Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Stone Island]

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
(http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738&var_recherche=atheism+citizen)
by Richard John Neuhaus (http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Neuhaus/), (August/September 1991, First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/))

The question is asked whether atheists can be good citizens. I do not want to keep you in suspense. I would very much like to answer the question in the affirmative. It seems the decent and tolerant thing to do. But before we can answer the question posed, we should first determine what is meant by atheism. And, second, we must inquire more closely into what is required of a good citizen.

Full Article (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738&var_recherche=atheism+citizen)

[JoeEllison]

Wonderful, more bigotry from you. Why are you so full of hatred towards atheists?

My first guess is that your beliefs are so weak that attacking people who don't believe is all you have to prop yourself up.

[Stone Island]

This was very decent of them:
Copyright/Reproduction Limitations This data file is the sole property of First Things. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright (c) 2000 by First Things") and this Copyright/Reproduction Limitations notice.
This data file may not be used without the permission of First Things for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.
First Things
156 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400
New York, NY 10010
Phone: 212-627-1985
Email: ft@firstthings.com


So here is the entire article:

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

by Richard John Neuhaus

Copyright (c) 1991 First Things (August/September 1991). (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5428)
The question is asked whether atheists can be good citizens. I do not want to keep you in suspense. I would very much like to answer the question in the affirmative. It seems the decent and tolerant thing to do. But before we can answer the question posed, we should first determine what is meant by atheism. And, second, we must inquire more closely into what is required of a good citizen.

Consider our late friend Sidney Hook. Can anyone deny that he was a very good citizen indeed? During the long contest with totalitarianism he was a much better citizen than many believers, including numerous church leaders, who urged that the moral imperative was to split the difference between the evil empire and human fitness for freedom.

On the other hand, Sidney Hook was not really an atheist. He is more accurately described as a philosophical agnostic, one who says that the evidence is not sufficient to compel us either to deny or affirm the reality of God. Sidney was often asked what he would say when he died and God asked him why he did not believe. His standard answer was that he would say, “Lord, you didn’t supply enough evidence.” Some of us are rather confident that Sidney now has all the evidence that he wanted, and we dare to hope that the learning experience is not too painful for him. Unlike many atheists of our time, Sidney Hook believed in reason and evidence that yield what he did not hesitate to call truth. They may have been false gods, but he was not without his gods.



Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety.

[Rufo]

The author makes some surprisingly interesting observations considering his bias, but from what I understand, I disagree with what he thinks constitutes an atheist as well as what he thinks constitutes a good citizen. When it comes to good citizens, I suppose that's a subjective term and can not objectively be wrong, but I'm certain that my definition of atheist is correct and that his is not. He can not hijack that word just any way he wants.

[JoeEllison]

The author makes some surprisingly interesting observations considering his bias, but from what I understand, I disagree with what he thinks constitutes an atheist as well as what he thinks constitutes a good citizen. When it comes to good citizens, I suppose that's a subjective term and can not objectively be wrong, but I'm certain that my definition of atheist is correct and that his is not. He can not hijack that word just any way he wants.

Lying for Jesus, while attacking atheists as being "immoral"... same old, same old.:rolleyes:

[godless dave]

Stone Island, are you unfamiliar with what the First Amendment means by "there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

If you think belief in a particular god should be a requirement for citizenship, I suggest you move to Iran. The UK dropped that requirement several decades after the US declared independence.

[Rufo]

To be fair, I didn't read the whole thing. But I think the beginning displays a lack of understanding of what atheism is, and the ending displays a view of what a good citizen is that I can not agree with. I'm not sure how much time I wish to spend reading something written by someone whose definitions of the most important words on the subject matter (Can atheists be good citizens?) are not the same as mine.

[Stone Island]

Stone Island, are you unfamiliar with what the First Amendment means by "there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

If you think belief in a particular god should be a requirement for citizenship, I suggest you move to Iran. The UK dropped that requirement several decades after the US declared independence.

Somebody didn't read the article.:p

[Darth Rotor]

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Yes.

My friends Pete and Su in Seattle, for starters, and Tricky for the next.

Note that it took me 15 words to answer your question.

Note how many words it took your source.

I win.

I pithed all over him.

DR

[Elind]

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
(http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738&var_recherche=atheism+citizen)
by Richard John Neuhaus (http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Neuhaus/), (August/September 1991, First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/))



Full Article (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738&var_recherche=atheism+citizen)

Can these atheists be good citizens? It depends, I suppose, on what is meant by good citizenship. We may safely assume that the great majority of these people abide by the laws, pay their taxes, and may even be congenial and helpful neighbors. But can a person who does not acknowledge that he is accountable to a truth higher than the self, external to the self, really be trusted? Locke and Rousseau, among many other worthies, thought not. However confused their theology, they were sure that the social contract was based upon nature, upon the way the world really is. Rousseau’s “civil religion” was apparently itself a social construct, but Locke was convinced that the fear of a higher judgment, even an eternal judgment, was essential to citizenship.
It follows that an atheist could not be trusted to be a good citizen, and therefore could not be a citizen at all. Locke is rightly celebrated as a champion of religious toleration, but not of irreligion. “Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God,” he writes in A Letter Concerning Toleration. “Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.” The taking away of God dissolves all. Every text becomes pretext, every interpretation misinterpretation, and every oath a deceit.


And this is what you call logic? I call it bigotry and ignorance and, more appropriately, self centered conceit.

[Stone Island]

I'm not sure how much time I wish to spend reading something written by someone whose definitions of the most important words on the subject matter (Can atheists be good citizens?) are not the same as mine.

Not a very skeptical or scientific attitude. In any case, here's a bit of advice: stay away from philosophy and political science. If you merely want to be confirmed in your prejudices you won't find much support there.

[godofpie]

Somebody didn't read the article.:p
Well I read it and the author calls the separation of church and state political atheism. I would call the author anti-american.

[brodski]

Somebody didn't read the article.:p

Well, it's hardly with it. the argument can be summed up as "morality is necessary for good citizen ship, and if we define atheists as those who lack morality, they cannot, by definition be good citizens".

It's a complete straw man, filled with special pleading.

[Stone Island]

Well I read it and the author calls the separation of church and state political atheism. I would call the author anti-american.

Was James Madison an anti-American, then? :confused:

James Madison in his famed Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785 wrote to similar effect. It is always being forgotten that for Madison and the other founders religious freedom is an unalienable right that is premised upon unalienable duty. “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.” Then follows a passage that could hardly be more pertinent to the question that prompts our present reflection: “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.”

[JoeEllison]

Somebody didn't read the article.:p

This is the same sort of lie that the article contains: is someone disagrees with your position, clearly there's something wrong with them. If someone disagrees with the stupidity in the linked article, you lie to yourself and pretend that they didn't read it. People don't depend on superstition to live their lives, so you pretend that they are bad people.

[JoeEllison]

Was James Madison an anti-American, then? :confused:

This shows your ignorance on the subject. James Madison was one of the biggest supporters of separation of church and state. :rolleyes:

[Stone Island]

This is the same sort of lie that the article contains: is someone disagrees with your position, clearly there's something wrong with them. If someone disagrees with the stupidity in the linked article, you lie to yourself and pretend that they didn't read it. People don't depend on superstition to live their lives, so you pretend that they are bad people.

The author explicitly says that they can be citizens (they follow the law, don't they?). That's why I know you didn't read the article. He denies that they can be good citizens.

It's an important distinction.

[Stone Island]

This shows your ignorance on the subject. James Madison was one of the biggest supporters of separation of church and state. :rolleyes:

Oh really? Do tell.

[godless dave]

Somebody didn't read the article.:p

I wasn't addressing the article, I was addressing you. Why do you think a belief in a god is necessary to be a good citizen of a country whose basic law explicitly forbids the government to establish a religion?

[Nogbad]

The conclusion was spectacularly predictable. :rolleyes:

It is an exercise in semantics - if one defines atheist in a certain way and citizen in another way it is possible to obtain any answer one fancies. The fact of the matter is a great many Western societies function as well if not better than the US with less crime, social dysfunction and murder and less religion too. To argue that such communities do not meet this one specific definition of citizen is largely irrelevant. It is what people do that make communities not what they say they would like to do.

[brodski]

The author explicitly says that they can be citizens (they follow the law, don't they?). That's why I know you didn't read the article. He denies that they can be good citizens.

It's an important distinction.


Except he disproves his own point, his (frankly ludicrous) argument is that one cannot be expected to be moral without a fear of a higher power, yet in his opening paragraphs he cites an example of someone who was in no fear of a higher power, and yet was an exemplar as a citizen.

The author then pleaded away this case by claiming that his example as an agnostic, not an atheist, despite the fact that, firstly, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, and his example was both an atheist and an agnostic, and secondly his example was certainly not in fear of a higher power.

[JoeEllison]

Oh really? Do tell.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Your quote is more dishonestly from you, part of the trend of lying you established from the first. You misinterpret it. Note the bolded parts:

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

[JoeEllison]

The author explicitly says that they can be citizens (they follow the law, don't they?). That's why I know you didn't read the article. He denies that they can be good citizens.

It's an important distinction.
Right... and he did write a bunch of stuff, it just isn't honest or truthful. An important distinction as well.

He's a bigot.

[Gate2501]

Right... and he did write a bunch of stuff, it just isn't honest or truthful. An important distinction as well.

He's a bigot.

Neuhaus is famous for this type of rubbish. He is a hardcore social conservative, and an adviser for Bush himself. He is one of those anti-science guys that thinks we are going to create werewolf clone armies if we even look at a stem cell funny.

[This Guy]

It follows that an atheist could not be trusted to be a good citizen, and therefore could not be a citizen at all. Locke is rightly celebrated as a champion of religious toleration, but not of irreligion. “Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God,” he writes in A Letter Concerning Toleration. “Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.” The taking away of God dissolves all. Every text becomes pretext, every interpretation misinterpretation, and every oath a deceit.
(My Bolding)

Matthew 5:37 (King James Version)

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

James 5:12 (King James Version)

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

I've never understood why the religious don't follow their own guide book.

[Rufo]

Not a very skeptical or scientific attitude. In any case, here's a bit of advice: stay away from philosophy and political science. If you merely want to be confirmed in your prejudices you won't find much support there.
Oh, you've misunderstood me. I love philosophy, am always prepared to bring semantics into a debate, and I did read a large portion of the article. It's just that the author seemed to conclude that atheists are not good citizens as if it was a fact he had proven. Given that he seemed to have misunderstood what atheism is, I found the subject of the article less interesting.

I don't really seek to be confirmed in my prejudices, but to be honest, one of those is that people who make arguments like these frequently misunderstand atheism as a concept. And that one was confirmed.

[Fitter]

The author explicitly says that they can be citizens (they follow the law, don't they?). That's why I know you didn't read the article. He denies that they can be good citizens.

It's an important distinction.

I wore the uniform of the Canadian Air Force for over 20 years. I deployed to Bosnia and and the Middle East when my country asked me. I put myself in harms way at the direction of my democratically elected government. How dare anyone say I am not a good citizen because I don't hold their religious beliefs?

[JoeEllison]

I wore the uniform of the Canadian Air Force for over 20 years. I deployed to Bosnia and and the Middle East when my country asked me. I put myself in harms way at the direction of my democratically elected government. How dare anyone say I am not a good citizen because I don't hold their religious beliefs?

I served 4 years in the USMC, I vote, I pay my taxes, I'm a homeowner, I'm a good neighbor, and some pathetic thug thinks I can't be a good citizen because I don't believe in his imaginary friend?

[Wings]

I want the 10 minutes back that I lost reading that article.

