Just a quick note to say that I agree with those that pointed out that the poll was unnecessary and was not directly related to the article. Believe it or not, I posted the link first, then posted the poll later. Shortly after submiting it I thought better of it and tried to delete it but I couldn’t figure out how. Woops.
Anyways, both mall security and the government have gone crazy. 
Chris
edit
The reason I say this is because he made an incident out of this. Does he not realize that this weekend he may have 20 to 30 people there waiting to get arrested.
Does he not realize that he has made the mall the center for protest.
I tell you the more I see of actions by American big business the more amazed I am that these people find their way home each night.
Any of you small business men out there will bear me out on this point. 
:
All I can say is yup. :roll:
As a small business owner, if someone comes into my business and interferes with other customers as this man is alleged to have done, I would ask him to leave, otherwise I would call the cops. He has no right to make his point in my place of business. Overall, though, I agree this thing was handled badly and the mall just ended up making things worse for themselves.
A couple thoughts -
Speaking up for what we believe IS patriotic.
It’s constitutionally mandated that we do so.
There’s nothing more patriotic than protesting when you disagree with the policies your government is enacting in your name.
Chris I just have to disagree. I think it may be “American” to voice what you believe but it dosn’t make it patriotic. The most patriotic thing anyone can do is to die for their country and fellow-men.
People that run around calling George Bush names and airing all of America’s dirty laundry(whether real or imagined) like these filthy rich hollywood types pushing their trash in Europe or providing comfort to our enemies like the “human shields” or politicians and reporters that placate and indulge this vial man aren’t doing anything I would consider patriotic.
pa·tri·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr-t, -t)
n.
One who loves, supports, and defends one’s country.
A man can be a Christian or a patriot, but he can’t legally be a Christian and a patriot–except in the usual way: one of the two with the mouth, the other with the heart. The spirit of Christianity proclaims the brotherhood of the race and the meaning of that strong word has not been left to guesswork, but made tremendously definite- the Christian must forgive his brother man all crimes he can imagine and commit, and all insults he can conceive and utter- forgive these injuries how many times?–seventy times seven–another way of saying there shall be no limit to this forgiveness. That is the spirit and the law of Christianity. Well–Patriotism has its laws. And it also is a perfectly definite one, there are not vaguenesses about it. It commands that the brother over the border shall be sharply watched and brought to book every time he does us a hurt or offends us with an insult. Word it as softly as you please, the spirit of patriotism is the spirit of the dog and wolf. The moment there is a misunderstanding about a boundary line or a hamper of fish or some other squalid matter, see patriotism rise, and hear him split the universe with is war-whoop. The spirit of patriotism being in its nature jealous and selfish, is just in man’s line, it comes natural to him- he can live up to all its requirements to the letter; but the spirit of Christianity is not in its entirety possible to him.
The prayers concealed in what I have been saying is, not that patriotism should cease and not that the talk about universal brotherhood should cease, but that the incongruous firm be dissolved and each limb of it be required to transact business by itself, for the future.
- Mark Twain’s Notebook
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself…
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
A man can be a Christian or a patriot, but he can’t legally be a Christian and a patriot–except in the usual way: one of the two with the mouth, the other with the heart. The spirit of Christianity proclaims the brotherhood of the race and the meaning of that strong word has not been left to guesswork, but made tremendously definite- the Christian must forgive his brother man all crimes he can imagine and commit, and all insults he can conceive and utter- forgive these injuries how many times?–seventy times seven–another way of saying there shall be no limit to this forgiveness. That is the spirit and the law of Christianity. Well–Patriotism has its laws. And it also is a perfectly definite one, there are not vaguenesses about it. It commands that the brother over the border shall be sharply watched and brought to book every time he does us a hurt or offends us with an insult. Word it as softly as you please, the spirit of patriotism is the spirit of the dog and wolf. The moment there is a misunderstanding about a boundary line or a hamper of fish or some other squalid matter, see patriotism rise, and hear him split the universe with is war-whoop. The spirit of patriotism being in its nature jealous and selfish, is just in man’s line, it comes natural to him- he can live up to all its requirements to the letter; but the spirit of Christianity is not in its entirety possible to him.
The prayers concealed in what I have been saying is, not that patriotism should cease and not that the talk about universal brotherhood should cease, but that the incongruous firm be dissolved and each limb of it be required to transact business by itself, for the future.
