I was watching a repeat of Real Time with Bill Maher last night and the question of how we view patriotism in this country came up. Tavis Smiley mentioned Fredrick Douglass who thought that...



Do you agree with this view of patriotism? If you do, why? If not, why not?

If you don't, how do you view patriotism?

I do agree with that definition. I think Al Franken summed it up best when he put forth his view that the best way to love America is NOT to love it like a four-year-old loves their Mommy, where everything Mommy does is good and if anyone says anything against Mommy, then they're evil. Grown up love (in this case, patriotism) requires the ability and willingness to take a step back and look at the object of your devotion in an objective way. I think that the people who lobby for change in their country are the ones who love it the most; they seek to make America the best country in the world---they don't want to turn a blind eye to its failings and allow it to eventually meet its demise under the weight of its own ignorance.

Good topic, Ent. "Sheeple" frighten me.

Douglass, of course, was referring to the sin of slavery and the patriotism that he viewed it took to change society. He thought that blind patriotism prevented otherwise rational men from recognizing the evil in their midst.

In such extreme cases, Douglass was correct. However, for more run of the mill issues, he is wrong.

Any sane person (patriots are excluded from this group by certain people who think that patriots cannot be sane) should be able to recognize both the virtues and the faults of their associates, or in this case, their country. Focusing on one without recognizing the other is blindness.

So Douglass' statement that a true patriot will focus on the negative is misguided.

It's really not that simple.

I would tend to agree with Douglass if we are talking about discussion and activism within the polity, as within the polity, at least we operate under a shared legal system and cultural base that gives us some common touchstones. Of course, how do we now define "fundamental rights"? Is it timeless, or only what the electorate says it is at any given moment? Quite a problem, as right or wrong will emanate from our notion of such rights.

If such discussion and activism relates to conduct of the polity without the polity, I am much more inclined to defend the nation, "right or wrong", for what are hopefully obvious reasons.

Of course, intrinsic to this kind of debate is the notion of what is "sinful", as Douglass suggests; while in Douglass' time there was considerable agreement on this point (perhaps with the exception of his key issue, slavery), today there is much less concensus. Before we debate the issue, we probably need to agree on a common standard from which to judge our nation's "sins", be it within or without the polity.

"The best friend of a nation is he who most faithfully rebukes her for her sins". I disagree. By that definition, Bin Laden must be one of the greatest patriots this country has ever known. He has rebuked us more soundly and directly for our "sins" than anyone else. Other "great patriots" would include....well, just about anyone and everyone else who actively hates us. We were apparently great British patriots. Context matters. I agree with Amlord.

Edited to add: I will say this, the amount of open and active criticism a country's government will tolerate is a good measure of its freedom. I don't want to live anywhere where there is no criticism of government...that would be on par with Nazi Germany. But simple "rebuke" in and of itself is really easy. Get on the computer, type 'neer' 'neer'. Done. Just as easy as placing a pseudo-patriotic flag or bumper sticker on one's car, and certainly no more "patriotic" or special.

Though Douglass may have been referring to patriotism, I think the general message applies. I don't believe he was trying to say that a true patriot will focus on the negative. He was just speaking against blind patriotism. That's the way I interpreted it anyway.

Do you agree with this view of patriotism? If you do, why? If not, why not?

I agree with this view; however, it isn't the total view of patriotism. The most patriotic among us are those who love their country with a depth that allows them to view its behavior with a critical eye while still being willing to defend the homeland if necessary, and that's an important qualifier.

If you don't, how do you view patriotism?

Loving our country means caring about each other in our country, regardless of our politics. It does not mean overlooking practices and policies that needlessly harm our own people or people of other countries. It does not mean turning a blind eye to the machinations of leaders who use deceptions to advance their own agendas.

Taking up arms in times of need is but one important function of patriotism. Since long before clocks were invented, members of the human race would take up arms--whether it be rocks, rakes or swords--to defend their families, tribes and land.

Taking our leaders to task when they do not fulfill their pledge of service to their people or carry out their functions in a dishonest and/or self-serving manner is another function of patriotism which is just as valid. Sitting down and keeping quiet about injustice or violations of our Constitution cannot be construed as patriotism.

Too often patriotism is identified with chauvinism. Lest it be forever linked to feminist criticism, let's remember that the term came from a man named Chauvin, a lieutenant in Napoleon's service, who was known for over-the-top, rah-rah-rah, overweaning pride for Napoleon and the cause, regardless of the circumstances or the appropriateness of his attitude. That is the type of patriotism that we do not need.

Rebuking...sharply criticizing...is a good means to keeping our country towards the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Bin Laden has gone a whole long way past expressing disapproval to attacking. Assault is not the same as rebuke if I understand the meaning of the word. To put those who rebuke in the same category as Bin Laden is a disservice.