[Gate2501]

Here is a lovely article by Neuhaus where his bigotry is more apparent.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0014.html

He essentially thinks that there should not be " Hate crimes " laws, and he seems to take special issue with the idea of hate crimes against gays.

[Olowkow]

Religion for dummies quiz:
Time limit 1 hour. No cheating allowed.

Can atheists be good citizens?
Yes.
Can theists be good citizens?
Yes.
Can atheists be bad citizens?
Yes.
Can theists be bad citizens?
Yes.

[Yalius]

A good citizen is one who believes the highest, most noble duty is to his or her fellow citizens.

Theists believe the highest duty is to a god.

Theists can't be good citizens!

See? Anybody can play that game.

[brodski]

I served 4 years in the USMC, I vote, I pay my taxes, I'm a homeowner, I'm a good neighbor, and some pathetic thug thinks I can't be a good citizen because I don't believe in his imaginary friend?

No, no, if you are a good citizen you cannot, by definition be a real; atheist, and I bet you put sugar on your porridge too Joe "McEllison! ;)

[JoeEllison]

No, no, if you are a good citizen you cannot, by definition be a real; atheist, and I bet you put sugar on your porridge too Joe "McEllison! ;)

I don't eat "porridge," whatever that is. I'm given to understand that it is a breakfast item, and I drink 2 raw eggs before going for a run with my dog every morning.

[fuelair]

Yes.

My friends Pete and Su in Seattle, for starters, and Tricky for the next.

Note that it took me 15 words to answer your question.

Note how many words it took your source.

I win.

I pithed all over him.

DR
Well, he needed a good shower!!

[Achán hiNidráne]

So, let me see if I get this straight...

You can obey the laws of society.
You can be charitable and help others less fortunate.
You can contribute to said society by holding down a job, paying your taxes, creating businesses, teaching children, etc.
You can even put your life on the line by serving in armed forces or law enforcement.... and yet, because I don't believe in your deity or any other, I, and other atheists like me, can't be considered "good" citizens?

You know, Stone Island. I've gotten to know a lot of the other atheists on this forum. Regards of what Neuhaus writes and what you are obviously implying, they're good people. Indeed, they're better than most Christians I've ever met. They've helped me in many ways when I needed it, and I resent the insinuation that their lack of religiosity makes their contributions to civilization, no matter how small, somehow null and void.

If I can be so bold to say, they're far better citizens than Neuhaus and yourself will EVER be.

[brodski]

I don't eat "porridge," whatever that is. I'm given to understand that it is a breakfast item, and I drink 2 raw eggs before going for a run with my dog every morning.

What kind of Scotsman are you?!?

[linusrichard]

I stopped reading Part I when he described Rorty as a "nihilist" who denies he is a relativist. I'm not familiar enough with Rorty to presume to mention him in a lecture, but apparently I'm more familiar with him than Neuhaus is. Which is weird. There was other silliness in Part I, but none of it's really central to his thesis. (To be fair, there was also good stuff in Part I, also not central to his thesis.)

What is central to his thesis is an almost complete misunderstanding of what atheism is and isn't.

A good citizen does more than abide by the laws. A good citizen is able to give an account, a morally compelling account, of the regime of which he is part. He is able to justify its defense against its enemies, and to convincingly recommend its virtues to citizens of the next generation so that they, in turn, can transmit the regime to citizens yet unborn. This regime of liberal democracy, of republican self-governance, is not self-evidently good and just. An account must be given. Reasons must be given. They must be reasons that draw authority from that which is higher than the self, from that which is external to the self, from that to which the self is ultimately obliged.
Assuming arguendo that this makes sense, is there any reason an atheist can't do all that stuff? (There is no reason.)

[C]an a person who does not acknowledge that he is accountable to a truth higher than the self, external to the self, really be trusted?
Assuming arguendo that the answer is "no," what does this question have to do with atheism? (Nothing.)

Please remember, Neuhaus, and Stone Island, and anyone who might find this kind of garbage convincing: Atheism is not the failure to acknowledge that something "higher than the self, external to the self" exists. Atheism is nothing more or less than a lack or absence of belief in a deity.

[KingMerv00]

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?

[Foster Zygote]

The author explicitly says that they can be citizens (they follow the law, don't they?). That's why I know you didn't read the article. He denies that they can be good citizens.

It's an important distinction.

It's also why he's completely and utterly full of crap. The author is invited to kiss my ass.

[Foster Zygote]

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?

Are you kidding? We're practically child molesters.

Call me a troll, but you know what other group at least 39.5% of the population would say doesn't share their vision of society and at least 47.6% wouldn't want their children to marry?

That's right. Child molesters.

Make of that what you will.

[JoeEllison]

Are you kidding? We're practically child molesters.

You mean like catholic priests? :rolleyes:

[godless dave]

If atheism prevented people from being good citizens, one would expect atheists to have proportionately more criminal convictions than believers, and proportionately lower rates of military and public service.

[Apathia]

Stone Island,

Would you say that voting should be restricted to the "good" citizens?
A Bahai once told me he believed that in the coming Age of Universal Brotherhood in which there would be a single state religion (Bahai of course), Atheists or any who did not believe the Prophet would not be able to participate in the republic.

Do you think America should be governed according to Bibical Law (minus the sacrificial rites of the Old Testement?

[jimmygun]

I don't eat "porridge," whatever that is. I'm given to understand that it is a breakfast item, and I drink 2 raw eggs before going for a run with my dog every morning.


You would be a better citizen if you drink the raw eggs first thing in the morning before going out for a run with your God. Get it? I made a joke about dog and god! Get it?

Alright, I might be a good citizen but I am only a C comedian. Tough crowd!

[JoeEllison]

You would be a better citizen if you drink the raw eggs first thing in the morning before going out for a run with your God. Get it? I made a joke about dog and god! Get it?

Alright, I might be a good citizen but I am only a C comedian. Tough crowd!
Wow... nasty. You could clean it up a bit by calling me dyslexic, or saying that I should do it all in reverse order. That is to say, instead of drinking two raw eggs and then going on a run with my dog in the morning, I should drink two raw eggs AFTER going on a run with my GOD in the EVENING.

Or, we could just laugh at the idea that not believing is a mythological being disqualifies you from good citizenship.

[bokonon]

Can bigots be good citizens?

[JoeEllison]

Can bigots be good citizens?

Not likely?

[Foolmewunz]

As has been noted by many, the stupidity of this troll-o-gram is in the a priori definition of "atheism = bad". What about us existentialists who do not admit to the existence of "good" vs "bad"? (Yeah, I waiver between existentialism and worshiping at the Church of Body Cavity Searching as an overall life view.) If we cannot even agree that there is such a thing as "good", how can some reactionary religious pundit determine whether or not I'm a good citizen.

In fact, as pointed out, the very definition of a "bad citizen" would be one who puts the good of one's country or society anyplace other than topmost on the list of priorities. Since fundies and religio-conservatives all place Ed at the to of their list, then we can posit that dyed in the wool "Theists Are Bad Citizens".



Originally Posted by Stone Island
Call me a troll, but you know what other group at least 39.5% of the population would say doesn't share their vision of society and at least 47.6% wouldn't want their children to marry?

That's right. Child molesters.

Make of that what you will.

You pulled these figures out of you butt, right? This kind of crap is like the great mashed potato conspiracy (which can be used to prove anything), which essentially proves that mashed potatoes are at the heart of all evil-doing. (Because 99.5% of the serial killers, 100% of the armed robbers, and 99.6% of the nun rapists in the penal system have have habitually eaten mashed potatoes since early childhood.)

[ntropy]

In times of testing—and every time is a time of testing for this American experiment in ordered liberty—a morally convincing account must be given. You may well ask. Convincing to whom? One obvious answer in a democracy, although not the only answer, is this: convincing to a majority of their fellow citizens.
Translation: convincing to the mob.

[Kopji]

These thoughts brought to you by the Bradley Foundation as part of their lecture series:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=1

[UnrepentantSinner]

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens? by Richard John Neuhaus,(August/September 1991, First Things

Why would I be interested in the writings of a religious conservative from nearly 20 years ago, published a year before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War?

Religion for dummies quiz:

:) I love it, but shouldn't that be "citizenship for dummies"?

[PrincessIneffabelle]

What I'd really like to see someone post a link to a logically flawed (strawman, begging the question) article arguing that theists can't be good citizens on a Christian or Muslim forum. For good measure, throw in the fact that the author has demonstrably incorrect assumptions about theists. What kind of responses do you think they'd get from these particular "good citizens"?

As for me, I am a law-abiding, middle-aged, middle-class, minivan-driving, cookie-baking, sweater-knitting stay-at-home suburban mom who's been faithfully married to the same man for 17 years. I pay my taxes (no fudging!), vote, donate to charity, maintain my property, help my neighbors, patronize local merchants, treat others with respect, and raise my child with love, encouragement, education, discipline, and humanist values that are not derived from any religion.

I am an atheist. I am also a good citizen. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[godless dave]

Personally I'm not law-abiding. I do buy exclusively American-grown weed, so I'm still a good citizen.

[Radrook]

It all depends on what a particular government considers good citizenship and the moral standards of the atheist in question. We can't lump all atheists into the same moral mold. What atheists have in common, generally speaking, is a disbelief in the existence of God. That definition should suffice for the purposes of this discussion I think.

Apart from that, atheists vary in what they consider moral or immoral or what government laws they feel justified in respecting or disrespecting via obedience or disobedience to them. So the answer to your question is sometimes yes and sometimes no. All of which is really ethically non-descriptive since to evaluate the morality of that relatively-"good citizenship", one would have to examine what that "good citizenship" involves.

For example, being a good citizen under the Nazi-Germany-regime required approving the violations of human rights. So in that case, I guess we can say that good citizenship meant very little in relationship to being morally just. Which in my view makes that "good citizenship" practically worthless.

[Shalamar]

Hmm..

I'm not a good citizen.

Well.. Depending. I'm Canadian, but I live in the States.

I'm Catholic, but far far from practicing.

So.. Not a Citizen, not a (true) theist, not an athiest.

[brodski]

It all depends on what a particular government considers good citizenship and the moral standards of the atheist in question. We can't lump all atheists into the same moral mold. What atheists have in common, generally speaking, is a disbelief in the existence of God. That definition should suffice for the purposes of this discussion I think.

Apart from that, atheists vary in what they consider moral or immoral or what government laws they feel justified in respecting or disrespecting via obedience or disobedience to them. So the answer to your question is sometimes yes and sometimes no. All of which is really ethically non-descriptive since to evaluate the morality of that relative good citizenship one would have to examine what that "good citizenship" involves.

For example, being a good citizen under the Nazi-Germany-regime required approving violations of human rights. So in that case, I guess we can say that good citizenship meant very little in relationship to being morally just. Which in my view makes that "good citizenship" practically worthless.

You are answering the wrong question, you have addressed the question "are all atheists always good citizens?", not "can atheists be good citizens?", two very different questions.

[NobbyNobbs]

The author explicitly says that they can be citizens (they follow the law, don't they?). That's why I know you didn't read the article. He denies that they can be good citizens.

It's an important distinction.

Oh really? Take note:

It follows that an atheist could not be trusted to be a good citizen, and therefore could not be a citizen at all.


Someone didn't read the article.

:rolleyes:

[Jimbo07]

In fact, as pointed out, the very definition of a "bad citizen" would be one who puts the good of one's country or society anyplace other than topmost on the list of priorities. Since fundies and religio-conservatives all place Ed at the to of their list, then we can posit that dyed in the wool "Theists Are Bad Citizens".

Wasn't there a concern that a Catholic president would be accountable to the Pope?