- Mark Twain’s Notebook
I’m not sure how this has anything to do with what I said since I’m talking about definitions.
I agree in a sense that the “incongruous firm” be dissolved after all isn’t that the problem with these fundamental Islamic countries.
But I think that a Christian, Pagan, Agnostic, Atheist can all be patriots. To say a patriot can’t be Christian and Christians can’t be patriotic is ridiculous.
Suggesting that Christians should allow the dead bodies of their fellow-men/families/countrymen to be piled high and deep while they are busy forgiving our enemies trespasses is just silly and almost as laughable as the recent rush of atheists furiously searching the “Good Book” looking for scripture to use to condemn their anti-Saddam Christian brothers[size]…how many more times do I need to explain to my atheist friends what is meant and the context of thou shalt not kill
Also to say that patriotism in its nature is jealous and selfish is overly broad as well. If you’re talking about a French patriot I might agree but I think it depends on what country the patriot is supporting and depends on that countries principles, constitution, and government.
Mark Twain also said “The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice–and always has been” and you are beginning me convince me that he is right, if your “love” for your country needs to be built on the disdain for another.
That is the whole problem: You are hollering “My Country! Right or Wrong!” and to add your precious principles as a supposed reason doesn’t much help as you are using your patriotism to go back on those principles. And do you realize that those principles were formulated in France by the French?
Here is an edit: I don’t want this to sound adversarial or bitter, or make anyone mad. But it is a question that I am thinking about a lot these days. I imagine the patriot soldier who is willing to go out and die for his country. Only, it’s his friends who die, and the patriot comes back home to find his country changed and what he was willing to die for lost. This sort of thing has happened time and again in history, and if it hasn’t happened to America (too badly), I wonder if this is luck and the vigor of youth, or if there is a special ingredient in the American mix that other countries lack.
Throughout the centuries, Christians and Christian leaders have sought to determine when that “time for war” is, and what constitutes a “just” war. In his Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas Aquinas makes the argument that three criteria are necessary for a just war;
1.That the leader of the nation, as the one given the authority and responsibility by God to rule, wage the war. Aquinas comments on Romans 13:4, saying, “It is their [national leaders] business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common welfare against external enemies.”
2.There must also be a just cause for going to war. Whether in self defense, or in the defense of another person/people, there are times when it is justified to go to war.
3.Aquinas’ 3rd criteria is that those going to war must have the right intentions, and their war must be for the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil. St. Augustine, along the same lines as Aquinas, argued “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.”
If there is an aggressor who threatens the peace and safety of a nation’s citizens and/or allies, then that nation has the responsibility to secure the safety of those for whom it is responsible by making efforts to stop the aggressor. Hopefully, that safety can be achieved through diplomatic means. If not, there may come a point when failing to wage war becomes foolish and even wrong, because the ensuing false “peace” allows an aggressor to destroy innocent life to accomplish his execrable goals.
“How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.” -Psalms 82:2-4
A Patriot is one will to put their being, their essence on the line for what they believe in. One who is willing to stand up for the principles established by the founders of the US. A patriot is a wise mature person who does not rush to find a quick fix to a problem but does the hard work involved in solving the issue so it does not come back again. A patriot respects the belief of others and stand up to those who would trample on the inalienable rights of any fellow human being.
A patriot is an individual who will put themselves in the shoes of others before taking any action that will harm another human being.
Patriots are what is lacking in the leadership of this country.
Religion plays no part in patriotism. The misuse of Religion has been and is responsible for the deaths of more human beings that any other cause in the history of the world.
When it comes to religion:
Just remember when you think about a religion that we are but one planet in a galaxies that has 180 billing stars and that there are 150 billion galaxies out there chances of our god or our religion being the “True” one is mighty slim.
that’s my general feeling
Wizzer, you said, "The misuse of Religion has been and is responsible for the deaths of more human beings that any other cause in the history of the world. "
Wizzer, this is a lot of bunk and is often used by people who won’t do the research. Yes, a lot of people in the course of history have been killed because of “religion”, but just a sampling of history in the 20th century proves the fallacy of the myth you quote. Was Hitler religious, what about Stalin, Pol Pot (sp?). Sure, I know about the Crusades and the Salem witch trials but the numbers there are miniscule when compared to the number killed because of ideologies and territory lines.
