Why You Should Be Patriotic

As an American, yesterday the 4th of July was a big day for me. Independence Day is a time of family, parades, cookouts, fireworks, and just general celebration. We celebrate our country, and we pride ourselves in its values of liberty and freedom. And that's great. But this post does not intend to celebrate the United States per se.

Rather, I want to briefly muse on the subject of patriotism. Sadly, this concept seems to have fallen off in recent years and been dismissed as naive. In modern times, patriotism seems to be associated with nationalism, with an obsession over the supposed superiority of one's country and an ignorant dismissal of other nations. In a global world, this attitude helps no one, and causes more harm than good. I agree with that. But nationalism is not patriotism.

The Merriam-Webster English dictionary defines nationalism as "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups." On the other hand, the definition of patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country." Much more simple; much more desirable.

However, this will go beyond defining terms. I want to make a case for why YOU, wherever you are from, should be patriotic. I have shown that being patriotic does not mean you are nationalistic; you do not need to think "my country art better than thine," nor do you need to advocate turning other countries into your own. To be a patriot, all one needs is a love of country. Perhaps you do not agree with everything your government protects, or maybe you are ashamed of the attitudes your fellow citizens exude. Maybe you simply think your country is not that great. Should this keep you from patriotism? My answer is no.

Consider your family. Most of you who read this probably have a family that you love. We all have to admit that our families are not perfect; you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who actually believes their family is objectively better than all other families on this planet. Yet we love them anyway. Why? Because they are our family. We were born into them; we were raised by them; and for those reasons alone, we owe them our loyalty. Simply put, devotion to family is our duty. There are always exceptions, yes, but those situations are not what I am talking about. 

Like we were with our families, we were also born into a country not of our choice, and this country had some part in forming us, making us who we are. We are all products of it, just as we are a product of our parents and our siblings, and the rest of our relatives. For this reason, we must admit that our country is more than simply a government that protects our rights. Our country is part of us. In this same manner, our countrymen are a part of us. We Americans are all in this together, and I would dare say that Canadians are in it together, as are Kenyans, Iranians, and Russians. So, even if you do not agree with everything your country does, loyalty to it is indeed your duty. Like with your family, there are exceptions, but I truly feel these only occur when the government of your country prevents you from doing your own duty to God and to your family. But that's a talk for another day.

As an American, I am lucky. My country treats me well, and for this reason, loving it is not difficult. I do not doubt that citizens of North Korea might have a hard time agreeing with me, for it seems that their government is not so kind. I do not know what that is like, so I can only wish I could sympathize. But love of country does not have to equal love of government, and so despite the misgivings of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, I am confident that there are those who live in North Korea who do love their country. I recall speaking with a young woman from China who was in the US on an exchange program. She told me something interesting, something that showed me that love of country does not need to be based on objective quality. Out of all the conversations I had with this student, about half ended up discussing the government of China, which she felt was in many ways oppressive and harmful to its people. But this did not affect her loyalty to her country. "I don't like our government," she said, "but of course I love China!” She explained that despite its current plight, it is where she was born. China is still her country; its citizens, her countrymen, and for that reason alone, she owed China her allegiance.

I am an American. I love my country, and wherever you are, I hope you love yours.

Cliches: The H-Word

In the discussion of ideas, there exist certain rhetorical "trump-cards," that is, certain concepts that are unquestionable in their meaning and importance, and that usually halt the discussion, make the person against whom they are deployed unable to proceed. It seems that in the modern day, these are rarely used fairly. In this short post, I would like to discuss the much-dreaded and all-poweful word "hate."

Hate is bad, and if you are hatemonger you might as well never open your mouth again. I'm not trying to be sarcastic in saying that; I really do think hate is something that no person should allow themselves to fall into. That said I am convinced that the word is overused to the rhetor's detriment in the modern age, and since we are so terrified of being called haters the idea is used to unfairly shut down reasonable arguments. In looking at criticisms of the politically and morally conservative, it is difficult to avoid the "hate" mantra. "Republicans hate poor people," "Conservatives hate immigrants," and so on. And what about Christians? How often do you hear "Christians hate gay people," or "Christians hate women"? For me, I find that these types of statements are far too common, and this can most prominently be seen in the gay marriage controversy.

