No doubt their is more to gaining freedom then just fighting a war. But I wonder why no foriegn adversaries have had the capability to destroy our freedoms? Hmmm, I know there must be a reason. I'll have to think about that.

Fair enough. We have to be able to defend the freedoms we've gained. And if we are threatened militarily, that means that our armed forces must be able to defend us. There is a lot of truth to the notion that our INDEPENDENCE allows us to be more free on an individual level than if we were under foreign occupation: we don't have onerous sedition laws on the books, for example, because we need not pay fealty to some foreign ruler. We don't live in a state of occupation and so don't feel the threat of arbitrary rule from afar. And our military is a major reason (though geography is important too, even in modern times) that our national integrity and independence remains intact. Soldiers physically defend America, the free country. But that's not the same thing as saying they defend our freedom per se. Our government could assert the powers of virtual dictatorship and US soldiers, taking orders ultimately from the President, could be agents in that usurpation of freedom. It doesn't happen in this country because our political culture will not allow it. And it is to the elements of our political culture that we must look for the defenders of freedom.

In fact, the point of the poem cited by Jack Neely is that it is the soldiers that GAVE us the various freedoms we enjoy, and that is largely untrue. They HELP DEFEND those freedoms from foreign and domestic forces that might seek to undermine them. But today as in earlier years in American history, the loss of freedom in this country is more likely to come from excessive government paranoia or majoritarian persecution than from foreign invasion or domestic insurrection. Soldiers in the post-Posse Commitatus era (1878 law banning US military from influencing domestic life) are effectively neutral in the struggles among Americans over the meaning and contours of freedom.

Edward R. Murrow and all the other journalists that risked their professional lives and in some cases their real lives to bring the truth, however painful and disillusioning it was at times, to the American public so that WE could make informed decisions about those whom we chose to lead us. Even in the face of widespread disapproval of both the politicians whose foibles were exposed and the public who chose to willfully wallow in ignorance, through those journalists the truth lives.

_________________________________________________________

"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Interesting list. Although I'd point out that Frederick Douglass and Tom Paine advocated ideas that were only made reality (more or less) with military effort (in fact, Douglass was outspoken in support of black enlistment)

Darrow, by the way, lost the Scopes trial.

And, while I hate to belabor such a trivial point: I though Wagner's work went seriously downhill with Hart to Hart. Although his Austin Powers spoof was inspired.

Darrow may have lost the Scopes trial, but he clearly carried the day and drove fundamentalism underground for a generation. He also played an integral in fighting the death penalty in the Loeb and Leopold case, and on behalf of labor in several cases (anthracite miners in PA, workers in Chicago, etc.)

Re: Douglass, it was actually the work of ordinary slaves who fled to Union lines and forced commanders like Benjamin Butler to declare slaves "contraband," that began the path toward emancipation. Of course, Union victory was essential for black freedom, though some have argued that a Confederate victory after 1864 would have also resulted in emancipation if only because slavery had been effectively destroyed by that point anyway. But black soldier recruitment is exactly the sort of crossover point where soldiers actually fought for and defended individual freedom per se, and not just their country. And nobody advocated black soldier enlistment more than Frederick Douglass.

Can we leave out Mario Savio and the rest who started the Free Speech movement in the 60's? I think it is kinda like hitting the refresh button.

"So, who really did 'give' us our freedoms?"

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Why, we did.

David Dellinger
James Lawson
Lady Bird Johnson
Lenny Bruce
John R. Cash
Jack Welch
John Dean
Amy Goodman
Jerry Lee Lewis
Rachel Carson
Hank Williams Sr.
Richard Pryor
William Kunstler
Susan B. Anthony
Dalton Trumbo
Joseph Heller
Andy Warhol
Henry David Thoreau
John Coltrane

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

First of all, I don't necessarily think that poems have to be historically comprehensive to be true. That's quite a burden, I would imagine, for any poet.

