FL Jim wrote:Yes, I believe "heroes" is appropriate. There are things that transcend nations---ideals such as individual freedom, resistance to grossly evil regimes, and, if one is religious, loyalty to one's God over the state.
What is Evil? How does one objectify this? And where is this God? I would like to have a word with him...
Resistence to evil is a moral imperative which is why I am not a pacifist.
I'm not a pacifist either. And I don't particularly care for peace-creeps. But they are the only ones opposing Bush's Interventionist war, so they deserve some notice and my respect. Unless and until war is actually declared against Iraq I will continue to speak out against Bush and his vile gang. But I would never betray my own country and side with people who are murdering its citizens because of my differences with the regime. And I sure as hell would not invoke diety in support of such haughty political agendas.
There are some things for which it is worth sacrificing one's own life. There are wars that are necessary. Resistance to German aggression in World War II is clearly such a case. Resistance to dictatorship as Eastern Europeans did when they threw off communism is another.
Resistance to Germany's enemies was also a worthy goal and one supported by 99.9% of Germans.
If a government demands betrayal of one's own conscience so that the government can claim total acquiesence to concentration camps, aggression against peaceful nations, then sacrificing oneself is not necessarily treason.
Adhering to the enemies of your country who kill its citizens is always treason.
When Sir Thomas More refused to betray his church as Henry VIII demanded, More maintained his loyalty to a higher authority and paid the price. Not many except the most narrow of nationalists would say that More was committing treason against the safety of the English people of his day.
If one views Popery as an alien influence, then More (cannonized in 1935) was a traitor to his Nation as well as his King. The King of England may not have had England's interests entirely at heart, but Henry--and not the pious More, who burnt more heretics at the stake as Lord Chancellor than his admirers will care to admit--was still the King.
Note: I do not reject nationalism either if a nation is a constitutional government that does not abuse the natural rights of life, liberty, and property--read John Locke for more details.
Part of my differences with the government is that all it does is respect the rights of property, and it has learned how to manipulate fear and attempts to justify the loss of liberty.
The members of the White Rose did not commit murder of innocents to further their cause. They asked their fellow Germans to resist the murderous policies of the Nazi regime.
And they did this by siding with Germany's enemies in a very brutal war, so the government made an example out of them. Instead of execution they should have been sent to work in a hospital for German burn victims after Allied bombing raids.
A better way than treason is freedom-of-speech and assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievances, although Tolerance isn't something that can be legislated. A loyal-opposition is not always possible in wartime--but that is no excuse for treason. Today the Germans think they are acting democratically by criminalizing so-called Hate-speech that makes the Germans look like Nazis--nevermind that most Germans favored Hitler's broad goals and supported their beloved Führer.
The Bundestablishment honoring a bunch of traitors is just their cynical way of putting a spin on that.
