Patriotism

[Traveler]

In a thread defining faith – I gave the opinion that faith in false principles is nothing more than superstition.  I have a similar opinion about patriotism – that is patriotism without true principles of and devotion to the True and Living G-d is nothing more than an excuse for tyranny and treachery.  

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

29 minutes ago, Traveler said:

In a thread defining faith – I gave the opinion that faith in false principles is nothing more than superstition.  I have a similar opinion about patriotism – that is patriotism without true principles of and devotion to the True and Living G-d is nothing more than an excuse for tyranny and treachery.  

 

The Traveler

So if I fight and die for my country as an atheist it's an excuse for tyranny or treachery? No way. I know of too many people who serve who are agnostic/atheist to accept that. Patriotism is a love of country. Nothing more or less.  

[Guest Godless]

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

In a thread defining faith – I gave the opinion that faith in false principles is nothing more than superstition.  I have a similar opinion about patriotism – that is patriotism without true principles of and devotion to the True and Living G-d is nothing more than an excuse for tyranny and treachery.  

 

The Traveler

Care to explain that line of reasoning? I've found that love of God and love of country can absolutely exist independent of each other, and without the slightest hint of tyranny or treachery. In fact, I would argue that, if anything, the opposite is more likely to be true, that patriotism rooted in religious zealotry is the surest blueprint for tyranny. After all, patriotism is generally a far more universal concept than religiosity.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, Godless said:

Care to explain that line of reasoning? I've found that love of God and love of country can absolutely exist independent of each other, and without the slightest hint of tyranny or treachery. In fact, I would argue that, if anything, the opposite is more likely to be true, that patriotism rooted in religious zealotry is the surest blueprint for tyranny. After all, patriotism is generally a far more universal concept than religiosity.

I agree totally ,and I am no atheist. (No offense Godless) 

[David13]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

In a thread defining faith – I gave the opinion that faith in false principles is nothing more than superstition.  I have a similar opinion about patriotism – that is patriotism without true principles of and devotion to the True and Living G-d is nothing more than an excuse for tyranny and treachery.  

 

The Traveler

I like this.  I like that you posted this.  Because I am going to have to think about this more.

dc

[Guest MormonGator]

19 hours ago, David13 said:

I like this.  I like that you posted this.  Because I am going to have to think about this more.

dc

Do you like living in America? 

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Do you like living in America? 

The best of all alternatives does not make the best conceivable possibility.

Farmer Jones has a barn with muck up to his knees. Farmer Johnson's barn's muck reaches his navel. That does not mean that Jones doesn't have to clean his barn.

Lehi

[Traveler]

On 7/4/2016 at 6:51 PM, MormonGator said:

So if I fight and die for my country as an atheist it's an excuse for tyranny or treachery? No way. I know of too many people who serve who are agnostic/atheist to accept that. Patriotism is a love of country. Nothing more or less.  

 

I will follow up my remarks with a response to M Gator's comments.  But first I would point out that the great patriots that founded "America" did so fighting, not for their country and king but something else.  The reality is - that they were guilty of sedition and treason to king and country to which they were born, lived and were governed.  For me an American patriot is not loyal to earth territory, limited by borders.  I believe an American Patriot is loyal to principle - and it is principle that governs a real patriot.  The first principle to which a patriot is governed and willing to die for - is justice.

As I have posted on many occasions - it is impossible to rationalize anything associated to justice by considering what begins at birth and ends with death.  In order to believe in justice one must believe in a "final" judgment - which could only have possibility after death.  And that "final judgment" must come, not just from events but from the heart and core of intent of each individual involved.  Such understanding and excuse for justice can only have possibility in a being of divine knowledge and understanding - in other words - A G-d.  Fighting and dying for anything other than the principle of justice is the excuse of Tyranny and Treachery.  Such tyranny and treachery is born of revenge - that many supplant as justice but is the end of justice - never an answer.

A patriot must commit to principles - and without committing to justice - there is no freedom and no liberty and commitment to any thing else is less than patriotism.  An atheists - as much as they can be respected for many things cannot be or pretend to be a patriot any more than the night can pretend to be day.  The justice of atheists is at it very core the continuation of tyranny and treachery as is the efforts of those that believe in a "false" G-d.  It is why Satan can rule only by tyranny and treachery - because he denies G-d and the justice of a "final" judgement.