I am not going to extensively defend the Church's position on marriage or on sexuality in this post; I am not yet qualified for that endeavor. Rather, I simply want to point out a rhetorical problem with the opposition. Many of those who attack Christianity's belief on marriage make it out to be a hate-mongering and seering dogma which specifically seeks to exclude homosexuals. But this is not the case. No Christian should hate a homosexual, just as he should not hate any other person. Do some Christians hate others? Certainly, but they are themselves in sin by doing so. Painfully, the cliché of "hate the sin not the sinner" is extremely applicable, though perhaps "hate" should be replaced with "disapprove of." A Christian who follows the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's  2000-year old understanding of the Sacred Scripture should consider homosexual acts to be sinful and worthy of rebuke, but this does not entitle anyone to hate. Many Christians tolerate those who partake of other sexual sins such as fornication to the point of implying that they accept the behavior through their silence on it. This passive tolerance of sin is wrong as well, but the principle that they do not hate the individual but disapprove of their actions is the correct way to think of it.

All that to say that being opposed to conduct does not equal hate, and neither does all opposition to gay marriage. If a person's reasons for being opposed are something like "homosexuals don't deserve marriage," then indeed, that is suggestive of hate. But this is not the Church's position. Rather, the Church seeks that the Sacred definition of this ancient human institution be preserved so that it may serve its Divine (and also quite practical) Life-Bearing purpose. This is not hateful, because the opposition is not centered around the individual homosexual or even his sin, but rather on a greater purpose for marriage; for Holy Matrimony.

A shorter, non-religious example: "Republicans oppose government welfare programs; therefore, Republicans hate poor people." The argument of course creates a false dichotomy: one must either support the government paying to support the poor, and therefore love them; or, one must oppose any and all care for the poor and allow them to starve, and therefore hate them. This completely ignores the concept of private charity, and the possibility that some people might in fact care deeply for the poor, but oppose the government caring for them because they believe that dependency on the government is a harmful state of being, and that charity should never be forced by law.

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read - what the internet calls a summary): Being opposed to an idea doesn't mean you hate the people associate with it, especially when the opposition is grounded in a higher purpose.

Thanks to my lovely girlfriend for proof-reading and editing.

My Modest Defense to /r/atheism

Sometimes browsing the internet can make you angry. In reading that statement, more than a few of you have certainly thought of the user-submitted content site Reddit. On Reddit, one of the many topics that tends to make it far up the karma list and onto the front page daily is that of atheism. But this aint your friendly neighborhood atheism. The stereotype of the posts in /r/atheism tends to be that of self-congratulation, intolerance, and militancy. And honestly, from what I have seen, almost everything that makes it to the first ten or so pages is just that. In addition to the stereotype, I have also noticed a trend of general ignorance about religion. The criticism I see is rarely insightful, oftentimes based on stereotypes and misconceptions. Of course, I acknowledge that many atheists on Reddit are reasonable and do not share in this intolerance and ignorance. But, the fact that the most prominent posts, and therefore the posts most approved of by the community, are those that meet the stereotype causes one to think.  

/r/atheism does not seem to spread its criticism evenly. Out of all the atheistic posts that reach the first few pages, one will notice that nearly every one of them targets Christianity. Perhaps this is because most Redditors live in the United States and in Europe, where the Christian faith is most prominent. Or perhaps it is because Western culture and civilization has been rooted in Christianity for the past 1500 years or so. Whatever the case, those who make the Sign of the Cross don't seem to be much approved of by the mainstream atheist redditor crowd. The fact that anti-Christian posts tend to make it to the front page testifies to this.

As I mentioned before, I notice a general trend of misunderstanding in the most popular anti-Christian posts. And, as a partial student of theology, I would like to use this blog to offer my response to these threads; to both correct the misconception and to muse on the worldview that it stems from.

And to start, we have the following post:

The picture presents us with two ways of living: the idealistic and the realistic. The idealistic and naive theists only pray for those who are hurting and in need of help, while the realistic and sensible atheist will actually give you the help you need. The creator of this image likely does not really think that theists pray instead of calling a doctor to help sick people, but rather, he or she probably feels that by getting a physician to aid those in need, the theists are negating prayer and being hypocritical by implying that their god cannot save the injured person. The underlying belief here seems to be that the spiritual and physical realms, and conversely religion and science, are so seperate, that they can never be together.