Fortunately, I've run into some helpful fundamentalist Christians (who emphasized the capital C) who helped me understand that Catholics are not True Christians anyway! Whew... dodged that bullet. :rolleyes:

[joobz]

It all depends on what a particular government considers good citizenship and the moral standards of the atheist in question. We can't lump all atheists into the same moral mold. What atheists have in common, generally speaking, is a disbelief in the existence of God. That definition should suffice for the purposes of this discussion I think.

Apart from that, atheists vary in what they consider moral or immoral or what government laws they feel justified in respecting or disrespecting via obedience or disobedience to them. So the answer to your question is sometimes yes and sometimes no. All of which is really ethically non-descriptive since to evaluate the morality of that relatively-"good citizenship", one would have to examine what that "good citizenship" involves.

For example, being a good citizen under the Nazi-Germany-regime required approving the violations of human rights. So in that case, I guess we can say that good citizenship meant very little in relationship to being morally just. Which in my view makes that "good citizenship" practically worthless.
Very good analysis, Radrook! I agree.

You are answering the wrong question, you have addressed the question "are all atheists always good citizens?", not "can atheists be good citizens?", two very different questions.
True, but Radrook's point explains why the answer is a definite yes. But Radrook left it open to which society can athiests be "good" in.

However, I think an interesting follow up question is:

Radrook, do you beleive that Atheists can be good, moral citizens in America?

[Stone Island]

Oh really? Take note:




Someone didn't read the article.

:rolleyes:

He's pointing out Locke and Rousseau's argument and his own argument differs.

[bokonon]

He's pointing out Locke and Rousseau's argument and his own argument differs.
His argument is specious. He claims that only a moral authority that is higher than man can guarantee good citizenship. Since god is nothing more than a convenient fiction which men project their morality on to stifle discussion of what is and is not moral, his premise is an error at best and most likely a deliberate lie.

Adherence to the laws of the nation is all that is required for good citizenship. The moral pronouncements of the "higher authority" which have not been codified in a nation's laws ("No shellfish!") are rules which the nation has deemed no longer applicable. The laws which have no support in the dusty pages of the "higher authority" ("Two passengers or more in the carpool lane!") are rules which the people (without any prompting from God) have decided are right and proper for their society.

Bigots like what's-his-name may think that atheists are undesirables, but he has not made a case that they're bad citizens. I think bigots like what's-his-name are undesirables, but as long as they obey the laws, I can't really argue that they're not good citizens.

Last time I checked, there were no additional rights or privileges conferred on those who claim the title "Good Citizen," so I'm not really sure what the point of the question is in the first place. I suspect it's merely an excuse to spew a lot of philosophical buzzwords to express the simple idea that he doesn't like atheists. Unless he's trying to take away my right to vote, serve on the local school board, check out library books, or use the carpool lane, I don't really care what a hateful little bigot thinks about my position on "higher authority."

[linusrichard]

not a (true) theist, not an athiest.

???

Do you believe that a god exists?

[Darth Rotor]

Personally I'm not law-abiding. I do buy exclusively American-grown weed, so I'm still a good citizen.

*sings*

Look for
The Union Label . . .

[Stone Island]

His argument is specious. He claims that only a moral authority that is higher than man can guarantee good citizenship. Since god is nothing more than a convenient fiction which men project their morality on to stifle discussion of what is and is not moral, his premise is an error at best and most likely a deliberate lie.

Adherence to the laws of the nation is all that is required for good citizenship. The moral pronouncements of the "higher authority" which have not been codified in a nation's laws ("No shellfish!") are rules which the nation has deemed no longer applicable. The laws which have no support in the dusty pages of the "higher authority" ("Two passengers or more in the carpool lane!") are rules which the people (without any prompting from God) have decided are right and proper for their society.

Bigots like what's-his-name may think that atheists are undesirables, but he has not made a case that they're bad citizens. I think bigots like what's-his-name are undesirables, but as long as they obey the laws, I can't really argue that they're not good citizens.

Last time I checked, there were no additional rights or privileges conferred on those who claim the title "Good Citizen," so I'm not really sure what the point of the question is in the first place. I suspect it's merely an excuse to spew a lot of philosophical buzzwords to express the simple idea that he doesn't like atheists. Unless he's trying to take away my right to vote, serve on the local school board, check out library books, or use the carpool lane, I don't really care what a hateful little bigot thinks about my position on "higher authority."

Can an atheist, especially one who relies heavily on a verification theory of meaning, give an accounting, a justification, of the self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence?

Axiomatic truths, are not, if I'm not mistaken, the same as scientific truths.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

[Shalamar]

???

Do you believe that a god exists?

In some vague form, yes. (Part of my upbringing.)

But at the same time, I'm gaining a large distrust of organized religion.

I have an.. erm.. odd view on things.

[Polaris]

The author explicitly says that they can be citizens (they follow the law, don't they?). That's why I know you didn't read the article. He denies that they can be good citizens.

It's an important distinction.

Pat Tillman's story pretty much deep-sixes that argument.

[Stone Island]

Pat Tillman's story pretty much deep-sixes that argument.

Well, if we begin from Neuhaus's terms, how?

[godless dave]

Can an atheist, especially one who relies heavily on a verification theory of meaning, give an accounting, a justification, of the self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence?




Who cares if he or she can? Doing so is not required for good citizenship.

[brodski]

Well, if we begin from Neuhaus's terms, how?

If we begin from Neuhaus's terms we would be begging the question.

[Polaris]

Well, if we begin from Neuhaus's terms, how?

The guy gave his life for his country. I can't imagine a better display of good citizenship than that. And he was an atheist.

[Gate2501]

Well, if we begin from Neuhaus's terms, how?

That doesn't fire off any alarm bells in your brain?

Does 2+2 = 2501?

Well, if we begin from Gate2501's terms...

:cool:

[Foster Zygote]

Can an atheist, especially one who relies heavily on a verification theory of meaning, give an accounting, a justification, of the self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence?

Axiomatic truths, are not, if I'm not mistaken, the same as scientific truths.



Appeal to authority.

The Declaration of Independence is not an article of U.S. Government. It was a piece of political rhetoric.

An atheist can hold that all humans have equal rights regardless of statements like "self-evident" and "created". A theist can hold that some people are superior to others and that these "inferiors" deserve less rights. Your argument is fallacious.

[bokonon]

Can an atheist, especially one who relies heavily on a verification theory of meaning, give an accounting, a justification, of the self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence?

Axiomatic truths, are not, if I'm not mistaken, the same as scientific truths.


Self-evident is self-evident. The law should apply equally to all men.

As for another passage in the Declaration, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," that's just another projection. The government deprives men of life and liberty all the time, so the right is hardly as "inalienable" as is claimed.

Men make the laws, and appeals to higher authority don't mean squat. Slaveholders in the old south appealed to biblical authority to justify their peculiar institution, but the claimed endorsement from the almighty didn't make the practice any more moral.

[Stone Island]

Who cares if he or she can? Doing so is not required for good citizenship.

According to Neuhaus it does. Why do you disagree?

[Stone Island]

Appeal to authority.

The Declaration of Independence is not an article of U.S. Government. It was a piece of political rhetoric.

An atheist can hold that all humans have equal rights regardless of statements like "self-evident" and "created". A theist can hold that some people are superior to others and that these "inferiors" deserve less rights. Your argument is fallacious.
Begging the question.

The Constitution refers to the establishment of a "more perfect union", leading one to believe that there was a less perfect union already in existence. What created this less perfect union? According to Abraham Lincoln is was the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation. These documents are our tradition which the Constitution continues.

[Stone Island]

If we begin from Neuhaus's terms we would be begging the question.
No, we would be doing philosophy.

[Gate2501]

According to Neuhaus it does. Why do you disagree?

Once again. Circular reasoning.

You are basing your entire argument on this mans semantics and ideas. Neuhaus is a bigoted, social conservative, with a whip to crack. He is an adviser to Pres. Bush, and a very politically active Catholic priest.

Yes, if you predicate the basis for right and wrong in your argument on the views of this man, you are correct within that framework. I am also correct in my above post that 2+2 = 2501 using this same brand of reasoning.

[bokonon]

According to Neuhaus it does. Why do you disagree?
Neuhaus is just another ventriloquist, who finds an imaginary (and thus always silent) deity to be the perfect ventriloquist's dummy. Neuhaus and others love putting words in God's mouth, as though this gives their ideas extra weight. It doesn't.

Neuhaus's argument begins and ends in speciousness.

[Stone Island]

Self-evident is self-evident. The law should apply equally to all men.

As for another passage in the Declaration, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," that's just another projection. The government deprives men of life and liberty all the time, so the right is hardly as "inalienable" as is claimed.

Men make the laws, and appeals to higher authority don't mean squat. Slaveholders in the old south appealed to biblical authority to justify their peculiar institution, but the claimed endorsement from the almighty didn't make the practice any more moral.

If you don't believe that the claims are true and important than you cannot defend it on its own terms.

[godless dave]

A theist can hold that some people are superior to others and that these "inferiors" deserve less rights.

And throughout history many theists have. The kings of Europe, including the one the US declared independence from, derived their authority over others from the Christian God.

[Stone Island]

Once again. Circular reasoning.

You are basing your entire argument on this mans semantics and ideas. Neuhaus is a bigoted, social conservative, with a whip to crack. He is an adviser to Pres. Bush, and a very politically active Catholic priest.

Yes, if you predicate the basis for right and wrong in your argument on the views of this man, you are correct within that framework. I am also correct in my above post that 2+2 = 2501 using this same brand of reasoning.

Ad hominem

Guilt by association

[Gate2501]

No, we would be doing philosophy.


If you have a philosophical point to make, and cannot make it without using the explicit reasoning and arguments set forth by this man, then YOU do not have a point at all.

[Stone Island]

And throughout history many theists have. The kings of Europe, including the one the US declared independence from, derived their authority over others from the Christian God.

Let's just clear this one up. I forget what it's called, but an argument that says, for instance, that atheists are always wrong isn't the same as saying that theists are never wrong.

A theist who is wrong disproves the argument that theists are never wrong and not the arguments that atheists are always wrong.

[Gate2501]

Ad hominem

Guilt by association

You are reduced to this? Just spitting out fallacies in defense of your own circular argument that has been explained to you numerous times? My calling Neuhaus a bigot is not even an Ad Hom. Go back and look at the article by him that I linked where he thinks that crimes against gays should not count as a "hate crime". And calling him a social conservative is simply true.

[KingMerv00]

Perhaps you missed it...

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?

[Foster Zygote]

Let's just clear this one up. I forget what it's called, but an argument that says, for instance, that atheists are always wrong isn't the same as saying that theists are never wrong.

A theist who is wrong disproves the argument that theists are never wrong and not the arguments that atheists are always wrong.

And an atheist who is a good citizen disproves the argument that atheists cannot be good citizens. I'm glad we cleared that all up.

[Safe-Keeper]

Can an atheist, especially one who relies heavily on a verification theory of meaning, give an accounting, a justification, of the self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence?

Axiomatic truths, are not, if I'm not mistaken, the same as scientific truths.Can atheists realize that humans should be treated well and not discriminated against?

[Edit to elaborate:] As is evident by the freedoms and rights enjoyed by minority groups, such as homosexuals and immigrants, in atheist countries such as Iceland, yes. Next question?

[bokonon]

The Constitution refers to the establishment of a "more perfect union", leading one to believe that there was a less perfect union already in existence.
Perfect is perfect. The most it could properly say is a "more nearly perfect union." Either way, it's little more than empty rhetoric. Unless there is still room for improvement, we should just send the Congress home.