 

The Traveler

Edited July 5, 2016 by Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I will follow up my remarks with a response to M Gator's comments.  But first I would point out that the great patriots that founded "America" did so fighting, not for their country and king but something else.  The reality is - that they were guilty of sedition and treason to king and country to which they were born, lived and were governed.  For me an American patriot is not loyal to earth territory, limited by borders.  I believe an American Patriot is loyal to principle - and it is principle that governs a real patriot.  The first principle to which a patriot is governed and willing to die for - is justice.

 

I agree with you, for what it's worth. That's one of the reasons I thin Edward Snowden is a patriot, not a traitor. 

My issue (and it's not with you, really) is the ingratitude that people who complain about America possess in great volume. They hate America-but they live here, enjoy our freedoms and don't have the :: ahem :: backbone to leave. If they had integrity you would think they'd put their money where their mouth is and leave. 

It's more directed towards the hard right and left, not anyone in particular. 

Edited July 5, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest Godless]

37 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I will follow up my remarks with a response to M Gator's comments.  But first I would point out that the great patriots that founded "America" did so fighting, not for their country and king but something else.  The reality is - that they were guilty of sedition and treason to king and country to which they were born, lived and were governed.  For me an American patriot is not loyal to earth territory, limited by borders.  I believe an American Patriot is loyal to principle - and it is principle that governs a real patriot.  The first principle to which a patriot is governed and willing to die for - is justice.

Agreed.

 

37 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As I have posted on many occasions - it is impossible to rationalize anything associated to justice by considering what begins at birth and ends with death. 

 

How can that be true if the space between birth and death is the only thing that is universally recognized as an irrefutable reality? To extend the concept of earthly justice beyond those constraints is to impose dogmatic law on those who may or may not accept it, or who may accept a different version of it than you do.

In order to believe in justice one must believe in a "final" judgment - which could only have possibility after death.  And that "final judgment" must come, not just from events but from the heart and core of intent of each individual involved.  Such understanding and excuse for justice can only have possibility in a being of divine knowledge and understanding - in other words - A G-d.  Fighting and dying for anything other than the principle of justice is the excuse of Tyranny and Treachery.  Such tyranny and treachery is born of revenge - that many supplant as justice but is the end of justice - never an answer.

Enactment of justice based on belief in a higher power has caused more death and destruction in this world than any other ideological cause. Some of the most dangerous people who ever lived believed that they were carrying out the will of God. 

 

37 minutes ago, Traveler said:

A patriot must commit to principles - and without committing to justice - there is no freedom and no liberty and commitment to any thing else is less than patriotism.  An atheists - as much as they can be respected for many things cannot be or pretend to be a patriot any more than the night can pretend to be day.  The justice of atheists is at it very core the continuation of tyranny and treachery as is the efforts of those that believe in a "false" G-d.  It is why Satan can rule only by tyranny and treachery - because he denies G-d and the justice of a "final" judgement.

 

The Traveler

Emphasis mine. So not only do you have to believe in God to be truly committed to justice, but you also have to believe in the CORRECT God? You can't truly have justice without tyranny unless your basis for justice is universally accepted. As such, the only justice that should matter in the eyes of a patriot is the justice that serves in this mortal existence. Anything else puts us on the path to theocracy.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

Agreed.

 

Thank you for your response - you bring up a lot of important points to which I think there is more agreement than disagreement.   I am glad you agree that a patriot must be dedicated to justice - not a pretend justice but a real and obtainable justice.  Otherwise justice is nothing more than a false superstition

Quote

How can that be true if the space between birth and death is the only thing that is universally recognized as an irrefutable reality? To extend the concept of earthly justice beyond those constraints is to impose dogmatic law on those who may or may not accept it, or who may accept a different version of it than you do.

There is no way to argue that death, is in any way just.  Perhaps in some circumstance justice could be argued - such as a life for a life but for life for multiple lives is a false view of justice.  The problem is that justice is a human invention for which there is no possible solution between life and death - the reason is that by every definition of justice -- death is unjust and cannot ever be mitigated as just, especially for the death of children.