The intent isn't to place anyone who rebukes the US into the category of bin Laden, it's an example to make a point (and he rebuked us many many many times before assault...was he patriotic then?) A question...were the colonists patriotic towards the king for rebuking him before the Revolution? Plenty of rebuking going on throughout the world towards the US...is it all patriotic? Rebuke is not a measure for patriotism. One can love one's country and rebuke its conduct and remain patriotic, but the rebuke in and of itself does not make one patriotic nor is it generally a demonstration of one's patriotism.

Edited to add:

Just thinking further. I'll modify my answer a bit. If I love my country, and I disagree about a policy or action, will I complain about it and take actions to change it? Definitely. Why? I suppose it could be because I love my country and want it to be the best place it can be, and I wish to live here and I don't want it to suck. So rebuke can be a sign of patriotism. But I still disagree with the first part of the quote as it is phrased.

I didn't realize Bin Laden considered the US to be his country... a country that he loved. Patriotism involves one's own country. I agree that context matters, so lets keep this in the context of patriotism, which is what Douglass was referring to.

Another Douglass quote that perhaps makes this clearer is... and this is the quote that Smiley used:



This does not mean that you ignore the virtues of a nation, but it does mean that you do not let the sins slide by in the name of patriotism, you call the nation out on it.

Martin Luther King is a good example of this type of patriot... and he caught flak for it.

Do you agree with this view of patriotism? If you do, why? If not, why not?

I'm on board with this. Certainly there are extremists who have nothing good to say and those who have nothing bad to express regarding the United States of America. Both sides are wrong, so they have something in common after all.

I don't like mosquitos. There, I finally said it. The South blows for me too. Kinda sorry they lost the CW, but really it's the heat. North Dakota is a snooze. There are some parts of my country I don't care for, and I don't mind admitting it. It's a pretty big country with lots of variety. Some parts of it are like ludefisk to my taste. Other people actually like ludefisk, and I'll never understand that.

Now if we're talking government, there's nothing unpatriotic about criticising that. In fact, it's one of our inalienable rights to complain. I put it under The Pursuit of Happiness. One might even say that it's a duty of citizenship to raise a fuss when certain politicians are dead wrong.

I'm not prone to be overly critical if a war is going on. But I would like for once in my lifetime to keep my trap shut during an actual war, not an invented one that has nothing to do with national defense. With an attitude like that, I'll never get my secret clearance,



Or be a highly paid mercenary,



And never a defense contractor,



Or really anything that involves a Military-Industrial Complex.

Yes, that one is quite a bit different than the first (which mentioned neither affection nor citizenship). I'd say I agree.

Well, the first referred to patriotism - and affection and citizenship are both implied in that term. But, yes, the second is clearer and more concise.

So, then at what point does patriotic rebuking become unpatriotic rebuking? Or, to be clearer, where does the threshold lie between rebuking that is patriotic in this country and rebuking that is un-American?

Quick,

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by polity within or without the polity. Do you mean domestic as opposed to foreign policy?

Do you agree with this view of patriotism? If you do, why? If not, why not?

Yes, with the caveat that a true patriot rebukes her country for its sins with a view of making the country (stronger, more moral, whatever).

If you don't, how do you view patriotism?

Although I am not a McCain fan for many reasons, I really liked what he had to say on this subject [paraphrased as I don't remember where/when he said]. basically, he said, if you love your country show it. If you think it can be better, do something about. Run for office. Volunteer. Make your idea known.

The problem is- most of us are pretty powerless to affect any change BUT to complain often and loudly, and continue to vote against the same people, doing the same thing- whether it be an ® or (D) behind thier name.

I think McCain's comments show just how out of touch rich politicians are- I applaud McCain's service to the country- but the guy has never really had to worry about going broke, or how to pay his mortgage, or losing his job due to a downsizing in his corporation or whatever- As the ancient greeks had a "welfare" system for citizens, knowing that it takes time to participate in a representive democracy, and citizens need a fair amount free time in order to participate in goverment

One thing that has really decreased in the US is free time- that "volunteer, run for office'- well, that is pure crap. The choices facing many americans is "work harder or lose your house" etc.

Politics has become a playground for the rich and rich only. Some from humble beginings may remember this- but they need to be rich to play anyway,

America has created one of the most free societies on earth- but we reached a Zenith when compared to other free societies, I believe they have left us behind- we are now lagging in freedom and our net exportation of freedom.

It is very, very anti-American, IMHO- to keep excusing our nearly cartoonishly evil foreign policies- but we keep doing it- and it kills innocents and hurts us in the long run, and even the short run.

At some point, a patriot has to stand up and say "our country isn't evil- but our leader's actions are, and we need to get them to stop what they are doing"

What Americans have been doing for the last 50 years is inexcusable- the chest pounding and yelling "were number 1"

That doesn't help the US at all.