This has nothing to do with whether atheists can be good citizens.

[Stone Island]

If you have a philosophical point to make, and cannot make it without using the explicit reasoning and arguments set forth by this man, then YOU do not have a point at all.

Sure, I would. I could make an argument that shows how on its own terms, his argument either doesn't follow, has various unpleasant and unintended consequences, is trivial, isn't a thorough thinking out of the problem, or commits some fallacy of one kind of another.

When you read a philosophical paper, half the time the author is trying to make the argument he is against stronger so that his counter-argument is that much more authoritative.

Read some of Michael Martin's papers (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/index.html). He's usually very fair in this way.

[Stone Island]

You are reduced to this? Just spitting out fallacies in defense of your own circular argument that has been explained to you numerous times? My calling Neuhaus a bigot is not even an Ad Hom. Go back and look at the article by him that I linked where he thinks that crimes against gays should not count as a "hate crime". And calling him a social conservative is simply true.

Oh yes, I forgot about that. Listen, if you're going to make arguments from consequences without going into arguments or reasons, then why try and justify anything? Why do you disagree with him, why do you think is argument is flawed?

It's a rhetorical fallacy on your part.

[Stone Island]

Perfect is perfect. The most it could properly say is a "more nearly perfect union." Either way, it's little more than empty rhetoric. Unless there is still room for improvement, we should just send the Congress home.

This has nothing to do with whether atheists can be good citizens.

It has everything to do with whether the Declaration of Independence is important or not and the status of the documents that came before.

[godless dave]

Let's just clear this one up. I forget what it's called, but an argument that says, for instance, that atheists are always wrong isn't the same as saying that theists are never wrong.

A theist who is wrong disproves the argument that theists are never wrong and not the arguments that atheists are always wrong.

But no one is making the argument that theists are always wrong. The argument is that appealing to a god to justify one's political beliefs is useless. One can just as easily use belief in a god to justify a belief that some people have authority over others as to justify a belief that all people are equal.

[Gate2501]

Sure, I would. I could make an argument that shows how on its own terms, his argument either doesn't follow, has various unpleasant and unintended consequences, is trivial, isn't a thorough thinking out of the problem, or commits some fallacy of one kind of another.

When you read a philosophical paper, half the time the author is trying to make the argument he is against stronger so that his counter-argument is that much more authoritative.

Read some of Michael Martin's papers (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/index.html). He's usually very fair in this way.

The point I was trying to make is that Neuhaus's argument was destroyed on page 1 by people proving that yes, "an atheist can be a good citizen" using the conventional definitions of all words involved.

It was also pointed out that Neahaus's entire reasoning is based on religion being the source of morality in men. This is hogwash.

After his logic was proven faulty, you simply began saying " But using Neahaus's logic atheists cannot be good citizens ".

As we have pointed out, this is circular and you do not have an argument to make. You are just repeating the words of this man and appealing to them even after they have been shredded.

[godless dave]

The Constitution refers to the establishment of a "more perfect union", leading one to believe that there was a less perfect union already in existence. What created this less perfect union? According to Abraham Lincoln is was the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation.

If Abraham Lincoln really said that, he was wrong. The less perfect union was the one created by the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration of Independence does not create a union at all, nor does it specify a form of government for any of the states.

[brodski]

Ad hominem

Guilt by association

the fallacy by fallacy

[Darat]

...snip... Why do you disagree with him, why do you think is argument is flawed?

...snip...

Evidence.

[bokonon]

If you don't believe that the claims are true and important than you cannot defend it on its own terms.
Thanks for that meaningless assessment.

[bokonon]

It has everything to do with whether the Declaration of Independence is important or not and the status of the documents that came before.
It's obviously important, as its creation was a watershed event in the formation of our country.

That document, and the documents which preceded it, can be discussed by good citizens without requiring belief in a deity.

[Safe-Keeper]

The article is meaningless anyhow, as it's a philosophical writeup rather than actual anthropology/psychology. You don't use philosophy to analyze the behaviour of real-world groups, you use simple observation. A mere glance at statistics tells you atheists can be, and in fact most of the time are, good citizens. Why write a several pages long philosophical essay when you can look at the HDI and compare it to the religious adherence of each nation, for example (hint: the atheist and secular nations dominate the HDI;))?

I think a better question would be:
Why are you so full of hatred towards atheists?Really. Are you merely jumping on the anti-atheist bandwagon, or is it something more personal?

[brodski]

Why write a several pages long philosophical essay when you can look at the HDI and compare it to the religious adherence of each nation, for example (hint: the atheist and secular nations dominate the HDI;))?

Because the article wishes to define a good citizen as one who believes in god, to therefore prove that atheists cannot be good citizens by definition. It is a nasty piece of political rhetoric masquerading as philosophy.
The author has no intention of letting reality get in the way of his bigotry.

[Stone Island]

That document, and the documents which preceded it, can be discussed by good citizens without requiring belief in a deity.

But can they be understood as fundamentally true, without that belief?

[Kopji]

God as useful lie

I think that in this example, questions around Neuhaus's political activity, and the sponsor of the paper, the Bradley Foundation, are not fallacious. The reason is because they have a vested financial interest in defining "good citizen" in a particular way that is indeed circular. "Good citizen", to their point of view, includes character that is malleable to serving their purposes in the name of God. If you are not willing to be so sent, you are not a "good citizen" in their view.

Neuhaus does hit one nail pretty good - God, whether or not he exists, is at least a useful lie or tool - a virtual point people are directed toward or work for.

But of course he exists, because he is our tool. Your God would not exist if he did not serve our purposes. This is dizzyingly circular.

These kind of papers do raise a question about where religious belief comes from, and who it ultimately serves. Should it surprise anyone to find out that popular theology and beliefs are being influenced (funded) by the munitions industry or certain extremist political viewpoints? There is money and power in it.

[brodski]

But can they be understood as fundamentally true, without that belief?

as history shows, they were not understood as fundamentally true with that belief.

[Stone Island]

If Abraham Lincoln really said that, he was wrong. The less perfect union was the one created by the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration of Independence does not create a union at all, nor does it specify a form of government for any of the states.

By July 4, 1776, the signers of the DOI referred to themselves as the "Representatives of the United States of America, in general congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intension, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States..." Independent from Britain, of course, not independent from each other.

The states had their own Constitutions. Still do. The U.S. Constitution, which, I believe, has the most to say on this subject, only promises a republican form of government. Hell, until the 14th Amendment, the states could establish their own religions. Some did!

[Stone Island]

as history shows, they were not understood as fundamentally true with that belief.

Well, if they are fundamentally true, then the people who acted contrary to them were either wrong, profoundly ignorant, or hypocrites.

[bignickel]

(With nods to KingMerv)

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?

[Jimbo07]

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?



Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?

[Prometheus]

Well, if they are fundamentally true, then the people who acted contrary to them were either wrong, profoundly ignorant, or hypocrites.

And if they're not fundamentally true they can still be used equally well as a basis for civil society. The question of whether they are or aren't fundamentally true, indeed whether fundamental truth does or does not even exist are completely irrelevant to the defining good citizenship.

[joobz]

Perhaps you missed it...

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?
(With nods to KingMerv)

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?
Stone Island, when you get arround to answering that question, I direct you to FZ's post, which you happened to overlook.

And an atheist who is a good citizen disproves the argument that atheists cannot be good citizens. I'm glad we cleared that all up.

[godless dave]

But can they be understood as fundamentally true, without that belief?

Just as much as they can be understood as fundamentally true with that belief. In other words, no.

[godless dave]

By July 4, 1776, the signers of the DOI referred to themselves as the "Representatives of the United States of America, in general congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intension, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States..." Independent from Britain, of course, not independent from each other.

That establishes neither a union nor a government.

[Safe-Keeper]

But can they be understood as fundamentally true, without that belief?Begging the question.

Moving the burden over to God to make it more than 'just someone's opinion' doesn't change a thing. It's still just opinion - God's opinion.

Me: Why do you believe people should be respected?
Fundie: Because God says so.
Me: OK, let me rephrase that. Why does He think people should be respected?
Fundie: ...

It's the same logic as this:

Me: How come the Earth doesn't topple or fall, but appears to hang still in space?
Fundie: Because the Titans hold it up, keeping it from falling.
Me: What hold the Titans up, keeping them from falling?
Fundie: ...

[bokonon]

But can they be understood as fundamentally true, without that belief?
Is it possible to understand [To secure the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. as fundamentally true without a belief in a deity? Certainly.

The better question is whether anything that depends on a belief in a dubious invention that no one has seen can be seen as fundamentally true. It seems to me that anything that depends on such a belief is, by its very nature, fundamentally doubtful.

[articulett]

Would theists behave as morally as we atheists if they weren't imagining a god spying on them ready to damn them to eternity for bad behavior and give them presents and eternal goodies for "faith" promoting activities?

Would Stone Island be more moral and less bigoted if his brain hadn't been seeped in theism? (studies indicate this is likely: http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html)

[articulett]

Well I read it and the author calls the separation of church and state political atheism. I would call the author anti-american.

And separation of church and state is correctly termed: secularism

It's a position of neutrality so one person invisible savior doesn't have precedence over another's.

[godless dave]

I don't know about you all, but even if God existed and that God said that some humans were designed by Him to have authority over others, I'd still prefer to live under a system of government that treated all humans as equal.

[articulett]

Hmm..

I'm not a good citizen.

Well.. Depending. I'm Canadian, but I live in the States.

I'm Catholic, but far far from practicing.

So.. Not a Citizen, not a (true) theist, not an athiest.

Maybe you're a "true Scotsman"?
(how do you take your porridge?)

[Foster Zygote]

Stone Island, can atheists be good citizens?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Maybe you're a "true Scotsman"?
(how do you take your porridge?)

Eh? Probably like I have mine; with maple syrup. :blush:

[Moochie]

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
(http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738&var_recherche=atheism+citizen)
by Richard John Neuhaus (http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Neuhaus/), (August/September 1991, First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/))



Full Article (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738&var_recherche=atheism+citizen)

Of course! Why the heck not? Atheists are among the loveliest people in the world, which is more than I can say for Tom Cruise.

Get this: It's not the religion in the person, but the person in the religion.

Unless, of course, you have sold your non-existent "soul" to mammon.


M.

[bobcarp]

So it’s a quandary if an atheist can inherently be a good citizen simply by being an atheist, but not a quandary that someone who believes in a false god (any god other than what the examining person believes in) can be a good citizen? No belief = questionably good citizen? False god belief = citizenship not questioned?

[Stone Island]

Would theists behave as morally as we atheists if they weren't imagining a god spying on them ready to damn them to eternity for bad behavior and give them presents and eternal goodies for "faith" promoting activities?


Plato says no.

Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.

[Stone Island]

So it’s a quandary if an atheist can inherently be a good citizen simply by being an atheist, but not a quandary that someone who believes in a false god (any god other than what the examining person believes in) can be a good citizen? No belief = questionably good citizen? False god belief = citizenship not questioned?

Could a Communist be a good citizen of the United States?

[Stone Island]

That establishes neither a union nor a government.

The DOI is a statement of the animating philosophy of the Union and later the government. It sets out our faith in the proposition that all men are created equal which the ground for any just government.