Quote

Enactment of justice based on belief in a higher power has caused more death and destruction in this world than any other ideological cause. Some of the most dangerous people who ever lived believed that they were carrying out the will of God. 

This is a most interesting argument and statement.  Can you point out for me any enactment of justice not based on a belief in a "higher power".  What I find most interesting that one of the ancient words use to designate g-d or a g-d is the very word we translate as judge.  Even in our own courts the formal robes worn by our judges -- including our Supreme Court Judges is a definition and designation of g-d.  In religion G-d is a designation of two things:  One is a creator or source of creation and the second is the judge that mediates justice - especially the injustice that is prevalent in mortality.  As a simple example of such injustice is the birth, lives and death of all humans born in slavery.  How can someone say they are a patriot that believes in life, liberty and justice for all when the only life, liberty and justice for most and certainly all can only be even remotely believable if there is some final consequence other than death - without which justice is nothing more than another religious based superstition.  I honestly thought that the very definition of atheists is the total and complete rejection of any and all improvable or indemonstrable religious based superstitions.

 

Quote

Emphasis mine. So not only do you have to believe in God to be truly committed to justice, but you also have to believe in the CORRECT God? You can't truly have justice without tyranny unless your basis for justice is universally accepted. As such, the only justice that should matter in the eyes of a patriot is the justice that serves in this mortal existence. Anything else puts us on the path to theocracy.

The problem is that one man's justice is another man's tyranny and treachery.  It is this false pursuit of justice that has been engine of just about all causes of death and destruction that has taken place through human hands to which you made good reference to in your response.  But this is just the man made or human caused injustices and we have not considered or addressed the injustices that come from what is called "natural" causes.  Or any way to mitigate natural injustice.   Thus my very point - the belief or attempt of justice by those that do not believe in a higher mitigation of justice - the result has always been and will always remain  tyranny and treachery to some degree - or should I say tax?  The principle of justice to which a patriot is dedicated to is that justice which is not just possible but inevitable and that all intelligent humans should so conduct their individual choices - that they and everybody else will at some point - answer justly for all their choices.

 

The Traveler

 

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Thank you for your response - you bring up a lot of important points to which I think there is more agreement than disagreement.   I am glad you agree that a patriot must be dedicated to justice - not a pretend justice but a real and obtainable justice.  Otherwise justice is nothing more than a false superstition

There is no way to argue that death, is in any way just.  Perhaps in some circumstance justice could be argued - such as a life for a life but for life for multiple lives is a false view of justice.  The problem is that justice is a human invention for which there is no possible solution between life and death - the reason is that by every definition of justice -- death is unjust and cannot ever be mitigated as just, especially for the death of children.

Dedication to justice is very important, but so is the knowledge that "real and obtainable" justice isn't always possible. This is where worldviews collide between you and I. You believe that injustices in this life will be corrected in the next. I believe that it is our duty to our species to correct injustice whenever possible in order to create a more fulfilling universal human experience, but that it won't always be possible to achieve this. I believe that some people will live out their entire lives in misery and despair and that there's only so much that can be done about it. I don't believe that such people will ever see the justice they deserve. It's not a pleasant thought, but I suppose that's largely why we have religion in the first place.  

 

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

This is a most interesting argument and statement.  Can you point out for me any enactment of justice not based on a belief in a "higher power".  What I find most interesting that one of the ancient words use to designate g-d or a g-d is the very word we translate as judge.  Even in our own courts the formal robes worn by our judges -- including our Supreme Court Judges is a definition and designation of g-d.  In religion G-d is a designation of two things:  One is a creator or source of creation and the second is the judge that mediates justice - especially the injustice that is prevalent in mortality.  As a simple example of such injustice is the birth, lives and death of all humans born in slavery.  How can someone say they are a patriot that believes in life, liberty and justice for all when the only life, liberty and justice for most and certainly all can only be even remotely believable if there is some final consequence other than death - without which justice is nothing more than another religious based superstition.  I honestly thought that the very definition of atheists is the total and complete rejection of any and all improvable or indemonstrable religious based superstitions.