IT is good to love your country- and to tell others you love your country- but to turn a blind eye torwards our excesses does our country no good at all.

I believe the clarification quote of Douglass is probably best, and I completely agree.

YOu don't get positive change to negative behaviors by enabling the behavior!

Even worse though- is groups like the Swift water liars- where they use a false patriotism to slander and wrong a good soldier- one that served honorably, while they hide behind that false patriotism. That has been what we have been facing for about the last 27 years- a false patriotism that blinds to the wrong doing- I point to a speech by Reagan where he compared the contras to our founding fathers- the equivilent of comparing the KKK to Jesus- which, as you know, some groups do just that- and I am afraid we have far too much of that type of "patriotism".

I saw that episode too and I agree with that definition. A true patriot can see not only the good that their country does; but is also willing and able to see the wrong that it does. Patriotism has become akin to blind faith. After 9/11 it became unpatriotic to criticize the administration or the country. No one took the time to ask why we were so hated around the world. If we can't admit our sins then we can't truly learn from our mistakes. Being at war doesn't give the government a free check nor does it mean we can't question or criticize.

Excellent points, do you really love your country if you maintain some sort of psychic split? Should you as a citizen allow situations to deteriorate without a word, all the while, the country goes off a cliff draped in the flag and supposed and pretended "love?" The critic is more of a patriot in this regard and in many instances-slavery, civil rights, and Vietnam, the critic would have averted national pain and trauma that others wanted to ignore out of a desire to avoid personal and national neurosis.

Not exactly. What I mean is what is moral or ethical within the context our Constitutional underpinnings may vary widely from what is moral or ethical vis-a-vis two sovereign states.

For example, in the US we believe, and it is the law, that in every criminal matter the defendant is entitled to a jury trial. If we are debating how to "try" foreign nationals, especially those acting against our interests outside of our territory, and these foreign nationals or their nations do not believe in and do not afford our citizens the same jury trial rights, the answers may well be different, and may well should be different.

I see, so in terms of patriotism we should only rebuke the nation for the possible sins it commits against its own citizenry and not the possible sins it might commit against another country's citizenry?

So, it would be unpatriotic for, say, a certain black preacher to say, "We are criminals in this war." Or, "I can hear God saying to America, “You’re too arrogant! And if you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power..."

"Criminals" and "sinners", huh? Under what standard? If you think about if for a minute, it gets quite difficult. Obviously, if we have signed a valid, legal and binding treaty (emphasis on valid, legal and binding, but that is another thread) to behave in a certain way, and do not honor the treaty, we are fair game for criticism.

Also, I would argue that a state's first responsibility to its citizens (regardless of what its laws say as to how to deal with foreign powers) is to win wars and to survive. So, in a war context, that leaves quite a lot of room for disagreement as to what is "Sin" and "criminal".

I have always feared our Nuremberg fascination. I have no problem killing or imprisoning the Nazis (or the Japanese) that were convicted; I have always been uneasy about our rationale and the concept of "crimes against humanity".

My question was, would it be fair to characterize this black preacher's statements as unpatriotic? Was this man being a patriot in rebuking his nation this way? Or was he not?

Also, are you referring to things like the UN Charter?

First, as to the exact quote from this pastor (Rev. Wright?), I wouldn't consider such a statement in a public forum (and doubly so if from the pulpit) as "patriotic". It is wildly hysterical, demagogic, and overblown, and if coming from a preacher who is hardly schooled in international law, speculative to a fault. There is a better time, a better place and a better way. Part of being patriotic is being respectful of one's nation and its leaders, even if one vehemently disagrees with its leaders from time-to-time.

Second, as to your suggestion about the UN Charter, parts of it and a number of other treaties to my mind de facto amend the Constitution. As such, they are not legal, valid and binding until the Const is also amended to be consistent with them. If such Const amendments are not forthcoming, then at least as to the inconsistent portions, such treaties are not legal, valid and binding.

No, no, no, not Rev. Wright. These words were spoken by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in reference to and during the Vietnam War - also spoken from a pulpit at a Baptist Church in Georgia.



Well, I must admit, I don't believe Dr. King was schooled in international law, but I do believe he held a degree in Sociology, a degree in Divinity and a Doctorate of Philosophy in Systematic Theology.

But, since you brought him up, Rev. Wright studied at university, too... though, the first university he studied at, he dropped out after three and a half years to join the Marine Corps and, during his service, received a commendation for tending to President Johnson - just a side bit of trivia there.



So, you would say that Douglass was being unpatriotic when he spoke out the way he did against slavery? He called Christian America a tyrant. He said that so long as his voice could be heard, he would "hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral indignation." You would say that this was unpatriotic speech? He immediately follows this statement with - to complete the quote...



