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

[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]

"Atheists" are Being Inconsistent, Again...

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]

Standing on Moral Grounds

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]

Whence Cometh Right?

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

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

 

[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]

Put the Apples in the Cart

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.