Marine stuns a tea party with the fourth verse of the star spangled banner

[David William Hedrick]

A Marine stuns the crowd at a Tea Party with the fourth verse of the Star Spangled Banner.

YouTube - MARINE STUNS A TEA PARTY WITH THE FOURTH VERSE OF THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0fQd858cRc)

So Much for a “Secular Nation”.

Thank you for the reminder that our rights come from God and not any man or group of men.

God Bless America and Semper Fi Marine!

-David W. Hedrick
DavidHedrick4congress.com

[0zzy]

guy just wipped out some star spangled banner on that crowd haha. kinda random but the crowd enjoyed it.

funny though cause after a few lines they were like, oh, oh crap I should stand up. and they all start standing up :).

[Agorism]

I hate patriotic stuff.

[0zzy]

I hate patriotic stuff.

YouTube - The Star-Spangled Banner (History) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwsq7frSB5Q)

[crushingstep7]

I hate patriotic stuff.
What is patriotism to you?

[Agorism]

Flags, symbols, nationalism.

[Promontorium]

I am an atheist. I hate this God stuff.

Morals are as natural as the soil our bodies rot in when we die. I am of this universe, and that is the only connection I need to a higher power.

[Bruno]

Great voice

[Cowlesy]

That was awesome!!!

[Fox McCloud]

I am an atheist. I hate this God stuff.

Morals are as natural as the soil our bodies rot in when we die. I am of this universe, and that is the only connection I need to a higher power.

let's keep stuff like this in the religious forums, it's only bound to stir up a ton of crap here in general politics.

[Icymudpuppy]

Noticing the caption in the screenshot of the OP video...

When was the last time our cause was just?

I don't think there is justice in war at all. Necessity if fighting off a foreign agressor, but never justice. There is nothing just about naive young soldiers killing other naive young soldiers at the whims and behest of greedy overlords whether they be called kings, emperors, presidents, ceos, or some other holder of power.

[constituent]

I don't think there is justice in war at all. Necessity if fighting off a foreign agressor, but never justice. There is nothing just about naive young soldiers killing other naive young soldiers at the whims and behest of greedy overlords whether they be called kings, emperors, presidents, ceos, or some other holder of power.

I love it when someone qualified to speak does so in the manner above.

Thanks icy. :)

[Kojac]

The young troops aren't all as naive as you think they are anymore.

[FreeTraveler]

You do realize that verse, among other things, justifies Imperialism and the Neocon agenda?

"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"

The SSB is not some magical writ handed down by the founding fathers, it's a song, written to glorify the state.

The McCain/Palinites probably eat that up with a spoon, though.

[lester1/2jr]

be funny if he was some crank who wrote that himself

[clb09]

This is still the best version:

YouTube - Whitney Houston sings the National Anthem -- Star Spangled Banner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1QmeEdFOSc)

[Theocrat]

I am an atheist. I hate this God stuff.

Morals are as natural as the soil our bodies rot in when we die. I am of this universe, and that is the only connection I need to a higher power.

And it's thinking like yours that continues to destroy what our republic was built on.

[libertybrewcity]

never heard that song before. is that a new version?

[BillyDkid]

And it's thinking like yours that continues to destroy what our republic was built on.Oh Please. It is contempt for liberty that has destroyed what "our republic" was built on and NOTHING else. Frankly, I do not see how anyone who advocates a theocracy has any interest in liberty at all. I don't begrudge people their personal beliefs, but I do draw the line at the notion that anyone has any right to enforce their beliefs on others.

[FreeTraveler]

oh please. It is contempt for liberty that has destroyed what "our republic" was built on and nothing else. Frankly, i do not see how anyone who advocates a theocracy has any interest in liberty at all. I don't begrudge people their personal beliefs, but i do draw the line at the notion that anyone has any right to enforce their beliefs on others.
+1776

[fj45lvr]

video...

When was the last time our cause was just?

I don't think there is justice in war at all. Necessity if fighting off a foreign agressor, but never justice. There is nothing just about naive young soldiers killing other naive young soldiers at the whims and behest of greedy overlords whether they be called kings, emperors, presidents, ceos, or some other holder of power.


exactly....what were the circumstances of the author of the song watching the Americans in a foreign war anyhow??

[RCA]

Where was the "stunning" part.

[tmosley]

And it's thinking like yours that continues to destroy what our republic was built on.

Sorry, Theocrat. What flavor of Monotheism did you want to rule our lives in this country? Should the Pope be our sovereign leader, or should it be Joseph Smith? Should we install Sharia law, or outlaw dancing? Should we give homage to His Noodley Appendage, or to Mighty Xenu? Should we submit burnt offerings on the Sabbath, or refrain from eating meat on Fridays (except for fish, of course)?

Or should we do all of it, and submit ourselves to any crazy law that any given sadist or madman comes up with in order to exert his own form of control over his "flock"?

Or, perhaps, we should do NONE of it instead?

[dr. hfn]

virtue of the vicious

[BlackTerrel]

I am an atheist. I hate this God stuff.

Why? This is something I've never understood. Why would you care if someone believes in God?

[ItsTime]

Why? This is something I've never understood. Why would you care if someone believes in God?

Better question is why do so many who believe in god worry so much about those who dont.

[0zzy]

This is still the best version:

YouTube - Whitney Houston sings the National Anthem -- Star Spangled Banner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1QmeEdFOSc)

wow ! She use to be able to sing!

shame that overweight Taiwanese boys can sing better than her.

[BuddyRey]

Why do people still eat up the signets, symbolism, and loyalty oaths like the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written by a Socialist as a way of encouraging state aggrandizement; or the Star-Spangled Banner which is all about war and conquest? I thought mankind was beginning to evolve beyond this stuff.

[tmosley]

Why do people still eat up the signets, symbolism, and loyalty oaths like the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written by a Socialist as a way of encouraging state aggrandizement; or the Star-Spangled Banner which is all about war and conquest? I thought mankind was beginning to evolve beyond this stuff.

Not so much. Maybe those guys will all kill each other off in the coming bloodbath.

The weak and stupid can only rule while times are good, by squandering the savings of their stronger, smarter forebears. Once the money runs out, and times get tough, they will lose their positions out of necessity.

[eproxy100]

Apparently if some people from this forum had their way we would have, not freedom, but another flavor of tyranny. These same people criticize the muslims for doing exactly what they themselves would do. Some of these people are the same people who support israel. Under their system, there'd be another witch hunt where atheists and the likes are burned on the stake as heathens. They won't admit that of course but history tells us what follows.

It really makes one wonder if people here, supposedly mostly Libertarians (aside from the obvious trolls), are really for freedom. I think some people are just here because the current system doesn't favor them. If it did favor them they'd probably ignore these injustices that happen to others.

As an atheist who wants freedom it sure is disappointing to read some of the posts here.

[Agorism]

YouTube - Crass - Reality Asylum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_HOYk9ED9Q)

[BlackTerrel]

Better question is why do so many who believe in god worry so much about those who dont.

Well I don't. But I at least can understand that if a Christian believes they can "save" an atheist they might want to try. You might disagree with it - but you must understand why someone would.

On the other hand why would an atheist care if they believe a Christian is wrong. As long as that faith gives them comfort?