And how does one "respectfully" rebuke one's nation?

By saying, "Oh, pardon me, but, with all due respect, I really think that's not good what you're doing - and I hope you don't mind my saying so, but it's... well, I believe sinful... oh, but don't take that personally... oh, but I'll just sit down now... go on... as you were. Just wanted to, you know... rebuke you. And, having done that, if I just might be allowed to say how fantastic I think you are. You're doing a lovely job... apart from that whole slavery thing... which I don't condemn you for... but just gently and respectfully rebuke you... because, as I've said.. it's sinful. But that's all in the past, right? My rebuking? No need to go on about it. I'm sure you'll do something about that whole... slavery thing when you get a chance. I'll just stay over here in Britain until then, if you don't mind, so that you can't arrest me and put me back into slavery... or worse... allow me to be killed."?



Can you show an example of one of these "parts" of the UN Charter that are not legal, valid or binding because it "de facto" amends the Constitution?

One could make an impassioned plea. "We are better than this! This is intolerable! This must change!" Ect. Saying "God damn America" crosses the line IMO. I don't think one could call that patriotic. "I love my country so very much, God damn it to hell!" Um, no. Doesn't really work. Positive messages work better than negative ones. Obama has made his mark by maintaining a positive campaign of hope and potential. If he were spouting damn America rhetoric he wouldn't be so popular. No one wants a president who comes across that way, and few if any would think it was 'patriotic speech'.

Personally, I don't think it's possible to relentlessly denigrate one's country and seldom if ever say anything good about it and still claim to (honestly) love it. If you love something, you value it and generally think well of it. If you never have anything whatsoever good to say about something (or someone) and constantly denigrate it you'll convince yourself it holds little value. That concept is true for everything from relationships to countries. I think we too often forget to be proud of who we are, though we aren't perfect. Here is an example of what I mean: This commercial rocks

So, you would also say that Douglass's and King's statements were not patriotic?



So, your saying if Douglass had taken a different approach, it would've been more effective?

King condemned America for its actions... not all of his message was positive, he was so effective we gave him a federal holiday. 'Course he died... but is that a point against his effectiveness?



I don't think Wright has aspirations for the Presidency. I don't know that King did either. I'm pretty sure that Douglass didn't.



Well, was Wright "relentless" in his denigration? Based on what... sound bites? Should Obama distance himself from King's legacy because of the anti-American statements he made?



Tell that to a mother or father with an addict for a child. Or a child with an addict for a parent. It certainly is conflicting to have to harshly rebuke something or someone that you love. But love dictates that you do it anyway, right?



Having lived in Canada for a few years recently, I am well aware of how proud they are of their nation. You can't go down the street with out seeing a maple leaf somewhere. Does this mean they don't rebuke it when it screws up? I dooon't think so. Having spent a lot of time talking to friends and been witness to their political process, I can tell you that... oh, they rebuke and they rebuke hard. But, it is very clear that these same people love their country.

This is all very American.

I feel proud to be both Welsh and British in a chest-welling, sentimental kind of way, but when it comes to rational discussions I'll criticise or defend either or both based on the topic of discussion, the available evidence, my own opinions on how things should or should not be, and how they fit with what is or is not being done in my name by my country.

It is a nonsense to say that if I level criticisms of the things my country(s) does or doesn't do, I have to first give up my emotional attachment to them. Or that, if I want to still love my country, I have to love everything that it does.

A patriotism that insists that I adhere to one of these two positions is nothing more than insecure posturing and a country that demands it of me is not worth defending. A country I identify with, or the people in it with me, does not get to determine how I feel or behave towards it or anything else, beyond sensible and universal laws (e.g. I'm not allowed to kill anyone to advance my view unless people that hold it are being systematically and unjustifiably persecuted and killed.)

It is also a (almost uniquely American) nonsense to say that, to be patriotic, I have to keep silent about the things my country does things that I deeply disagree with, domestically or internationally, no matter whether it is at peace, in trade negotiations, or at war.

Right and wrong are transcendant concepts that do not stop at international borders - a war crime is a war crime no matter what uniform the protagonists wear. "My country, right or wrong" is not patriotism, it is nationalist partisanship of the worst kind.

Do you agree with this view of patriotism? If you do, why? If not, why not?
If you don't, how do you view patriotism?[/quote]



I tend to agree.



Your Constitution obliges your government to treat "the people" in a certain way. Nowhere does the US Constitution define who the people actually are, except by opposition to Government. It does define citizen, but in the Bill of Rights it conerns itself only with "the People". Your Constitution could very easily be read - without any fancy interpretations - to assume that it obliges your Government to treat all people, no matter where they are from, as if they have the rights guaranteed by the BoR, even if their home nations do not, and if their governments deny those Rights to US citizens under their jurisdiction. i..e That the Constitution should be applied to everyone within US jurisdiction, whether or not they are Americans.



