Why are we obligated to be Patriotic?

[JonTheSavage]

States used to be very self governing until the US Civil War. Up until then, states actually DID have the right to remove themselves from the US, as there was nothing to prohibit it. The Civil War happened and that's when we really start seeing the rise of the Founding Fathers' worst nightmare--a super strong central government.

 

Thats why my hat says "UnReconstructed".

 

Where did I say atheist? I said they did not believe religion had any place in government. "their creator" is an intentionally broad and personal term. You'll notice the language is not "the creator". Take a look at the clarification in the first amendment -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

 

Very simple. They acknowledged a creator, and the Bible. Not anyone's personal interpretation. They knew that government would use their interpretation for their own means, and gains. Kind of like they are doing now, to bring on the extreme tyrants like Bush, Hitler, Stalin, Clinton, etc...

[killbot1000]

Though, as a conservative, I must point out that the decline of the country these past few decades could be equated to the rise of the liberal ideology, and the departure from "Under God."

 

Just fueling the debate

 

This is blatantly incorrect. Under god wasn't added to the flag salute until 1954. It was added as a reaction to Russian Style communism, showing that God was OK in America (as opposed to Russia who was a country of "atheists").

 

"In God we Trust" Became the Official Motto of the US starting in 1956 with an act of congress.

 

"In God we Trust" was added to our money shortly after the Civil War, when religious sentiment throughout the entire country rose.

 

Contrary to popular belief, most of the early settlers of the Americas did so for business ventures. While the Puritans moved out here to avoid religious prosecution, the vast majority of people who moved to North America did so for economic reasons, and they either may or may not have been devoutly religious. It is a myth that our country was founded on Christian principles. The constitution however is written like a religious document simply for the reason that regular people would be able to understand it IN THOSE TERMS. Most of the founding fathers were, in fact Deists.

 

Deist:

 

Deism is the belief that there is a God that created the physical universe but does not interfere with it. It is related to a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and nature of God from reason. (The mention of God in this article is meant more as a Creator than as the Abrahamic God.) - Wikipedia, Deism

 

So no, the nation was not founded on Christian Principles. Christians would like you to believe as such, but it is simply NOT THE CASE.

 

Our country has in fact become MORE religious since its founding. The Evangelical movement has a lot to do with it. They have successfully framed US policy and government in Evangelical Christian terms, disregarding anybody who says anything different AND de-legitimizing them by saying that they dont follow the constitution, or some other equally stupid excuse that the dumb, mass populace embraces.

 

No, the decline of our country comes not from liberal ideology (otherwise countries like Canada, France, UK, Germany, Sweden, etc. would all be doing quite horribly). Then again, liberal ideology isn't helping either.

 

America's problem cannot be broken down into something as simple as one ideology. The problem is that in the US we have TWO popular and opposite ideologies. This comes from a difference in how Liberals and Conservatives (in the context of the US) see something that is actually important to all of us: the concept of "Freedom".

 

Conservatives seem to view the word freedom through the lens of the economy, meaning that they believe freedom is the ability to do what one wants with their own money, no matter how unequal and trivial, and also to prevent somebody else (or a government) from spending their money FOR them. This freedom though obviously does not transfer over to social matters, as most conservatives oppose same sex marriage, comprehensive sex education, abortion, etc. (unless you talk about libertarians, who are their own small but growing special group)

 

Liberals tend to view the word freedom through the lens of Civil Rights, meaning that they will take whatever actions necessary (heavy taxation, etc.) to achieve the goal of social freedom for all (even people who don't work for it or deserve it). They also tend to feel that people can't manage their own money or that people can put their money toward a collective purpose. So their definition of freedom obviously does not transfer over to the economy.

 

Both of these ideologies are Ok, each has its drawbacks though. When they are paired together however, they make a deadly combination. What these two opposing ideologies have accomplished in the US is that they have put us on a path toward the negatives of EACH ideology (meaning that eventually, we will end up with no social freedom, and no financial freedom.) If you are a bank influencing US political policies, this is exactly the system that you want to keep going, in the end, you will have all the money and the people will have to do what you say absolutely, without question. Blind patriotism (which is abundant in the US, also contributes to this problem). Also the press, concerned only with ratings, covers only the stories involving the two parties since that is what most people know, and is the safest way to achieve high ratings, pushing smaller parties out of the picture, contributing to keeping the two party system going just the way it is.

