Patriotism is ACTION inspired by a profound sense of RESPONSIBILITY to one's country. American patriotism is a duty to act toward the creation of a more perfect union.
Sometimes that duty means voting. Sometimes it means becoming a warrior or politician. Sometimes it means protesting and civil disobedience. Sometimes it means raising your voice and speaking strongly in advocacy for your position on an issue.
We are a diverse nation and we all have a responsibility to each other to direct our government to act for the common good of the people. We don't have to like one another or agree with one another, but we must realize that we are all Americans and are equal under the law.
Patriotism has NOTHING to do with saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, citing the Pledge of Allegiance or wearing flag pins on your lapel. These are symbols of patriotism, not the act of patriotism. Patriotism demands action, not symbols. Action that is passionately driven by a respect and admiration for those principles on which this country is founded.
Patriotism is independent of any particular social philosophy, religious belief or party affiliation. Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, blacks, whites, straight, gay, evangelicals, atheists - none of these groups are disqualified from acting as patriots because of who they are or what they think.
Many Americans do not understand what a gift we have here in this country. Our unique form of governance is so taken for granted and few appreciate the social revolution that brought the individual out from tyranny and into leadership. That it happened at all is one of the most amazing stories of our age.
Our democracy is so precious and fragile and has been achieved and preserved at such great cost. It is and will always be imperfect and it will always be our RESPONSIBILITY as citizens to make it better.
We owe so much to those patriots who were willing to sacrifice themselves for our freedoms and for those who do so today. We owe it to them and to each other to do our part, to act as patriots each according to temperament and ability.
True patriots embrace the meaning and intent of "E Pluribus Unum".
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 38
Thanks for sharing your comments.
It's so easy for anyone to be misunderstood, especially with hot-button issues such as the one's I'm attempting on my page.
Let me say this, protest can be of two different flavors, patriotic or unpatriotic.
The one's you mentioned Jeff H, flag burning, prejudice and disruption are not patriotic forms of protest. They act against positive change and are divisive and are a poor way to get one's point across.
Organizing a protest event, getting the permits, speaking publicly in advocacy of your positions or concerns, carrying signs and such expressing your grievance, writing your congressional representative to voice your opinion, drafting petitions, working on initiatives and referendums would represent in my opinion patriotic forms of protest.
The unpatriotic protest disrespectfully. The patriotic do the opposite.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify what I wrote. This always seems to be necessary as words are so limited in discussing topics of such nuance.
I agree with the first part of Jeff R's comment, but I'm not sure I accept the conclusion of the second part.
Jeff R, are you equating "the greater good" with socialism? My words were "the common good", but I don't know if the semantics makes a difference in what you are trying to say.
I guess I would like further clarification from you before I comment further. I hope you will come back and expand on your points.
I agree that we sometimes see what we want to see, perhaps as a kind of self-validation.
It's a scary, subtle world of diversity out there, and people have a strong desire for community, belonging and identity.
It's easier to seek a community of Self-Validating Sameness, but this is not very productive, nor in my opinion is it patriotic. This kind of community is selective and is based on exclusion. The implied message is that the other doesn't matter.
I say embrace the diversity and RESPECTFULLY argue like hell all the time for all days to come. This is the engine that actually move us forward toward the common good that I referred to in my article.
You can always tell who is on shaky ground or insecure in their opinion by the disrespect shown in their use of invective.
I mention civil disobedience as a patriotic form of protest but no one has challenged me on this.
From Wikipedia: "Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence."
Do you think civil disobedience is a patriotic form of protest?
I think it depends. One important factor not mentioned in your definition is responsibility. Refusing to obey certain laws carries with it a punishment of some kind. Accepting that punishment and turning that punishment into a statement against the system is what makes the "great" leaders of civil disobedience great. But at the same time, working through the system to overturn that punishment and in turn overturn that law is also a significant factor in making the "great" leaders of civil disobedience great.
Thank you for participating in the discussion.
You say "one important factor not mentioned in your definition is responsibility".
