Respect for government is covered in the 4th Commandment, as it is seen as related to respect for authority figures. Parents are the first ones, after all.
Whatever happened to asking God to bless the land of our birth? When did love of our heavenly home become the opposite of love of our earthly home? When did the greatest commandment become the opposite of the second greatest commandment?
Mark:
Wish I knew. Reading the article in question was like a slap to the face.
It is nationalism, not patriotism, that's being condemned here. I don't think they are necessarily wrong here, but they go so far in extreme they wind up in grave error.
I really don't care too much for "American and her meta narrative" but that's because of my distaste for nationalism, not a lack of patriotism. There's a valley in Alabama I'd die for as sure as a Ghibelline or Guelph would die for Florence.
Well, Franklin, without a bunch a guys who cared and care a great deal about that meta-narrative, you and yours might have had an opportunity to do just that.
I'll have to disagree with you about this one, Franklin. Anyone who spends close to 400 words trashing Independence Day has a real problem with patriotism itself, not just nationalism.
For further background, his essay on the Knights of Columbus (which he directed readers to in the RFC thread):
http://catholicanarchy.org/?p=140
I didn't realize I was a 3rd Degree Bushbot, but what can you do? I also enjoyed the scare quotes around the word traditional in "traditional marriage."
With all respect to Mr. Iafrate, he is letting his anarchist worldview shape his Catholicism on this issue, and not vice-versa.
Oh no, I agree. The guy is nuttier than a fruitcake, and we love walnuts and pecans in ours down here.
But in answer to Ed the Roman, it was because of people who cared deeply about that meta-narrative that we did, indeed, have a couple of chances to do so in the late 18th and mid 19th centuries. That dog won't hunt there.
I would comment but Sir Walter Scott said it so well:
"Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored , and unsung."
as a foreigner my US history knowledge is rather shallow,
but doesn't that sentence
"Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due."
pretty much imply that Independence day, celebrating the rejection of seemingly legitimate British authority, is celebrating an immoral act ?
Flo:
The question, of course, is whether allegiance was still "due" to the British authority at that point. Legitimacy can be forfeited, as the Catechism indicates. See paras. 2242-43.
In the fullness of time, and compared to other regimes, the British authorities were pretty lenient and the issues seemingly minor. But the situation has to be looked at from the perspective of the participants at the time, who didn't have the horrors of the French Revolution, the gulag and the concentration camp to witness to the depths of tyranny.
Hmm. Franklin, your keyboard doesn't have an ß or a ¥ on it, I think.
How droll! Why yes, we do still speak English and trade in dollars because we haven't fallen victim to the hypernationalism that warped Germany and Japan, doing so much damage the world over.
I don't think it's something to be emulated.
Keep in mind that Michael is only one of thirteen contributors to Vox Nova. Franklin writes: "they...wind up in grave error". There is no "they," as Michael is the sole author of the post.
To Dale Price:
I wrote a post on the difference between patriotism and nationalism, and in the combox Michael agreed that patriotism is a virtue. I do not gather from your comments that you fully grasp the distinction.
And just how did you reach that conclusion about me?
More to the point, there was not a whit of appreciation for patriotism in Mr. Iafrate's controversial post.
Great that he allows for it. Perhaps he should revise his initial blast in light of this now-revealed appreciation.
How did I reach that conclusion about you? Well, you stated that Michael has a real problem with patriotism. However, there is nothing unpatriotic in Michael's post despite its anti-nationalism, so I assume, rightly or wrongly, that you may not be completely clear on what the nature of patriotism is. And do keep in mind, just because Michael did not demonstrate an "appreciation for patriotism" does not necessarily mean that he has "a real problem with patriotism itself." Michael detests nationalism. Michael said he appreciates the virtue of patriotism. Let's take him at his word without blurring the distinction.
"I do not gather from your comments that you fully grasp the distinction."
The distinction between patriotism and nationalism is rather like the distinction between devout and fanatic. "I am a devout Catholic; he is a fanatic Catholic." One is something we use as a term of praise; the other is a term we use to condemn. If we oppose a certain policy of our government in foreign policy, we are the true patriots while our opponents are, at best, misguided nationalists. If we support the policy we are, once again, the true patriots while our opponents are sadly lacking in this virtue. Such word games are always fun to play, but usually say little about the underlying issues and simply serve to mark our own position on a matter of controversy.
Well, I make not agree with Morning's Minion's minion above regarding Dale Price, but I am reasonably certain Donald McClarey does, indeed, fail to grasp the difference between patriotism and nationalism.
Just because you like to reduce terms to mere ideological utility does not mean the rest of us must follow suit.
"Just because you like to reduce terms to mere ideological utility does not mean the rest of us must follow suit."
Nope Franklin, my analysis is merely descriptive in nature. This is the way most people use such terms. As George Carlin aptly noted in one of his standup routines, "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?".
A google of patriotism and nationalism on the internet is instructive. In such discussions the author is amost always a patriot while those he opposes are nationalists. I have yet to find a site where the author claims to be a nationalist while his adversaries are patriots. Such discussions are quite popular on left of center and paleocon sites.
Michael J:
That's question begging. Your critique of me assumes that Mr. Iafrate's statements are merely "anti-nationalism."
In light of the Catechism sections I posted, his post goes well beyond anti-nationalism and is an attack on real patriotic virtues (I'm an agnostic on flags in the church, btw).
At the risk of repeating myself, there is not a syllable in the post in question acknowledging that patriotism is a virtue.
And given his frontal political assault on the Knights of Columbus, I'm in the "trust but verify" mode with his stated appreciation of patriotism.
Franklin,
Got it. Once UBL's boys get to Alabama, you've got my back, but until then I'm on my own.
I'm amused that the gentleman, in his post, indicates that he doesn't know the literal meaning of the word "ultimate", although he does understand its connotation.
"Ultimate" means "last". The "ultimate sacrifice" for most of us, as for Christ, is giving up our lives. Christ's sacrifice was undoubtedly more important than ours, but it is not more ultimate -- unless in the sense that His was the last sacrifice of the old world.
Christ's sacrifice does not make us not able to sacrifice. Indeed, we must imitate Him and die with Him, if we want to live. We are indeed all called upon to give the last measure of devotion.
Thank you Mr. McClary for identifying and articulating what is one of the reasons why I have avoided entering into any of the discussions on this subject (as well as a number of others). The same observation can be made regarding the use of the adjective Catholic. Apparently, certain people offer genuine Catholic thought to those they disagree with - who in turn offer unCatholic thought based on their political persuasion, lack of education, or outright malice. Genuine Catholic thought only coincidently resembles the thought and agenda of the American political left.
Signed,
A. Malicious-unedumacated-nationalistic UnCatholic
I don't know what you've got, Ed. You might want to see your GP.
Commenting by HaloScan