That's the shit I never understood.

For the record: I'm a Christian but it's largely a personal matter for me

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well I don't. But I at least can understand that if a Christian believes they can "save" an atheist they might want to try. You might disagree with it - but you must understand why someone would.

On the other hand why would an atheist care if they believe a Christian is wrong. As long as that faith gives them comfort?

That's the shit I never understood.

For the record: I'm a Christian but it's largely a personal matter for me

Blowback due to the Religious Right. When you get accosted, and you are told what you can do with your own body, you better believe there are going to be some militant people fighting back.

[osan]

I am an atheist. I hate this God stuff.

"Hate" is an awfully strong word. It seems as if you invest much energy in something you claim to reject, if you hate it.

Just an observation.

[osan]

Oh Please. It is contempt for liberty that has destroyed what "our republic" was built on and NOTHING else. Frankly, I do not see how anyone who advocates a theocracy has any interest in liberty at all. I don't begrudge people their personal beliefs, but I do draw the line at the notion that anyone has any right to enforce their beliefs on others.

Very well stated.

+1

[osan]

Better question is why do so many who believe in god worry so much about those who dont.

And the even better question is why does one man mind the religion of another, usually with so much venom and bile? It reminds me of those who rail against homosexuals with acid enough to consume worlds. The inconfessed truth there is quite revealing, as we the human race have discovered. :eek: :rolleyes: :D

[osan]

When was the last time our cause was just?

Who is the "we" and to what cause do you refer?


I don't think there is justice in war at all.

Is there justice in anywhere in life?


There is nothing just about naive young soldiers killing other naive young soldiers at the whims and behest of greedy overlords whether they be called kings, emperors, presidents, ceos, or some other holder of power.

Actually, that *could* be just, were it contained only to those solders and they were all volunteers. Unfortunately, the scum and the vermin universally drag those wishing no involvement into the mess, and that is where the problem lies.

Here's an idea: every nation should have a region of ground bordering each of its neighbors. When parties from any two given nations wish to war, they would be constrained to do so on that ground only. No mechanized warfare allowed. No action-at-a-distance weapons allowed. Want to war? You will have to do it the old fashioned way and get right up an personally kill your perceived enemy. So, America would have one region with Canada and one with Mexico. Bust and fight all you want so long as you play by the rules. Violation of the rules receives one penalty: mechanized elimination of every player on the violating team. Wholesale wipe out - genocide. I bet war becomes a whole lot less popular shortly after adoption of these rules.

[Pericles]

never heard that song before. is that a new version?

Francis Scott Key poem The Defense of Ft. McHenry

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

later sung to the tune To Anaceron in Heaven
I.To Anacreon in Heav'n,
Where he sat in full glee,
A few Sons of Harmony
Sent a petition
That he their Inspirer
And Patron would be;
When this answer arrived
From the Jolly Old Grecian:
"Voice, Fiddle, and Flute,
No longer be mute,
I'll lend you my name
And inspire you to boot,
Chorus
And besides I'll instruct you,
Like me, to intwine
The Myrtle of Venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrtus)
With Bacchus' Vine."
II.The news through Olympus
Immediately flew;
When Old Thunder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_%28god%29) pretended
To give himself airs.
"If these Mortals are suffered
Their scheme to pursue,
The devil a Goddess,
Will stay above stairs.
Hark, already they cry,
In transports of joy,
'Away to the Sons
Of Anacreon we'll fly,
Chorus
And there with good fellows,
We'll learn to intwine
The Myrtle of Venus
With Bacchus' Vine.'
III.The Yellow-Haired God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo)
And his nine fusty Maids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muse)
From Helicon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Helicon)'s banks
Will incontinent flee,
Idalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ida) will boast
But of tenantless shades,
And the bi-forked hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion)
A mere desert will be.
My Thunder no fear on't,
Shall soon do its errand,
And dam'me I'll swing
The Ringleaders I warrant.
Chorus
I'll trim the young dogs,
For thus daring to twine
The Myrtle of Venus
With Bacchus' Vine."
IV.Apollo rose up,
And said, "Pry'thee ne'er quarrel,
Good King of the Gods,
With My Vot'ries below:
Your Thunder is useless"--
Then showing his laurel,
Cry'd "Sic evitabile
Fulmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning), you know!
Then over each head,
My laurels I'll spread,
So my sons from your Crackers
No mischief shall dread,
Chorus
While, snug in their clubroom,
They jovially twine
The Myrtle of Venus
With Bacchus' Vine."
V.Next Momus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momus) got up
With his risible (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/risible) Phiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiognomy)
And swore with Apollo
He'd cheerfully join --
"The full tide of Harmony
Still shall be his,
But the Song, and the Catch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round),
And the Laugh shall be mine.
Then, Jove, be not jealous
Of these honest fellows."
Cry'd Jove, "We relent,
Since the truth you now tell us:
Chorus
And swear by Old Styx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styx_%28mythology%29),
That they long shall intwine
The Myrtle of Venus
With Bacchus' Vine."
VI.Ye Sons of Anacreon,
Then join hand in hand;
Preserve Unanimity,
Friendship, and Love!
'Tis yours to support
What's so happily plann'd;
You've the sanction of Gods,
And the Fiat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree) of Jove.
While thus we agree,
Our toast let it be:
"May our Club flourish Happy,
United, and Free!
Chorus
And long may the Sons
Of Anacreon intwine
The Myrtle of Venus
With Bacchus' Vine."

[t0rnado]

The senile old man basically just said, "Dulce et Decorum est Pro Patria Mori." That faux cult meeting should have just been held in a church because I don't see much of a difference between those sheep hailing Jesus along with neocon bullshit and the sheep in the aisles of a church hailing Jesus.

[silentshout]

I for one do not want to live in a religion-ruled state. Sorry, not into religion but I wouldn't force others not to be into it either. Live and let live. And for anyone trying to "save" me, lol. My beliefs are personal and private and I never understood the point of announcing them to the world, like it makes you more "righteous" or "smarter" than someone else.

[Pete Kay]

I'm an atheist, but I don't hold ill will against those that are religious. I just wish that we had true freedom of association so that religious could live amongst themselves and irreligious people could live amongst themselves. That's what America was built upon. That's true freedom of religion, where others that don't agree with you don't meddle in your affairs.

[Vessol]

I like living with people of different faiths and beliefs however, it makes things more interesting.

[tpreitzel]

I, too, agree that the Star-Spangled Banner was written to promote federalism, but this particular Marine's rendition of it is quite good.

[libertygrl]

I am an atheist. I hate this God stuff.

Morals are as natural as the soil our bodies rot in when we die. I am of this universe, and that is the only connection I need to a higher power.

:rolleyes:

[BlackTerrel]

Blowback due to the Religious Right. When you get accosted, and you are told what you can do with your own body, you better believe there are going to be some militant people fighting back.

How have you been accosted by the religious right?

I think I once had a guy at my door who was a Jehova's Witness. I told him no thanks and went about my day.

That's about the "worst" experience I've had.

[heavenlyboy34]

Apparently if some people from this forum had their way we would have, not freedom, but another flavor of tyranny. These same people criticize the muslims for doing exactly what they themselves would do. Some of these people are the same people who support israel. Under their system, there'd be another witch hunt where atheists and the likes are burned on the stake as heathens. They won't admit that of course but history tells us what follows.