The history of morality and justice is deeply rooted in religion. In order to maintain social stability, man created a rule of law that transcended their mortal constraints. All of the early civilizations did this, not just the Abrahamic tribes, so it's hard to argue that modern concepts of law and justice are completely the result of Judeo-Christian dogma. The conclusion, therefore, is that the concepts of law and justice are man-made institutions that are attributed to a god or gods. Just because they are based in superstition does not mean they are entirely incorrect.

With that in mind, yes, many injustices in this world will undoubtedly go uncorrected. Does that mean we throw up a white flag and surrender ourselves to disorder or tyranny? Or do we continue to fight injustice when we see it, hoping to bring a better life to some of those who have been wronged? Is it wrong to fight for hope of a better future for those who come after us just because we believe that world will be limited to mortal constraints? That is the belief of the atheist patriot, that there is always hope for justice in this mortal life, just not necessarily for everyone. But we keep trying anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

The problem is that one man's justice is another man's tyranny and treachery.  It is this false pursuit of justice that has been engine of just about all causes of death and destruction that has taken place through human hands to which you made good reference to in your response.  But this is just the man made or human caused injustices and we have not considered or addressed the injustices that come from what is called "natural" causes.  Or any way to mitigate natural injustice.   Thus my very point - the belief or attempt of justice by those that do not believe in a higher mitigation of justice - the result has always been and will always remain  tyranny and treachery to some degree - or should I say tax?  The principle of justice to which a patriot is dedicated to is that justice which is not just possible but inevitable and that all intelligent humans should so conduct their individual choices - that they and everybody else will at some point - answer justly for all their choices.

 

The Traveler

Again, this is where our ideologies clash. I believe that it's possible to be dedicated to the pursuit of justice while also having realistic expectations about the constraints of our efforts. Even if we can't bring justice to people who share our short mortal span, maybe we can create a better and more just world for those who outlive us. That is the foundation of my patriotic principles. This country, while very much imperfect, has done a great deal of good in this world. If I can help contribute to the positive aspects of our national destiny, then I will do everything in my power to do so. Many atheists share this sentiment. Many atheists have bled and died for this country, and they did so because they believed in a better world for those who came after them.

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, Godless said:

Dedication to justice is very important, but so is the knowledge that "real and obtainable" justice isn't always possible. This is where worldviews collide between you and I. You believe that injustices in this life will be corrected in the next. I believe that it is our duty to our species to correct injustice whenever possible in order to create a more fulfilling universal human experience, but that it won't always be possible to achieve this. I believe that some people will live out their entire lives in misery and despair and that there's only so much that can be done about it. I don't believe that such people will ever see the justice they deserve. It's not a pleasant thought, but I suppose that's largely why we have religion in the first place.  

 

The history of morality and justice is deeply rooted in religion. In order to maintain social stability, man created a rule of law that transcended their mortal constraints. All of the early civilizations did this, not just the Abrahamic tribes, so it's hard to argue that modern concepts of law and justice are completely the result of Judeo-Christian dogma. The conclusion, therefore, is that the concepts of law and justice are man-made institutions that are attributed to a god or gods. Just because they are based in superstition does not mean they are entirely incorrect.

With that in mind, yes, many injustices in this world will undoubtedly go uncorrected. Does that mean we throw up a white flag and surrender ourselves to disorder or tyranny? Or do we continue to fight injustice when we see it, hoping to bring a better life to some of those who have been wronged? Is it wrong to fight for hope of a better future for those who come after us just because we believe that world will be limited to mortal constraints? That is the belief of the atheist patriot, that there is always hope for justice in this mortal life, just not necessarily for everyone. But we keep trying anyway.

 

Again, this is where our ideologies clash. I believe that it's possible to be dedicated to the pursuit of justice while also having realistic expectations about the constraints of our efforts. Even if we can't bring justice to people who share our short mortal span, maybe we can create a better and more just world for those who outlive us. That is the foundation of my patriotic principles. This country, while very much imperfect, has done a great deal of good in this world. If I can help contribute to the positive aspects of our national destiny, then I will do everything in my power to do so. Many atheists share this sentiment. Many atheists have bled and died for this country, and they did so because they believed in a better world for those who came after them.