A State's first responsibility to its citizens is to defend them in war. It needs to win defensive wars, agreed. Does it need to wage aggressive wars at all? Probably another debate...



Why? Again, probably for another topic, not this one.

Did either say "God damn America"? You haven't provided that text so I assumed they hadn't. If they had, I would say that is an unpatriotic statement, yes.



No. Positive messages work better (in general) today than negative ones. In fact, MLK's message was largely positive (the 'I have a dream speech'. He emulated Ghandi, not Malcolm X). However, when Douglass was alive, black people were enslaved enmasse. If our government went back to slavery today I would actively work to overthrow that government and set up a better one in its place. That would be active treason, however, and I wouldn't expect anyone to call me patriotic nor would I claim to love that government.



Based on the phrase "God damn America". A statement like that made by a man that has chosen the path of following God for his livelihood says a lot more than you seem to realize. Obama does distance himself, by virtue of the fact that he doesn't speak that way.

I see. So it's those exact three words and not the sentiment behind them that is important?

Dr. King said:



Wright said:



Now, the language is harsher... but language considered to be harsh has changed over the years. But the sentiment is the same - if in the present. If America believes it is supreme, God will break it's back... God damn America.

And Douglass - again, though not using the exact words says he will "hold America up to the lightning scorn of moral indignation." Isn't that what Wright is doing? Apart from the exact words used... how are the sentiments different?

Is not Wright doing exactly what Douglass would say a "true patriot" would do in holding his nation up to the lightning scorn of moral indignation.



Really? Really? That's fascinating to me. If an elected government needed to be overthrown because of tyrannical practices - and I would say that slavery is a tyrannical practice, you don't think it would be patriotic to overthrow that government? I think the founders might consider you pretty patriotic if you overthrew such a government. I thought it would be our patriotic duty to overthrow such a government. And there is a huge difference between loving a government and loving a nation. We see a change in government every 4-8 years. The nation has been around for far longer. Slavery survived several governmental changes.

I mean, I can say with all honesty that I love America but I do not love the current government.



But was Wright "relentless" in his denigration?

And going back to the commercial that you say "rocks", you do realize that it is not just about being proud to be Canadian... it's about not being American. It is, in fact, a comment on America.

One of the reasons Canadians put their flag on their backpacks when they go abroad... is so that people won't think they're American. In fact, many American young people going abroad put the Canadian flag on their backpacks so that people won't think they're American.



Exactly. I guess the question being asked is... how far can one go in rebuking one's nation and still be patriotic?

Good on ya for the addict analogy- if you don't- you are enabling. It takes harsh words NOT positive words, to stop enabling the nation.

We have been enabling US foriegn policy behavior by decrying "harsh words" as "unpatriotic"-

sometimes, you gotta browbeat the crap out of something to make it change it's behavior, but you also HAVE to substitute that behavior with something positive- in that part, Mrs P is correct

"God Damn America if you keep this up"- but if you change the behavior "you can be proud of what you have created" kinda thing.

America DOES need stop acting like a 12 year old overgrown bully. And I don't say that because I want America harmed- I say that because I want it to stop acting like a 12 year old overgrown bully.

Mrs P, in context of the language of the day- there is absolutely no difference in speech between Douglas, King and Wright- in fact, in context of the times- King was downright subversive by most white folks thinking at the time.

IN fact, he was a commie that hated America- and folks like Ronald Reagan did everything in thier power to keep from having a national holiday, and when King was alive, called him all kinds of horrid things, and someone went so far as to kill him.

If anything- in context of the times- King was far, far more "rebuking" than Wright, and in much more inflammatory terms, for the times.

Well, let's see: overthrowing a government is considered treason. A person who commits treason is defined as a traitor, and the word traitor is the antonym for patriot. Really, really (fascinating though it might be).


Probably not, since a good portion of them owned slaves themselves. In fact, those very founders were comprised of a group of British subjects who had all sworn loyalty to the Crown. Had they not succeeded in defeating the world's most powerful military machine they would have all been executed as traitors - because they were. They certainly wouldn't have called themselves patriotic Britains. They were patriots to the new government they founded.

You're still confusing a nation with its government and now... patriots with loyalists - as if the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Patriotism refers not to a government, but to a country or nation. Patriotism requires no loyalty to a particular government. One can love a nation and, because of that love, overthrow its tyrannical government. According to the founders, if the government is tyrranical, it is our patriotic duty to do so. Sure, you would be considered a traitor in the eyes of the government. But the true antonym of a traitor is a loyalist, which may or may not be, as others have expressed above, a patriot.

And was Wright "relentless" in his denigration?



But to substitute before the change occurs just continues the enabling.

