America -- love it or leave it?

How often have we heard this sort of thing? Too often, that's for sure. I can't help wondering at the thought process, if you could call it that, behind the sentiment.

The first time I ever heard it uttered was back in the early 70's, while the last stages of America's wrangling over Vietnam was going on. It was also during the last quarter of the Cold War, which is the real source of the statement. Virtually everyone in America thought in terms of a dichotomy -- Us/Them, Commie/Freedom-Lover, Patriot/Traitor, and so on. I guess that made it easy for people to assume that if anyone disagreed with them on something, then such folks were "The Enemy."

It's also easy to see how this sort of thinking will inevitably lead to problems. America saw all sorts of trouble from it throughout the Cold War, but didn't seem to learn its lessons properly. Any country that opposed Communism was treated as an honored friend. Our country became "friends" with and supported some of the most horrible, repressive, violent regimes in history, in the name of "defending freedom." The idea that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" led to many shameful decisions, as it does to this day.

Even in our nation, the polarizing effects of this thinking can be seen all through the latter half of the 20th Century, and on into the 21st. During Vietnam, anyone who disagreed with government policies was labeled a "Commie sympathizer." They were told "if you don't like what our nation is doing, then you must be a Communist. Ergo, you must think it's far better to live in Russia." Hence the origin of our title quote.

It seems that one big component of this sentiment must be that Americans are expected to love their country both unconditionally and unquestioningly. I say this because from what I've seen, it gets said mostly to those who are trying to change things and to those who disagree with something our nation does. It's as if some people are unable to wrap their wits around the idea that a person can love anything and want to change it for the better at the same time. One analogy would be seeing a friend harming himself by using alcohol to excess. Would these people expect you to just stand by and watch your friend die, because your only options are to "love him unquestioningly and unconditionally" or leave him? I would certainly hope not. But this is what I think we are hearing from people who say this.

Let's face it -- we all know that our country isn't perfect, and we would all like to see some sort of changes. But what are we supposed to do? Tell everyone who isn't 100% happy with the country to leave? There wouldn't be many people left to turn out the lights after the last customer with less than perfect satisfaction took off.

And it doesn't appear to be getting any better. On March 29, 2004, just a few days after appearing before the Supreme Court in his first Pledge of Allegiance case, Michael Newdow was preparing to speak at the law school at the University of Toledo. His appearance was delayed due to a bomb threat, but that's peripheral to the point. During the appearance, Newdow was confronted by a young woman in the audience who disagreed with his stance that the words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge. At one point, the woman said, "If you don't love [America], leave it."

Let's look at this a little more closely. Mr. Newdow disagrees with a law of the U.S. and has gone to the court system to get this thing changed. He has never said that he hates America. On the contrary, he cares enough about his country that he is going to an awful lot of personal effort to correct what he thinks is a problem. He hasn't advocated or tried to inspire a violent rebellion. He hasn't advised anyone to leave the country for a better land. He hasn't tried to inspire any violent or anti-social acts to support his cause. Instead, he's working to make this country better; at least, better in his opinion. It sure sounds like he loves his country to me.

But does the act of asking to remove 2 words from an official government document actually result in harm to the nation? In this case, I don't think so. After all, the Pledge stood as an official government document without those two words for the first 30 years of its existence. It was used "godlessly" through the years of the Second World War. However, the anonymous woman in Toledo obviously thought his request would cause horrible damage, and was very angry about it. In fact, she wants those who disagree with her to leave the country. I don't think that sort of attitude would help America. I mean, I could understand a big reaction if we were talking about removing "free exercise of religion" from the First Amendment. But removing "under God"? Please!

Now, let's look at her statement from another perspective. Mr. Newdow is continuing his fight on the pledge, signing up other plaintiffs to take his place after being declared "ineligible" by the Supreme Court. Let's say that Newdow eventually wins, and those two words are removed from the Pledge. What then? Does this woman expect that she will no longer "love America"? Will she feel the urge to pick up and go looking for some place where she can live that recognizes God in the manner that she thinks is suitable? Or maybe she'll go the route of a few other fanatical nuts and use violence to try and achieve her goals. It's hard to say without actually knowing who she is and what she thinks, but I believe it's pretty safe to say that she wouldn't.

Instead, we could expect her to stay and fight to change what she sees as a problem -- exactly the same way that Mr. Newdow is fighting today. Would those who disagree with her tell her "America -- love it or leave it"? I would hope not, but you just never know.
_________________
Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the commuinity and sow the seeds of discontent among them. That is the reason why agitators are so absolutely necessary. - Oscar Wilde

Good post.

There are some extreme issues, like terrorism, where there is no compromise. You're either with us or against us. That harsh and hardcore. But I see no room for compromise.

With other, less extreme issues, if folks don't like something, they need to do things to promote change such as: vote, organize rallies, petitions, write to congressman, etc. None of these things cost anything but time and effort.

-or-

a) Shut the hell up
b) Get out
_________________
Procrastinate now, don't wait until later.

My meaning is that you either help to root it out or you're part of the problem. I guess that applies toward countries.

On an individual basis:

After 9-11, I heard of some people in the U.S. celebrating the event. That should have been immediate deportation, even if you're family has been here for generations.

There's countries like Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia that hold back on cooperating to provide info and access to get these people. They deny use of roads and air space when there are quick moving targets of opportunity.

Full access an full disclosure would put an end to all of this much sooner. Yes it means letting other countires come in and have free reign for a while. But it's better than your citizens being constantly blown up in public.

How do you defeat an ideology?
_________________
Carl Sagan:
"I don't want to beLIEve. I want to know."

You can't speak in absolutes.

There will be always but some small group plotting our demise.

But we can effectively limit their ability to operate and blatently attack our buildings and airlines.

I'll turn it back on you: What do we do? Sit by until they hit us yet again? Make peace and give in to their demands?

From http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/qaida.htm

I'm surprised SFI. I thought you were more aware of islam's ultimate goal than this. They want islam as the only religion on the planet. With them, it's convert or die. There are no other options.

if they won't help, then we should cut all the aid we offer them. I didn't say bomb them. But when they come out with their hands out looking for aid, we point toward where the Twin Towers stood and tell them "c ya".

Have you not considered that diplomacy has failed in the past? Do some research about Isreal. As long as there's Jews in Israel, no Islamic Extremist will ever talk about anything except killing anyone that is not like them.

And as long as you don't do some homework about the issue, there's no sense in trying to discuss. Not up to me or anyone to educate and explain it all to you.

Out.