It really makes one wonder if people here, supposedly mostly Libertarians (aside from the obvious trolls), are really for freedom. I think some people are just here because the current system doesn't favor them. If it did favor them they'd probably ignore these injustices that happen to others.

As an atheist who wants freedom it sure is disappointing to read some of the posts here.

If you hang around, you'd see a lot of people like this. :(

[heavenlyboy34]

How have you been accosted by the religious right?

I think I once had a guy at my door who was a Jehova's Witness. I told him no thanks and went about my day.

That's about the "worst" experience I've had.

The "Religious Right's" support for War and foreign aggression accosts us all, some more directly than others. :(

[tpreitzel]

Actually, anthem's serve a purpose, albeit generally nefarious. Does each state have their own anthem? If not, it might be another mechanism to empower the states in their fight against federal tyranny. The adoption of a state anthem * might facilitate the constitutional realignment of this union.

* Not ideal, but it might help restore balance.

Wikipedia source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_songs

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

How have you been accosted by the religious right?

I think I once had a guy at my door who was a Jehova's Witness. I told him no thanks and went about my day.

That's about the "worst" experience I've had.

Are you that daft?

[jmdrake]

The "Religious Right's" support for War and foreign aggression accosts us all, some more directly than others. :(

When did Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi become part of the "religious right"?

Oh yeah I forgot. It's all "Bush's war" despite the fact that many democrats voted for it.

Ok, how about the Vietnam war? Was LBJ part of the "religious right"?

Or how about the Bosnian war? Was that the "religious right" in the form of Bill Clinton lashing out at Christian Serbia on behalf of Muslim Kosovo? (Oh yeah. Total air war. I forgot. It only counts if there's large loss of American lives.)

The reason I abandoned the left and signed up with a presidential candidate closely affiliated with the religious right on issues like abortion and is open about his Christianity (Ron Paul) is because I was sick of the hypocrisy of the "We're sort of against war but not really" left.

[idirtify]

But what is an atheist to do when this happens in such a crowd? Do you interrupt and say “sorry but this is not a religious event and there are people here who don’t believe in your god”? Or do you just say nothing and remain quiet until it’s over? This kind of thing actually happens a lot. I was at a high-school reunion and a classmate got up in front of everyone and asked for our attention (asked us to be quiet), and then asked us to stand. I thought it was going to be some kind of tribute to the recently passed or something, but then he broke out into prayer. He was simply leading us to pray before the meal. Of course everyone complied and bowed their heads in silence until he was done. But what is proper etiquette here? Are we supposed to be quietly respectful? Would it have been rude to interrupt him? If so, why? I mean if interrupting is rude, then he initiated the rudeness by previously interrupting EVERYONE. Is it rude to express disapproval of rudeness? I have a feeling that if his prayer had been to Allah rather than to Jesus, people’s manners would have not been quite so respectful.

[BlackTerrel]

The "Religious Right's" support for War and foreign aggression accosts us all, some more directly than others. :(

Therefore anyone who is a Christian bothers you. Can you be anti-war without pissing on someones religious beliefs? Not "you" specifically - but the people who seem to have such a problem with Christians in general.

BTW should I mention that Ron and Rand are Christians or will that lost him a couple votes here?

[BlackTerrel]

But what is an atheist to do when this happens in such a crowd? Do you interrupt and say “sorry but this is not a religious event and there are people here who don’t believe in your god”? Or do you just say nothing and remain quiet until it’s over? This kind of thing actually happens a lot. I was at a high-school reunion and a classmate got up in front of everyone and asked for our attention (asked us to be quiet), and then asked us to stand. I thought it was going to be some kind of tribute to the recently passed or something, but then he broke out into prayer. He was simply leading us to pray before the meal. Of course everyone complied and bowed their heads in silence until he was done. But what is proper etiquette here? Are we supposed to be quietly respectful? Would it have been rude to interrupt him? If so, why?

Yes it would have been rude. I do not get why an atheist would be upset at a Christian saying a prayer? How is that offensive?

I could even understand a Muslim or a Jew being offended if he said something that they did not believe in. But if you are atheist why would it be offensive to you?

[happyphilter]

But what is an atheist to do when this happens in such a crowd? Do you interrupt and say “sorry but this is not a religious event and there are people here who don’t believe in your god”? Or do you just say nothing and remain quiet until it’s over? This kind of thing actually happens a lot. I was at a high-school reunion and a classmate got up in front of everyone and asked for our attention (asked us to be quiet), and then asked us to stand. I thought it was going to be some kind of tribute to the recently passed or something, but then he broke out into prayer. He was simply leading us to pray before the meal. Of course everyone complied and bowed their heads in silence until he was done. But what is proper etiquette here? Are we supposed to be quietly respectful? Would it have been rude to interrupt him? If so, why? I mean if interrupting is rude, then he initiated the rudeness by previously interrupting EVERYONE. Is it rude to express disapproval of rudeness? I have a feeling that if his prayer had been to Allah rather than to Jesus, people’s manners would have not been quite so respectful.

If you are an atheist this isn't going against any of your "religious" beliefs, so how could this offend you? Even if it did, understand you are in the minority, grow some skin and deal with it.

I've been in crowds where I am the odd man out; recently was at a festive in Chicago where a jewish prayer was said. Did I get all flustered? No, I stood there and ACCEPTED that people have different beliefs. Accept it and move on(without crying about it).

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes it would have been rude. I do not get why an atheist would be upset at a Christian saying a prayer? How is that offensive?

I could even understand a Muslim or a Jew being offended if he said something that they did not believe in. But if you are atheist why would it be offensive to you?

Yes, I was correct in my earlier assessment.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If you are an atheist this isn't going against any of your "religious" beliefs, so how could this offend you? Even if it did, understand you are in the minority, grow some skin and deal with it.

I've been in crowds where I am the odd man out; recently was at a festive in Chicago where a jewish prayer was said. Did I get all flustered? No, I stood there and ACCEPTED that people have different beliefs. Accept it and move on(without crying about it).

Why should an atheist have to follow religious ceremonies when they clearly do not believe in them? Likewise to Deists? Sorry, but it is NOT rude to not follow any of their ceremonies. Whenever I am attending events where it is thrust upon everyone I do not comply. It is simple as that. It's not rude. I would wager its rude to shove your ceremonies on those who don't believe. You would have a point if this happened in Church, or at a Church related event, but it wasn't. Is this a secular Nation, or not?

[Free Moral Agent]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y159/devisi0n/symbols.jpg

[runningdiz]

That was just awkward. If I was the person holding that mic IDK if I would be able to hold back breaking out into laughter. That is soooo random.

[idirtify]

Yes it would have been rude. I do not get why an atheist would be upset at a Christian saying a prayer? How is that offensive?

I could even understand a Muslim or a Jew being offended if he said something that they did not believe in. But if you are atheist why would it be offensive to you?

Why would it have been rude?

Obviously you have ignored my points. Let me elaborate on them. I asked about the appropriate response to the prayer because:
It was rude – interrupted everyone for nothing related to the reunion;
It was presumptuous – assumed everyone in the room believed in Jesus;
It was contentious – as is any religious proclamation at a non-religious event;
It was out of line – a PUBLIC high school reunion is supposed to be a secular event.

