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

[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]

Deeper Then Disagreement

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]

Let's Listen In

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?