Protestantism

» Migisi - In that case...

In response to In that case... posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Some things should NOT have changed.
.
But did and have nonetheless. Like it or not.
.
"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."
.
Note 'all men' are created equal. Even back when they wrote that, it wasn't true. And you can thank Bush and his Patriot Act for tossing out the unalienable rights part.
.
And if a person decides that the United States of America is unworthy of his/her love and sacrifice, then that person should leave the country.
.
Heh... 'love it or leave it', right Bri? Or -- just maybe, those who oppose what their country's leaders are doing should OPENLY STAND UP AGAINST THEM and remove them, rather than 'CUT AND RUN'.
.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or 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....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." - Declaration of Independence
.
Who wrote this subversive treasonous stuff? Well sure... the Founding Fathers did!

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Look at what you did

In response to In that case... posted by Migisi:

Migisi, this is what 'gets my goat' (as Pink puts it). You took my last post, twisted it, redefined it to an extreme, and then reduced it to a "love it or leave it" bumper sticker slogan.

I reiterate my position. If an individual doesn't love their country and isn't willing to sacrifice for it, then they should leave.

Obviously....if a person believes the government is going in the wrong direction and they care enough to stand up and be counted...then they care about their country. They love their country. If they are willing to sacrifice their time and talent to make some changes, then they are willing to sacrifice for it.

So, I'm not indicting dissent. YOU have manipulated my position to make it out to look like that. THIS is what "gets my goat."

Where does the "leave it" come in?

If they are just going to sit around and complain and moan and groan - and then not be bothered to do anything constructive to address their grievances. In such a case, all they are doing is taking up space.

OR...take a person that IS involved...

If after some activism, they reach a point where they no longer feel that the United States is a nation worthy of love, honor, etc. and that they cannot in good conscience pledge their allegiance to the country - not the government, mind you, but the COUNTRY - then, in that case, I think it's time for them to leave.

That's a much more in-depth, and thought-out position than simply "Love it or Leave it."

» Brian Tubbs - Clarification

In response to Patriotic Militiamen posted by pink101:
Were the militia men who mutinied wrong to do what they did? Were they unpatriotic?

When you say "militiamen," are you including all those who took up arms for the Continental / Patriot cause? or are you limiting it only to those part-time, citizen militia companies in various towns?

» pink101 - Clarification

In response to Clarification posted by BrianTubbs:
.
The ones that upset George Washington so much. :;~) Those "Summer Soldiers" that Tom Paine put down. The ones who started out in a Glorious Cause and turned bitter with the profiteering going on back home. The ones who were so upset with the fact they weren't getting paid and who weren't getting food and clothing who went barefoot in winter. The ones who wore rags and who were starving.
.
The ones who risked life and limb and many who even lost their life and health so that we could benefit from their successes.
.
Those guys.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Complicated Situation for Washington

In response to Clarification posted by pink101:

Washington was much more upset with the profiteers than he was with the disgruntled soldiers he commanded. Check out his letters. He had NOTHING good to say about those who thought more about money than the cause.

But getting back to your question....

There was A LOT at play in the Revolution. What Washington wanted was a standing, professional army. And, of course, he wanted that army trained, paid and well-supplied. That's what he wanted.

Well, he never really got what he wanted. He had to make do with inadequate supplies, poor training (until Von Steuben came to Valley Forge), worthless Continental currency, unreliable pay, strategically unreliable militia (and they were unreliable for extended campaigning and stand-up battles in the open field), short enlistments for the regulars, not enough regulars, and on and on and on. NO GENERAL in American history (with the possible exception of Robert E. Lee toward the end of the Civil War) had to deal with as many challenges and deficiencies as Washington did! None.

All that has to be kept in mind.

» pink101 - Complicated Situation for Washington

In response to Complicated Situation for Washington posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Yupper, that's fer shure.
.
(Off to the health club for my exercises)
.
Later.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Patriotism

In response to Complicated Situation for Washington posted by pink101:

I don't think it was a lack of patriotism that moved some of the Continentals to "mutiny" (even though that's a navy term ) or desert. It was often desperation.

These men were poorly and unevenly paid. When they were, the pay wasn't worth much. They were poorly supplied (food was often scarce). Many starved. Many lost limbs to frostbite. Many froze to death. Disease was rampant. I'm only scratching the surface. The Revolution was a long, HARD war!

I've often wondered how I'd do in that situation. I don't think I'd do very well, frankly. So, I have nothing but sympathy and respect for our Continental Army soldiers. They endured a lot.

Obviously, SOME of them were guilty of treason. I know of a few that deserted over to the British. THAT was unpatriotic. I think we can agree on that. But otherwise, I'm reluctant to pass judgment.

» Migisi - Look at what you did

.
I reiterate my position. If an individual doesn't love their country and isn't willing to sacrifice for it, then they should leave... Where does the "leave it" come in?
.
Read what you wrote again, Brian. Shortened version reiterated: 'Love it or leave it'. This is bumper-sticker Nationalism.
.
if a person believes the government is going in the wrong direction and they care enough to stand up and be counted...then they care about their country. They love their country. If they are willing to sacrifice their time and talent to make some changes, then they are willing to sacrifice for it."
.
This is Patriotism.
.
If after some activism, they reach a point where they no longer feel that the United States is a nation worthy of love, honor, etc. and that they cannot in good conscience pledge their allegiance to the country - not the government, mind you, but the COUNTRY - then, in that case, I think it's time for them to leave.
.
Many do. It's their choice - and a hard one. But ask yourself 'how' and 'why' they might - "in good conscience" - arrive at the conclusion that their beloved country isn't worth their allegiance anymore? Before you pass judgment on them, can you put yourself in their shoes for a day? Have you listened to what other people around the world think and say about your country? If not, you need to.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - You herald dissent

In response to Look at what you did posted by Migisi:

It's interesting that you herald dissent. You think it's patriotic to stand up and speak truth to power. I agree. But if dissent is honorable, then civil discourse is also honorable - and indeed critical.

It's important, in a democracy, that the people be able to sit down and REASON together. If we ONLY listen to those with whom we agree, then we don't really have a democracy. We are instead living a lie.

We must listen to each other. We mustn't dismiss out of hand those with whom we disagree.

» pink101 - You herald dissent

In response to You herald dissent posted by BrianTubbs:

.
It's important, in a democracy, that the people be able to sit down and REASON together
.
Crickey! (Did I use that explitice correctly, Redback?)
.
We haven't been able to reason together ever since Bush stole the election.
.
It's hight time we begin to reason.
.

-- posted by pink101