All these also apply to the TP setting.

It wasn’t that I was actually “offended”, but being atheist certainly doesn’t imply a neutral attitude towards rude and irrational and provocative proclamations in such a setting. By comparison, you apparently think being religious includes a license to be offended. Why is that?

[Theocrat]

Why would it have been rude?

Obviously you have ignored my points. Let me elaborate on them. I asked about the appropriate response to the prayer because:
It was rude – interrupted everyone for nothing related to the reunion;
It was presumptuous – assumed everyone in the room believed in Jesus;
It was contentious – as is any religious proclamation at a non-religious event;
It was out of line – a PUBLIC high school reunion is supposed to be a secular event.

All these also apply to the TP setting.

It wasn’t that I was actually “offended”, but being atheist certainly doesn’t imply a neutral attitude towards rude and irrational and provocative proclamations in such a setting. By comparison, you apparently think being religious includes a license to be offended. Why is that?

Are you an "atheist," idirtify?

[idirtify]

If you are an atheist this isn't going against any of your "religious" beliefs, so how could this offend you? Even if it did, understand you are in the minority, grow some skin and deal with it.

I've been in crowds where I am the odd man out; recently was at a festive in Chicago where a jewish prayer was said. Did I get all flustered? No, I stood there and ACCEPTED that people have different beliefs. Accept it and move on(without crying about it).

So being in a minority means I’m supposed to be quiet? Is that also your attitude toward political positions that don’t conform to the majority? Do you realize where you are??

Re your example: What is a “festive”?

[Theocrat]

Quite frankly, I don't see how "atheists" get the moral criteria to tell Christians not to pray nor influence society by their religious beliefs. "Atheism" inherently rejects immaterial things like the concept of morality because there is only matter in motion, and that denigrates humans to the level of being chemical bags of meat and bones.

So, for an "atheist" to tell a Christian he should not express his faith in public is irrational on the part of the "atheist." Moral obligations are not matter in motion, but that is all the "atheist" has to work from. According to the "atheist" Richard Dawkins, he said:

In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.
If in the end "atheists" are correct that we're nothing more than biological/chemical processes ("dancing to the tune of our DNA"), then why should an "atheist" fault a Christian for praying to God at all? It simply makes no sense for "atheists" to get upset when Christians pray in public. After all, they're just doing what their anatomy is forcing them to do.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Quite frankly, I don't see how "atheists" get the moral criteria to tell Christians not to pray nor influence society by their religious beliefs. "Atheism" inherently rejects immaterial things like the concept of morality because there is only matter in motion, and that denigrates humans to the level of being chemical bags of meat and bones.

So, for an "atheist" to tell a Christian he should not express his faith in public is irrational on the part of the "atheist." Moral obligations are not matter in motion, but that is all the "atheist" has to work from. According to the "atheist" Richard Dawkins, he said:

If in the end "atheists" are correct that we're nothing more than biological/chemical processes ("dancing to the tune of our DNA"), then why should an "atheist" fault a Christian for praying to God at all? It simply makes no sense for "atheists" to get upset when Christians pray in public. After all, they're just doing what their anatomy is forcing them to do.

Have you read anything? No one said they shouldn't be allowed to pray in public, what he is saying, or more specifically, what I said (As a Deist), is that I am not in any way shape or form compelled to abide by your ritualistic ceremonies, and not abiding by them does not constitute as rudeness.

I will most certainly NOT stand up when prayer is called. I will not bow my head, and I will not take part in any ceremony. I will also not stop what I'm doing so you can pray, or whatever it is you are doing. You can do that within the confines of your property, or of those who share your same views.

So you are rejecting any moral values that rest on utilitarian grounds? You reject Ludwig von Mises (Of course you do, your a damn THEOCRAT -- Tyrant)?

[Theocrat]

Have you read anything? No one said they shouldn't be allowed to pray in public, what he is saying, or more specifically, what I said (As a Deist), is that I am not in any way shape or form compelled to abide by your ritualistic ceremonies, and not abiding by them does not constitute as rudeness.

I will most certainly NOT stand up when prayer is called. I will not bow my head, and I will not take part in any ceremony. I will also not stop what I'm doing so you can pray, or whatever it is you are doing. You can do that within the confines of your property, or of those who share your same views.

So you are rejecting any moral values that rest on utilitarian grounds? You reject Ludwig von Mises (Of course you do, your a damn THEOCRAT -- Tyrant)?

You don't have to stand up at a public gathering when a prayer is taking place. However, you still have no moral authority, even as a Deist, to tell Christians not to pray in public, sing anthems to God in public, nor speak to others about God in public. That is what I was getting at, and I showed how irrational it would be for any "atheist" (and I put Deists in that category, too) to tell Christians not to do those things.

As far as basing moral values on utilitarian grounds, no, I do not accept that. One must first prove how the means itself is moral to justify the ends, which also has to be proven as moral, at the outset. Utilitarian ethics always begs the question, in that regard. You are correct that I reject Ludwig von Mises, although he did get some economic principles correct. Jesus saves, not Mises. ;)

[idirtify]

Quite frankly, I don't see how "atheists" get the moral criteria to tell Christians not to pray nor influence society by their religious beliefs. "Atheism" inherently rejects immaterial things like the concept of morality because there is only matter in motion, and that denigrates humans to the level of being chemical bags of meat and bones.

So, for an "atheist" to tell a Christian he should not express his faith in public is irrational on the part of the "atheist." Moral obligations are not matter in motion, but that is all the "atheist" has to work from. According to the "atheist" Richard Dawkins, he said:

If in the end "atheists" are correct that we're nothing more than biological/chemical processes ("dancing to the tune of our DNA"), then why should an "atheist" fault a Christian for praying to God at all? It simply makes no sense for "atheists" to get upset when Christians pray in public. After all, they're just doing what their anatomy is forcing them to do.


Your overall point is actually a very good one. Your logic is good, and I truly appreciate that you are approaching this from a reasonable standpoint. There’s only one thing missing from your argument. The problem is, it is an important element. It’s the fact that we are human and can not help but operate from within a human context. Therein lays all “morals” and “ethics”. While it may be true that there are no universal morals, we are far from “the universe”. “WE” are a small species of a biological organism with an instinct to survive and thrive (to live). Therefore we are naturally biased towards “morals”/ethics that support said life. We might be intelligent enough to make good speculations about “the universe”, but they actually have little to do with this topic. All morals/ethics are trying to be is an accurate guide to the best way to support human life. Like everyone, atheists are very much interested in that.

[Theocrat]

Your overall point is actually a very good one. Your logic is good, and I truly appreciate that you are approaching this from a reasonable standpoint. There’s only one thing missing from your argument. The problem is, it is an important element. It’s the fact that we are human and can not help but operate from within a human context. Therein lays all “morals” and “ethics”. While it may be true that there are no universal morals, we are far from “the universe”. “WE” are a small species of a biological organism with an instinct to survive and thrive (to live). Therefore we are naturally biased towards “morals”/ethics that support said life. We might be intelligent enough to make good speculations about “the universe”, but they actually have little to do with this topic. All morals/ethics are trying to be is an accurate guide to the best way to support human life. Like everyone, atheists are very much interested in that.

