Indiana college lifts 116-year ban on national anthem

[Plane]

  If you are a civil servant or a Military officer , NCO or enlistee.

Yes definately.

The military is the servant of the government and sworn in loalty to the Constitution.

If orders are Un-constitutional or unlawfull they should be disobeyed , but this is a hard decision.


What Attitude should the servants of the people have in reguards to the orders that they get from the government?

The people controll the government , and the government controlls the military , what other arrangement could we accept?

If you are a citizen ?

Yes definately.

The law of the land is the product of the Congress and the State Legislatures , it isn't possible to craft law that everyone agrees with , but it is reasonable to expect a good level of obedience from all good citizens , includeing those who disagree with the law.

We have this gooing on pretty well , and if we didn't , could we tolerate dissent?

[Plane]

<<When a freind doesn't care about what is right and doesn't care whether you are hurt , the definition of "freind " has escaped its envelope.>>

Yeah and when my country doesn't care about what is right, then it is no longer "my" country. 

If it is that bad , then the government must have seperated from the people , or less likely , the people don't care what is right or wrong.

My Country is a brotherhood , I really can't agree with every law, policy , or choice of leader.

Should I have moved to Canada when Clinton was re-elected? Or Obama was elected?


Clinton and Obama are deeply in disagreement with me , but I am still a brother American with the Idi... I mean ... Fellow citizens , who elected them.

[Universe Prince]

If orders are Un-constitutional or unlawfull they should be disobeyed , but this is a hard decision.

Doesn't that contradict the whole "my country, right or wrong", "You don't abandon your freinds when they are wrong" thing? I mean, you seem to have just given yourself a loophole for disobedience when you personally decide the government is wrong.

The law of the land is the product of the Congress and the State Legislatures , it isn't possible to craft law that everyone agrees with , but it is reasonable to expect a good level of obedience from all good citizens , includeing those who disagree with the law.

We have this gooing on pretty well , and if we didn't , could we tolerate dissent?

I wonder how Martin Luther King, Jr., would have answered that. Hm.

[BT]

did I say it was?

I coulda sworn you did. The post with the phrase "my country right or wrong is a valid mantra" in it says it is your post. Is there some reason I should believe you did not say it?

What was the preceding phrase?

[Universe Prince]

Don't you know? Anytime you want to explain your phrasing, feel free to do so. No need to wait on me to tell you what you said. I've done the whole round-and-round on intended meaning versus word usage, and it's a waste of time if you don't eventually just go ahead and explain your intended meaning. No part of the sentence in question implies that your use of the phrase "my country right or wrong is a valid mantra" meant anything other than "my country right or wrong is a valid mantra". If I'm wrong, tell me why. Go ahead. I can take it. I may or may not argue the point, but I can still take it. So let's cut the stupid guessing games about what you might have meant, and just get to the part where you actually explain your meaning.

Of course, if you had bothered to do that back when I asked "Is it?" then we wouldn't be having this conversation now. And rest assured, when I said, "Is it?" what I really meant was, "Is it?"

[BT]

I'm not sure
1. Patriotism is a group thing,
2. my country right or wrong is a valid mantra

Perhaps that helps.

[Universe Prince]

Ah. You were making a list, not inserting a nonessential clause. And no, that was not clear before.

[Plane]

If orders are Un-constitutional or unlawfull they should be disobeyed , but this is a hard decision.

Doesn't that contradict the whole "my country, right or wrong", "You don't abandon your freinds when they are wrong" thing? I mean, you seem to have just given yourself a loophole for disobedience when you personally decide the government is wrong.

Not at all.

Disagreeing with an order personally is no excuse for disobedience, realiseing that an order is cohntrary to law or Constitution changes the duty from obedience to disobedience.

Unlawfull orders are a hard probolem, if I decide to disobey a tecnical order for example, I have to be ready to justify it to an official inquiry. Standing on what is right at risk of penalty.

Have you ever read the oath given to the enlisted?

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Note that the primary loyalty is to the Constitution itself. Obeying the orders of officers is normally expected , but if a reasonable person were to see a reasonable case that an order was unconstitutional he would have a good case to make later at his corts martial.

[Plane]

The law of the land is the product of the Congress and the State Legislatures , it isn't possible to craft law that everyone agrees with , but it is reasonable to expect a good level of obedience from all good citizens , includeing those who disagree with the law.

We have this gooing on pretty well , and if we didn't , could we tolerate dissent?

I wonder how Martin Luther King, Jr., would have answered that. Hm.

With what other attitude would civil disobedience matter?

I don't think that MLK Jr would have advocated lawlessness , he was keen on improveing the law.

Civil Disobedience will not work to repeal laws against bank robbery , forceing the government to enforce evidently odious law pulls the public to disagree with the law, forces the government to bear the shame and expense of the unjust law.

Threau broke a law he had to walk into town to break , and he paid the penalty according to the law , then he wrote about it , which was the real point of the exercise. MLKjr nd Threau were indeed loyal Americans , even though they were critics .

Someone who trys to use them as justifacation for disobedience for just law has missed the point entirely , and will suffer a loss of credability .

[Universe Prince]

Someone who trys to use them as justifacation for disobedience for just law has missed the point entirely , and will suffer a loss of credability .

Yes. So? I don't recall anyone trying to justify disobeying just law. As I recall, this conversation was about whether "my country, right or wrong" is a valid mantra.

I don't think that MLK Jr would have advocated lawlessness , he was keen on improveing the law.

Who said anything about advocating lawlessness? Granted my knowledge of MLK is limited, but I feel safe in saying he was not an advocate of obedience to government regardless of whether the government is right or wrong.

[Universe Prince]

Disagreeing with an order personally is no excuse for disobedience, realiseing that an order is cohntrary to law or Constitution changes the duty from obedience to disobedience. [...] Obeying the orders of officers is normally expected , but if a reasonable person were to see a reasonable case that an order was unconstitutional he would have a good case to make later at his corts martial.

This does not contradict "my country right or wrong" exactly why?

[Plane]

Hmmmm...

I must be on a wrong tack.

It is pretty simple.

When your country is wrong , is it still your contry?

[Universe Prince]

Hmmmm...

I must be on a wrong tack.

It is pretty simple.

When your country is wrong , is it still your contry?

Is that what we have been discussing? I ask because you have building a case that the phrase "my country right or wrong" is about obedience to government authority. That is not the same thing as saying when your country is wrong it is still your country. Which argument do you want to make?

[Plane]

Hmmmm...

I must be on a wrong tack.

It is pretty simple.

When your country is wrong , is it still your contry?

Is that what we have been discussing? I ask because you have building a case that the phrase "my country right or wrong" is about obedience to government authority. That is not the same thing as saying when your country is wrong it is still your country. Which argument do you want to make?

They are quite related,
Why do people band together in tribes and nations?

Why respect the institutions thereby established?

It seems to be human nature itself that requires this.

That my nation has worth to me as an individual even when I disagree with a policy of the government or a custom of the people is what Stephen Decator seems to have been getting at.
 
 Loyalty and obedience are a part of the job description of an officer comissioned by the Congress to defend the Constitution , that is what Stephen Decater was.

Can you imagine a better attitude or philosophy for Military or Civil servant persons to have?

You can dwell on the exceptions , but these exceptions are the times when the nation is better served by disobedience , the basic idea is still good service to the whole.