But of course this is not the case. Christians believe that God works through people, and this includes those who save lives. We pray for God's Blessing and Salvation, but we also know that we have a human duty to help our fellow man, and that God honors those who perform their duty, whatever it is. The Christian lawyer does not serve God by only prayer during a trial, for this in doing this he would be neglecting the talents God gave him. Rather, he serves God by fulfilling his duty to represent his client's interest the very best he can, and he prays for wisdom while doing so, not rather than doing so. No tradition of the Church nor passage of Sacred Scripture gives us license to neglect our earthly physical duties in the expectation that God will provide anyway. This is not to limit God; He can and does provide not only to those who accept their calling but also to those who have fallen away. Still, God has given each of us a role, and we are expected to obediently fulfill it.

Furthermore, a Christian knows that God has imprinted His Law on our hearts, and that we show our faith through our works. Therefore, serving people should be what we primarily strive for, only second to serving God. And given this, I can respond to the above picture with the Christian version, which is not so catchy, but I think it gets the point across to Christians and the rest:

"Christians will pray for you...but they will not delay in calling you a doctor as well, for their duty is to Human life."


Let's Define Terms

Since this blog is now about culture, I figure it would be a good idea to define it. What is culture? First, the obligatory dictionary definition: "the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively" (Oxford English Dictionary)

In other words, everything human knowledge has produced.

Valid definition, but for the purposes of my blog, I would like to go further in describing culture. I had a teacher in high school who gave a definition which seemed curious to me at the time, but to my present self now seems quite apparent.

I choose to describe culture as "how the religion of a society manifests itself in the lives and works of its people."

I already hear an objection. "Not everyone has a religion," you might say, and you'd be right by the traditional idea of religion. Not every person believes in a deity nor does every person believe in the spiritual realm. But everyone does have a worldview, a framework for understanding existance. Two examples of this are Christianity, which is traditionally called a religion, and humanism, which is typically thought of more as a philosophy. But both have the same effects on a person's life, and demand some kind of behavior based on the ideas of the belief. Because of this, and for the purposes of The New Pinstripes, I choose to equate worldview to religion.

Another objection: societies are so varied that no individual "religion" can be pinpointed, and therefore my description of culture is unrealistic. I disagree. It is true that many people believe many different things. But we find that at any given time, one belief will be prevalent. This prevailing belief tends to create what we generally call "American culture" (or fill in the blank with your own nationality.) And of course, there is not one single culture. We live among a multitude of sub-cultures, and many of these appear very different from the prevailing culture. In my desription, I refer to all of these. Culture can be as narrow or broad as necessary.

It is through this description of culture that I will comment on what I see. We can see the character of a society through what it produces, and society's character determines its future.

The Shift

Things have changed. If you've seen this page before, you will notice that it looks different. But more importantly, and outside the context of this blog, things have changed. In my limited perspective I look at the culture of the past and compare it to the culture of today, and I see that change is in the air.

Well, duh, right? Things always change. That's how culture evolves, becomes better, gains new things and casts off old ideas. This is all true. But change is not universally good or bad. Some change is for the better, some to our detriment.

I see our culture changing, and it seems to be in my nature to have an opinion on it. My thoughts are probably under-informed and hindered by inexperience most of the time. But they are mine, and I would like the opportunity to share them.

Therefore I am changing the purpose of this blog; shifting it to become more broad. I now intend to muse on our culture; what I see it producing, and my theories on how we produced it. I hope you like it. If not, well, the comment section is fully available for your use, as is the "back" button. Maybe this time around I will keep this blog updated. Or maybe this post will be at the top of the page for months. I hope for the former.

Until then,

Matt

Undemocratic America

On “Democracy”
How many of us during junior high government class innocently referred to the government of the United States as a “democracy”, only to be instantly corrected – informed that the United States is in fact a “Democratic Republic?” I do not doubt that a vast majority of us experienced this or a situation similar at some point in our lives, thinking that we live in a democracy. To us, democracy in general is a good thing – the people get to rule, but the impracticalities of a pure democracy make our system more appealing by allowing us to delegate our decisions to a representative all while choosing our own executive and leader. But what if I were to tell you that this notion that democracy is an important American value is in fact a myth? The United States is not a democracy, nor is it a “Democratic Republic.” And in light of history, it certainly should not be either of these. 


