Fourth Of July

[StColette]

* agrees with quite a bit of Jacob's blog *

Edited July 5, 2004 by StColette

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Anna' date='Jul 4 2004, 04:56 PM'] Well, I'm sorry that some of y'all seem to have such a negative view of our country.
Yeah, we sure are far from perfect, but this is still the best country to live in on the planet.

You'll not rain on my fireworks!!! [url="http://www.njagyouth.org/Liberty_.htm"]http://www.njagyouth.org/Liberty_.htm[/url]


[font="Impact"]I'm [color=blue]proud[/color] to be an [color=red]American[/color]!!!![/font] WOOT!

And God bless and protect our servicemen and women abroad!

:wub: [color=blue]H[/color][color=red]O[/color][color=blue]O[/color][color=red]A[/color][color=blue]H[/color][color=red]!!!!!![/color]

Pax Christi. <>< [/quote]
Suprise, suprise this is NOT one of the rare moments when I disagree with my mother. lol

I am proud to live in this country. I am not proud of all the bad things that happen here and that should be obvious to anyone who gives it half a second of thought. But I am proud to be here. If I were not a mother, or if I were a man I would be proud to die for my country.

[cantstopdancin9]

I agree that our country does a lotta wrong things...but it is true that it is the best place to live. I wouldn't try living in any other country. I pick I like tacos, so very tasty and good for you, though, because I do believe that that is the best choice.

[Colleen]

Here's my blog post, in response to Iacobus'. This is from June 10th, by the way. Most of it is based on C.S. Lewis' Four Loves:

[quote]Today, I want to write about patriotism. Specifically, patriotism according to C.S. Lewis. I will draw from his writing on it in his book, The Four Loves

I think that a lot of people don't really understand what patriotism is. Oftentimes, to some people, it is merely flag-waving on the Fourth of July. To others it might be the support of the country in any way, shape, or form. Still others might confuse it with nationalism, which is something much different from patriotism. Let's compare the definitions, first of all:

Patriotism according to the American Heritage Dictionary © means:

SYLLABICATION: pa·tri·ot·ism
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: ptr--tzm    KEY 
NOUN: Love of and devotion to one's country. 


Nationalism, on the other hand, is a bit more complex:

SYLLABICATION: na·tion·al·ism
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: nsh-n-lzm, nshn-    KEY 
NOUN: 1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination. 


I would give this comparison. Patriotism is that thing described in the song "America the Beautiful" when it says:

America! America!
God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.

Patriotism is the love of country, but not blind love. We acknowledge that there are flaws in the country, but we still love our country. However, that does not mean accepting everything that the country does as absolutely right and just.

Whereas nationalism is summed up well by G.K. Chesterton, when he said, "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" As one loves one's mother, we love our country. However, just because we love our mother doesn't mean she is right no matter if she is drunk or sober. Likewise, our country isn't right in every single action it undertakes.

C.S. Lewis talks about five different ingredients of patriotism in his section on Likings and Loves for the Sub-Human.

First of all, there is the love of home. We love where we live, the land where we are, the people in the place where we live. We love it because it is different from other places. It has its own unique color and loveliness about it. There is nothing wrong with that attitude. Lewis notes that this kind of patriotism is not agressive, "it asks only to be let alone" (42). It is "militant only to protect what it loves" (42) as a parent would act to defend its child.

Second, there is the patriotism of the past. There is a little bit of danger in this attitude. Our past is not all glory. Not every leader of days long gone by was a great hero. Lewis says, the "actual history of every country is full of shabby and even shameful doings" (43). He goes on to say, "I think it is possible to be strengthened by the image of the past without being either deceived or puffed up" (43). So if we are able to differentiate between the good and the bad, then much can be gained by looking at the past. Thus, there is nothing wrong with being proud of the good things that have been done in the past.

I personally can't stand people who see history as all bad, who are unable to be inspired by any heroic deeds or courageous heroes who have come before us. At the same time, we can't be naive and think that everything past is good. You can't pass off a thrilling legend as a text-book (44).

A third kind of patriotism according to Lewis is the belief that one's own nation is and has always been better than any other. This is a nationalistic approach, and it is clear to see where things can go wrong with this idea. In reality, there is no superiority among countries. Some are better than others, yes, but no one country is a perfect Utopia that can do no wrong.

A fourth kind of patriotism is the idea that one's nation is so superior that we call non-citizens or "natives our wards and we their self-appointed guardians" (45). This kind of patriotism takes the attitude, "Dogs, know your betters" (45). Obviously, this is very flawed, because it denies the fact that every human being, regardless of who they are or where they're from, have equal dignity. No one can claim that we are better than the other.

But I don't think this means we shouldn't try to help others who aren't as fortunate as us. There is nothing wrong with assisting our neighbors, be it helping them with supplies, defending them when they are unjustly attacked, etc. No, of course not. But it does mean that we shouldn't think we're better than everyone else.

The fifth and final form of patriotism is the idea that we love our country because it's so great. If it weren't great, we'd have nothing to do with it. This is a terribly flawed attitude, because as Lewis recognizes, it implies that "when the ship begins to sink [we] will leave her" (47). It ceases to be love of country at all. It's a selfish attitude and a wrong one. A country cannot be perfect, so the argument just doesn't hold up.