I am very much enjoying our discussion and I want to sincerely thank you for your words.  Please understand I am not attempting to condemn you.  I believe we all live, in some degree in a fantasy.   Both the devout religious as well as the atheists.  I am not trying to imply that my judgments as a believer in the divine are any better than your belief that such a belief is fantastic and illogical only that my belief in justice has a logical possibility. 

As we view nature we may call evolution survival of the fittest and that thus the fittest reproduce and survive.  But human define justice and something that cannot be validated.  Not in nature nor in the history (including pre-history) of humanity.   As I pointed out - every point an atheists can make as just someone thought was okay and justified for them to do - or they would not have done it.  My question is - how do you define justice?  It must strictly be defined from your point of view and I am saying is it just to take one human's point of view over another - even if the point of view is the majority.  I am saying that if you think humans can mitigate justice - you are mistaken and history is my example.  Whatever you can define as justice - will have been argued at some point of history as unjust by someone with no less authority to say so.

What I am saying - in essence - is if someone does not believe in a greater cause than themselves - they cannot call themselves a patriot.  If that cause has no intelligence of its own then in essence that belief in something greater is superstition.  If humanity is the greatest possibility for justice - that justice is unjust (tyranny and treachery) for any and all other humans that happen to disagree with them and there is no possible resolution only a continuing and escalation of revenge, tyranny and treachery.  Thus the only possible outcome is the end of mankind - which would be either the greatest injustice of all or the only way to justly mitigate justice. 

I look forward with great hope you or someone will assist me in what I have logically overlooked.

Thanks

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am very much enjoying our discussion and I want to sincerely thank you for your words. 

Just as a third party I like reading both of your posts. Great discussion really. 

[Guest Godless]

 

Quote

As we view nature we may call evolution survival of the fittest and that thus the fittest reproduce and survive.  But human define justice and something that cannot be validated.  Not in nature nor in the history (including pre-history) of humanity.   As I pointed out - every point an atheists can make as just someone thought was okay and justified for them to do - or they would not have done it.  My question is - how do you define justice?  It must strictly be defined from your point of view and I am saying is it just to take one human's point of view over another - even if the point of view is the majority.  I am saying that if you think humans can mitigate justice - you are mistaken and history is my example.  Whatever you can define as justice - will have been argued at some point of history as unjust by someone with no less authority to say so.

Human justice is certainly imperfect. I'm not going to argue against that. However, I believe that human justice is the only true justice we have in this world. As for defining it, I would say that it is best defined as whatever is good for the majority. There can never be a hope for justice when it serves a privileged few. That is why our system of government includes checks and balances so that no one branch of government can exert tyranny over the governed. That is why criminals are judged by a jury of their peers, so that no one human being has control over the destiny of another. Again, imperfections abound in both our government and our justice system, and we have a patriotic duty to speak out against those imperfections and create a better system. 

 

Quote

What I am saying - in essence - is if someone does not believe in a greater cause than themselves - they cannot call themselves a patriot.  If that cause has no intelligence of its own then in essence that belief in something greater is superstition.  If humanity is the greatest possibility for justice - that justice is unjust (tyranny and treachery) for any and all other humans that happen to disagree with them and there is no possible resolution only a continuing and escalation of revenge, tyranny and treachery.  Thus the only possible outcome is the end of mankind - which would be either the greatest injustice of all or the only way to justly mitigate justice. 

I look forward with great hope you or someone will assist me in what I have logically overlooked.

Thanks

The Traveler

 

Humanity offers the only possibility of justice in this mortal life. If perchance I'm wrong about the afterlife, then I imagine that I will be subject to the justice of your God, or perhaps we'll both be subjected to the justice of someone else's God. In the meantime, your God is letting us exercise our free agency and hoping that we'll do the right thing. You and I have our differences in regard to what "the right thing" is, but I think we can agree on quite a few key things. Slavery and oppression are bad. Liberty and self-determination are good. It sounds very simplistic, but some of the greatest ideals of our nation are based on simple truths. 