If you mean the definition of "civil disobedience", that comes from Wikipedia; it's not my definition.
However, the opening lines in my article is my definition of patriotism, and the word "responsibility" is in all capitals for emphasis.
Please clarify what you meant. I look forward to your comments.
Majority of our earlier leaders/population were for slavery, the majority in Germany were for the holocaust... so were they right.
Majority in poor nations of Africa & Asia believe that women are second class citizens (even women themselves think so)... since the majority of population & leadership agree with this & think it's right.. it must b right. How absurd!
For instance, the despicable behavior of the people in this country (particularly the politicians) with regard to the Iraqi war is a good example. The majority of the people were cheering when the war started. The majority of the people voted for the present President in an open and free election. It is the patriotic duty of people to support that administration which they elected until such time as they decide to make a change directions. We don't know (although a lot of people assume) that we will make a drastic change in our international political posture with this new election. But things don't always go the way that the pollsters predict. A good example (you are probably too young to remember it, but I am not) is the Truman/Dewey election. And if you don't think that was a real wake up call on that Wednesday morning, then you just don't know or understand history.
I can agree with you on those things you mention in your article and I can hope that the majority of people everywhere would think that way. But if they don't and you have a democracy that is the way it goes. Or you can go into Darfur with an army and make the majority of people behave according to your standards. But that is not democracy or the democratic method no matter how you slice it. So, either wake up and smell the roses or quit proudly proclaiming that you are for democracy when you are really for fascism.
So, Joe, were you up in arms when Clinton bombed Kosovo without approval of Congress or the approval of the United Nations?
Might does not make right, and some people never learn.
Thanks for your input and suggestion.
I think your approach would work if we were all on the same page, but I'm afraid that is nearly impossible for reasons I explain in my article "My Name is a Question - The Role of Faith in Politics".
I agree that E Pluribus Unum does and should apply to the entire world. Whether you believe in science or theology, when you rewind the film it all converges to the same point, or E Unum Pluribus.
I rather imagine there are a few Boston Tea Party members, and other founders of our country that would argue that point with you, which is why they protected most forms of civil disobedience in the constitution.
Ever hear of something called the crusades?
Ron, the Boston Tea Party. That was when we were still British colonists. There were Americans, but America was not a country then. It was a time of revolution, but as the Declaration of Independence states:
"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."
Man, Jefferson was something else!
Anyway, my point is that this statement from the Declaration could apply to today's America as well as to yesterday's Britain.
I'm sure we all wish to avoid another American Revolution, so I think it best that we get our act together and make this government work as intended.
I sense this is a true oxymoron. Do you think the elitists that control this country are just going to hand it back to you without a fight? Getting our act together would just result in the suspension of all rights. Lord knows they're falling fast enough.
I have a feeling that nothing is so simple as to suggest there is one group or cabal that controls everything. I think there are many "spheres of influence" vying for power, sometimes coming together and sometimes in contention in an ever changing dynamic.
You have political, religious, environmental, business, scientific, social, medical and populist concerns all advocating from their perspectives and seeking accommodation.
Nothing worthwhile is easy, and I expect we will need to fight for our rights and power. It's not going to happen if the electorate is so divided as we seem to be.
The politicians take advantage of this fact, and that is why politics is so divisive in this country. It's the old divide and conquer strategy.
The electorate are made to think that its Republicans against Democrats, or conservatives against liberals. This gets us fighting among ourselves while the politicos and business interests have their way with our tax dollars to their benefit, not ours.
If we are so willing to be manipulated in this way things won't change. We need a coalition of the electorate to come together to find common ground for the benefit of the people. We must see our political differences as secondary in order to really claim the power that has always been intended for the people. I still think the system enables this to occur, but it is up to us to figure it out and make it happen.
Sometimes I think the country would best be served by a consortium of grandmothers, all sitting in a circle in the Oval Office talking about the issues of the day while they sew squares of each state for the national quilt.
"Sally, dear, will you please pass the potato salad and that there Omnibus Spending Bill?"