[six7s]

You are basing your entire argument on this mans semantics and ideas

Semantics and ideas that suggest that the man is a zealous nutter, yearning for a nostalgic (i.e. unreal) past

Those whom we call atheists in the modern period... <snip/> ... deny the reality of what they understand believing Jews and Christians to mean by God. This form of atheism is a post-Enlightenment and largely nineteenth-century phenomenon. It developed a vocabulary—first of course among intellectuals but then becoming culturally pervasive—that was strongly prejudiced against believers. Note the very use of the term “believer” to describe a person who is persuaded of the reality of God. The alternative to being a believer, of course, is to be a knower. Similarly, a curious usage developed with respect to the categories of faith and reason, the subjective and the objective, and, in the realm of morals, a sharp distinction between fact and value. Belief, faith, subjectivity, values—these were the soft and dubious words relevant to affirming God. Knowledge, reason, objectivity, fact—these were the hard and certain words relevant to denying God. This tendentious vocabulary of modern unbelief is still very much with us today.

Yep... but luckily not with all of us

Some of us are content to define atheism in much simpler terms:

a = without
theism = a need for woo

Why, I wonder, did Neuhaus waste so many words on such irrelevancies?

Clutching at straws, perhaps?


You don't use philosophy to analyze the behaviour of real-world groups, you use simple observation

Simple observation suggests, to me, that my 3-month old niece is a normal, happy child.... but was she born incapable of being a good citizen?

After all, she was born and undoubtedly still is an atheist... simply because she is too young and innocent to even understand, let alone consider, the arguments (for want of a better word) in favour of any woo

@Stone Island: Does she (before we can even begin to hope that she will mature into a 'good' citizen) need to be zapped by the some magickal force from on high?

However, before you answer my question, it would be proper (the sort of thing a good citizen®©™ would do) to answer KingMerv00 first

Perhaps you missed it...

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?

[Prometheus]

The DOI is a statement of the animating philosophy of the Union and later the government. It sets out our faith ^assumption that all men are created ^born equal, which is the ground for any just government.

Fixed it for you.

[bignickel]

Stone Island, can atheists be good citizens?

[godless dave]

The DOI is a statement of the animating philosophy of the Union and later the government. It sets out our faith in the proposition that all men are created equal which the ground for any just government.

Which does not create a union or a government.

[Stone Island]

a = without
theism = a need for woo

Can science discover rights? Are rights woo?

[godless dave]

No and no. So what?

Rights are not a real thing that exist. They are an abstract concept thought up by humans, just like authority and laws. They are useful when describing the kinds of societies people want to live in and the governments we want to have.

[Stone Island]

No and no. So what?

Rights are not a real thing that exist. They are an abstract concept thought up by humans. They are useful when describing the kinds of societies people want to live in and the governments we want to have.

If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural, then why should we respect them? Is there any reason to say that cannibal societies are less legitimate than non-cannibal societies?

[godless dave]

If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural, then why should we respect them?

Because respecting them results in a society that is more likely to be fair and just. Note that fairness and justice are also abstract concepts.

Is there any reason to say that cannibal societies are less legitimate than non-cannibal societies?

"Legitimate" is also an abstract concept. If you don't want to be killed and eaten, then you probably wouldn't want your society to accept cannibalism.

[Safe-Keeper]

If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural, then why should we respect them?Why should we respect a society that encourages freedom, equality, police restraint and happiness?

Er, because such a society is a hundred times better to live in than a cannibalist dictatorship? Are you really telling me that you don't really see a reason for the US to be a Republic at all, and that you support democracy just because it's what God happened to like? Would you start eating babies if Yahweh descended from the clouds tomorrow and confessed He was really into dictatorship and child-roasting than democracy?

Christianity was never about democracy to begin with. The Bible says nothing about freedom of speech or religion - in fact, it's very clear on what you should do to people who advocate foreign gods, or who run their mouth at their parents. Democracy, whether you like it or not, is not a Christian idea.

Can science discover rights? Indirectly, yes. By analyzing scientific studies of past and present societies, we can determine which are favorable for us to live in and which should be discarded.

Are rights woo?No, and no one claimed they were.

Could a Communist be a good citizen of the United States?I don't see why not.

[Prometheus]

No and no. So what?

Rights are not a real thing that exist. They are an abstract concept thought up by humans, just like authority and laws. They are useful when describing the kinds of societies people want to live in and the governments we want to have.

If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural, then why should we respect them? Is there any reason to say that cannibal societies are less legitimate than non-cannibal societies?

Er...because they help describe society that we want to live in. Is this really so difficult for you?

[bignickel]

Stone Island, can atheists be good citizens?

[articulett]

No and no. So what?

Rights are not a real thing that exist. They are an abstract concept thought up by humans, just like authority and laws.

And demons.

And gods.

[Jimbo07]

If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural,

Well, we are natural, so abstract concepts thought up by us are the result of natural processes. It may be that the ability to think abstractly is an evolutionary advantage. One million years from now, it may not matter. This is all irrelevant...

Can atheists be good citizens?

[Stone Island]

Because respecting them results in a society that is more likely to be fair and just. Note that fairness and justice are also abstract concepts.



"Legitimate" is also an abstract concept. If you don't want to be killed and eaten, then you probably wouldn't want your society to accept cannibalism.

So if say "fair," "just," and "rights", and get people to agree with us, then the content of those words is unimportant. They're not a reference to any particular universal truth.

If I got enough people to agree with me that "hanging atheists from trees until dead" was included in the ideas of fair, just, and rights, then that would be as legitimate a ground for a society as a society that rejected hanging atheists from trees until dead.

It's just that the Founders of the United States, and the writers of the Constitution, actually believed in the universalness of the rights they were protecting and that ideas like liberty had some meaning apart from the preferences of a particular time and place.

So someone who argues that a right is contingent and particular to a time and place fundamentally disagrees with what those who founded this country meant.

[Jekyll]

If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural, then why should we respect them? Is there any reason to say that cannibal societies are less legitimate than non-cannibal societies?

Where are human rights mentioned in the bible?
I remember the good book being quite big on what you couldn't do. I don't remember much about what you're entitled to.

[godless dave]

So if say "fair," "just," and "rights", and get people to agree with us, then the content of those words is unimportant.

That doesn't follow at all. Those words can be defined. They're still abstract concepts, not universal truths.

A society that allowed atheists to be executed for no reason other than being atheists wouldn't be "fair" because of the definition of the word "fair".

[six7s]

Can an atheist be a good citizen®©™?

[bokonon]

Can science discover rights? Are rights woo?
Science does not discover rights. Men agree on rights. No deity is required for this agreement. Indeed, in the case I noted earlier (U.S. slavery), a deity and some dusty writings attributed to it were used to justify denying rights to some men, and most women.

In some places, that is still the case today. All the belief in deities seems to do in these cases is retard the acquisition of rights by those whose rights are being denied.

Can atheists be good citizens, Stone Island?

[Stone Island]

That doesn't follow at all. Those words can be defined. They're still abstract concepts, not universal truths.

I presume that if they can be defined then they can be redefined, especially if they don't correspond to a universal truth.

We know that justice has been defined at least a thousand and one ways. Nietzsche's Zarathustra talks of the thousand and one goods. The real question, are any of them true in any non-trivial sense?

The American Founding in its way was an assertion of faith: that the way they defined justice and rights was universally true and were the necessary basis for any just society.

[Stone Island]

A society that allowed atheists to be executed for no reason other than being atheists wouldn't be "fair" because of the definition of the word "fair".

Aristotle refers to giving equal to equals and unequal to unequals. There could be a society that was dedicated to the proposition that atheists are not equal to theists. What is fair to give to them is different than what is fair to give to the other. It's fair to hang atheists and fair to not hang theists.

[bokonon]

If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural, then why should we respect them?
Because we've collectively agreed to. It's called the social contract.

In the United States, one aspect of the social contract is that we've agreed that the choice of religion is a man's private business. Anyone who argues that atheists who obey the law, and even contribute to society voluntarily over and above what is required by law, are not good citizens, is simply incorrect.

Can atheists be good citizens, Stone Island?

[godless dave]

I presume that if they can be defined then they can be redefined, especially if they don't correspond to a universal truth.

If it's redefined, then it's not the same concept.



We know that justice has been defined at least a thousand and one ways. Nietzsche's Zarathustra talks of the thousand and one goods. The real question, are any of them true in any non-trivial sense?

Depends what you mean by "true".


The American Founding in its way was an assertion of faith: that the way they defined justice and rights was universally true and were the necessary basis for any just society.

I agree. This does not at all conflict with justice and rights being abstract concepts.

[hilliag]

Dear Stone Island:
I have been following this thread all morning. Why do you not answer that simple question, whether atheists can be good citizens?

[godless dave]

Aristotle refers to giving equal to equals and unequal to unequals.

Who cares what Aristotle says about anything?

Stone Island, I suggest you read up on the concepts of "social contract" and "enlightened self-interest". I also strongly suggest reading some Thomas Paine.

[Fitter]

Stone Island, KingMerv00 wants to know if YOU think atheists can be good citizens. As a theist perhaps you could be a good member of this forum and respond to his question. Even if you say you choose not to answer it at least be polite enough to reply. I know I'm a good, not perfect but good, citizen and need neither your nor Neuhaus' validation thank you very much.

[Stone Island]

Because we've collectively agreed to. It's called the social contract.

What if we changed our minds, as a society, and the majority decided that atheists should be hung from trees until dead. What then? To what would you appeal?

Would you say, "Well, what about my right not to be hung from a tree?" What would that mean, that you said that? What would you be appealing to?

If you said, "Well, that's what our forefathers agreed to, that no one should be hung from a tree for not believing in God."

They might reply, "Well, people in the past were stupid, they didn't know all the things that we know now. We know now that it's much better and more just to hang atheists from trees until they're dead."

Then what?

[blobru]

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens? (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738&var_recherche=atheism+citizen)
by Richard John Neuhaus (http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Neuhaus/), (August/September 1991, First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/))
Full Article (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738&var_recherche=atheism+citizen)

That wasn’t a bad read. Thanks for posting.

A good citizen is able to give an account, a morally compelling account, of the regime of which he is part.


Neuhaus' thesis [my synopsis]: Every good citizen should be able to give a rational defense of the Union. The DoI which defines the American Union is based on God's granting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Theists are good citizens because they know God exists; they know of God is good, so they know His laws are good; their rational defense is obvious. Atheists don't believe in God, and thus are free to doubt the very axioms on which the Union was founded. They cannot give a rational defense of the Union; therefore atheists are not good citizens.

“Every good citizen should be able to give a rational defense of the Union”: let's grant that, for argument's sake.
“The DoI which defines the American Union is based on God's granting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”: this too.

"Theists are good citizens because they know God exists; they know of God is good, so they know His laws are good; their rational defense is obvious": this puzzled me, reading the article. At one point Neuhaus argues against the Enlightenment enterprise of finding a rational basis for God:
Descartes determined that he would accept as true nothing that could be reasonably doubted, and Christians set about to prove that the existence of God could not be reasonably doubted. Thus did the defenders of religion set faith against the doubt that is integral to the life of faith.

He says this robs “God” of the doubt that is essential to the life of faith, turns theists into mere believers. Real theism then is an internal conflict, the victory of faith over doubt presumably, which amounts to knowledge of God.

This is a religious notion of "knowledge". It is not I would argue a very secure basis for rational argument. If religious "knowledge" is based in faith versus doubt, who's to say how strong those doubts are, and what effects they have on the theists conduct? Who's to say how exhausting this internal struggle is, how much energy it consumes, how little energy the theist may have left over for fulfilling his duties as a citizen? Who's to say that there aren't moments when doubt has the upper hand, when the theist by Neuhaus' definition isn't a good citizen at all, with no knowledge that the rights granted her by God are absolute, no ability to convincingly defend them?

Separating traditional theism from enlightened reason and then arguing only a traditional theist can adhere to the principles of an Enlightenment document seems a exercise in paradox and futility, to me at least. It seems Neuhaus is hoist by his own petard.