I believe that if we are to be really patriotic and show that we do love the land we live in, we have to be able to know when the right action is taken, to know what is wrong. We can't support everything our country does. But we can't dismiss it and let it flounder for itself when things go bad. A truly patriotic person works to make the country a better place, is not afraid to be the voice of reason in a crazy world, and loves his or her country as he or she loves his or her family. You have to take the good with the bad, yes. You have to love. But you also have to weed out the bad stuff, you have to make a correction when things go wrong. You have to be responsible. Your country is what you make of it. If you refuse to change it when things go wrong, you're aiding in its destruction (moral or otherwise).[/quote]

[theculturewarrior]

I love my country. I have mixed feelings however about the people running it.

There should be another option in this poll... "What Solzhenitsyn said."

[BeenaBobba]

I like America. I don't love it, as it's only a country, and some of the "laws" of the land are horribly unjust (e.g., abortion); what I do love, however, are the ideals that this country was founded upon. It's my country. I'm a citizen. I could never hate my country without spitting on all the freedoms and comforts it's afforded me.

God bless,

Jen

[Oik]

Colleen, thanks for the Chesterton quote, excellent!

[Iacobus]

I love the ideals, I blogged on them today.

[Colleen]

[quote name='Oik' date='Jul 5 2004, 09:51 PM'] Colleen, thanks for the Chesterton quote, excellent! [/quote]
You're welcome.

I :wub: Chesterton.

[StColette]

[quote name='Colleen' date='Jul 5 2004, 10:39 PM'] You're welcome.

I :wub: Chesterton. [/quote]
me too I found this site the other day [url="http://www.chesterton.org/acs/quotes.htm"]Chesterton Quotations[/url]

[Iacobus]

[quote]When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.[/quote]

Oh those lovely words. I feel all red inside. LOL! Red as in socialist, get it? LOL! Just kidding!



I am going to look at each section a bit more closely.



[quote]When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[/quote]



Ahhh, the start of the start of the Nobel Experiment. Basically what it says is when someone or something does something wrong and it forces the people to break away they are required to do that.



If my government fails to serve and reflect me, I am bound as an American, to overthrow my government. Umm, to all the non-grokkers out there, warning nut case liberal with too much Jefferson!



Big part, small sections…



[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote]



This is a key part. Jefferson explained the principal rights of all men.


We are all equal; no man is greater than another man. This statement has been attack due to the fact the Jefferson at the time of this writing owned slaves. However, Jefferson still wrote and believed that all men were equal in the eyes of God and amongst one and other. He was more of referring to an anti deference stance. English is a case in point of this as part of this. Long ago do formal and informal versions of words disappeared from our language. We are unlike the French in that we have you for informal and you for formal whereas they use tu as the informal variation of you and vous (sp?) as the formal and plural variation.



The rights Jefferson listed he saw as base rights. They are like the Holy Trinity and exist as one whole being with 3 parts. You cannot have life without liberty and so forth. These rights were also unalienable. This is a word that has fallen out of usage of late. The best “translation” I have heard is BP’s untakeawayable.



We are given the right to life. Jefferson wasn’t so much referring to life as in right to birth and live. Rember this document was pushing for a war. Jefferson was stressing the right to live a life free from worry about being killed or hung for disagreement, etc.



The Right to liberty. We should have the right to do as we please with minimal inference from the government. Jefferson was an anti-Federalist and would not support a strong central government. He thought we should be allowed to do as we please so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.



The last right was changed to be more acceptable. Originally Jefferson wrote “Land” as a base right. However, many were still landless and therefore without power. Seeking not to upset the status quo, oddly seeing as he was calling for a break from the Crown, he changed it to pursuit of happiness.



This is logical in what it means. We are entitled to use the rights of life and the rights of liberty to purse what will make us happy so long as that “chase” does not limit the rights of the others.



[quote]That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.[/quote]



Again this is an odd statement. Jefferson supported the Compact Theory of Government, yet call for a government that would secure these rights.



The role of the government is twofold. First and foremost it is to protect the rights and secure them for its populace. Secondly the government should obey the wishes of the populace, from which the power should be drawn.



[quote]That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.[/quote]



If the government of any form, communism or democracy, fails to represent its people and starts to limit the rights of its people it becomes the role of the populace to overthrow and abolish that government. Than to form a new government which will be more likely to secure and protect those base rights and to serve its people.



If a Government passes a law that begins to make it like the government of Big Brother or limits the freedom or liberties or rights of any person it is the role of every person to rise up in active rebellion against the nation state.



[quote]Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.[/quote]



Jefferson, a politician and not wanting to lose favor, states that well it is the role of the people to overthrow governments they should stand by them for as long as it is sufferable. If a law limits free speech when it endangers another person, i.e. screaming FIRE in a large theatre, than that law is sufferable. Though it restricts the rights of people it is not a great evil. But when a government really limits the right of its people than it is the role of the people to rise up, esp. if those limitations have a long history.



The rest of the DoI has been cut in name of brevity. It mainly applies to the call for war and why we should fight it. Lists of charges against the Crown and so forth. That is all applicable to the war, but in writing with the focus of what does the Declaration truly say that is acceptable today, it is not of necessity.


It was soley for those reasons that I was able to talk myself into standing for the Anthem last nite and not to shout out some Anti-American thing. I did not stand for what she is, I stood for what she was meant to be.

[Lil Red]

i put the first option, cuz i'm not always proud of my country.