Good questions. Is it indeed 'my country right or wrong'? A patriot will stand on principle and speak up when others are wrong on a given issue, regardless of the 'numbers'. It's the principle that counts. Many confuse patriotism with statism, and it's not difficult to understand why. While patriots stand on principle, statists stand on policy. Policy and principle can be easily confused if the source is not considered. Statist doctrine emanates from political leaders, patriotic doctrine is learned through moral education; and yes, religion plays a large part in that education. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is crucial in arriving at a patriotic position, just as having a clear understanding of a given political agenda is central to statist decision making. In essence, a statist will drag you into war, drooling at the thought of profit. A patriot will question a declaration of war, making sure that the premise is just and all other approaches have been considered first.

On to the next good question: 'Is it to attack those who find our government's policies to lack justice?' That is a classic statist approach. Government is right, regardless of the rights or wrongs accompanying the process and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor and should be hanged. A patriotic approach is first to consider the rights and wrongs of a given policy and support or oppose as conscience dictates, regardless of the political considerations. Essentially, a patriot understands that what is good for government is not necessarily good for country, they are separate entities.

And finally, 'Are protesters against such policies enemies of the state?' That's a tough one. Some protesters might be statists who support a different political ideology and as such support 'the state' but oppose the specific policy. Others will oppose the state as an entity and continually point out the deficiencies and injustices meted out by the state regardless of who is in power. Those are true 'enemies of the state', or, in a word, patriots. In short, 'government' is 'the state' and patriotism does not recognize politics as a legitimate cause, but understands that it is a 'necessary evil' while governments exist in the world.

Statists support governments, patriots support morally sound ideals.

I believe Rumitoid is right on the source of the quote, Joy.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." from Boswell's Life of Johnson

Ambrose Bierce was born in 1842, thus Samuel Johnson is generally credited with the quote "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Johnson made this famous pronouncement that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel on the evening of April 7, 1775. Boswell doesn't provide any context for how the remark arose, so we don't really know for sure what was on Johnson's mind at the time.

However, Boswell assured that Johnson was not indicting patriotism in general...only false patriotism.

True.

For my part, I want to clarify my position about patriotism. It won't be easy, because there are at least two, much different, kinds of patriotism, and both kinds are needed at different times:

Soldiers can follow orders and that is a kind of patriotism.

Critics (including many U.S. citizens who oppose the U.S. side in a war) have a different kind of "patriotism", if they are following the ideals of the U.S.

(An exception would be when one's country were just entirely wrong; then it would be better not to be patriotic at all.)

As I said, both kinds of patriotism are needed at different times. It depends on context.

Sometimes the critical thinking is needed. The U.S. is not always right. It's like Britain was not always right. That's why some British subjects had to rebel against their own government and create the United States. (Of course that was not all done by critical thinking; but still, critical thinking was an important part of it.) Now we are in a country, the U.S., which has some stated ideas, as in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Sometimes a good idea in the Constitution is more important than a politician who subverts it. To hold government officials accountable is both American and good. That is one of the good kinds of patriotism.

Now for this other good kind of patriotism:

While I've never been a soldier, still I venture to say that sometimes it is necessary to have faith in your superiors and follow orders. And I mean, sometimes one has to "just follow orders" when there's no time for critical thinking.

Besides which, we don't all sign up for the critical thinking duty, just as we don't all sign up for the fighting duty. Some do one task, and some do the other. And some do both.

Occasionally a soldier will find that his superior is very wrong, and the soldier rebels in some way. That too could be a good thing in its context, maybe even "patriotic".

While I don't approve of some wars, still I can see that sometimes it could be necessary to fight in a war.

Thank you, Slatten. I was only about six I think when I heard Johnson make that famous pronouncement. My father always played this game with me about remembering details. If I could accurately recall what occurred during our time together, I would be rewarded with a treat. On that particular day of April 7, 1775, there was a new treat on the streets of America: German Pretzels. It took both hands to hold and ten minutes to eat. But I felt bad afterwards. Urchins followed me for crumbs and I never once considered giving them a real taste. My recollection is fixed by these supporting details.

How are you?

I can see where you're coming from. But I think what you are describing under your 1st definition is not patriotism but loyalty to your ideals or morals. Patriotism is loyalty to your nation. Not simply the ideals your nation espouses (which can change). But American patriotism boils down to loyalty to our constitution. So there are not 2 kinds of patriotism. Military personnel and civilian patriots are both loyal to our country and to our constitution and through that, to the American people. NOT loyalty to our federal government. But though there are not 2 kinds of American patriotism, there is a matter of degree. Military personnel have taken an oath to defend the constitution.

The oath is:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

So a civilian may be every bit as patriotic but has not had an oath of service administered. But the patriotism itself is not of a different kind.

What you wrote is the whole complex idea about patriotism. Patriotism may best defined as "love of country" but the nature of that love is not described. We assume it is wholesome, meaning a love of freedom, equality, and justice which our Republic was intended to promote and enforce for all citizens. Yet it too often it is not in defense of these ideals and principles but for the party in power. Citizens protesting what they see as an offense of our ideals and principles by certain policies and actions are attack as un-American, such during the Vietnam War.

Essentially, saying one is a patriot says absolutely nothing of substance. Saying one is a patriot is like a priest claiming to be a humble man: a true patriot or priest would never think to say such a thing.

If patriotism had some necessary parameters, like country before party and we the people before special interests, then the word would be useful.

What Hitler did to his own citizens had nothing to do with Nationalism. Nor does Nationalism require expansion or conquest. In NAZI Germany, there was both Nationalism and conquest on top of the socialism which gave the government too much authority which the NAZIs used to further their despicable goals. Many want to blame all on Nationalism. But what the NAZIs did could be categorized under various 'isms'.

The Axis powers used Nationalism to promote their war. The Allied powers used Nationalism to defend against the Axis atrocities.

But it DOES say something of substance. The problem is in your characterization of what patriotism is. It is understandable since civics is no longer taught in public schools, and even as late as the 60s, it was not taught in all public schools, let alone in any depth.

You assign patriotism to nebulous or changeable feelings. But a true American patriot understands it is loyalty to our constitution. Our constitution is meant to protect the freedoms of all Americans. Therefor it is ultimately loyalty to the American people, but not any particular groups of American people. ALL Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, creed, etc. The best way to be sure your loyalty covers all, is to be loyal to our constitution. Simple and direct, and covers all bases.