So before we answer the question: can an atheist be a good citizen? – we now, thanks to Neuhaus’ self-contradiction, have a new question to answer: can a theist be a good citizen? For by his own logic, Neuhaus and his theist are in no better shape than the atheist to claim a rational monopoly on good citizenship. Indeed, given the reluctance to believe there are any avenues to good citizenship other than theism, it is doubtful, again by his own logic, that Neuhaus the theist is a citizen at all.

Anyway, that's my first blush of the divine Mr. Neuhaus; just an atheist, what the hell would I know about it, eh? :D

[godless dave]

You would ask them to explain why it's better to hang atheists from trees. Fairness isn't defined by the majority of a population anyway.

What would you appeal to, Stone Island? God isn't exactly forthcoming about what he considers "fair" and "just" and what "rights" he thinks people should have. So the atheist and the theist have exactly the same recourse - concepts defined by humans.

[bokonon]

I presume that if they can be defined then they can be redefined, especially if they don't correspond to a universal truth.
You mean a universal truth like "Don't eat shellfish"?

The American Founding in its way was an assertion of faith: that the way they defined justice and rights was universally true and were the necessary basis for any just society.
Since the definition of justice and rights has obviously evolved to include former slaves, women, and men who don't own property, I'd say that any of them who thought they'd found the universal definition for those terms were mistaken.

Can atheists be good citizens, Stone Island?

[godless dave]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "fairness", "justice", and "rights" are universal truths.

How do we know that the interpretation of those truths by the authors of the US constitution is the correct one? As you yourself have pointed out, Stone Island, others in history have interpreted them differently, and, as you claim the constitution's authors did, they claimed that their interpretation came from God. How do we determine whose interpretations are correct?

[Stone Island]

You mean a universal truth like "Don't eat shellfish"?


Since the definition of justice and rights has obviously evolved to include former slaves, women, and men who don't own property, I'd say that any of them who thought they'd found the universal definition for those terms were mistaken.

See, I've always thought that rights as understood by the founding generation included former slaves, women, and men who didn't own property, that they knew this, and that the injustices of our early history were the result of rank hypocrisy (which may be rather worse), some cynical but necessary political deals, the hope that while the country was flawed it would get better, and not ignorance of the extent right reached.

[godless dave]

Why would you assume that? They certainly didn't say so - most of them anyway. John Adams explicitly poo-pooed the idea that women should be able to vote.

It seems more likely that they disagreed on the meaning of those concepts.

[articulett]

Hitchens just achieved American citizenship... he apparently qualifies as a good citizen. He's an atheist. How can that be? Haven't the people in charge read Neuhaus??!?

[Stone Island]

How do we know that the interpretation of those truths by the authors of the US constitution is the correct one? As you yourself have pointed out, Stone Island, others in history have interpreted them differently, and, as you claim the constitution's authors did, they claimed that their interpretation came from God. How do we determine whose interpretations are correct?

Governments are founded by men to secure their rights. Rights are prior to governments.

The 9th Amendment to the Constitution is as good a place as any to start.

It's also why Madison and others didn't want to write a Bill of Rights. While they had faith that men had rights and that these rights were universal, they weren't exactly in agreement about what they were and what their extent was. They were humble enough to know that they any one of them could only see a small piece of the universal tapestry, as it were. They were afraid that if they wrote down the ones they agreed upon, that people would begin to think that those were the only rights we had, instead of just some of the rights we had. Personally, I think Madison was wrong on this point, and I think that in later years he began to see this position as mistaken, but I can see the point of his fears.

[bokonon]

What if we changed our minds, as a society, and the majority decided that atheists should be hung from trees until dead. What then? To what would you appeal?
Ain't nobody here but devoted believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Since only the principled individuals who wouldn't feign belief in some bogus deity to save their lives would actually be threatened by such nonsense, let's say the distopian straw man is that anyone older than 30 is to be killed instead. We can call it "Logan's Law."

If society descends to such a level of savagery, the only effective appeal I'll have is the price the savages will have to pay in enforcing such a decision on me or anyone close to me.

Before we reach that level, I'll be appealing to the sense of justice I perceive in my fellow man, whether in this country or another.

Appeal to some imaginary deity will be about as effective as it was for the Jews on the train to Auschwitz, don't you think?

Can atheists be good citizens, Stone?

[Stone Island]

sense of justice

Maybe I'm misreading you, but you seem to use "sense of justice" as if it was a universal. I wonder if appealing to their pity is more of what you meant.

[Cainkane1]

I didn't read that whole very long article. My concept of an atheist is that we don't believe in dietys the supernatural or life after death. I personally obey the law of the land, vote, pay my taxes, give to charity and overall try to be helpful to my fellow man. Thats about as good a citizen as I can be.

[Darat]

Maybe I'm misreading you, but you seem to use "sense of justice" as if it was a universal. I wonder if appealing to their pity is more of what you meant.


Well there is quite a lot of research that supports the idea that humans share the behaviour we label "a sense of justice". (Indeed you only need to be with young kids for a little while and you realize this - but it's always good to have the research to back up these "common sense" ideas.)

[bokonon]

Maybe I'm misreading you, but you seem to use "sense of justice" as if it was a universal. I wonder if appealing to their pity is more of what you meant.
I wrote what I meant.

Can atheists be good citizens, Stone?

[bignickel]

Stone Island, can atheists be good citizens?

[Safe-Keeper]

What if we changed our minds, as a society, and the majority decided that atheists should be hung from trees until dead. What then? To what would you appeal?
What if somebody subjectively said it was "universal justice" that theists be hung until dead from trees, just like you subjectively say it isn't? What then? To what would you appeal?

If you said, "Well, that's what our forefathers agreed was universal morality, that no one should be hung from a tree for believing in God."

They might reply, "Well, people in the past were stupid, they didn't know all the things that we know now. We know now that it's much better and more just to hang theists from trees until they're dead."

Then what, Stone?

[GreyICE]

Its so good to know that the basis of all society is deep-seated, irrational fear.

[Nogbad]

Stone Island, can atheists be good citizens?

One might reasonably surmise that as he posted the article and seems quite keen on it that his answer will be no. Quite why he is so coy about it though is anyone's guess.

[godofpie]

Was James Madison an anti-American, then? :confused: I don't see where it says he was in favor of STATE sponsored religion, but if it is your contention that was his opinion, then yes.

[joobz]

Stone Island, can athiests be good citizens?

Remember...
A theist who is wrong disproves the argument that theists are never wrong and not the arguments that atheists are always wrong.
And an atheist who is a good citizen disproves the argument that atheists cannot be good citizens. I'm glad we cleared that all up.

[Foster Zygote]

Hey Stone Island, can an atheist be a good citizen?

[KingMerv00]

Stone Island,

Can an atheist be a good citizen?

(OMG guys stop stealing my thunder...I expect royalties. As the inventor of the question I would like to suggest the following addendum.)

Stone Island,

Why do you feel the need to make all of your controversial statements via a proxy?

[Fitter]

(OMG guys stop stealing my thunder...I expect royalties. )


How about a beer at TAM?




Stone Island we're still waiting.

[linusrichard]

In some vague form, yes. (Part of my upbringing.)

But at the same time, I'm gaining a large distrust of organized religion.

I have an.. erm.. odd view on things.

You are a theist. Theism isn't about religion. Atheists can be religionists; theists can be areligionists. You believe in God, which is sufficient for you to be a theist.

[linusrichard]

1. The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document, and is without legal weight. It is a piece of propaganda. This is not an insult, but a description.

2. If a society decided to hang atheists and not hang theists, that would not be legitimate, it would not be fair. A society can make illegitimate choices. I don't think you want to go down the road of calling every choice a society has made legitimate simply because a society made it.

3. If we accept theism as part of the definition of "good citizen," then obviously atheists can't be good citizens. Likewise, if we accept atheism as part of the definition of "good citizen," then obviously theists can't be good citizens. If we accept right-handed as part of the definition of "good citizen," then obviously lefties can't be good citizens. All three are absurd. The better course is to stick to an honest definition of "good citizen."

4. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Neuhaus' requirements of good citizens are reasonable, he doesn't require, at least by definition, that good citizens be theists. He requires that good citizens acknowledge a source for political authority that is higher than the self, and external to the self. There's no reason an atheist can't do that. Atheists don't have to be nihilists or egoists.

5. Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?

[KingMerv00]

*yawn*...*stretch*

Morning all.

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?

[Damien Evans]

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
(http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738&var_recherche=atheism+citizen)
by Richard John Neuhaus (http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Neuhaus/), (August/September 1991, First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/))



Full Article (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738&var_recherche=atheism+citizen)

This question is so stupid, I just have to ask one back.

Can Aganeshists be good citizens?

[Foster Zygote]

Why do you feel the need to make all of your controversial statements via a proxy?
In his How Many Nonbelievers? thread he explained it thus:

See, what happens is, that people aren't willing to say openly that they hate another group of people, not even to a anonymous pollster on the phone. The social taboo is just too strong.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that people hate all sorts of other people for all sorts of reasons. Evangelicals weren't willing to say that they wouldn't vote for a Mormon come hell or high water, but as my professors study showed, they weren't willing to vote for a Mormon, and the evidence is fairly clear that it's straight religious bias. You just have to work around what they are willing to openly say and try and get to what they really mean. That's fairly standard political science/public opinion research.

I guess, like those interviewed in his professor's 'phone survey, he's just too cowardly to come out and state his position openly.

[Darth Rotor]

The guy gave his life for his country. I can't imagine a better display of good citizenship than that. And he was an atheist.
That good man risked his life for his country, he did not willingly martyr himself. He died in a tragic case of fratricide (aka friendly fire) while doing what he did well: leading his team, in this case his fire team of Rangers, in a close combat situation.

As to his display of good citizenship, yes, he sacrificed fame, money, hearth and home for his country. What is love but sacrifice?

Yeah, Pat Tillman loved his country, and showed it by both his actions and humility.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

And throughout history many theists have. The kings of Europe, including the one the US declared independence from, derived their authority over others from the Christian God.
And the sword. Please don't leave out that crucial detail. Power, and the acquiring of it, is often tied to brute force. The justification or excuses given for that exercise varies, but the mechanics of it rarely do.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Stone Island, when you get arround to answering that question, I direct you to FZ's post, which you happened to overlook.
I beat him to the punch by quite a few posts. See post #9 of this thread, if you please. I find the tactic of asking the question the questioner asks rarely effective, though it is now and again amusing.

DA: Did you kill Cock Robin?
Witness: Did you kill Cock Robin?

We are at the point in this thread that Stone Island is having a bit of difficulty defending the article he presented, and having read the various narrow, inelegant, and at times petty posts in the thread, I wonder at why this scrum continues.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, we like to pick at scabs here on JREF forums. (Yes, I am among the guilty on that one, far too often.)

*sings*

Look for
The Union label
Or we'll kick your scab arse!
I love a running gag.

Speaking of gags, was my golden shower on the Neuhaus article, post #9, so repulsive that you recoiled in horror? :eek:

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Would theists behave as morally as we atheists if they weren't imagining a god spying on them ready to damn them to eternity for bad behavior and give them presents and eternal goodies for "faith" promoting activities?
I am gratified to see that you admit to being on the the same moral footing as Mao.