Mrs P- you are equating an action vs public speech.

I call American's foriegn policies evil, stupid and vile. I believe that saying this may just very well help us stop doing it, at some point. Now- If I took a gun and shot a US soldier to make that point- that is when the line is crossed.

I would also go so far as to say Jane Fonda's speech crossed from honest patriotism via rebuking our country for being in an immoral war- when she jumped up in the anti-aircraft gun and posed for pics, pointed at the sky ostensibly ready to shoot American airplanes.

I'm reminded of a conversation my Mother had with me when I was 15. I had just done something pretty bad. She looked me in the eyes and said "I love you, but there are moments when I don't like you very much." That's my view of Patriotism. I love America and the opportunity its afforded me. But there are times when I don't like her very much.

Do you agree with this view of patriotism? If you do, why? If not, why not?

NO

If you don't, how do you view patriotism?

Simply put, a tool of control. The fascinating thing is that regardless of how you love this country, the fact that you are saying you love this country and believe it puts you in the "duped" category.

Yeah yeah, we al should love our country, but is anyone willing to step out on that limb and define "country" Tell me what America is definitively if you can.

Allow me to break it down.

I don't love our President. I don't love our Congress. I don't love our military, though I have special place in my heart for Marines. I don't love the Courts. Does, any one disagree with me so far??

That's our government. What does our government do? Make and interpret laws. I don't love the laws of the land. Some I agree with, others I don't. I do love the overall sense of security and stability when living in a law abiding community.

What about our economic system? I don't love capitalism, well, at least our version of it. I do love the fact I can work and prosper. But I could stand to see greater regulation, to further prevent the inherently predatory nature of capitalism.

So what's left? Oh the Constitution... well the Constitution is about worthless. It is truly just a sheet of paper. If it had any of the power people believe it has... would any one be so worried as to who gets on the Supreme Court?? It's power comes from it's interpretation. And like I said before... I don't love the Courts.

Of course there is the baseball, the most boring game next to golf... Apple pie... I find I love country crusted apple pie.... but ever since the movie "American Pie" I haven't been able to look at an apple pie the same. An over sized chicken called the bald eagle... so other than eating them, I find no use...

Lastly, the people...

Come on now... I live in a capitalist country. WE are taught that welfare of our fellow people should be the least of our concerns. In fact just the contrary. I should find a way, any way, to capitalize on either your stupidity, misfortune, or need. I'm not supposed to be my brothers keeper, I'm supposed to be your pimp. Find a way to take your wealth so i can increase mine.

No I can't say I love the people. I love some of them, can't stand some of them, and really don't care about the rest. But at least politically and ideally, I support the policies that would help the masses, not just the indiviual.

What are we left with... the imaginary lines in the dirt that we call our "borders". Well at least those borders are definitive. Feel free to love them.

Yet writing all that, I could be wrong. To sum it all upin this message

We are programmed to say we love this country with no clue exatly what "this country" is, thus patriotism is nothing but a powerful tool to buffer extreme dissent. Any definition of Patriotism will be meaningless and will only hold true to the individual, because what "america" is, is completely subjective.

Mrs P.

I've seen you bring up the words of Rev Wright words... Do you think it hateful for a religious man to believe their god condemns sinful behavior?? I'm pretty sure the Reverand gave a list of reasons why he believed his God would damn America. Is it your belief that religious people should believe that their God would bless their nation regardless of how it acts?? Is that what it takes to be patriotic, in your opinion??

Entspeak



Not very far, IMO. The further critical I see someone of their country, the further out the "dupe" box, I believe they are. Will they give lip service, of course. Someone asks me "do you love your country" I say "Yes sir, I do" There is just no way to get out of that.

But take a person highly critical of this country, pull him aside and more than likely, that "patriotism" is just a facade that we all know must be presented. Cause you never know.

True patriots see the country as an entity. I don't know how they do it... but they do. That is why they are offended to hear things like say... what rev wright said. To them, there are laws... there are national policies... there is the government... and somewhere outside all of that... there shining brightly above the fray, is "the country!!"

People who are highly critical of the nation, basically see a bunch of laws and policies as what "the country" is. Thus we criticize these policies and laws relentlessly. So that we can change the country into what we believe the country should be.

So, Douglass was duped?



So, a true patriot would be offended by Rev. Wright. A false patriot wouldn't?



And why would we want to change the country into what we believe it should be?

Entspeak

Doubtful. If I had to bet, he paid lip service. Have you ever had an argument about religion and not be part of that religion. It's like you use the bible, but you don't believe in the Bible, but you use for the simple reason that you are relating your argument to something you know the person you are debating with believes in.

We are conditioned to believe in certain things, because some of us have thought our way out doesn't mean we all have. If you understand the degree of conditioning placed on the American people to be patriotic, then you understand why this lip service is so important.

