Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TMA68 · 04-11-2003, 10:26 AM

http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/ar...atriotism.html

Todd

Melkor · 04-11-2003, 02:21 PM

Quote:

For example, Mr. Shepard says, "In time of war, patriots throw their politics aside and stand behind their leaders, because there can be only allegiance to their country...." With this one simple statement he gives carte blanche to whoever owns the government to act with impunity. It is this very attitude that has allowed dictators to rise throughout history and massacre untold millions whether it be in the name of the Fatherland, or the Motherland, or the Homeland. It says that in times of war it is the citizen's duty to support their leaders regardless of how evil or pure their intentions may be. I am sorry, but I just cannot accept that as a proper definition of patriotism. Blind allegiance is the mother of tyranny, not patriotism.

(emphasis added)

That's what I've been saying this whole time, and yet I'm accused of bein unpatriotic.

I've served my time in the military as well. Why can't "support our troops" mean "let's not involve them in unnecessary, unjust conflicts that cost their lives needlessly on foreign soil"?

Seems like a much better way of supporting them and remaining patriotic to me.

themistocles · 04-11-2003, 05:04 PM

It's kind of wierd that agreement with national policy has become "blind allegiance".

I guess anything to rationalize why reality doesn't meet up with one's worldviews. It just feels so good to be right on such important issues, really.

Abacus · 04-11-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by themistocles
It's kind of wierd that agreement with national policy has become "blind allegiance".

Strawman. Where in this thread has anybody said this?

From the link:

Quote:

"In time of war, patriots throw their politics aside and stand behind their leaders, because there can be only allegiance to their country, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy - there is no middle ground while our soldiers are in harm's way."

It's the attitude exhibited in the above quote that is being criticized as blind allegiance.

Majestyk · 04-11-2003, 07:13 PM

How you behave should depend on how you live up to your agreements. If, you've accepted the mantle of citizenship in the republic then, when the republic sends its citizens, your neighbors and fellow citizens, into harms way then, you should do what you can to ensure their objective is achieved with a minimal loss of life on either side.

I say this not out of blind allegiance to a piece of land, flag, or administration. None of those are concepts worthy of patriotism.

It is the covenant of citizenship within a democratic republic that demands your voluntary allegiance. Each of us is given the opportunity to representatives to make decisions on our behalf concerning the execution of the responsibilities that we have entrusted to the governing of the republic. We have the freedom to petition those leaders on the issues that concern us. We have the freedom to express our opinion threw word and print so as to inform our fellows of our opinions. We do all this to ensure that our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Once that government, acting within the framework of law that we have agreed to, makes the decision to engage in armed combat then, it is time to set aside political differences and set about the business of bringing the conflict to a successful conclusion as swiftly as possible.

To do otherwise is to break the covenant of citizenship. As citizens we all participated in the selection of our representatives and no one individual is ever solely responsible for putting our military on the field of battle. If, you are willing to accept the benefits of citizenship then, be prepared to also accept the responsibility.

There is a another side to this. If, you feel that the representatives of the republic, through either incompetence or design, have violated the covenant by, improperly discharging their duties in such a manner that action must be taken before the conflict can be resolved, your duty as a citizen demands that you do more than simply speaking derisively about those representatives. Your actions must be substantial but, not detrimental to the effectiveness of the military that provides the defense of those fellow citizens who are under fire. The greatest example of this I have ever seen were the Buddhists who publicly immolated themselves in protest of the Viet Nam conflict.

That's the way I see it anyway. A matter of personal integrity. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

Abacus · 04-11-2003, 07:43 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this "We're at war so shut up and get in line!" sentiment. Healthy criticism of the national leader's policies is not the same as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Nor is it the same thing as endangering our troops. Why do people think this?

Majestyk · 04-11-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abacus
I'm sorry, but I don't buy this "We're at war so shut up and get in line!" sentiment. Healthy criticism of the national leader's policies is not the same as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Nor is it the same thing as endangering our troops. Why do people think this?

