have stations. You're situation may provide you with obstacles but, the only other things, keeping you where you are at, are ability and desire. Don't be blaming it on anything else.

Chuck

So I have to reject the constitution or overthrow the government? I hardly believe that there is no criticism in between the two. To say that the President represents me simply because he is the president is a gross oversimplification. I am sure many conservative Christians would love to hear the same thing said about President Clinton.

There is no amendment putting the president above criticism and/or requiring slavish devotion to him.

Haha, ok, poor choice of words, you got me. But your list leaves out a few important elements. My "situation" is that of a university student with a job a duties. Given the choice between studying my languages and becoming a rebel (patriot?), the languages will win, simply because I am a rational human being. I do not understand why I cannot be a student who criticizes the president. What if my criticisms get people to think about foreign policy and try to understand how our government works and better appreciate it? Is that also unpatriotic?