Honoring those who gave us rights

[rmcrobertson]

As much as I honor anyone who's given their life for their country, or won the Medal of Honor, I'd like to point out something:

In THIS country, Peter Zenger, "gave," us freedom of the press as much as anyone did, as did a long string of brave men and women up through reporters like Seymour Hersch and many, many others;

In this country, Paine and Jefferson and Holmes and Brandeis and Douglas, "gave," us freedom of speech among many, many others;

In this country, Roger Williams and Thoreau and Debs and Margaret Sanger and the Wobblies and the AFL-CIO and John Lewis and the Rev. C.L. Franklin and Mario Savio and Chavez and many, many others, "gave," us the freedom to organize.

And our Constitution says that these rights are, "inalienable--" they are part of the natural heritage of human beings, and no human being, however brave or worthy, "gave," them to us.

Soldiers defend these rights, which are fragile. All honor to them for that.

 

[Seig]

And our Constitution says that these rights are, "inalienable--" they are part of the natural heritage of human beings, and no human being, however brave or worthy, "gave," them to us.

Soldiers defend these rights, which are fragile. All honor to them for that.

Oh really? You are wrong. I suggest you read the Constitution
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
Nowhere does it say any of our rights are "inalienable", see the Declaration of Independence http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
This document does say that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
History shows that this document was written, not because the people of this country already had these rights but were being ruled by an oppressive government that denied them these rights.
The declaration further stated which injustices the founders felt were being inflicted upon them and why they deemed it necessary to sever ties with the then current King of Great Britain, Geroge III.

What the founders of this country did, in fact, was commit treason against the legal government of the time; thus risking their lives for the ideal we are now allowed to besmirch, misquote, misunderstand, and generally mock. Men and women of this country died to secure the liberties talked about in the Declaration and guaranteed in the Constitution. So yes, they did in fact give these rights to us.

Furthermore, the servicemen and women of today, take an oath upon entering the service "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"(incidentally, an oath I proudly swore). They are defending the rights so many daily take for granted; in essence reaffirming those rights. By making sure that no one can take away your rights, they are continuing to give them to you.

Where else in the world do they enjoy the level of freedoms we have in this country?<rhetorical question> Nowhere.

To deny these men and women that are sacrifing for their country the respect they deserve; especially a MOH winner, is in fact dishonoring all they have cried, sweat, bled, and died for.

 

[Tgace]

Yes. All those people mentioned, as honorable and important as they were, would have meant nothing if it were not for the soldiers that bought their freedom from the King of England with their blood.

 

[michaeledward]

I am saddened that this thread, honoring the recipient of the Medal of Honor has degraded into a pissing match.

As other Medal of Honor recipients have said (recently, in fact), they wear the medals for all of those who have served and taken actions of heroism and bravery, but escaped notice. With over 1 million soldiers having been rotated through Afghanistan and Iraq, I am certain that Sgt. Smith has some colleagues that have acted with equal courage. For all of them, in addition to his own actions, are these honors bestowed.

Lastly, this is a civil country of laws, not a military state. Yet, neither could exist without the other. It would be nice if a similiar level of respect was shown to the non-military institutions in our society. You guys familiar with this:

:yinyang:

P.S. This post from Adept, from the thread http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23144 - was replied to by rmcrobertson. Roberts reply and subsequent responses, were split to this thread.

It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC

A big thankyou to all the service men and women, past and present, who make sacrifices every day so that we don't have to.

 

[shesulsa]

Moderator Note:

Thread split - memorial posts place in the Hall of Remembrance.

Georgia Ketchmark
Sr. Moderator

 

[ginshun]

It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC

I have always liked that.

Thank you Sgt. Smith, may the Gods watch over you.


Just a thought Robert, but minimizing the role of our countries soldiers in the same breath that you claim to honor them is exactly what I would expect from you. I can't even think of anything more disrepectful. You make sick.

 

[michaeledward]

There is some evidence that the cited poem is not the work of Father O'Brien, but rather a Charles Michael Province.

Strange, the showing disrespect for members of our society that are not in the military does not make you sick. Oh, Well.

 

[ginshun]

Strange, the showing disrespect for members of our society that are not in the military does not make you sick. Oh, Well.

I don't know what you mean.

 

[Michael Billings]

Moderator Note:

Thread split - memorial posts place in the Hall of Remembrance.

Georgia Ketchmark
Sr. Moderator

An explanation: The topic of this thread was being sidetracked into another agenda. Staff split the thread to allow the dialogue to continue if anyone wishes to debate this.

-Michael

 

[Makalakumu]

Furthermore, the servicemen and women of today, take an oath upon entering the service "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"

I'm afraid the current mission of many of our soldiers in Iraq has very little to do with this oath. The same can be said of many other campaigns that have taken place over the last thirty-five years.

Question - just how much does it really take to defend our country in today's time?

Maybe the purpose of our military isn't defense anymore...

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Well, first off, I don't agree that I "sidetracked," a damn thing. Somebody else got on the thread and threw in the bit about soldiers, "giving," us our rights.

2. Real sorry "I," make you, "sick," "ginshun." But I'm even sorrier that you need to write that way--and that you seem to know so little of your own history. Also sorry that you didn't bother actually to read what I wrote. Sorriest of all that manners forbid my responding in kind.