"Esther, look at the budget for this Star Wars thingy, it's outrageous. Let's give it to the little ones in school instead. The military can have their own damn bake sale!"
"Emma says her boy Ray can't get medical insurance because of something called a pre-existing condition. How can it be good for the country if people can't be taken care of? By the way, Sally, you have a little potato salad on your chin."
This conversation isn't elitist? Or this conversation isn't a conversation?
The first I agree with, the second doesn't make sense.
When is a room not a room? When it's a mushroom! Is it like that?
Okay. What we have here is a failure to communicate.
If I say to you that I believe in God would you say that you believe in the same God that I believe in? After all, God is all powerful so there can be only one God, right?
Most monotheistic religions would by nature say there is only one God, otherwise they are not monotheistic but polytheistic. Most monotheistic religions say that the one God is all powerful, Creator of all that is. Are we agreed so far?
If you accept those statements, how do you explain all the different monotheistic religions?
Not all Christians believe the same thing. Some believe in the Trinity, others do not. Do those that believe in the Trinity, are they actually polytheistic and not monotheistic?
The same goes for any of the major monotheistic religions, there are shades and different interpretations of the terms and concepts and laws and rituals and such.
So, we toss around words as if everybody has the same understanding of those words, but that is simply not the case. For example, someone's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. The definition of a word often depends on one's perspective.
I asked you for your definition of "elitist" and you are telling me that the conversation is over because I asked the question. I'm confused here as to your intent in taking the time to presumably read my article and then type out a response to post here.
Do you just like to type? Okay, nothing wrong with typing. I just wonder why you are involving myself and the other readers and commentators here with something that is so personal to you, which is your passion for typing.
Is it not possible that you could type out an e-mail and send it to yourself? I mean, I do it all the time, although there are usually others that I send it to at the same time. But you could just send it to yourself and then answer yourself with a reply. You will probably discover that both of you agree with each other.
Maybe that's a bit unfulfilling for you. I can understand that as well.
The problem is, Ron, that a conversation is a back and forth thing, sharing ideas and opinions between two or more people and requires each of the participants to act in a coordinated way where one listens while the other expresses themselves and then that is reciprocated by the one who was listening to respond and add expression to what was understood of the other person's expression while the first to express themselves is now listening to you and then the process is repeated again and again or until one or both or all of the parties participating in the conversation are satisfied and feel resolution or at least the mutual understanding of the expressions expressed or in the case of expressions individually or collectively not understood the parties may express the desire, after some time and consideration of the expressed expressions, to resume the conversation which then cycles us back to the point where we started when someone responds with their understanding of the initial expression.
See how easy it is?
Can I talk to Buddy for a second?
I'm not so sure. I think it would be more properly considered an unlawful protest, an act of civil disobedience.
I think "Boston Tea Party" does fall under that definition. Even it does I don't really care as it was for my country.
I accept your point and agree. I failed to register the last word in your statement, "today". That does make a difference.
And this underscores a problem in communicating with one another, one that I am obviously guilty of as well, and I consider myself a pretty careful reader. Not careful enough, however.
The problem is not understanding fully the comment made. Sometimes this is due to ignoring certain words and therefore taking a statement out of context, as very recently exemplified.
Sometimes it is due, as I have mentioned previously, to interpretation of words that are used and an assumption that the words used are equally understood by all. That is why I had asked Ron to define his terms, and he made the assumption that I should already know what he meant.
One point that I would make (again) is that civil disobedience comes in two flavors, one disrespectful of persons and property and one the opposite (see my comment above from Jul 7, 2008, 11:01pm EDT ).
So let us not associate civil disobedience with terrorism unless qualified by the use of violence and/or destruction of property.
Thanks Citizen for this opportunity to clarify. This has been a useful and productive exchange!
I just put the period of the sentence before the word "today"; that last word just didn't register with me for some reason. I'm usually more careful than that when I read things, but I am getting ready to fly to San Diego today, so I've been a bit rushed and scatter-brained.
I took the sentence to mean during the time of the Boston Tea Party, not in the contemporary context. I think the old word for "terrorist" was "tyrant".