The reason why humans appeal to moral absolutes is because we are made in the image of God, Who Himself is the ultimate standard of morality. That then gets rid of any naturalistic explanation for morals/ethics.

Logically speaking, one cannot go from "what is" to "what ought to be." It would be like what the late Carl Sagan said: "One must never try to insert nurture into nature." So any attempt to explain morals in a purely naturalistic way is already a feat of folly.

So, once again, "atheists" have no moral grounds to tell anybody how to worship their God, whether it's in public or private. An "atheistic" view of the world does not allow for such judgments, so "atheists" must steal from another worldview to make any moral judgment (act like Christians).

[idirtify]

You don't have to stand up at a public gathering when a prayer is taking place. However, you still have no moral authority, even as a Deist, to tell Christians not to pray in public, sing anthems to God in public, nor speak to others about God in public.

I don’t think the question is necessarily if atheists have a moral authority to tell Christians not to pray in public. But even if you claim they don’t, then what gives Christians any MORE moral authority to stands up and proclaim whole diatribes based on moral authority? It seems you are getting the cart before the horse. If you think no one has this kind of moral authority, then you should disagree with the first one who stands and tries to exert it over a crowd. IOW the one who opposes a public attempt is not the one who initiates it.

[VegasPatriot]

A Marine stuns the crowd at a Tea Party with the fourth verse of the Star Spangled Banner.

YouTube - MARINE STUNS A TEA PARTY WITH THE FOURTH VERSE OF THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0fQd858cRc)

So Much for a “Secular Nation”.

Thank you for the reminder that our rights come from God and not any man or group of men.

God Bless America and Semper Fi Marine!

-David W. Hedrick
DavidHedrick4congress.com

Welcome David, great post. Good luck in your race, keep speaking truth to power, and thank you for keeping your oath!

YouTube - Town Hall Meeting with U.S. Congressman Brian Baird (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRE5UK6NQU&feature=player_embedded)

[idirtify]

The reason why humans appeal to moral absolutes is because we are made in the image of God, Who Himself is the ultimate standard of morality. That then gets rid of any naturalistic explanation for morals/ethics.

Logically speaking, one cannot go from "what is" to "what ought to be." It would be like what the late Carl Sagan said: "One must never try to insert nurture into nature." So any attempt to explain morals in a purely naturalistic way is already a feat of folly.

So, once again, "atheists" have no moral grounds to tell anybody how to worship their God, whether it's in public or private. An "atheistic" view of the world does not allow for such judgments, so "atheists" must steal from another worldview to make any moral judgment (act like Christians).

First, you are simply asserting your own version of “what is” (made in image of god), without any basis. Second, explaining the life-based cause of ethics is not going “from ‘what is’ to ‘what ought to be’". Whether it’s an attempt to explain “in a purely naturalistic way” depends on your definitions, but it’s certainly not a “feat of folly”. Third, atheists certainly have just as much “moral grounds” to DISAGREE with an out-of-place assertion of moral authority as anyone else (it seems your argument depends on substituting “disagreement” with “moral authority”).

[Theocrat]

I don’t think the question is necessarily if atheists have a moral authority to tell Christians not to pray in public. But even if you claim they don’t, then what gives Christians any MORE moral authority to stands up and proclaim whole diatribes based on moral authority? It seems you are getting the cart before the horse. If you think no one has this kind of moral authority, then you should disagree with the first one who stands and tries to exert it over a crowd. IOW the one who opposes a public attempt is not the one who initiates it.

First of all, I think both sides are claiming a moral authority. I say that because there is no such thing as "religious neutrality." Christians claim the moral authority to acknowledge God publicly through prayer, and "atheists" claim the moral authority that such action is wrong if others are present who don't believe in God.

Second of all, I don't believe Christians have the authority to force their beliefs on people by aggression. However, it often gets misunderstood that way when Christians preach or pray in public. The moral authority for any religious act or expression in public comes from God Himself, by means of His word. I know that grates on the ears of most folks here, but it is still the truth.

Third of all, if a person does not believe in God, and there is a prayer taking place, that person can do one of two things: he can leave for a moment, or he can wait patiently until the prayer is over. Some "atheists" here have this notion that if it doesn't agree with their worldview, it shouldn't be allowed in their presence. But I see that as making themselves guilty of the charge they make against Christians for doing the same thing. So, it becomes a double standard.

[idirtify]

Christians claim the moral authority to acknowledge God publicly through prayer, and "atheists" claim the moral authority that such action is wrong if others are present who don't believe in God.


Your wording is biased. Let me correct it:
"Christians claim the right to initiate proclamations of religious morality through public prayer, and 'atheists' claim the right to disagree."



The moral authority for any religious act or expression in public comes from God Himself, by means of His word.

You are simply asserting your own version of “what is” without any basis, therein giving yourself/Christians moral authority over and above any disagreement by an atheist. That’s circular.

It’s not a double standard to disagree with something you disagree with. In order to make your argument sound legitimate (and turn an atheist’s disagreement into a contradiction), you are merely twisting “disagree” into “moral authority” and/or “not allow”. Stop trying to strawman the simple act of disagreeing.

[idirtify]

I will most certainly NOT stand up when prayer is called. I will not bow my head, and I will not take part in any ceremony. I will also not stop what I'm doing so you can pray, or whatever it is you are doing.

Good advice. I was tempted to proceed with socializing, but he had asked for quiet before anyone knew what he was going to do. So after that, there was no one left to talk to – all talking had stopped. I mean I could have resumed socializing, but it would have been with a silent statue with a bowed head. So I remain curious about the best response to this situation. About all I could think of at the time was sudden and continuous loud coughing. The situation was/is really quite intimidating – especially for one with fear of public speaking. Let me explain further. This is a conservative German Lutheran farming community (Bible-belt / corn belt) environment.

[Peace&Freedom]

Your wording is biased. Let me correct it:
"Christians claim the right to initiate proclamations of religious morality through public prayer, and 'atheists' claim the right to disagree."



Your re-wording is biased, as it loads 'disagreement' with a presumed neutrality that is also the point at issue. Christians believe and assume God should be acknowledged, and the freedom to publically acknowledge Him. Athiests believe and assume their rejection of God and public acknowledgement of Him is neutral. The rejection of God not only is a disagreement about the question, it also is a rejection of the centrality God must consequentally play in human affairs that justifies His public acknowledgement. Put another way, Christians preserve the right to acknowledge there is a hurricane and thus let it influence their travel decisions, while atheists claim the right to deny it and travel as if nothing is blowing.

[happyphilter]

This topic needs to be locked. Religious/atheist argument has completely derailed this thread.

IMO there is no need for religious/atheist debate. Don't abstract, don't generalize, and let people believe whatever they want; even if that makes you uncomfortable.

[jmdrake]

Francis Scott Key poem The Defense of Ft. McHenry

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!



I'm going to throw a little more water on this grease fire. I've heard that the part of the song I've bolded was directed at slaves who ran away and fought for the British who promised them (the slaves) their freedom. Oh the irony considering that part of the reason for the war of 1812 was anger at the British for impressing Americans to work on British ships.