Second of all, while I agree that journalists, protestors, and others not serving in the military have nurtured and strengthened the freedoms that we enjoy in this country, I am not aware that any of them voluntarily and officially take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic....", knowing that doing so may cost them their lives.

Lastly, while I thought Mr. Neely's article was more about his ideas of how to correctly honor our service men and women, I also sensed a hint of the same kind of class elitism that Sen. James Webb has so eloquently addressed in articles that point out that a good deal of the antagoism and hatred directed at returning Vietnam soldiers were simply products of the division of economic classes in our country. http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/variouspubs/aeiheroes.htm

If you believe that the war in Iraq is wrong, or that it is being incompetently prosecuted, that's one thing.

But I have yet to meet a military service man or woman who does not sincerely believe in the oath that he/she took.

It is an oath that I have never taken, but the men and women who do take it deserve our respect and adoration, and yes, I believe they deserve it more than others who do not serve.

God has a way of even putting nations in their place. (Amen) The God that I worship has a way of saying, "Don't play with me." (Yes) He has a way of saying, as the God of the Old Testament used to say to the Hebrews, "Don’t play with me, Israel. Don't play with me, Babylon. (Yes) Be still and know that I'm God. And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power." (Yes) And that can happen to America. (Yes) Every now and then I go back and read Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. And when I come and look at America, I say to myself, the parallels are frightening. And we have perverted the drum major instinct.

But let me rush on to my conclusion, because I want you to see what Jesus was really saying. What was the answer that Jesus gave these men? It's very interesting. One would have thought that Jesus would have condemned them. One would have thought that Jesus would have said, "You are out of your place. You are selfish. Why would you raise such a question?"

But that isn't what Jesus did; he did something altogether different. He said in substance, "Oh, I see, you want to be first. You want to be great. You want to be important. You want to be significant. Well, you ought to be. If you're going to be my disciple, you must be." But he reordered priorities. And he said, "Yes, don't give up this instinct. It's a good instinct if you use it right. (Yes) It's a good instinct if you don't distort it and pervert it. Don't give it up. Keep feeling the need for being important. Keep feeling the need for being first. But I want you to be first in love. (Amen) I want you to be first in moral excellence. I want you to be first in generosity. That is what I want you to do."

And he transformed the situation by giving a new definition of greatness. And you know how he said it? He said, "Now brethren, I can't give you greatness. And really, I can't make you first." This is what Jesus said to James and John. "You must earn it. True greatness comes not by favoritism, but by fitness. And the right hand and the left are not mine to give, they belong to those who are prepared." (Amen)

And so Jesus gave us a new norm of greatness. If you want to be important—wonderful. If you want to be recognized—wonderful. If you want to be great—wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Amen) That's a new definition of greatness.

And this morning, the thing that I like about it: by giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great, (Everybody) because everybody can serve. (Amen) You don't have to have a college degree to serve. (All right) You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. (Amen) You only need a heart full of grace, (Yes, sir, Amen) a soul generated by love. (Yes) And you can be that servant.

I know a man—and I just want to talk about him a minute, and maybe you will discover who I'm talking about as I go down the way (Yeah) because he was a great one. And he just went about serving. He was born in an obscure village, (Yes, sir) the child of a poor peasant woman. And then he grew up in still another obscure village, where he worked as a carpenter until he was thirty years old. (Amen) Then for three years, he just got on his feet, and he was an itinerant preacher. And he went about doing some things. He didn't have much. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. (Yes) He never owned a house. He never went to college. He never visited a big city. He never went two hundred miles from where he was born. He did none of the usual things that the world would associate with greatness. He had no credentials but himself.

He was only thirty-three when the tide of public opinion turned against him. They called him a rabble-rouser. They called him a troublemaker. They said he was an agitator. (Glory to God) He practiced civil disobedience; he broke injunctions. And so he was turned over to his enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. And the irony of it all is that his friends turned him over to them. (Amen) One of his closest friends denied him. Another of his friends turned him over to his enemies. And while he was dying, the people who killed him gambled for his clothing, the only possession that he had in the world. (Lord help him) When he was dead he was buried in a borrowed tomb, through the pity of a friend.