 

There are so many factors coming together to push us in the wrong direction. If we can somehow dismantle a few, I think things will start getting better again very quickly.

 

For one, The US needs to have a government again, a government that does not concern itself with individual, small, and unimportant hot button issues.

 

They also need to delegate much of their power to the states. The US can only really work if the states are able to decide their own fate. If Washington State wants to allow abortion, let them. If Alabama does not, let them ban it. States should try to lead by example. Meaning at the end of the day, the state that allows comprehensive sex education can point a finger at a state that does not and say "look, what you're doing obviously isn't working, our solution is" there will then be a push for lagging states to do what more advanced states have already accomplished (but on their own, by choice, rather than by force, they can choose not to get on board but will look bad doing so in the process).

 

This delegation to the states will encourage more diversity and innovation at the state level, as well as a bigger reference book for other states, researching ways to fix problems. They can say "oh, we don't want to do that, it didn't work in Arkansas, OH but look, the way California does it is working great!"

 

Delegating authority to the States will also minimize the importance of trivial, but sensitive issues because there will literally be a place where every KIND of person can live within this country, they just have to go to the right place (the state of their choice). The Federal Government's Job should be foreign issues, and also making sure that states aren't exploited by other states (trade deals, etc.). These reforms would go a long way toward helping ALL AMERICANS, not simply liberals (like me) or conservatives (like yourself).

 

Just thought I would fuel the debate!

[killbot1000]

Whether or not that is true, they still included mention of "the Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, AND the Constitution. They themselves MAY (I'm not conceding that point) have been liberal Atheists, as you say, but they still built this country on a Judeo-Christian foundation, because they recognized it as the one providing the fairest and most equal base.

 

Let's break it down: What religion has an equal beginning for all people? The answer is Christianity. The reason is simple, because according to Christianity we are all created equally in the image of God. Gender and race don't matter to the Christian god.

 

Except, that in the Bible it says:

 

in Corinthians 14:34

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says."

 

Therefore, according to Christianity, we are not equal. Men AND women are obviously treated differently socially (when it comes to rules in the Bible).

 

Also, lets assume for the sake of argument that you are correct in what you say, there is one major caveat to what you say about equal human beings. According to Christianity, they are not equal or worthwhile UNLESS THEY ARE CHRISTIAN. Buddhism for example, does not require one to be Buddhist to reach enlightenment. But one must accept Jesus into their heart before they can go to heaven.

 

Now, the Muslim god, Allah? According to the Quran, Allah has no image. You think women will have rights under Muslim law? It takes two women to testify against one man under Muslim law. It's acceptable to beat your wife if she disobeys you under Muslim law. Women are property under Muslim law. Under Muslim law, perpetrators of homosexuality are to be executed. The list here goes on and on.

 

First of all, the Muslim God IS the Christian god. They are one in the same, leaders of both religions recognize this, somehow. Also, in regards to homosexuality, the bible says:

 

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." -Leviticus 20:13

 

You live in a modern, industrialized, democratic republic. We MUST practice tolerance regardless of our religious beliefs. Islam practiced tolerance when Europeans were venturing into the middle-east to kill Muslims (crusades). The middle east is going through a dark age right now, ignorance and intolerance are able to take hold in these kind of environments. If we have another dark age (which I think we are entering in the US) the same is happening and will happen here. You only have to go so far as Canada to see the stark contrast of our own actions.

 

Hinduism? Multiple Gods, which one were humans created in the image of?

 

Irrelevant, not every religion is about mankind. In Hinduism, mankind is relatively low on the importance scale, and there is a long hierarchy of gods before one gets to the top, and when one does get to the top, THIS GOD is not concerned with human matters even in the slightest because they are unimportant for this god to worry about.

 

Buddism? Every individual is a god, and every person is unique, which precludes equality.