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we're both pursuing the same goal - to serve justice in an unjust world. We both believe in causes greater than ourselves. The key difference is that my "greater cause" is rooted in this world, and yours isn't, at least not entirely. After all, any good Christian is going to try to make their world a better place. You do this in order to serve the lord. I do it in order so serve my fellow man. In the end, are those causes really so incompatible? 

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, Godless said:

 

Human justice is certainly imperfect. I'm not going to argue against that. However, I believe that human justice is the only true justice we have in this world. As for defining it, I would say that it is best defined as whatever is good for the majority. There can never be a hope for justice when it serves a privileged few. That is why our system of government includes checks and balances so that no one branch of government can exert tyranny over the governed. That is why criminals are judged by a jury of their peers, so that no one human being has control over the destiny of another. Again, imperfections abound in both our government and our justice system, and we have a patriotic duty to speak out against those imperfections and create a better system. 

 

 

Humanity offers the only possibility of justice in this mortal life. If perchance I'm wrong about the afterlife, then I imagine that I will be subject to the justice of your God, or perhaps we'll both be subjected to the justice of someone else's God. In the meantime, your God is letting us exercise our free agency and hoping that we'll do the right thing. You and I have our differences in regard to what "the right thing" is, but I think we can agree on quite a few key things. Slavery and oppression are bad. Liberty and self-determination are good. It sounds very simplistic, but some of the greatest ideals of our nation are based on simple truths. 

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we're both pursuing the same goal - to serve justice in an unjust world. We both believe in causes greater than ourselves. The key difference is that my "greater cause" is rooted in this world, and yours isn't, at least not entirely. After all, any good Christian is going to try to make their world a better place. You do this in order to serve the lord. I do it in order so serve my fellow man. In the end, are those causes really so incompatible? 

Passion is an interesting thing even for a patriot seeking justice - I will use the idea of a sports fan - and to further demonstrate my point I will use the sports fans of two heated rivals.   Each wants their team to win.  Both will view the game and the ref calls differently.  Both the bad and good calls - and so they behave in the stands.  I could draw into account many other examples - but this only shows that we agree that human justice is not real justice but something less.  But that is in essence part of the point.  But lets go on.

Often, even in a court of law those that are eye witnesses will testify differently - so vastly diversely that it is obvious that some are flat out wrong even though they are sure they are right (did you know that even now 90% of whites in the USA believe O.J. Simpson was guilty and justice failed and 90% of blacks in the USA believe O.J. is innocent and justice was served) - and this can even be a fine example of the majority being wrong - at least one kind of majority.  So much is the majority wrong that I tend to often go against this mob mentality. However, in our modern times often there is video evidence.  What is interesting about independent video evidence is that an individual's view of what is just and real is vastly changed if they know there is video evidence, even if they have not seen the video evidence - in other words if they even believe they are being observed - they tend to be much more objective.  If there is a cop car by the side of the road - drivers will slow down just to make sure they are not speeding - even if they were not speeding in the first place - it is human nature.

This is the point I have tried to get at.  Those that believe they must answer for their brand of justice and held accountable - there is a preponderance of scientific empirical evidence that under such circumstance justice is viewed differently by the same individuals if they know their is a video or other indisputable evidence - even those and especially those that are trying to be honest.  Flawed justice is by definition unjust and leads to tyranny and treachery regardless of how much of the majority at the time supports it.  Thus my point - those that do not believe they are being observed and must answer for their interpretations of justice - are by all means that we have to measure such things - are the most unjust, assuming all other factors being the same.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

I agree and disagree with Traveler.

I agree that Patriotism rooted in God is superior.  Inalienable rights is of more tangible value when rooted on a power higher than mortal materials or mortal ideologies.

I don't agree that you have to be rooted in God to be a Patriot.  Inalienable rights can be rooted on Principle.

I agree that Patriotism is not limited to borders.  Rather, it is based on People of shared Principles.

I don't agree that defining borders is anti-Patriotic or anti-God.  As a matter of fact, I posit that The Promised Land is an important facet in the survival of the Covenant People.

In any case, Patriotism is a mortal concept.  It is not an eternal concept.  Conflating Patriotism with eternal principles leads to confusion.