Nineteen centuries have come and gone and today he stands as the most influential figure that ever entered human history. All of the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned put together (Yes) have not affected the life of man on this earth (Amen) as much as that one solitary life. His name may be a familiar one. (Jesus) But today I can hear them talking about him. Every now and then somebody says, "He's King of Kings." (Yes) And again I can hear somebody saying, "He's Lord of Lords." Somewhere else I can hear somebody saying, "In Christ there is no East nor West." (Yes) And then they go on and talk about, "In Him there's no North and South, but one great Fellowship of Love throughout the whole wide world." He didn't have anything. (Amen) He just went around serving and doing good.

This morning, you can be on his right hand and his left hand if you serve. (Amen) It's the only way in.

Every now and then I guess we all think realistically (Yes, sir) about that day when we will be victimized with what is life's final common denominator—that something that we call death. We all think about it. And every now and then I think about my own death and I think about my own funeral. And I don't think of it in a morbid sense. And every now and then I ask myself, "What is it that I would want said?" And I leave the word to you this morning.

If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don’t want a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. (Yes) And every now and then I wonder what I want them to say. Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize—that isn’t important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards—that’s not important. Tell them not to mention where I went to school. (Yes)

I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. (Yes)

I'd like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.

I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. (Amen)

I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. (Yes)

And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked. (Yes)

I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. (Lord)

I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. (Yes)

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. (Amen) Say that I was a drum major for peace. (Yes) I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. (Yes) I won't have any money to leave behind. I won't have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. (Amen) And that's all I want to say.

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

Cafkia-
I understand your point. I agree that just because an oath is given publicly doesn't mean that it's always given sincerely. Nor am I of the belief that all soldiers join in order to defend and support the Constitution as their first priority. Some join for the career opportunities, and some join because their parents served, and some join for other reasons.

However, I think our main difference of opinion is about the importance of a public vow or oath. If you don't have a public event, a vow, an oath, or in everyday relationships, something as simple as a person's word or a handshake, or some other pblic action, how do you measure their sincerity?

Isn't this why we want accountable government, so that we have something to measure our public servants with?

There are also a great number of people who toil in research labs, class rooms, hospitals, and other places trying to make this a better world. I respect and adore those people too.

But I won't accept that journalists, entertainers, and others are on the same level as those who serve and have served our country by being in the military, just because their fans, supporters, or whatever, think they should be elevated to that status.

Gary,
The soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution and the United States of America. To a large extent our freedoms are defined and protected by that very Constitution. But it wasn't the Constitution itself that made people free. It was the work of ordinary people doing extraordinary things over the last 220 years that made the supremely idealistic words of the Constitution a living reality.

Also, it's clear that the origins of the "soldiers gave us freedom, nobody else did" argument lay with the Vietnam War generation. Vets felt that their honor was wounded, as Jim Webb points out. I certainly understand the sense that returning soldiers in a war ultimately lost feel extremely sensitive about their honor. Look no further than ex-Confederate soldiers who, with their wives and daughters built an entire Lost Cause cult. The problem is that these cults of soldierly heroism tend to overcompensate and, thus, obfuscate the real honorable nature of their service.

So, it isn't that soldiers didn't play a critical role in defending American freedom. It's that their sacrifices are only part of a larger picture, and we shouldn't trip over ourselves with false patriotism by forgetting the work of regular people who made freedom an everyday reality for millions of Americans.

Elrod-

I think we both basically agree. I agree with your take on false patriotism. I think we would also agree that we don't appreciate what everyday men and women do...everyday.

I pity you and, I pity our nation for beliefs like yours.

Which is why politicians sprint from the L-word; liberals can't accept that others hold different opinions than they do without belittling them or acting superior.