 

A misunderstanding of what Buddhism is (and misspelled too). You are thinking of Buddhism in Christian terms, and Buddhists recognize their own religion in Buddhist terms. The Basic idea is that ALL OF US TOGETHER make up an unconscious god. You are in essence my foot, and I am your eyelid, and we all make up a piece of an ever-changing puzzle which is what we MIGHT call "God". It is therefore, the most equal of all mainstream religions.

 

Atheism? What's equal there, besides the meaninglessness of life? Besides, Atheism seems to be more of a stopgap. Before the French Atheist Revolution occurred, the vast majority of the French were Christian.. You might remember from your history: That was back when they had BALLS. Then they had their little revolution and the majority became Atheist. But that was just an invitation for the Muslims to creep in, and now the majority of people in France (and most of Europe) are Muslim. And the Muslims are lobbying to impose Sharia law..

 

"France is a secular country as freedom of religion is a constitutional right, although some religious organisations such as Scientology, Children of God, the Unification Church, and the Order of the Solar Temple are considered cults.[36] According to a January 2007 poll by the Catholic World News:[37][38] 51% identified as being Catholics, 31% identified as being agnostics or atheists. (Another poll[39] gives atheists proportion equal to 27%), 10% identified as being from other religions or being without opinion, 4% identified as Muslim, 3% identified as Protestant, 1% identified as Jewish."

 

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Religion

 

4% of France is estimated to be Muslim, how is that a majority, last I checked, what constitutes majority is 51%, I guess 4% is close enough though, lol. You obviously don't know what you are talking about here, thought I would just point that out.

 

Christian nations are strong, but Atheist nations eventually fall to Islam ("Submission") because the Muslims move in to fill the vacuum left by honoring no God, and thereby take a country over.

 

I realise this was strictly off topic, but I wanted to rebutt Brainbone :-p

 

Japan, strong, Buddhist/Shinto.

Sweden, strong, (most non-religious country in the world)

United Arab Emirates, strong, Muslim

United States, strong/getting weaker, no official religion (Heavy Christian overtones)

China, strong, communists ("atheists", as well as many local, obscure religions)

Israel, strong, Jewish

India, getting stronger, Hindu

 

Do you define strong as military, economy, intellectual, infastructure, etc? It's hard to tell, and no matter what the answer is, you're wrong. Many factors make up a country's strength, religion has little to do with any of it, except if its ideology meshes well with what the country needs.

 

Please do some research on history, economics, religion (including your own), and countries before you start spouting off a bunch of nonsense.

 

Christianity is not the most equal religion, far from it. Study some other religions, I think you will be pleasantly surprised!

[brainbone]

Very simple. They acknowledged a creator, and the Bible.

 

Who is "they"? Where is this acknowledgment? Please complete your thoughts.

[JonTheSavage]

Who is "they"? Where is this acknowledgment? Please complete your thoughts.

 

Those, that met at FairField, and decided wether or not to go to war for America's indipendance.

[killbot1000]

Nobody rebutting my claims? I guess we can put "Christianity is the most equal of all religions" and "the majority of Europe is muslim" to bed now?

[brainbone]

Those, that met at FairField, and decided wether or not to go to war for America's indipendance.

 

And where is their acknowledgment of the bible?

[Numberzz]

Those, that met at FairField, and decided wether or not to go to war for America's indipendance.

And where is their acknowledgment of the bible?

And their acknowledgement of the correct spelling of the word "independence?"

[Paranoid Marvin]

And their acknowledgement of the correct spelling of the word "independence?"

 

Well, they didn't acknowledge the correct spelling of "neighbour" or "summarise"

[Numberzz]

Well, they didn't acknowledge the correct spelling of "neighbour" or "summarise"

We spell summarize the same way...

And I spell doughnut correctly too.

 

I think we spell it differently because of our accents, or lack thereof. You spell it "neighbour" and pronounce it like that, with more emphasis on the "bour." We spell it "neighbor" because we pronounce it like "neighber," if the spelling corresponds with the pronunciation.

[Paranoid Marvin]

We spell summarize the same way...

And I spell doughnut correctly too.

 

I think we spell it differently because of our accents, or lack thereof. You spell it "neighbour" and pronounce it like that, with more emphasis on the "bour." We spell it "neighbor" because we pronounce it like "neighber," if the spelling corresponds with the pronunciation.