 Let us first consider the notion of democracy, be it direct or representative – this distinction is not important to our investigation. The philosophy behind democracy must that either 1) the people have a natural right to rule themselves, or 2) that the best leadership will come from a majority decision of the people, so natural rights are irrelevant. Inherent in both of these philosophies is the assumption that the people, the majority, are suited to rule themselves. In an atypical strategy, we should first consider this assumption using our own experience and common sense. Imagine, if you will, a classroom of seventh-grade students. Charging headfirst into adolescence, these young men and women surely have many ideas and opinions about life. Indeed, if enough discussion is held amongst them, a majority consensus can almost certainly be reached on nearly every issue. But on issues of their own wellbeing, would even a majority of these consensuses be considered “good decisions?” Would long-term benefit be found by even some of the decisions made by these seventh graders? In nearly every case, the answer would be a resounding “no.” Experience and common sense tells us that children may be able to agree on ideas, but they are usually unable to make good decisions for themselves. This is often because the right decisions are unpopular and may have little immediate payoff. Two-hour long recesses seem much more preferable to more time spent learning about the commutative property of equality. The children’s inability to make good decisions at this level is simply the result of their natural level of maturity.


Or, for another brief comparison: how many corporations would rise to a successful status if they managed themselves by majority vote of all the employees? How many effective CEOs would this produce? Or how many of the employee-elected executives would be nothing more than charismatic celebrities? What about company policy – would democratically-created policy benefit the company as a whole or would it provide large sums of benefit to the immediate employees for perhaps a year or two and then leave the corporation crippled after the money has run out? 


Now consider the general populace in the question of government. Is the average citizen educated in laws or enforcement of policy? Is the average citizen able to make a responsible decision about who is really the better choice to lead the government? Even when candidates fully disclose their beliefs on issues, what is to say that the people even know what is essential in these matters? Indeed government does affect everyone…but so does corporate policy affect all employees of any particular corporation. Simply because we are all affected by the state does not mean that we are all qualified to make decisions for it. 


The “mobocracy” is a commonly-cited reason for the avoidance of democratic philosophy. If the majority opinion is what governs, again be it directly determined or delegated to representatives, then the majority will always be able to rule over the minority. In a theoretical democracy, this can even include the scenario in which the 51% vote to take away the rights of the 49%. Now, proponents of democracy will tell us that this is why we have a bill of rights, and that the bill of rights is what protects the 49% from the 51%. This is true, but even the bill of rights cannot stand up to a true democracy, because all the 51% needs to do is vote to repeal the bill of rights, and their only obstacle has been eliminated. This is not possible in the United States. More on that later. The point is, when “the people rule”, no minority is safe. Period.


Were the framers, the founding fathers who created and adopted the United States constitution and therefore the federal government and the model for the State governments to follow, themselves democrats? In short, no. The founders have been attributed to have made many statements against the philosophy. Benjamin Franklin was noted for saying “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" and Thomas Jefferson stated the argument made in the previous paragraph: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” John Adams provided this warning: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”


The Federalist Papers, the principles of which were agreed upon by many of the framers, tells us of the arguments these men used against democracy when crafting the United States Constitutions. James Madison, writing under the pen name “Publius” (which I myself have adopted in several arenas, one of which may or may not be the role-playing video game Skyrim), railed against democracy for its instability and inability to prevent inevitable factions, saying “Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Of course, what he refers to is the failed political experiment that was democratic Athens in the ancient times. The founders feared a repeat of the Greek disaster, and sought to keep democracy out of the United States. 


But you say “Aren’t democratic ideals in the constitution?” Once again, the answer is no - sort of. You will find three votes guaranteed to all the people in the Constitution plus the Bill of Rights: a vote for one’s Representative in Congress (Art. 1 Sec. 2), a vote on a grand jury (Ammend. 5), and a vote on a trial jury (Ammend.s 6&7.) In these cases, it is clear that the understanding was that the people would be the ones making the decisions not because they had a right to, but because in these specific circumstances, the people were the best choice. In selecting representatives, it is only logical that those whom the official is representing choose him, and juries by definition are supposed to consist of ordinary citizens. But the words “democracy,” “democratic,” or any other derivative do not appear anywhere in the constitution. The word “republican” appears once, and it does not refer to the political party. 


The Federalist Papers make it clear that the United States is a republic, and the constitution requires that all states are republics as well. A republic is a government which exists solely to protect the pre-existing rights of its citizens. Though citizens may vote on certain matters, the will of the people is not what governs. What governs is the law. We should always remember that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of wills. Because freedom that can be taken away by a simple majority vote is not freedom at all. 

Update

Hello readers! So sorry for the delay in posting. This blog has only existed for about a month, but I'm already suffering some writer's block. I will do my best to update this page as much as possible.