We have differing opinions, but I don't "pity" you because you hold yours. Just make sure that the Democrats use that line as a campaign slogan. It should win over a lot of votes.

If you don't have a public event, a vow, an oath, or in everyday relationships, something as simple as a person's word or a handshake, or some other pblic action, how do you measure their sincerity?

I don't believe there is any reason to believe that a public event, vow, or oath determines sincerity. It is disproven daily, if not just in marriage vows and the current divorce rate. Public events are for show. I would suspect sincerity can only be measured by deeds.

cafkia-
Then I truly pity you.

I thought that was a liberal thing. Are you politically confused now?

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

That, along with the persecution, which was spoken out against, & then had to be defended against (militarily) by minutemen is how this country originated in the first place.
While their are many great statesmen, writers, activists, ect... we could name that played an important part in helping us secure our freedoms. To me, the fact that we can't name many minutemen or soldiers of the Battle of Shiloh, WWI, those who stormed Normandy or took back the Phillipines says something to me about their sincerity & committment. I believe few of them were thinking about whether they would got their names in the paper or picture on TV or how much money they could make or if everyone recognize them back home & say what a great guy he was. They did it because (they believed) it was the right thing to do, knowing they might be left unknown, never coming back. That is a deed worthy of honor.
"Do not do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."

Wow. So we are finnally getting to the truth of the matter.

I agree with Cooperhawk that the real heroes of American freedom are unknown to us all. Whether they were soldiers who went over the top in Belgium in WWI, or marchers who suffered billy clubs in Selma they were all heroes of American freedom.

marchers who suffered billy clubs in Selma

Get to know some of them here: http://www.crmvet.org/

It's not WWI, but get to know some of WWII's unsung heroes here: http://www.wwiimemorial.com/default.asp?page=registry.asp&subpage=intro

Here's one: http://www.wwiimemorial.com/registry/search/pframe.asp?HonoreeID=550447&...

The rest of the story here: http://www.knoxviews.com/wwiivetstory.htm

And another one here: http://www.legacy.com/knoxnews/Obituaries.asp?Page=Lifestory&PersonId=18...

Background here: http://www.knoxviews.com/node/1323

Later in life, regarding his arrest following an anti-war demonstration during President Nixon's visit to Knoxville in 1970 (all charges were subsequently dropped), Dr. Newton wrote:

Unfortunately the political climate of this community is such that even nonviolent dissent results in irrational repression. Unfortunately those who desire peace are considered criminals and those who desire war are considered saviors. Unfortunately those who desire change are considered dangerous and those who support the status quo are considered safe leaders. Unfortunately those who do not want to blindly follow their leaders to total destruction are considered irrational while those who follow unquestionably are considered sane.

Those who seek to maintain "control" through the use of "law and order" have made statements indicating their concern for a communistic plot, sexual orgies, and "pollution of the academic environment." Those who disagree are accused of being unAmerican, disloyal to the University as well as dirty, unkempt, immoral, spoiled, lazy, and are frequently told if you don't love it you should leave it. Yet those who claim to be defenders of the country and of the University utilize tactics which can only destroy both the democratic process of the country and the educational endeavors of the University. Those who continue to believe that an education consists of textbooks and lectures can only be concerned with the building of things rather than the building of a people. The survival of our campus, of our country and indeed of the world demands the building of a people and even, perhaps, the devaluation of things.

Sounds familiar 37 years later, doesn't it?

I'm sure there are about a million more, but these are a couple of True American Heroes of the Greatest Generation that I'm personally familiar with.

Oh, and this one: http://www.knoxviews.com/node/1150

Heroes are all around us. Most of us don't have to look further than our next of kin or the people next door to find them.

Bob Dylan was probably the most influential American musician when it came to awakening young people. He sang about injustice and he questioned authority. Musicians have a huge impact on the common person's political beliefs. So do movies and art. The heroes in these fields deserve special mention.