 

True, but we still spell it "knight" or "knife" rather than "nite" or "nife"

[(MoC)]

True, but we still spell it "knight" or "knife" rather than "nite" or "nife"

 

Uh, no, we spell it the same way.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Uh, no, we spell it the same way.

 

I know that, I was just pointing out that the spelling quite often has nothing to do with the pronunciation

[A Nonny Moose]

How did this mutate into being Christian? Last time I heard being Christian =/= being patriotic.

[JonTheSavage]

How did this mutate into being Christian? Last time I heard being Christian =/= being patriotic.

 

Thomas Payne - "The true duty of a patriot is to protect his country from his government."

 

Last time I checked, this wasn't true with the majority of claimed christians.

[killbot1000]

Last time I heard being Christian =/= being patriotic.

 

Being Christian means that one is Christian. It is incorrect to look into it any more deeply than that.

 

Christianity is in no logical way, tied to patriotism.

[Maxintosh]

Christianity is in no logical way, tied to patriotism.

Not so fast... You'll find that most highly religious people have a weakness for being addicted to things, whether it be their religion or a movement like patriotism. 4 or 5 years ago scientist actually found a defective gene that determines this 'attraction' to things like religion/patriotism, so they are prone to being that way

[killbot1000]

Not so fast... You'll find that most highly religious people have a weakness for being addicted to things, whether it be their religion or a movement like patriotism. 4 or 5 years ago scientist actually found a defective gene that determines this 'attraction' to things like religion/patriotism, so they are prone to being that way

 

I heard about this, I am shaky as to whether or not I believe it though. If you correct in what you say, my statement still holds water, because in this case, it is the gene, or weakness to being addicted to things which is tied to patriotism, not Christianity, or exclusively BEING CHRISTIAN in and of itself.

 

I am not a fan of Christianity, in fact I dislike the religion and what it stands for. But if there is something that is blamed on Christianity, where there is no blame, then I will defend Christianity. If however Christianity IS TO BLAME for something, I will place the blame on that institution to the full degree of what it deserves.

 

My main point is: that one can be patriotic/non-religious, etc. Christians (despite what they tell you) do not have a monopoly on morality, and the fact that they are Christian does not inherently make them different than any other human being (good and bad). Anybody who tells you otherwise is simply delusional.

 

I believe the vast majority of human beings are sheep, and will go along with the herd. That is why on these forums, I am trying to encourage people to go along with the right herd. Ideally, none of us would be part of any herd and any consensus that we all reach will be done through logical argument and agreement. But that is simply not going to happen, so we should try to have that as our ultimate goal, but for now, at this point in history, we should probably settle for trying to get people to just open their minds to something different than what they are used to (empathy), we should also teach people how to argue (as opposed to just ranting/fighting). This will go a long way toward solving our ignorance problems .

[Maxintosh]

it is the gene, or weakness to being addicted to things which is tied to patriotism, not Christianity, or exclusively BEING CHRISTIAN in and of itself.

Agreed. I'm not saying that a person first becomes christian and then becomes patriotic. I'm saying the person with this gene would be attracted to both religion and patriotism, etc.

 

I am not a fan of Christianity, in fact I dislike the religion and what it stands for. But if there is something that is blamed on Christianity, where there is no blame, then I will defend Christianity. If however Christianity IS TO BLAME for something, I will place the blame on that institution to the full degree of what it deserves.

Same here

[killbot1000]

Agreed. I'm not saying that a person first becomes christian and then becomes patriotic. I'm saying the person with this gene would be attracted to both religion and patriotism, etc.

 

Ah ok, I guess we are on the same page then hehe.

[JonTheSavage]

Ah ok, I guess we are on the same page then hehe.

 

Out of the 1,000 people I know that claim they are Christians, maybe 10 are patriotic. The rest worship their government.

[brainbone]

Ah ok, I guess we are on the same page then hehe.

 

From my point of view, in the context of the US, to be a "patriot", or to "love his or her country and support its authority and interests", is to strive for the very essence of the nation -- endlessly questioning authority and preconceptions. Everything that has worked well for the US comes from that essential quality.