You don't want to be talking to someone and have them look at you like you just grew horns cause you said... "you don't love this country"

Frederick Douglas was a Black man raised in a time of slavery, surrounded by racist Whites. He watched as these people slaughtered indians and enslaved Blacks... do you really think he loved his country??

You can't CHANGE the game if you won't even PLAY the game. And you can't PLAY the game from an ostracized position.

So was he truly duped?? I'm no mind reader.



Maybe. I would characterize my argument as a measure of degree rather than something definitive. Instead of saying "true patriot would..." I would say the chances of a true patriot to be offended is very high.

It's like hearing "God damn your child" or "God damn your mother", their first reaction will be emotional, because you have attacked something the love and adore.

No, a false patriot.... if you mean false as in "I am pretending" then no they will not get offended from a patriotic stand point. The may find things Rev Wright say as ridiculous or unprovable. But they will lack emotional anger simply because he said "god damn America"



The answer to that question, is in the question. Because it is "what we believe it should be"

I don't know... he said he did, he seemed pretty passionate about the whole thing. I just... thought... he might be telling the truth. I mean, I tend to agree with his argument, but you don't, so I understand you believing that he was either lying or deluded.



So, blacks played no roll in the ending of slavery?


Okay, so you're interpretation of patriotism is the exact opposite of Douglass's. If his statements are true, it would seem that he would think the true patriot would not be offended and the false patriot would.



But why would we care if we don't care for the nation? Is it a selfish belief - what we believe the nation should be because that would be good for me, everyone else be damned?

So you think that if you don’t “love” all the above unconditionally you cannot be a “patriot”. Well that would include a lot of us. We have problems with all the above – but still I would not trade this country or our institutions for any other in the world today. You?

So I guess I disagree with you. Do you favor the Constitution? – which I think of as our national religion.

Entspeak


Well how else do you get around the fact that he may have actually believed the country is an entity to be loved... or hated. If you think your "country" is much more than a bunch of laws and policies, you are deluding yourself, and obviously, he didn't love all the laws.



Yeah I think you could say Blacks played a role... small as it was.



Pretty much. If I am correctly interpreted his words.

Imagine someone you love greatly in your life. There you are talking to this person and someone comes up and says something completely deragatory.. your first instinct is what?? respond negatively to the person making the remarks?? denounce the person saying the remarks?? protect the one you love???

What's your least likely response... maybe process the statement and see if it is true, see if the overall merits of what was said are accurrate, even if a little harsh??

Visualize this, you know a guy is sitting at the dinner table with the love of his life, and some guys comes up and screams "your a God damn slut", how many guys go... "well let's talk about this guy. Why do you think my woman is a slut??" How many guys do you think get Pee'd off and if not start a fist fight, at least, have a heated argument??

Now similar scenario your sitting with some guys looking at some girl no one really cares about. Another guy notices and says "she's a god damn slut" How many men are really going to start a fight over that. The most you'll likely do is say... "Why do you say that??" He'll tell you why, you'll process it, agree or disagree, and harbor no great animosity one way or another.

My point. Love is an emotion. A very strong emotion. Emotion does not eliminate our ability to reason, but the greater the the love, the more powerful the emotion. The more powerful the emotion, the greater the propensity to an emotional response, a.k.a a knee-jerk reaction/response and the less likely for one to give the time to process the message or idea behind the words being said.

Now if Patriotism is love for the country.. or one's "idea" of a country. I believe the following. The more patriotic, the greater the love, the greater the love ..."same as above"

Now, I hoped I worded this in such a way that it leaves room for the exceptions.



Kind of like a "if you don't believe in God... you must worship Satan." You can care about the laws and policies of your nation, with out actually believing your country is an entity to be loved. And the reasons you disagree could be anything under the sun. Selfish self interest, fighting perceived injustices, common good, religious doctrine, etc.

TED


Very good... but what do you love?? If not any of those three things.. what is it you love?? And how is it the thing that you love can be defined as "America". Is it one of those things that just can't be explained??

So, a country is not made up by a collection of individuals? Communities? Those aren't part of the "country"? Essentially, I guess I'm asking... "what am I... chopped liver?" When someone says things like, "we are a nation of 10 year olds..." are they referring to policies and laws that are 10 years old?



So, they had to be able to play the game, right?



But Douglass is talking, as am I, about being the person making the statement, not being a third party witnessing someone else make or learning that someone has made harsh criticism.



Common good for whom? The country? Fighting perceived injustices against whom? Other members of the country?

I just don't agree with your very limited view of what a country is. As well as your limited view of what people can love.

People can love their people can love their home, people can love the city they live in... none of these are "entities to be loved?"