Ok. Back to your "God versus atheism" fight that actually belongs in another forum.

[Cinderella]

hello :)

[idirtify]

Your re-wording is biased, as it loads 'disagreement' with a presumed neutrality that is also the point at issue. Christians believe and assume God should be acknowledged, and the freedom to publically acknowledge Him. Athiests believe and assume their rejection of God and public acknowledgement of Him is neutral. The rejection of God not only is a disagreement about the question, it also is a rejection of the centrality God must consequentally play in human affairs that justifies His public acknowledgement. Put another way, Christians preserve the right to acknowledge there is a hurricane and thus let it influence their travel decisions, while atheists claim the right to deny it and travel as if nothing is blowing.

The point of my rewording was to show the bias of the notion that a disagreement with a disagreeable opinion is automatically MORE disagreeable; which was what the original wording had craftily claimed. I am not “loading” said disagreement with neutrality at all. I’m not even commenting on its content, which could be totally illegitimate. I am only showing how ANY disagreeable statement is subject to direct disagreement, no matter the statement’s the topical nature or chronological order. IOW being the first to stand and proclaim doesn’t make you immune to scrutiny; nor does proclaiming about religious topics make you immune. It seems the religious bias here is trying to claim that, by discrediting the act of disagreeing (by making it into something that it’s not [“loading” it]), any initiated religious proclamation is naturally immune to disagreement. But obviously that doesn’t fly here in a discussion forum where everything is subject to disagreement.

Your post basically asserts and reasserts a right a right that doesn’t exist; the right of Christians to proclaim about their god without objection. And your hurricane analogy is waaaay off. If only the Christian proclamations were as evidenced as a looming hurricane.

[idirtify]

This topic needs to be locked. Religious/atheist argument has completely derailed this thread.

IMO there is no need for religious/atheist debate. Don't abstract, don't generalize, and let people believe whatever they want; even if that makes you uncomfortable.

This discussion is not derailing the thread, but is entirely within its context.

If are you posting here to “let people believe whatever they want”, why are you asking for the thread to be locked? If people can believe whatever they want, why can they not discuss those beliefs? Maybe YOU are the most uncomfortable one.

[idirtify]

I'm going to throw a little more water on this grease fire. I've heard that the part of the song I've bolded was directed at slaves who ran away and fought for the British who promised them (the slaves) their freedom. Oh the irony considering that part of the reason for the war of 1812 was anger at the British for impressing Americans to work on British ships.

Ok. Back to your "God versus atheism" fight that actually belongs in another forum.

Good point. But this isn’t a "God versus atheism fight”. It’s more a discussion about the appropriate response to public proclamations that are unreasonable and non-factual (disagreeable by nature).

Here are a couple talking points:
Does the first to stand and speak have any right to silence from the “audience”?
Does the content of the message of the first to stand and speak dictate whether he/she has any right to silence from the “audience”?

[happyphilter]

This discussion is not derailing the thread, but is entirely within its context.

If are you posting here to “let people believe whatever they want”, why are you asking for the thread to be locked? If people can believe whatever they want, why can they not discuss those beliefs? Maybe YOU are the most uncomfortable one.
"Marine stuns a tea party with the fourth verse of the star spangled banner "
Recognize that? Its the title of the thread and what the OP originally posted about. Look at the comments. Do you SEE the difference? Do you even know the meaning of "context"?

I understand the OP posted about our rights coming from god. So what? that's what HE believes. Don't start an argument when there are no facts to prove who is right, because no one is going to win or be convinced the other side is correct. Comprehend that and avoid the flamewar.

If you want to argue about religion, or complain about how Christians hurt your feelings, do it somewhere else. These kind of off topic arguments(the ones of abstract beliefs) only cause divides.

[happyphilter]

Good point. But this isn’t a "God versus atheism fight”. It’s more a discussion about the appropriate response to public proclamations that are unreasonable and non-factual (disagreeable by nature).

Here are a couple talking points:
Does the first to stand and speak have any right to silence from the “audience”?
Does the content of the message of the first to stand and speak dictate whether he/she has any right to silence from the “audience”?

Have you no social experience? Is it that hard for you to conciser the situation and pull from it the information you need to know how to behave?
All these questions you asked are situational. Clearly the man singing knew well enough that he was in a crowd which would have no problem hearing the verse sang, even if there may have been a couple in disagreement.

[FrankRep]

Flags, symbols, nationalism.

Patriotism is not Nationalism

[idirtify]

"Marine stuns a tea party with the fourth verse of the star spangled banner "
Recognize that? Its the title of the thread and what the OP originally posted about. Look at the comments. Do you SEE the difference? Do you even know the meaning of "context"?

I understand the OP posted about our rights coming from god. So what? that's what HE believes. Don't start an argument when there are no facts to prove who is right, because no one is going to win or be convinced the other side is correct. Comprehend that and avoid the flamewar.

If you want to argue about religion, or complain about how Christians hurt your feelings, do it somewhere else. These kind of off topic arguments(the ones of abstract beliefs) only cause divides.

Yeah I understand “context”, and early-on during the 80 posts that comprise this thread, a discussion developed about this aspect of the OP: At a public event, a man got the mic and proceeded to proclaim some religious material. So what is the right way to handle this kind of thing?

You wrote:
“Don't start an argument when there are no facts to prove who is right”

Would you like me to provide a list of the facts that I have used to support my points?

[Pericles]

I'm going to throw a little more water on this grease fire. I've heard that the part of the song I've bolded was directed at slaves who ran away and fought for the British who promised them (the slaves) their freedom. Oh the irony considering that part of the reason for the war of 1812 was anger at the British for impressing Americans to work on British ships.

Ok. Back to your "God versus atheism" fight that actually belongs in another forum.

I read it differently for the following reasons:
1. Regular British Army regiments were not allowed to recruit in North America - in order to build up the provencial regimets in Canada.
2. About 20% of the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars was foreign born - French royalist, German, Corsican, and Greek being the main sources for foreign troops.

[idirtify]

Have you no social experience? Is it that hard for you to conciser the situation and pull from it the information you need to know how to behave?
All these questions you asked are situational. Clearly the man singing knew well enough that he was in a crowd which would have no problem hearing the verse sang, even if there may have been a couple in disagreement.

My social experience and the marine’s knowledge are two very different things. Clearly the discussion at hand is related to the “couple in disagreement”. So am I to deduce that your opinion is that the couple in disagreement should, because they are the vast minority, keep quiet?

[Theocrat]

Your wording is biased. Let me correct it:
"Christians claim the right to initiate proclamations of religious morality through public prayer, and 'atheists' claim the right to disagree."



You are simply asserting your own version of “what is” without any basis, therein giving yourself/Christians moral authority over and above any disagreement by an atheist. That’s circular.

It’s not a double standard to disagree with something you disagree with. In order to make your argument sound legitimate (and turn an atheist’s disagreement into a contradiction), you are merely twisting “disagree” into “moral authority” and/or “not allow”. Stop trying to strawman the simple act of disagreeing.

You're looking at the issue from a shallow point. Disagreements aren't the issue. The issue is the reason(s) behind the disagreements in the first place. That is where the moral authority comes from, on either side. As Peace&Freedom has said, your claim to disagree assumes a position of neutrality. It is not.