Frank
The inquisitions, the conquet of South American, North American indigiounus peoples, The crusasdes, the war in the middle east today, Afganastan, Northern Ireland . …They were all convinced that they were god fearing richious people. They all believe they are doing gods work.
Religion has been the ploy in manipulating the masses to believing a war and death in the war were noble causes. (they had to convince the poor fools someway)
We as a world would be better off with no orgaized religious since they only bring missery and suffering. You should be able to believe what you want but it is when the “ritious” take control of religion that inocents suffer and get hurt.
Since my faith is a essential part of who I am it has a great effect on how I view the world and has everything do with my bases for being patriot and a citizen. This nation’s very foundation is based on Christian principles and the moral principles found in the bible are the inspiration for the Consitution and the great freedoms that we enjoy here.
You can not tell me that you are not religious when you state your beliefs that God has no part in the affairs of mankind ,and that the only way for mankind to survive is to put FAITH in the goodness of mankind and our ablity to evolve ourselves into somthing better. Your are in fact a devoted follower of the religion of Humanism which takes just as much blind faith as any religion putting its faith in a deity. I hope that you are happy with th fallen nature of mankind and all its fallacies because that is all you are going to get.
Here is a letter published in The Observer from Terry Jones (ex
Python)
entitled
I’m losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush.
Terry Jones
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer
I’m really excited by George Bush’s latest reason for bombing Iraq:
he’s
running out of patience. And so am I!
For some time now I’ve been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who
lives a
couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs
the
health
food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I’m sure Mr Johnson
is
planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven’t been able to
discover
what. I’ve been round to his place a few times to see what he’s up
to,
but
he’s got everything well hidden. That’s how devious he is.
As for Mr Patel, don’t ask me how I know, I just know - from very
good
sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted
the
street telling them that if we don’t act first, he’ll pick us off
one
by
one.
Some of my neighbours say, if I’ve got proof, why don’t I go to the
police?
But that’s simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need
evidence
of
a crime with which to charge my neighbours.
They’ll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the
rights
and
wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be
finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel
will
be
secretly murdering people. Since I’m the only one in the street
with a
decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it’s up to me to keep
the
peace. But until recently that’s been a little difficult. Now,
however,
George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out
of
patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
And let’s face it, Mr Bush’s carefully thought-out policy towards
Iraq
is
the only way to bring about international peace and security. The
one
certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting
the US
or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never
threatened
us.
That’s why I want to blow up Mr Johnson’s garage and kill his wife
and
children. Strike first! That’ll teach him a lesson. Then he’ll
leave us
in
peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing
Iraq
is that
Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass
destruction -
even if no one can find them. I’m certain I’ve just as much
justification
for killing Mr Johnson’s wife and children as Mr Bush has for
bombing
Iraq.
Mr Bush’s long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by
eliminating
‘rogue states’ and ‘terrorism’. It’s such a clever long-term aim
because
how
can you ever know when you’ve achieved it? How will Mr Bush know
when he’s
wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But
then
a
terrorist is only a terrorist once he’s committed an act of terror.
What
about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to
eliminate,
since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have
already
eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a
future
terrorist? Maybe he can’t be sure he’s achieved his objective until
every
Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims
might convert
to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be
for
Mr
Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It’s the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the
tip of
the
iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don’t
like
and
who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really
safe
until I’ve wiped them all out.
My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I’m simply
using
the
same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her
up.
Like Mr Bush, I’ve run out of patience, and if that’s a good enough
reason
for the President, it’s good enough for me. I’m going to give the
whole
street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand
over
all
aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and
interstellar
terrorist masterminds, and if they don’t hand them over nicely and
say
‘Thank you’, I’m going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.
It’s just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in
contrast to
what he’s intending, my policy will destroy only one street.
OK, I talked to my father-in-law, who is a criminal attorney.
Trespass law comes from common law. If I walk into
a mom and pop store, they can refuse to serve me for
any arbitrary reason (e.g. I have a ‘Vote Democrat’
button on); it’s a private venue–race excluded.
However shopping malls are treated as quasi-public
in case law–the fellow was arrested in the food court.
If he had been arrested in a store in the mall, where
the manager of that store asked him to leave,
the arrest would be more likely to stand.
Supposing for argument’s sake that the fellow
was sitting in the court talking to his son,
the demand that he take off the shirt or leave
is probably unenforceable. The mall manager
exceeded his rights–the public is invited in,
we can dress as we please until our dress
becomes illegal (e.g. nudity).