 

While I agree that those susceptible to the "blind faith" required to follow most religions are also predispositioned to blind party loyalty (as well as unsubstantiated ramblings of conspiracy theorists), I don't believe there can be such a thing as a "blind patriot" in the US. Blindly following any political party does the country such a disservice that to be what a "blind patriot" implies is an impossible position to be in. You simply can't be a US patriot if you follow blindly.

 

But, that's only my opinion. Unfortunately, what exactly is the county's "authority and interests" is up for debate. I view them to be the original concept of nation, it's constitution (again, what exactly is "constitutional" has been, and will be, debated and amended to no end) while others may view it to be those that hold power at that time. In the end, we're left with the mess we're currently in -- a nation in perpetual turmoil destined to eventually become so top heavy with bureaucracy and corruption that the only cure will be a good-old-fashioned revolution -- just as our founders envisioned.

[JonTheSavage]

From my point of view, in the context of the US, to be a "patriot", or to "love his or her country and support its authority and interests", is to strive for the very essence of the nation -- endlessly questioning authority and preconceptions. Everything that has worked well for the US comes from that essential quality.

 

While I agree that those susceptible to the "blind faith" required to follow most religions are also predispositioned to blind party loyalty (as well as unsubstantiated ramblings of conspiracy theorists), I don't believe there can be such a thing as a "blind patriot" in the US. Blindly following any political party does the country such a disservice that to be what a "blind patriot" implies is an impossible position to be in. You simply can't be a US patriot if you follow blindly.

 

But, that's only my opinion. Unfortunately, what exactly is the county's "authority and interests" is up for debate. I view them to be the original concept of nation, it's constitution (again, what exactly is "constitutional" has been, and will be, debated and amended to no end) while others may view it to be those that hold power at that time. In the end, we're left with the mess we're currently in -- a nation in perpetual turmoil destined to eventually become so top heavy with bureaucracy and corruption that the only cure will be a good-old-fashioned revolution -- just as our founders envisioned.

 

Maybe it would help if you read the Constitution, and the writings of those that wrote it.

 

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, laying 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 shewn 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. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

 

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

 

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

 

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

 

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

 

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

 

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

 

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

 

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

 

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

 

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

 

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

 

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

 

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

 

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

 

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

 

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

 

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

 

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

 

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

 

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

 

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

 

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

 

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

 

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

 

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

 

— John Hancock

[brainbone]

Maybe it would help if you read the Constitution, and the writings of those that wrote it.

 

Yes. I've done that, and its what I've based much of my previous post on. If you have issues with it, please counter it point by point.

 

Assuming you take issue with "a nation in perpetual turmoil destined to eventually become so top heavy with bureaucracy and corruption that the only cure will be a good-old-fashioned revolution -- just as our founders envisioned."; please, pick it apart, let me know where I may need to add more clarity.

[killbot1000]

From my point of view, in the context of the US, to be a "patriot", or to "love his or her country and support its authority and interests", is to strive for the very essence of the nation -- endlessly questioning authority and preconceptions. Everything that has worked well for the US comes from that essential quality.

 

While I agree that those susceptible to the "blind faith" required to follow most religions are also predispositioned to blind party loyalty (as well as unsubstantiated ramblings of conspiracy theorists), I don't believe there can be such a thing as a "blind patriot" in the US. Blindly following any political party does the country such a disservice that to be what a "blind patriot" implies is an impossible position to be in. You simply can't be a US patriot if you follow blindly.

 

But, that's only my opinion. Unfortunately, what exactly is the county's "authority and interests" is up for debate. I view them to be the original concept of nation, it's constitution (again, what exactly is "constitutional" has been, and will be, debated and amended to no end) while others may view it to be those that hold power at that time. In the end, we're left with the mess we're currently in -- a nation in perpetual turmoil destined to eventually become so top heavy with bureaucracy and corruption that the only cure will be a good-old-fashioned revolution -- just as our founders envisioned.

 

I completely agree.

 

When I was referring to patriotism in these posts, I was referring to what we call patriotism in everyday speech, not what it actually is.

 

I think it actually is as you described. That is why I just get physically sick when I hear idiots claiming to be patriots...