The real question is why does an "atheist" disagree with public acknowledgment of God. Any answer they give will reveal their moral authority for which they are claiming. Surely someone as smart as you can see that, idirtify.

[idirtify]

You're looking at the issue from a shallow point. Disagreements aren't the issue. The issue is the reason(s) behind the disagreements in the first place. That is where the moral authority comes from, on either side. As Peace&Freedom has said, your claim to disagree assumes a position of neutrality. It is not.

The real question is why does an "atheist" disagree with public acknowledgment of God. Any answer they give will reveal their moral authority for which they are claiming. Surely someone as smart as you can see that, idirtify.

I have already refuted the non-neutrality claim. Why are you reiterating it? An atheist’s disagreement in this context, if biased at all, is certainly not less neutral than the claims with which it disagrees. So your accusation of “not neutral” is hollow.

I have already refuted your attempt to paint an atheist’s disagreement as an attempt at “moral authority”. Why do you continue to claim it and reword it?

The Pope: “Look! It’s God!”
Me: “No. It’s not God. It’s just a flower.”
The Pope: “No. God made that flower. And since you are atheist you can not disagree with me without making a moral judgment, which is contradictory for an atheist.”
Me: “My disagreement that a flower is not God is not a ‘moral judgment’.”
The Pope: “Yes it is, yes it is, yes it is! NA NA na na NA NA!!!”

[BamaFanNKy]

let's keep stuff like this in the religious forums, it's only bound to stir up a ton of crap here in general politics.

DUDE! Your sig is a bible verse?!?!?

[Theocrat]

I have already refuted the non-neutrality claim. Why are you reiterating it? An atheist’s disagreement in this context, if biased at all, is certainly not less neutral than the claims with which it disagrees. So your accusation of “not neutral” is hollow.

I have already refuted your attempt to paint an atheist’s disagreement as an attempt at “moral authority”. Why do you continue to claim it and reword it?

The Pope: “Look! It’s God!”
Me: “No. It’s not God. It’s just a flower.”
The Pope: “No. God made that flower. And since you are atheist you can not disagree with me without making a moral judgment, which is contradictory for an atheist.”
Me: “My disagreement that a flower is not God is not a ‘moral judgment’.”
The Pope: “Yes it is, yes it is, yes it is! NA NA na na NA NA!!!”

That dialogue is a total strawman, at least for me. I do not and would not argue like that as a Christian theist. I think you're just tying to make fun.

To prove my point about the non-neutrality of disagreement, let me illustrate my own conversation:

[At a public gathering, outside the White House]

Chaplain: "Let us bow our heads in prayer to the triune God."
"Atheist": "Wait! Why should we all be told to bow our heads in prayer? There are some of us who don't believe in 'the triune God.'"
Chaplain: "You don't have to bow your head, if you don't want to."
"Atheist": "Why should we even hear people pray to an invisible guy in the sky?"
Chaplain: "Well, you can step out for a moment if you are offended by the public acknowledgment of God."
"Atheist": "Why should those of us leave who don't believe in God?"
Chaplain: "Do you have a problem with public prayers to God?"
"Atheist": "No, but I don't agree that we should all have to listen to a person pray to something which doesn't exist."
Chaplain: "Why do you disagree?"
"Atheist": "Because there is no evidence for God. Religion has led to more wars than anything else. Science shows us there is no God. Humans can be moral without God."
Chaplain: "So, we should stop praying because your beliefs prove there is no God?"
"Atheist": "..."

That is essentially where the reason behind the disagreement comes into play. In the reasons given, the "atheist" shows his foundational beliefs which claim the moral authority for why there should be no prayer to God. His reasons given are not neutral, but they are very against his perceived atrocities of religion to God. They enact his disagreement to the public acknowledgment of God.

[idirtify]

That dialogue is a total strawman, at least for me. I do not and would not argue like that as a Christian theist. I think you're just tying to make fun.

To prove my point about the non-neutrality of disagreement, let me illustrate my own conversation:

[At a public gathering, outside the White House]

Chaplain: "Let us bow our heads in prayer to the triune God."
"Atheist": "Wait! Why should we all be told to bow our heads in prayer? There are some of us who don't believe in 'the triune God.'"
Chaplain: "You don't have to bow your head, if you don't want to."
"Atheist": "Why should we even hear people pray to an invisible guy in the sky?"
Chaplain: "Well, you can step out for a moment if you are offended by the public acknowledgment of God."
"Atheist": "Why should those of us leave who don't believe in God?"
Chaplain: "Do you have a problem with public prayers to God?"
"Atheist": "No, but I don't agree that we should all have to listen to a person pray to something which doesn't exist."
Chaplain: "Why do you disagree?"
"Atheist": "Because there is no evidence for God. Religion has led to more wars than anything else. Science shows us there is no God. Humans can be moral without God."
Chaplain: "So, we should stop praying because your beliefs prove there is no God?"
"Atheist": "..."

That is essentially where the reason behind the disagreement comes into play. In the reasons given, the "atheist" shows his foundational beliefs which claim the moral authority for why there should be no prayer to God. His reasons given are not neutral, but they are very against his perceived atrocities of religion to God. They enact his disagreement to the public acknowledgment of God.

My dialog is not a strawman. It reveals the fallacy of what you are trying to claim; that an atheist can not disagree with a religious proclamation without making a moral judgment (and a contradiction).

Looking at your dialog it seems you have added some elements that have not been a part of my disagreement. But you have actually profiled a scenario that’s more related to the OP (and my reunion). Whether the atheist actually disagrees with the content of the prayer or only with the inappropriateness/rudeness of public praying at a secular event doesn’t matter; your exchange, even though it tries real hard, doesn’t portray the atheist making a moral judgment. But my disagreement certainly did not go that far. I was only WONDERING about the best way to disagree. But I think it’s safe to say that I would not have chosen to act as you describe. This may be a little closer:

Religious classmate: "Let us bow our heads in prayer and give thanks for the food."
Me: Walks up to speaker and whispers in ear: “If you could just pray to yourself, it would be great; since you are risking offending people who paid lots of money to enjoy a secular event. Now just smile and follow my lead.” Turns to crowd and says: “We would like to thank the reunion committee for the food, and all you great people who paid good money to make all this possible. Amen. Now let’s eat!”

[jmdrake]

I read it differently for the following reasons:
1. Regular British Army regiments were not allowed to recruit in North America - in order to build up the provencial regimets in Canada.
2. About 20% of the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars was foreign born - French royalist, German, Corsican, and Greek being the main sources for foreign troops.

Well that explains the "hireling" part, but were any of these French, German, Corsican or Greek troops considered "slaves"?

[libertarian4321]

Well I don't. But I at least can understand that if a Christian believes they can "save" an atheist they might want to try. You might disagree with it - but you must understand why someone would.

On the other hand why would an atheist care if they believe a Christian is wrong. As long as that faith gives them comfort?

That's the shit I never understood.



If the religious stuck to worshiping their imaginary friend, chanting, burning incense, or whatever other harmless nonsense, I don't think anyone would mind.

Unfortunately, a large percentage of the religious believe it is their duty to spread their nonsense, by persuasion or force, and that is a problem.