Your bigotry fairly screams off the page, A-lett, by your continued use of generalization and the broad brush. "We atheists" is a bit too broad a group for the purposes of this discussion, which is part of the problem in Neuhaus' article to begin with. Aren't you glad you are as clever and bigoted as Neuhaus? Maybe you should invite him over for tea.
Would Stone Island be more moral and less bigoted if his brain hadn't been seeped in theism? (studies indicate this is likely: http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html)
Would you be more or less bigoted if you got that chip off your shoulder? I guess in the world of A-lett, the hundreds of Christian founded hospitals in America are a sign of moral decay. Please, A-lett, go to Tennessee and ask them to dismantle St Jude's Childrens Hospital. It's such a pox upon our civic lives. :rolleyes:

DR

[Foster Zygote]

And the sword. Please don't leave out that crucial detail. Power, and the acquiring of it, is often tied to brute force. The justification or excuses given for that exercise varies, but the mechanics of it rarely do.

DR

Ah yes, I remember as a lad realizing that the glorious kings of old were basically just a bunch of gangsters.

[Darth Rotor]

Could a Communist be a good citizen of the United States?
No, but that is due to a Communist being doctrinally inclined toward a one party system, a form of tyranny which is expressly opposed to the political freedom outlined in the Constitution.

Granted, this would have to be a true Communist, kilt and all, but that's once again part of the problem. I think that is why you used the capital C.

It isn't the Communist's atheism that is the issue, Stone, it's the political imperative behind Communism that is the problem.

A Socialist, on the other hand, is not necessarily so limited. You can look to the good Union men I have known in my life, some of whom were more liberal and some more conservatives in their social views, and find any number of outstanding citizens.

*sings*

Look for
The Union Label . . .

I am enjoying this running gag, I promise you.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Ah yes, I remember as a lad realizing that the glorious kings of old were basically just a bunch of gangsters.
But even you admit that they were snappy dressers, just as the Drug Lords, Mafiosi and Gangstas of today are quite the fashion plates.

Here's an OT question your post evoked.

Cause or correlation: is the class and quality of the threads one wears an indication of one's moral or criminal bent, or is it merely a coincidence?

DR

[KingMerv00]

I find the tactic of asking the question the questioner asks rarely effective, though it is now and again amusing.

....

Oh, sorry, I forgot, we like to pick at scabs here on JREF forums. (Yes, I am among the guilty on that one, far too often.)

I think it is a fair "tactic" and that the scab is big, ugly, and infected. I find it dishonest to cast aspersions from behind famous authors. It insulates you from responsibility and allows you to argue conflicting theories.

If Stone Island thinks that atheists can't be good citizens, I'd like to debate the matter with HIM instead of a dead man of his choosing. Sorta makes cross examination easier.

P.S. James Madison says you smell.

[Dr Adequate]

Was James Madison an anti-American, then? No.

"There remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison (letter to Edward Livingston)

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." - James Madison

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." - James Madison

Oh, and let's have a little Thomas Jefferson while we're at it.

"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that is pleasing to him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists [...] Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814 (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl230.htm)

By the way, Stone Island, can atheists be good citizens?

[godless dave]

Governments are founded by men to secure their rights. Rights are prior to governments.


That doesn't answer my question.

You say that God meant for all men to be treated equally under the law. Other people who believed in God said that God meant for some to be treated differently than others by the law. How do we know who is right about what God wants?

[Stone Island]

No.

"There remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison (letter to Edward Livingston)

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." - James Madison

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." - James Madison

Oh, and let's have a little Thomas Jefferson while we're at it.

"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that is pleasing to him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists [...] Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814 (http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl230.htm)


I don't think Neuhaus is speaking about the establishment of a national religion or about the dictates of any particular God or gods. Rather, we're talking about whether an atheist can adequately defend a faith in the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

[Stone Island]

You say that God meant for all men to be treated equally under the law.

Did I? I don't know God's mind, not being a prophet, so I don't think that I would presume to tell you what He does or doesn't want.

Also, being wrong doesn't preclude the possibility of being right.

[Stone Island]

I think it is a fair "tactic" and that the scab is big, ugly, and infected. I find it dishonest to cast aspersions from behind famous authors. It insulates you from responsibility and allows you to argue conflicting theories.

If Stone Island thinks that atheists can't be good citizens, I'd like to debate the matter with HIM instead of a dead man of his choosing. Sorta makes cross examination easier.

P.S. James Madison says you smell.

I don't think it's dishonest at all. In fact, I'm trying to be scientific and philosophical by presenting evidence and argument and not injecting my personal biases. There is no use giving you the opportunity to try and use any variety of ad hominem rhetorical attacks.

[Stone Island]

4. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Neuhaus' requirements of good citizens are reasonable, he doesn't require, at least by definition, that good citizens be theists. He requires that good citizens acknowledge a source for political authority that is higher than the self, and external to the self. There's no reason an atheist can't do that. Atheists don't have to be nihilists or egoists.
Thanks, linusrichard.

Now this is a good point. It gets to the crux of the matter.

Can an atheist acknowledge a source of political authority higher than the self?

[Stone Island]

I guess, like those interviewed in his professor's 'phone survey, he's just too cowardly to come out and state his position openly.

Awesome, I now have close readers. Can a fan club be too far behind?:rolleyes:

[Stone Island]

Its so good to know that the basis of all society is deep-seated, irrational fear.

Well, that's Hobbes's point, isn't it? Men join together in civil society out of a rational fear of violent death. While that isn't Neuhaus's opinion, it's not a opinion that hasn't had its advocates.

[KingMerv00]

I don't think it's dishonest at all. In fact, I'm trying to be scientific and philosophical by presenting evidence and argument and not injecting my personal biases.

You ARE expressing your opinions and biases. You just call them someone else's. Besides I'm only asking you simple yes or no question. It is hard to inject bias into that.

There is nothing wrong with saying "I agree with X. Here is his opinion." But when you cut out the first part, it is very difficult to debate with you. Do you agree with X in toto? In part? Which parts? Why? We can't have a real discussion until we understand where you stand.

There is no use giving you the opportunity to try and use any variety of ad hominem rhetorical attacks.

Which would be wrong to do. If someone uses ad hominum attacks, say so.

So again...what is your opinion? Can atheists be good citizens?

[GreyICE]

Well, that's Hobbes's point, isn't it? Men join together in civil society out of a rational fear of violent death. While that isn't Neuhaus's opinion, it's not a opinion that hasn't had its advocates.

Rational desire to live longer and more comfortably is one thing. That is the basis for society. I just don't think it requires some irrational father figure shaking his finger at us and burning us for eternity if we screw up in order to survive.

[Stone Island]

You ARE expressing your opinions and biases. You just call them someone else's. Besides I'm only asking you simple yes or no question. It is hard to inject bias into that.

There is nothing wrong with saying "I agree with X. Here is his opinion." But when you cut out the first part, it is very difficult to debate with you. Do you agree with X in toto? In part? Which parts? Why? We can't have a real discussion until we understand where you stand.

In a commercial for some new drug, Jarvic talks about going into medicine because his father almost died of a heart attack. Is this revelation of his motivations important for evaluating the contributions of his research?

I would like to have the freedom to try out all sorts of different arguments without the constant, nagging insinuation that I'm contradicting myself (as if contradicting myself on an internet forum is some great sin). Some, like Foster Zygote, have already tried bringing up what I've said in other threads, as if that had any relevance to what Neuhaus said in his article.

I guess I don't know what you mean by a real discussion. A discussion about arguments is a real discussion. A discussion about my opinions is probably more akin to therapy. Let's try and be scientific and ignore our biases.

[Belz...]

Did I? I don't know God's mind, not being a prophet

Don't feel bad. Nobody does.

So, can an Atheist be a good citizen, Stone ?

[AmyWilson]

America is one nation UNDER GOD. Atheists are not as patriotic as Christians are. If you hate God so much, than go to godless Sweden or the Netherlands, where its crime ridden, and abortions galore, because it doesn't believe in God.

[KingMerv00]

America is one nation UNDER GOD. Atheists are not as patriotic as Christians are. If you hate God so much, than go to godless Sweden or the Netherlands, where its crime ridden, and abortions galore, because it doesn't believe in God.

Thank you for the offer Amy but we don't need softball arguments to make our side look good.

[GreyICE]

America is one nation UNDER GOD. Atheists are not as patriotic as Christians are. If you hate God so much, than go to godless Sweden or the Netherlands, where its crime ridden, and abortions galore, because it doesn't believe in God.
Those words were added in 1954. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22unde r_God.22

Was no one a patriot or moral before then? Really, a reactionary phrase to Godless Communism is not something that should be enshrined in our society, any more than HUAC.

[bokonon]

I don't think Neuhaus is speaking about the establishment of a national religion or about the dictates of any particular God or gods. Rather, we're talking about whether an atheist can adequately defend a faith in the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
The question is whether it is an adequate defense of those principles to claim that "that's the way (beat) God planned it, that's the way God wants it to be," and he'd endorse your political principles on 60 Minutes if mass communication wasn't beneath him.

Is a made-up endorsement from a made-up God a stronger argument than a series of reasons why one position is better than another? I don't think so.

Can an atheist be a good citizen, Stone?

[bokonon]

I don't know God's mind, not being a prophet, so I don't think that I would presume to tell you what He does or doesn't want.
Would you say that someone who does presume to tell you what god does or doesn't want is probably talking through his hat? Is talking through one's hat a stronger argument than making a rational case that one policy is more just than another?

Can atheists be good citizens, Stone?

[Polaris]

That good man risked his life for his country, he did not willingly martyr himself. He died in a tragic case of fratricide (aka friendly fire) while doing what he did well: leading his team, in this case his fire team of Rangers, in a close combat situation.

As to his display of good citizenship, yes, he sacrificed fame, money, hearth and home for his country. What is love but sacrifice?

Yeah, Pat Tillman loved his country, and showed it by both his actions and humility.

DR

Well regardless, he is dead because of choices he made based on his love of the USA. According to Stone Island he wasn't a good citizen though, and all his sacrifice was voided on account of his atheism.

That's how I gather it anyway, right Stone Island? I noticed you didn't have anything to say to my post that DR quoted, so can I take your silence as agreement with that statement?

[bokonon]

Can an atheist acknowledge a source of political authority higher than the self?
Political authority? Yes, the group.

For moral authority, I think the self is at least on par with the group, and often (in private moments of introspection) superior.

Can atheists be good citizens, Stone?

[KingMerv00]

That's how I gather it anyway, right Stone Island? I noticed you didn't have anything to say to my post that DR quoted, so can I take your silence as agreement with that statement?

Pfft...You want him to answer a question? Get in line.

Edit: Stone, can atheists be yada yada yada?

[godless dave]

Did I? I don't know God's mind, not being a prophet, so I don't think that I would presume to tell you what He does or doesn't want.


Then how does belief in a god make it easier for your to have faith in the principles this country was founded on?

[godless dave]

America is one nation UNDER GOD. Atheists are not as patriotic as Christians are. If you hate God so much, than go to godless Sweden or the Netherlands, where its crime ridden, and abortions galore, because it doesn't believe in God.


You might want to look up the crime rates of Sweden and the Netherlands. They're astronomically lower than in the US.

[Darth Rotor]

Well regardless, he is dead because of choices he made based on his love of the USA. According to Stone Island he wasn't a good citizen though, and all his sacrifice was voided on account of his atheism.

I am not sure Stone Island means that, but Neuhaus's article seems to infer that. (I do not concur, of course.)

I too am curious with what his position is regarding your response.

DR

[Stone Island]

I noticed you didn't have anything to say to my post that DR quoted, so can I take your silence as agreement with that statement?

If you did take silence as agreement that would be a logical fallacy, Polaris.

[KingMerv00]

Now you are just being rude, Stone.

I was clearly ahead of Polaris.

Edit: Actually you were rude to Polaris too. You addressed him but didn't answer the question he asked.

