Patriotism should be taught and encouraged

Con and I agree that "Encouraging citizens to understand, support and respect their country by displaying national pride and the benefits of civic involvement could do much to improve the activity of our citizenry within the process of our nation's governance." Thus, Con places a positive value upon patriotism. However, Con goes on to argue that patriotism should be encouraged by not taught, because "Teaching patriotism, on the other hand, can only lead to divisiveness ..." Con's argument fails because it is not possible to separate teaching from encouraging, and because a democracy should not place suppressing divisiveness above determining and supporting what is good. I included both "taught and encouraged" in the resolution so as to include parents initiating the subject of patriotism with children. However, most of the teaching of values to children is by example. If parents pay attention to the issues of the day, take pains to vote conscientiously, and to include patriotic observances when appropriate, children are likely to learn from the examples. Similarly, parents are likely to say "be honest," but children are far more likely to learn honesty from observing parents practice it. The same is true of institutions teaching and encouraging patriotism. A small element is formal instruction, but the most of the instruction is by example. 90% of the time it is impossible to distinguish teaching from encouraging. For example, a news clip on Memorial Day showed Boy Scouts placing flowers on the graves of soldiers at a national cemetery. Were the Scout leaders doing impermissible teaching, or just permissible encouragement? Suppose a parent says to a young child, "When the Star Spangled Banner is played, you must stop talking and face the flag." Is that unacceptable, because it is teaching? Suppose the parent faces the flag and salutes, and the child mimics the action, after which the parent says, "Good." Is that acceptable, because it is encouraging, not teaching? Suppose the child does not mimic the action, can the parent say what should be done? Does that cross the line between encouraging and teaching? Clearly, Con's distinction is pointless. I suppose some definition could be drafted that could draw the distinction, but what would the point be in attempting to make a ruling? If patriotism is a good thing, as Con asserted, it should be fostered by a combination of teaching and encouragement. I challenge Con to produce a definition that reliably determines what is teaching and what is encouragement, and then using my examples to show how teaching leads to divisiveness while encouragement does not. Con argues that teaching leads to divisiveness, whereas encouragement does not. I used similarity to other values like "justice" to show that anything laden with values is likely to be divisive. Con replied only that justice should not be taught either, but did not respond to my broad premise that in a free society application of values inevitably leads to controversy. How about the long list of other values: honesty, kindness, mercy, and so forth. Does Con think that nothing should be taught for fear of engendering controversy? I deny Con's premise that avoiding divisiveness should be valued more highly than teaching patriotism. Placing a high value on "avoiding divisiveness" is contrary to the principle of democracy. If avoiding divisiveness where a high value, then we should try to avoid elections altogether, because they clearly divide people. Or perhaps, after an election we should all fall in behind the entire platform of the winning candidate, so as to avoid being divided on the issues. Such notions are nonsense. Democracies require debate upon issues, and "let's avoid divisiveness" is most often argued when the majority wants to steamroll the minority. Debating the issues should be valued more highly. I addressed the issue as to whether patriotism can be taught in public schools. I argued that while the primary responsibility is with parents and social institutions, it is allowed in schools in the U.S. according to the decisions of a democratic majority consistent with the Constitution. Con argues that "Patriotism must exist as an ideal separate and apart from the institution it supports." If Con's argument were correct then we ought not teach the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the system of checks and balances, or even that democracy has advantages over monarchy. But as a democracy we ought to do the best we can in explaining the principles of our society. An informed citizenry is necessary. Con then goes off on a wild tangent, asserting "This understanding is why liberals feel that criticism of the government is patriotic and conservatives do not." I have never known a time (since the 1950's) when Conservatives were not criticizing some aspect of government, not even under Reagan. During the Bush Administration, Conservatives were critical of Bush expansion of government in education, agriculture, and entitlements. None ever suggested that such criticism was unpatriotic. There is an isolationist faction of Conservatism opposing the Iraq War, including Ron Paul http://www.lewrockwell.com... and Pat Buchanan http://www.amconmag.com.... There was never to my knowledge a suggestion that such opposition was unpatriotic. Conservatives do not think opposition to Obama's policies is unpatriotic. In the Leftist universe, being a victim is a claim to moral superiority, so there is a tendency to invent victimization. They claim they are being accused of being unpatriotic, when they are mainly criticized for being wrong. Patriotism is wanting your country to succeed. What constitutes "success" and how it ought to be achieved are always properly debatable. Fiorini's comments about Obama referenced only the wisdom of criticizing the US on an international tour. It is debatable whether it is wise or unwise, but it was not an attack on Obama's patriotism. The article claimed it was such an attack, but there was nothing in the clip going beyond criticizing it as unwise. (My opinion is that it was inconsequential.) However, the Leftist article used "unpatriotic" specifically to describe opponents. Con cites the Constitution as having no mandate to teach patriotism. The idea of the Constitution is to define limits on what government is allowed to do, not to mandate what it must do. If it isn't forbidden, it is left to state laws. Con cited a Wikipedia article on Paine to support the idea that patriotism ought not be taught. I could find nothing in the article supporting the notion. In citing Nazi indoctrination, Con is confusing a form of blind nationalism with patriotism. If Germans had more patriotic concern with the future of Germany they might have avoided Nazism. If Con wanted to dispute my definition of patriotism in favor of one that advocated blind nationalism, that should have been done directly in the first round. I have consistently advocated teaching patriotism solely, as Con phrased it, "to understand, support and respect their country by displaying national pride and the benefits of civic involvement." I think Con failed to appreciate the definition of patriotism stated in my debate challenge. Con wanted to argue against public schools indoctrinating students to always obey the government. That would have been an easy debate to win, but it was not what was posed. Patriotism was defined in terms of "love of country" not obedience to country. The main teaching of patriotism is, and should continue to be, by parents and social institutions, not schools. Love of country is a positive value that should be taught and encouraged. The resolution is affirmed.