The mall manager probably has been so advised
by his attorney, which is perhaps why he or she
is trying to drop the charges. The lawyer is going
to sue–probably for false arrest for trespass on
the ground that these people had no right to
tell him to take off the shirt or leave.
Of course if there was disruptive behaviour
things may go differently. As this was a lawyer,
probably there wasn’t. best
Jim
You might also ask your father in law this.
Since most malls are built with some sort of tax abatement or municipal funding i.e. road improvements and such.
Does that not make them more than quazie public areas. This issue came up about 10 years ago in several of Donald Trumps building in his “public areas”.
Well, as long as we’re quoting folks, here’s one:
“Some wars are unavoidable and need well be fought, but this doesn’t erase warfare’s waste. Sorry, we must say to the mothers whose sons will die horribly. This will never end. Sorry.”
This from Anthony Swofford’s new book, “Jarhead”, which is a poignant, powerful, scary, affecting memoir from a Marine who fought in the Gulf War (I keep hearing people say “the first Gulf War” lately, which is interesting; I guess the inevitability of a second one is pretty well accepted, huh?).
Near the end of the same book, Swofford despairs over the fact that the men who survive war, who saw the same things he did, men who should come back to spread the “bad news”, news about how war is fought, and why, and for whom; that these men come home instead, giddy at surviving, and spread “good news”, about the purity and bravery of warriors and war, and he writes:
“These men are liars and cheats and they gamble with your freedom and your life and the lives of your sons and daughters and the reputation of your country.”
I have been horrified, sometimes, hearing the talk from some of our leaders, and from some of our citizens. “You’re either with us or against us” and the like. It is coming very close to implying that any voice of dissent is an unpatriotic one, or even an unacceptable one. And it worries me.
(Of course, often I listen to the things our leaders say on the radio, or read about them, and my eyes bug out. I am amazed, sometimes up to three or four times a day, at the stupid, stupid things they say and do. After being amazed, I am often depressed, then scared.)
Here is an edit: I don’t want this to sound adversarial or bitter, or make anyone mad.
I’m afraid that any questioning of anyone’s patriotism, or beliefs, in times like this, automatically sound (to some) adversarial, and will certianly make people mad. Even reasonable discussion gets heated, lately.
But it is a question that I am thinking about a lot these days. I imagine the patriot soldier who is willing to go out and die for his country. Only, it’s his friends who die, and the patriot comes back home to find his country changed and what he was willing to die for lost. This sort of thing has happened time and again in history, and if it hasn’t happened to America (too badly), I wonder if this is luck and the vigor of youth, or if there is a special ingredient in the American mix that other countries lack.
Part of it, I think, may be that we’ve been lucky enough, generally, to have fought and won. And when we’ve been less successful, as in Vietnam, it was far from our shores, and murky, and forgotten as quickly as possible. We like victory. We can’t look long at defeat without shifting our feet and looking away.
Swofford’s book, which I just finished, is a fascinating and personal and despairing and troubling examination of issues very like these; you might look for it. His description of himself and his fellow Marines: 18, 19, 20 years old, lusty and sometimes bloodthirsty and ironic and restless and resigned, guys who suspected they were sent to fight mainly to protect old white billionaires’ fortunes and ready oil but who were still willing to fight, is revelatory and enlightening.
Having grown up among former soldiers, and from hearing them, and reading books like Swofford’s and those by Tim O’Brien, I think it may be that soldiers, in the end, fight mostly for their buddies, for each other, and less for glory or honor or country. Those that live, especially those who lived through a “winning” war, might later paint their experience with pride for country and principle, but during the fighting it seems to be more a matter of fighting for your platoon mates and your life and doing what you’re told to do. Those that don’t live, well. . .I wish they could tell us what they think of what they died for.
Other good books on this subject I’ve lately read: Paul Fussel’s “Doing Battle” (I think it’s subtitled, “The Making of a Skeptic”). And Wilfred Owens’ poems – which are also included in the text of Britten’s moving “War Requiem”, if you’d prefer a musical format – are quite powerful (and poignant, knowing that the poet died in battle just seven days before the end of WWI).
I think it’s important to know what war does to the individuals who must fight it, before we start to bask in its glory or rightness. If war must be fought, it should be for extraordinarily good reason, and shouldn’t be romanticized. In my opinion, of course.
Best,
Aaron[/i]