I don’t disagree with you, but I think Nazi Germany is too extreme of an example to derive any useful practical information from.
I agree with you that it is a radical example, but it highlights the radical end of patriotism: nationalism (which I would define as not love for your own country, but contempt for others).
I think the underlying question is closer to what is the approriate way to express dissent with a government you recognize as legitimate, but disagree with on policy matters, and at what point does that turn to unpatriotic acts, treason etc.
Any legal means possible is acceptable in a free society. A democracy must have the right to defend itself against outright treason - but that entails illegal subversive activity; chanting for Ho Chi Minh (an earlier example) was admittedly misguided and rather ridiculous, but if a society praises itself for freedom of speech, so be it.
It’s clear in a case with a totalitiarian government, resistance is right, but that doesn’t give you any insight to what to do with a government with which you vehemently disagree, but don’t want to overthrow.
Totalitarian governments often develop in little steps, and people subjected to them have often struggled to see the clear case - often they did too late.
I would argue that patriotism often is not a deliberate act (just as TQB implied), but living a decent life and defending the values on which the society is based peacefully. Normally that means speaking up, sometimes it means using every legal method to create awareness of the perceived breach of conduct by the state. That is definitely not treason.
I agree with you on all points here, and in my earlier post, I said that I thought most unpatriotic acts where decided by intent.
I think there is a really wide area of patriotic viewpoints that lie between the nationalistic and the treasonous.
I don’t think unpatriotic speech should be limited or censored. But I also think there are things which are, for lack of a better word, untactful, or inappropriate.
Flag burning is in almost all cases, clearly unpatriotic, but I don’t think it should be illegal.
My response wasn’t about what should be legal or illegal, but rather one of decorum. No matter how much I disagree with Bush on most of the issues, comparing him to Hitler is inappopriate. So is calling people who are against the war Al Queda sympathizers.
So I agree with you on almost all of your points, but, I think am arguing something slightly different.