3. I too read and enjoyed, "Starship Troopers." However, if you think the discussion in the invented History and Moral Philosophy class is terrific (it agrees with Mao: all political power comes out of the barrel of a gun) or the society that that novel lays out (only soldiers can vote; it's a military "democracy"), well, sorry--that's not America.

4. The folks I mentioned did as much to, "preserve, protect, and defend," our rights as anybody ever did. Often, they gave up careers and families and even their lives to do it, too.

5. Quite right--it's the Declaration that explains where our rights come from, as I suspect folks knew perfectly well. Soldiers--and cops, and others--defend those rights, and so (hopefully) do we.

6. Nobody--certainly not myself!--denied that this man gave his life for his fellow soldiers and for his country. As I wrote before--apparently not in English--all honor to him for that. But perhaps it's not quite so honoring to surf on his memory to insert one more slam at Americans who don't quite see the world the way we do.

 

[Makalakumu]

A lot of what we call rights, like the weekend, came because large groups of people who got fed up with the exploitive practices of wealthy capitalists and attempted to better their lives. The work they did and the blood they shed affects our everyday lives. These people were not soldiers.

They were shot by soldiers.

Many people can work for our freedom in this country. That is not the sole responsibility of the soldier. The military is just another profession. Like any other. Respect them as humans. Anything more must be earned.

 

[loki09789]

Soldiers defend these rights, which are fragile. All honor to them for that.

I do see that you are specifying or clarifying the why's and how's of your honoring the dead MOH winner, I can also see how starting a thread that looks like a "Hey, he was great but these guys shouldn't be forgotten either" is piggy backing and agendizing his recognition just as much as you seem to be accusing the government of doing.

Untimely at best. None too well phrased at worst.

 

[loki09789]

A lot of what we call rights, like the weekend, came because large groups of people who got fed up with the exploitive practices of wealthy capitalists and attempted to better their lives. The work they did and the blood they shed affects our everyday lives. These people were not soldiers.

They were shot by soldiers.

Many people can work for our freedom in this country. That is not the sole responsibility of the soldier. The military is just another profession. Like any other. Respect them as humans. Anything more must be earned.

No one is saying that it is the sole resonsibility of soldiers...simply honoring one that did it to a level of selflessness that deserves recognition.

Yes, soldiers/LEO have and will continue to shoot citizens that are waving pick ax handles, behaving in a threatening way and endangering citizens.

Don't idealize the 'poor downtrodden' workers that were peacefully protesting...the draft riots of New York were far from peaceful, the Union strikes of the early days were loaded with corruption on both sides. The historical link between mobs and unions is well documented.

Talking about such things in conjunction to a moment like this is like saying "He thinks he's so cool, NOT!".... I don't think that is going to garner any 'recognition for anyone else.

 

[Makalakumu]

I think that a teacher has quite a bit more influence on our freedom's protection then a soldier.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just a question about waht really happened: was I the writer who posted the piece that said it wasn't reporters, or poets, or organizers, etc., who "gave," us our rights, but only soldiers?

 

[Makalakumu]

No one is saying that it is the sole resonsibility of soldiers...simply honoring one that did it to a level of selflessness that deserves recognition.

Yes, soldiers/LEO have and will continue to shoot citizens that are waving pick ax handles, behaving in a threatening way and endangering citizens.

Don't idealize the 'poor downtrodden' workers that were peacefully protesting...the draft riots of New York were far from peaceful, the Union strikes of the early days were loaded with corruption on both sides. The historical link between mobs and unions is well documented.

Talking about such things in conjunction to a moment like this is like saying "He thinks he's so cool, NOT!".... I don't think that is going to garner any 'recognition for anyone else.

I thought this thread was split off from the other...

Consequently, someone reminded us all that soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution. If a group of disenfranchised citizens takes to the streets because they have no other options and their rights have been trampled on for far too long, is it still okay to shoot them?

And yes, it was pointed out that a soldier gives us so many things...

It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC

This is what really stirred the pot because it isn't true. I'm going to contradict this anytime I hear it.

 

[rutherford]

Whether the right is given by a philosopher who expresses a doctrine of rights, a journalist uses the right to inform the public, or a soldier who defends those rights is really a chicken and an egg kind of arguement. And, it's really rather pointless when you consider that Freedom of the Press takes all of these elements working together to exist. None is more or less important.

All rights are the same. They must be recognized, they must be excercised, and they must be defended.


rmcrobertson, when talking about "slams", real or imagined, it would be wise to use a less combative tone and clean language. Your likelyhood of being taken seriously would increase.

 

[shesulsa]

I thought this thread was split off from the other...

It was. To capitalize on Mr. Billing's explanation, the first few posts of the original thread were indicative of remembrance - a post containing only a period or a period and a :asian:.

Those posts were placed in the Hall of Remembrance and all are very welcome to post their dot of silence or RESPECTFUL comments there.

It appeared that some wished to debate the nature of who gave us freedom, so those posts have been split off here.

 

[rmcrobertson]

You know, it continues to strike me as odd that posting a pretty aggressive attack on poets, reporters, and the rest of them liberal flag-burnin' pantywaists is in no way offensive--but oh boy, let somebody say anything about that, and suddenly admonishments on language are everywhere.


Not to mention the fact that I'm hard-pressed to find what was so naughty about the language in a post that ended with, "All honor to them for that."

Then too, if we must split the thread--why wasn't it split starting with the post that dragged the right-wing rhetoric into a thread that was simply meant as a commemoration?

I don't expect to win converts. I expect, from time to time, to say a little something about the jingoism.