Patriotism should be taught and encouraged

The main way that patriotism is and ought to be taught is by parents teaching their children. The main way that parents teach patriotism is a combination of direct instruction and encouragement by example. This is the same method used by parents for teaching honesty, kindness, neatness, respect, politeness, and any number of other value-laden beliefs and practices. The resolution is worded as "taught and encouraged" mainly to distinguish the primary responsibility of parents to teach it, and the continuing responsibility of social institutions, including schools, to encourage it. Encouraging patriotism without anyone ever initially positively advocating patriotism makes no sense. It would be akin to attempting to encourage honesty and kindness without parents ever teaching the values in the first place. Con claims that a "pedagogical approach" would be divisive. "The term [pedagogy] generally refers to strategies of instruction, or a style of instruction. ... Pedagogy is also sometimes referred to as the correct use of teaching strategies " http://en.wikipedia.org... I concede that there is technically a pedagogical approach in parents teaching children with a combination of instruction and example, but it is odd notion to apply to so basic a technique. The proposal does not require or suggest implementing a formal curriculum or a course with exams and grades. The resolution is in opposition to parents not teaching values on the grounds that children should be somehow left valueless until they are "old enough to make their own decisions." Since Con asserts that patriotism should be encouraged, he is not opposed the value being instilled. Wanting the value to be instilled but not allowing it to be taught by parents is contradictory. Con claims that teaching patriotism would be decisive because Liberals and Conservatives may disagree on what patriotism implies in terms of behaviors. But encouraging patriotism has the same problem. For example, some think that wearing a flag pin is a sign of patriotism, others claim it is not. Encouraging patriotism is every bit as divisive as teaching it. Incidentally, the example Con gave of a McCain spokesperson attacking Obama's patriotism is bogus. The clip and quotation show Carly Fiorina attacking Obama's judgment for criticizing the U.S. in foreign lands. Before Obama, there was a longstanding tradition for American leaders not. Huffington Post writer Jason Linkins falsely headlined the article an attack on Obama's patriotism. Nonetheless, I don't doubt that someone has falsely attacked Obama's patriotism. The other example Con provided was correct, the author called anyone supporting Bush policies unpatriotic. The examples do not demonstrate that patriotism should not be taught because many shared values have implications construed differently. For example, many people would agree we should teach and encourage justice -- but some say justice demands a death penalty while others say justice forbids a dead penalty. There are many conflicting viewpoints on what justice implies. With patriotism, as with justice, there is a core common consensus that is agreed upon and which can be encouraged and even taught by public institutions. For example, it is the consensus that schools can conduct the Pledge of Allegiance, providing students are allowed to opt out. I believe that a consensus could be reached on there being patriotic duty to be informed on the important issues and to vote. A core consensus does not mean absolute agreement. In a democracy, a majority vote and, in the U.S., the Constitution, determine the patriotic observances government institutions may present. Private organization are free to espouse whatever they think love of country implies. Patriotism is love of country expressed with the attitude of concern for the country's future and wanting the country to succeed. Patriotism should be taught and encouraged.