I don't think the religious in this country are aware of the degree to which the non-religious are assaulted with religious crap every day= stuff that you probably don't even notice- like prayers at the beginning of almost any public event- HS and college graduations, sports banquets, meetings of community organizations, coaches getting kids to pray before games, conferences, business events= the list goes on and on and on. These days they are more likely to tone down the "Jesus" stuff and go more "non-denominational"- but it is STILL a religious prayer.

Keep your "ugga bugga fire and brimstone" stuff to yourself and I really don't care- but if you start to push it on me, you will be met with resistance. Of course, it's even worse when the religios gather together to try and use government to force their beliefs on others.

[Romulus]

I just want to say, that if you wait til the end, when it pans around the crowd, there are 2 black people visible. :) I was happy to see them there.

[libertarian4321]

But what is an atheist to do when this happens in such a crowd? Do you interrupt and say “sorry but this is not a religious event and there are people here who don’t believe in your god”? Or do you just say nothing and remain quiet until it’s over? This kind of thing actually happens a lot. I was at a high-school reunion and a classmate got up in front of everyone and asked for our attention (asked us to be quiet), and then asked us to stand. I thought it was going to be some kind of tribute to the recently passed or something, but then he broke out into prayer. He was simply leading us to pray before the meal. Of course everyone complied and bowed their heads in silence until he was done. But what is proper etiquette here? Are we supposed to be quietly respectful? Would it have been rude to interrupt him? If so, why? I mean if interrupting is rude, then he initiated the rudeness by previously interrupting EVERYONE. Is it rude to express disapproval of rudeness? I have a feeling that if his prayer had been to Allah rather than to Jesus, people’s manners would have not been quite so respectful.

This is the kind of thing I was referring to in my last post. The sort of pressure to conform to religion that the non-religious face ALL THE TIME- its the kind of stuff that I don't think the religious even notice- to them it's just part of life, but WE DO NOTICE.

When your coach, or boss, or scout master, or the President of your club tells you to bow your head and pray to Jesus, that is more than subtle pressure to conform to the religious norm.

Again, it's far worse that the religious use government to get us to fight religious wars, or use our tax money to pay off churches (faith based initiatives), but this stuff is NOT cool, and it is pervasive in our society.

So yes, Terrell, in answer to your question, WE ARE ASSAULTED BY RELIGION on an almost daily basis, and it goes a lot deeper than religious people banging on the front door pushing their nonsense (that, too, is annoying).

[Pete Kay]

This is the kind of thing I was referring to in my last post. The sort of pressure to conform to religion that the non-religious face ALL THE TIME- its the kind of stuff that I don't think the religious even notice- to them it's just part of life, but WE DO NOTICE.

When your coach, or boss, or scout master, or the President of your club tells you to bow your head and pray to Jesus, that is more than subtle pressure to conform to the religious norm.

Again, it's far worse that the religious use government to get us to fight religious wars, or use our tax money to pay off churches (faith based initiatives), but this stuff is NOT cool, and it is pervasive in our society.

So yes, Terrell, in answer to your question, WE ARE ASSAULTED BY RELIGION on an almost daily basis, and it goes a lot deeper than religious people banging on the front door pushing their nonsense (that, too, is annoying).

When I am overseas visiting my family in Thailand, I give respect to the fact that most people there are Buddhists. That I'm not religious, doesn't mean that I should be bothered that other people are. The same goes for here in the States. I allow others to have their beliefs and I feel no need to get worked up about it. If a Jehova's Witness or Mormon knocks on my door, I'm respectful to them and allow them a chance to give their spiel. It's no more annoying than some one asking me to sign a petition that I don't agree with.

If you're getting angry about other people's customs and beliefs, then that's really an issue about the way you cope with your own emotions. Recognize that you are the one that has say in how you deal with religious people. Is it even worth it to allow yourself to get angry about it?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

When I am overseas visiting my family in Thailand, I give respect to the fact that most people there are Buddhists. That I'm not religious, doesn't mean that I should be bothered that other people are. The same goes for here in the States. I allow others to have their beliefs and I feel no need to get worked up about it. If a Jehova's Witness or Mormon knocks on my door, I'm respectful to them and allow them a chance to give their spiel. It's no more annoying than some one asking me to sign a petition that I don't agree with.

If you're getting angry about other people's customs and beliefs, then that's really an issue about the way you cope with your own emotions. Recognize that you are the one that has say in how you deal with religious people. Is it even worth it to allow yourself to get angry about it?

You have obviously never been to a non-religious function where religious ceremonies break out and you don't follow them, or show deference to them. They get all pissy, and incessently mad. Sorry, but I am under no obligation to observe and obey any religious sanctums unless I am on private property and is stipulated by the owner. At that point I'll respectfully leave, but at events such as these no such decrees are warranted.

If I wasn't given shit for not observing their rituals, then I wouldn't care. Live and let live. Most religious fellows though don't believe in this.

[Pericles]

Well that explains the "hireling" part, but were any of these French, German, Corsican or Greek troops considered "slaves"?

Sorry I forgot to mention in my previous post, that until late in the Napoleonic wars, enlistments in the British Army were for life. As they could not replace the losses, the British ultimately copied the US model of 5 year periods of service.

[idirtify]

When I am overseas visiting my family in Thailand, I give respect to the fact that most people there are Buddhists. That I'm not religious, doesn't mean that I should be bothered that other people are. The same goes for here in the States. I allow others to have their beliefs and I feel no need to get worked up about it. If a Jehova's Witness or Mormon knocks on my door, I'm respectful to them and allow them a chance to give their spiel. It's no more annoying than some one asking me to sign a petition that I don't agree with.

If you're getting angry about other people's customs and beliefs, then that's really an issue about the way you cope with your own emotions. Recognize that you are the one that has say in how you deal with religious people. Is it even worth it to allow yourself to get angry about it?

Why is there such an exception to religious belief? Now I can see why one would keep quiet in a country like Thailand when they are praying to their majority god, since disagreeing could risk great personal harm. But I don’t understand how “respecting their beliefs” means to keep quiet in this country. Let me try to put it in perspective (not easy when it comes to religion). A quick review of your recent posts shows you disagree with illegal immigration. I’m sure you know that many people agree with it. That means they “BELIEVE” in it (it is their “belief”). Now whether you “respect” that belief is actually immaterial; the point is that you do NOT keep quiet when you run across said belief (at least not on this forum). So what if public proclamations of belief in illegal immigration were as prevalent as public proclamations of belief in religious things. Note that the religious proclamations are at least as disagreeable and fallible and baseless in their content as the arguments for illegal immigration. So what makes religion different, when it comes to things you disagree with? What is the principle that causes you to give special treatment to a whole class of meritless assertions?

IOW: What if you were met on a regular basis at public events with ritual-like devotions to “the great things illegal immigrants have done for us” and/or “illegal immigration is good” and/or “let us give thanks to all the illegal immigrants” etc etc – where complying with silence gives the appearance that you conform to the general consensus in the room and agree with illegal immigration? What if public demonstrations of belief in illegal immigration (the claptrap I’m sure you are all too familiar with) were as common as public demonstrations of belief in religion? Would you stay silent?