Atheist's Banners for July 4: 'God-less America,' 'Atheism is Patriotic'
Get ready, America. This upcoming July 4 is about more than simply celebrating our nation’s founding. Apparently, it’s also an opportunity for Atheists to set the record straight about their patriotism.
Thus, on Monday, people in 27 states will have the opportunity to look up in the sky and see airplanes flying banners that proudly say “God-LESS America“ or ”Atheism is Patriotic.” The campaign, being organized by the New Jersey-based American Atheists, is sure to stoke the fires of controversy....
It is very straightforward, you keep your oaths. If a subject has given an oath of loyalty to their sovereign they should obey their oaths. If a sovereign has made a treaty oath with another sovereign they should likewise obey their oath.
Mike wrote: 2) So ...sovereigns don't have to abide by their rules for respecting sovereignty.
Mike wrote: What is the athiest basis (non-subjective) for defining "justly" and treating others so?
And what is the Mike basis (non-subjective) for defining "11th century international sovereignty rules" and respecting other sovereigns? Respectfully, you seem to hold atheists to a higher standard than you hold yourself to in defining your terms.
Boston Illegal wrote: 1)Please explain what "actual qualification" you are looking for? A community college diploma perhaps? There is no justification for the moral equivalence you are seeking to draw between foreign invasion and internal terrorist uprising. It is a rabbit trail. 2)William the Conqueror's forces were faithful to their lawful oaths and to their sovereign. Lawlessness and sodomy are tied together in scripture, as quoted on that other thread. "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
1) Someone who minimally values mind over pedigree. Pedigree is important for dogs, not men.
2) So the important thing is to follow the "sovereign." What he actually does is irrelevant. If he wants to conquer another "sovereign," that's ok, sovereigns don't have to abide by their rules for respecting sovereignty. Only the common folk have that requirement.
There is no lawlessness in conquest, right? After all, how can a "sovereign" be lawless, when lawlessness is defined as opposition to him?
Please explain what "actual qualification" you are looking for? A community college diploma perhaps?
There is no justification for the moral equivalence you are seeking to draw between foreign invasion and internal terrorist uprising. It is a rabbit trail. William the Conqueror's forces were faithful to their lawful oaths and to their sovereign.
Lawlessness and sodomy are tied together in scripture, as quoted on that other thread. "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
Boston Illegal wrote: -- Regarding your other rabbit trail, my view is consistent with what I have already expressed.
Nice parry. And I can see your view is indeed consistent with your view.
You declared:
"Lawless rebellion against the Crown was like sodomy."
It is not a rabbit trail to ask if the Norman Crowns were lawful, since William the C. battled and defeated what I assume was a lawful Crown. Perhaps intrigue, war, and conquest are valid snd worthy efforts to establish new "lawful" Crowns, and only colonial opposition is "like sodomy." Were those who later rebelled against Wiliam "like sodomy"?
Mike wrote: So a king may need no actual qualification to be king other than his daddy or grandaddy was king. How sad.
Kings, and their siblings, are trained for royal office from birth. They also have ministers to advise them.
What "actual qualification" did you have in mind? Mastery of soundbites? Sound knowledge of the history of Concord, Lexington and the rest of New Hampshire? Having Russians for neighbors?
Regarding your other rabbit trail, my view is consistent with what I have already expressed.
Boston Illegal wrote: But if one does believe in God, one does obey one's lawful King and his lawful taxation. The rebellion was of antichrist, and the fruit of it is evident to this day. All God-haters are welcome to the 4th July celebrations. ---
Would that be the lawful king George III who inherited his throne? The one who said "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor"?
Despite what you believe, one does not need a belief in a God to be ethical and moral.
Cripes, you even have a Bible verse that says
But if one does believe in God, one does obey one's lawful King and his lawful taxation.
The rebellion was of antichrist, and the fruit of it is evident to this day.
All God-haters are welcome to the 4th July celebrations.
True Christians do not rejoice in sin, nor do they teach their children to delight in it. With God there are absolutes.
"Many will say to Me in that day, â€Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, â€I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"
"And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin."
Digger wrote: Here's the point. Atheists are, however, tired of being distrusted and dismissed as without morals. Despite what you believe, one does not need a belief in a God to be ethical and moral. The whole "without God there are no absolutes" thing needs to stop. Atheists and religious folks are equally able to understand that morality is based on treating other justly. The Golden Rule is a good place to start, and the Christian Bible doesn't have a corner on that concept. It's sad that people would rather vote for a crooked religious candidate than an honest, hard-working person who admits to being an atheist. Why should it matter? Cripes, you even have a Bible verse that says that no good can ever come from a nonbeliever. Wow, I guess every time I've ever worked hard, acted with kindness, or helped a stranger it's been a self-serving act of evil. We also do not love and worship Satan. We don't believe in him, despite your insistence. So why do some atheists feel the need to speak out? Well, when people claim that all laws need to be Bible-based, we get a little uncomfortable. That really rubs the Constitution the wrong way.
What is the athiest basis (non-subjective) for defining "justly" and treating others so?
Atheists, first of all, are not "militant." Flying banners from planes is not militant. Flying planes into buildings is militant.
Atheists are, however, tired of being distrusted and dismissed as without morals. Despite what you believe, one does not need a belief in a God to be ethical and moral. The whole "without God there are no absolutes" thing needs to stop. Atheists and religious folks are equally able to understand that morality is based on treating other justly. The Golden Rule is a good place to start, and the Christian Bible doesn't have a corner on that concept. It's sad that people would rather vote for a crooked religious candidate than an honest, hard-working person who admits to being an atheist. Why should it matter? Cripes, you even have a Bible verse that says that no good can ever come from a nonbeliever. Wow, I guess every time I've ever worked hard, acted with kindness, or helped a stranger it's been a self-serving act of evil.
We also do not love and worship Satan. We don't believe in him, despite your insistence.
So why do some atheists feel the need to speak out? Well, when people claim that all laws need to be Bible-based, we get a little uncomfortable. That really rubs the Constitution the wrong way.
To the militant Atheist, progress is measured by the extent to which God and all references to religion are eliminated from our culture. Most of the ones I know just want to be "left alone", spiritually; but some actually see religion of any kind as a real threat to what they call "human progress".
I see this in my apostate world-loving, nature-loving family members. Like Adam and Eve, they prefer the garden to God--and are still hiding in it from Him.
Dr. Bill Jones | 6/18/2008
COMMENTS | 
udumdum: "
stever
betcha the devil hates her too
you should get to know..."