You're right. Criticism is not the same as "Aide and comfort to the enemy". Aid and comfort to the enemy qualifies as treason. Being unpatriotic is not the same as being treasonous.

Abacus · 04-11-2003, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Majestyk
Being unpatriotic is not the same as being treasonous.

Heh. I wish some of my fellow citizens would learn this distinction.

Defiant Heretic · 04-11-2003, 10:59 PM

I'm not unpatriotic; I'm unamerican.

Patriotism (in a Republic, anyway) involves standing with the leaders when they're right, and against them when they're wrong.

"Unamerican", on the other hand, was a term created (or at least popularized) by McCarthy.

Who was more patriotic, Washington or Bush?

Mark · 04-12-2003, 07:15 AM

I dunno. America decalres itself proud ot be a democracy. A democracy is a society in which free debate and disagreement with the government and each other is allowed and actively encouraged. America is attacking small nations to export democracy, while democracy within itself is being undermined by the very people who wish to see it exported!

04-11-2003, 10:26 AM	#1
TMA68 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,054	Timely article on "patriotism" http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/ar...atriotism.html Todd

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2003, 05:04 PM	#3
themistocles Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: las vegas, nevada Posts: 670	It's kind of wierd that agreement with national policy has become "blind allegiance". I guess anything to rationalize why reality doesn't meet up with one's worldviews. It just feels so good to be right on such important issues, really.

04-11-2003, 07:13 PM	#5
Majestyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 2,846	How you behave should depend on how you live up to your agreements. If, you've accepted the mantle of citizenship in the republic then, when the republic sends its citizens, your neighbors and fellow citizens, into harms way then, you should do what you can to ensure their objective is achieved with a minimal loss of life on either side. I say this not out of blind allegiance to a piece of land, flag, or administration. None of those are concepts worthy of patriotism. It is the covenant of citizenship within a democratic republic that demands your voluntary allegiance. Each of us is given the opportunity to representatives to make decisions on our behalf concerning the execution of the responsibilities that we have entrusted to the governing of the republic. We have the freedom to petition those leaders on the issues that concern us. We have the freedom to express our opinion threw word and print so as to inform our fellows of our opinions. We do all this to ensure that our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Once that government, acting within the framework of law that we have agreed to, makes the decision to engage in armed combat then, it is time to set aside political differences and set about the business of bringing the conflict to a successful conclusion as swiftly as possible. To do otherwise is to break the covenant of citizenship. As citizens we all participated in the selection of our representatives and no one individual is ever solely responsible for putting our military on the field of battle. If, you are willing to accept the benefits of citizenship then, be prepared to also accept the responsibility. There is a another side to this. If, you feel that the representatives of the republic, through either incompetence or design, have violated the covenant by, improperly discharging their duties in such a manner that action must be taken before the conflict can be resolved, your duty as a citizen demands that you do more than simply speaking derisively about those representatives. Your actions must be substantial but, not detrimental to the effectiveness of the military that provides the defense of those fellow citizens who are under fire. The greatest example of this I have ever seen were the Buddhists who publicly immolated themselves in protest of the Viet Nam conflict. That's the way I see it anyway. A matter of personal integrity. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

04-11-2003, 07:43 PM	#6
Abacus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South Dakota Posts: 2,214	I'm sorry, but I don't buy this "We're at war so shut up and get in line!" sentiment. Healthy criticism of the national leader's policies is not the same as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Nor is it the same thing as endangering our troops. Why do people think this?

04-11-2003, 10:59 PM	#9
Defiant Heretic Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,288	I'm not unpatriotic; I'm unamerican. Patriotism (in a Republic, anyway) involves standing with the leaders when they're right, and against them when they're wrong. "Unamerican", on the other hand, was a term created (or at least popularized) by McCarthy. Who was more patriotic, Washington or Bush?

04-12-2003, 07:15 AM	#10
Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1,537	I dunno. America decalres itself proud ot be a democracy. A democracy is a society in which free debate and disagreement with the government and each other is allowed and actively encouraged. America is attacking small nations to export democracy, while democracy within itself is being undermined by the very people who wish to see it exported!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.