One of the definitions of a "country" is its populace. The same goes for the definition of a "nation". It is more than simply a collection of policies and laws, which make up but one aspect of a nation... its government.

?

I love our free country and its Constitution. That does not mean I agree with everything our government, federal or local, does or the Congress etc. And in my opinion you don’t have to love it all. If you are loyal the Constitution and what it stands for imo you are a patriot.

Entspeak



Yes if you so decide to defiine country as such, but be prepared to stand behind your words. Do you love all the Individuals?? The rapist, the murderers, the simple people you just don't even know. If you don't love ALL of the individuals, then you do not love, THE populace. Same with the communities... Do you think most "patriotic" Americans would love the polygamist community that was just raided in Texas??

I can not tell you what the country is, that uis what makes this debate fun, but impossible. You can define the country as this, this, and this... and LOVE it. Ted can define the country as that, that, and that.... and LOVE it.

We understand what patriotism is... to love our country. Yet, what is our country?? Is it some of the people, all of the people?? Do you love me more than MOIF, Julian, or Vermillion, simply because I was born in this country? Is that patriotism?



Yes some of them were able to play the game.



And how much love would you say there was to some one who openly degraded their significant other in front of everyone, out in the public??



The people who fall under the laws of said country.



See... you are not listening. I do understand the unlimited potential of an emotion like love.... or hate. So powerful, you will be loving things... that don't even exist or that you can't even define.



Very good... now explain how your love extends over all.

Ted



Define free country. And you love a peice of paper???

Okay... so, since this debate has to do with Douglass's statements regarding patriotism, I don't think it's impossible at all. You disagree with Douglass, I'm gathering, because your definition of "nation" is different from his. But, the question is, is it possible to reasonably infer what he means by "nation"?



And these black people were playing the game from an ostracized position?



Oh, boy. Could you please use a more specific example? I'm sure if an individual said, "The United States sucks and the people who live here suck and I hate this place more than life itself and I wish it would fall of the face of the earth," then yeah... I think you could argue that that isn't patriotic. But that isn't what Douglass said, is it?



Okay... so why is it delusion to love a nation?



Easy... it does. There. What do you want here? A love diagram? A thesis on how my love of this nation "extends" over all? This debate, while it may involve the definition of "nation" and "country" is not about how my love of those things extends. It's about how it extends in regards to patriotism - and, in particular, how Douglass describes one aspect of the true patriot - and more specifically in regards to criticisms of that "country" or "nation".

So, do you believe that Douglass was referring to "nation" in the sense of "a collection of policies and laws"?

If this is what you think of the guiding principle of this country you are clueless and its not worth discussing.

And ya this “piece of paper” guarantees the freedoms you seem to think we don’t have. Try living in Cuba and see what not having the “piece of paper” really means.

Freedom would then be what you would not have there.

Ted, if the 'piece of paper' is so sacrosant, why is the Bush Administration so easily able to disregard it, step on it and wipe away fecal matter with it?

I invite you to read even a sample of what the founding fathers, eminent political philosophers throughout history and freedom minded and liberty loving people have to say about the purpose of the Constitution and being free. Balance that with the restrictions you currently live under. [editorial note: open mind required]

We are more free than most other nations, but we are nowhere near being truly free. And those that speak in support of liberty instead of party loyalty are the true patriots.

I never said we were perfect and please don’t parrot the hate America retoric to me with the Party loyalty crap since you apparently know squat about me.

What freedoms exactly has Bush stolen from YOU. What is “truly free”

IMO Douglass was referring to "blind patriotism". Much like the Mommy example given somewhere among the opinions on this topic. I detest the radio jockeys who continually say that anyone criticizing the war is unpatriotic. We who are against this war are obligated to express our views, as we are on any issue on which we disagree with government policy. How would anything ever get changed unless the citizens feel free to "faithfully rebuke" the country for its "sins"?

Pardon me, the wording in your posts imply an employee-employer relationship between you and the current administration. But it is rather telling that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a 'hate America' type. How quaintly fascist.



Easy question, but one with an answer that could fill volumes. I'll rely on the intellect of Judge Andrew Napolitano for a condensed answer:

The Patriot Act's two most principle constitutional errors are an assault on the Fourth Amendment, and on the First. It permits federal agents to write their own search warrants [under the name national security letters] with no judge having examined evidence and agreed that it's likely that the person or thing the government wants to search will reveal evidence of a crime.

Remember that the British government permitted its soldiers to execute self-written search warrants. They called them "writs" of assistance, and they were one of the last straws that caused American colonist to rebel. It's bitterly ironic that 230 years later a popularly elected government would authorize its own agents to do the same thing that when a monarchy did it, we fought a war of rebellion in reaction - which we won!
Reason Magazine

Entspeak


Actually I went back and reread what you quoted Douglas as saying. I may actually agree with