[Darth Rotor]

You might want to look up the crime rates of Sweden and the Netherlands. They're astronomically lower than in the US.
And their tax rates are higher.

I am trying to assess why you raised that particular point. Can you expand a bit on that?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

If you did take silence as agreement that would be a logical fallacy, Polaris.

Brother Stone, you might do him, and me, and some others, the courtesy of answering his question.

I'd be much obliged if you did.

DR

[Foster Zygote]

But even you admit that they were snappy dressers, just as the Drug Lords, Mafiosi and Gangstas of today are quite the fashion plates.

Here's an OT question your post evoked.

Cause or correlation: is the class and quality of the threads one wears an indication of one's moral or criminal bent, or is it merely a coincidence?

DR

I dunno, widout da pinkie ring... YouknowwhatI'msayin'?

[KingMerv00]

And their tax rates are higher.

I am trying to assess why you raised that particular point. Can you expand a bit on that?

DR

Amy called those countries "crime-ridden" and implied that it was because they were "godless".

Those countries have lower crime rates, ergo godlessness is obviously not the determining factor.

Edit: Whoops. She didn't imply it. She outright said it.

[Foster Zygote]

Let's try that again.

I dunno, widout da pinkie ring... YouknowwhatI'msayin'?

[Polaris]

Pfft...You want him to answer a question? Get in line.

Edit: Stone, can atheists be yada yada yada?

Answer? Hell I just want a response. A click or grunt would suffice.

If you did take silence as agreement that would be a logical fallacy, Polaris.

Clicks and grunts noted.

[Stone Island]

The question is whether it is an adequate defense of those principles to claim that "that's the way (beat) God planned it, that's the way God wants it to be," and he'd endorse your political principles on 60 Minutes if mass communication wasn't beneath him.

Is a made-up endorsement from a made-up God a stronger argument than a series of reasons why one position is better than another? I don't think so.

On what basis could we reason about positions if our reasons made no deeper reference than to our preferences?

If you read the Declaration Independence then you'll know that the Supreme Judge of the World supports the principles therein because they're good. I suppose that even the Founders read The Euthyphro. We would lose the protection of divine providence, to which the appeal is made, if they were not.

[Foster Zygote]

I don't think Neuhaus is speaking about the establishment of a national religion or about the dictates of any particular God or gods. Rather, we're talking about whether an atheist can adequately defend a faith in the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence is not a document of US government. A good citizen is expected to defend the US Constitution. Why could an atheist not defend the Constitution?

[Foster Zygote]

Thanks, linusrichard.

Now this is a good point. It gets to the crux of the matter.

Can an atheist acknowledge a source of political authority higher than the self?

Yes. How about "community"? There, I'm glad we could clear that up.

[KingMerv00]

Answer? Hell I just want a response. A click or grunt would suffice.


Oh thank God! I thought I had gone invisible for a sec there.

Maybe you could act as a "medium" (a la the movie "Ghost") and ask Stone a question for me.

[Darth Rotor]

Amy called those countries "crime-ridden" and implied that it was because they were "godless".

Those countries have lower crime rates, ergo godlessness is obviously not the determining factor.

Edit: Whoops. She didn't imply it. She outright said it.
OK, my speed reading of Amy's rubbish cost me understanding. My bad, thanks for the heads up.

DR

[KingMerv00]

OK, my speed reading of Amy's rubbish cost me understanding. My bad, thanks for the heads up.

DR

No problem.

[Polaris]

Oh thank God! I thought I had gone invisible for a sec there.

Maybe you could act as a "medium" (a la the movie "Ghost") and ask Stone a question for me.

Only if it gets me a crack at the million!

Hell it's worth a shot though.

Stone:

Can atheists be good citizens?

Did Pat Tillman's atheism negate his exemplary citizenship?

Answer in that order.

[linusrichard]

Thanks, linusrichard.

Now this is a good point. It gets to the crux of the matter.

Can an atheist acknowledge a source of political authority higher than the self?

I actually answered this in the section you quoted from me, but I'll say it again:

Yes.

I think my point #5 gets even more to the crux of the matter. Did you want to address that?

[Stone Island]

J.-J. Rousseau (http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=3803&Itemid=28) from On The Social Contract, Book IV, Chapter 8 (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=638&layout=html#chapter_71075):But, setting aside political considerations, let us come back to what is right, and settle our principles on this important point. The right which the social compact gives the Sovereign over the subjects does not, we have seen, exceed the limits of public expediency.1 (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=638&layout=html#lf0132_footnote_nt046) The subjects then owe the Sovereign an account of their opinions only to such an extent as they matter to the community. Now, it matters very much to the community that each citizen should have a religion. That will make him love his duty; but the dogmas of that religion concern the State and its members only so far as they have reference to morality and to the duties which he who professes them is bound to do to others. Each man may have, over and above, what opinions he pleases, without it being the Sovereign’s business to take cognisance of them; for, as the Sovereign has no authority in the other world, whatever the lot of its subjects may be in the life to come, that is not its business, provided they are good citizens in this life.


There is therefore a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject.1 (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=638&layout=html#lf0132_footnote_nt047) While it can compel no one to believe them, it can banish from the State whoever does not believe them—it can banish him, not for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing, at need, his life to his duty. If any one, after publicly recognising these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death: he has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law.


The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws: these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected.


Those who distinguish civil from theological intolerance are, to my mind, mistaken. The two forms are inseparable. It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as damned; to love them would be to hate God who punishes them: we positively must either reclaim or torment them. Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it must inevitably have some civil effect;1 (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=638&layout=html#lf0132_footnote_nt048) and as soon as it has such an effect, the Sovereign is no longer Sovereign even in the temporal sphere: thenceforth priests are the real masters, and kings only their ministers.

http://oll.libertyfund.org//img/Rousseau.jpg

Image and text from The Online Library of Liberty (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=149), a project of Liberty Fund, Inc (http://www.libertyfund.org/).

[Darth Rotor]

Irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence is not a document of US government. A good citizen is expected to defend the US Constitution. Why could an atheist not defend the Constitution?
I will pick another nit, if you will indulge me.

A good citizen would be expected to abide by the Constitution, or, to attempt to reform it (along with other like minded citizens) via the Constitutionally agreed process when said citizen is at odds with the Constitution's contents. (See women's suffrage for an example of said reform attempts.)

The only people I would expect to defend the Constitution would be those who so swore, like all members of Congress, Executive Branch, etc, who take official oaths to do so, and those inclined to defend its merits on political or philosophicls grounds.

That leaves a lot of perfectly good citizens who are content to simply acknowledge and abide by it, delegating to their duly elected officials, etcetera as above, the task of defending the Constitution.

@ Stone Island:

The Rousseau passage comes close to contradicting itself, between paragraph 2 and the end, but I won't derail into a critique of Rousseau. What I'd like to know, from you, is if you think Neuhaus isn't simply repackaging Rousseau for the 20th century audience.

The closing of your Rousseau snippet smacks Papist rhetoric, rhetoric antithetical to American Constitutional principles, but I digress.



DR

[KingMerv00]

Only if it gets me a crack at the million!

Hell it's worth a shot though.

Stone:

Can atheists be good citizens?

Did Pat Tillman's atheism negate his exemplary citizenship?

Answer in that order.

I'm freaking out here. How did you know what question I wanted to ask? Quick, get Randi!

[Foster Zygote]

In a commercial for some new drug, Jarvic talks about going into medicine because his father almost died of a heart attack. Is this revelation of his motivations important for evaluating the contributions of his research?

I would like to have the freedom to try out all sorts of different arguments without the constant, nagging insinuation that I'm contradicting myself (as if contradicting myself on an internet forum is some great sin). Some, like Foster Zygote, have already tried bringing up what I've said in other threads, as if that had any relevance to what Neuhaus said in his article.

I guess I don't know what you mean by a real discussion. A discussion about arguments is a real discussion. A discussion about my opinions is probably more akin to therapy. Let's try and be scientific and ignore our biases.

In trying to discern your position on the mater of atheists and whether they can be good citizens, your prior comments to the effect that people despise atheists and child molesters are relevant. Were you not trying to imply that atheists deserve that hatred just as child molesters deserve theirs? The fact is that large majorities of people in various societies have hated groups like Africans, Jews, Shia, Catholics, Native Americans, etc. etc. etc. That does not indicate that those groups deserved to be hated, does it?

[joobz]

I beat him to the punch by quite a few posts. See post #9 of this thread, if you please.
Yes, my quoting of FZ was with the implicit assumption that you had already provided examples of atheists who are good citizens. The best post I could have done would be to have quoted you after quoting the exchange of Stone Island's admission on how to disprove a statement and FZ's rewording of that admission.

I find the tactic of asking the question the questioner asks rarely effective, though it is now and again amusing.


DA: Did you kill Cock Robin?
Witness: Did you kill Cock Robin?
Fortunately, no one is on trial here and it's extremely amusing to me that Stone Island refuses to address the question head on. It reeks of cowardice. I do not claim Stone is a coward, only that he's exhibiting the behaviors that one would expect an intellectual coward to have.

Truly, it seems he sees the logical contradiction he has created and any attempt to engage the question would require his admission of error. Since such admissions are rarely done, I do not ever expect him to actually answer the question.

However, if he does, I'd be happy to admit I was wrong.:D

We are at the point in this thread that Stone Island is having a bit of difficulty defending the article he presented, and having read the various narrow, inelegant, and at times petty posts in the thread, I wonder at why this scrum continues.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, we like to pick at scabs here on JREF forums. (Yes, I am among the guilty on that one, far too often.)

*sings*

Look for
The Union label
Or we'll kick your scab arse!
I love a running gag. Keeping on running, eventually we'll catch up.;)

Speaking of gags, was my golden shower on the Neuhaus article, post #9, so repulsive that you recoiled in horror? :eek:

DR
Not at all. As a person whose socially moderate to liberal, I welcome any consenting adults to engage in nearly any sexual practice they find appropriate. I would not interfer with... Oh, wait. excuse me

*walks away from computer*
Yes mistress??--I have been a bad boy....
*walks back*

I'm sorry, I must go.

[bobcarp]

Could a Communist be a good citizen of the United States?

Could a believer be a good teacher of evolution?

[KingMerv00]

For the record Darth, I applaud you for taking this conversation with Stone more seriously than I am. Keep up the good work. On the other hand, my frustration is expressing itself as sarcasm. That doesn't mean I don't have a legitimate point.

Frankly, I don't think I'm being that funny anyway. The real humor comes from Stone pretending I'm not here.

[Foster Zygote]

America is one nation UNDER GOD. Atheists are not as patriotic as Christians are. If you hate God so much, than go to godless Sweden or the Netherlands, where its crime ridden, and abortions galore, because it doesn't believe in God.

Recent statistics on percentage of pregnancies ended by abortion by country:

Sweden 25.3%
United States 23.9%
Netherlands 13%

Hmmmmmm...

[joobz]

Recent statistics on percentage of pregnancies ended by abortion by country:

Sweden 25.3%
United States 23.9%
Netherlands 13%

Hmmmmmm...

Well, that's simply because the Godless in the Netherlands don't consider baby eating as abortions. If you included those numbers, .....

[Stone Island]

According to an article by Dr. Tom West I'm reading, John Adams wrote about the Declaration of Independence:
All this, is by the laws of nature and of nature's God, and of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon men, preceding all institutions of human society and government.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

On what basis could we reason about positions if our reasons made no deeper reference than to our preferences?

If you read the Declaration Independence then you'll know that the Supreme Judge of the World supports the principles therein because they're good. I suppose that even the Founders read The Euthyphro. We would lose the protection of divine providence, to which the appeal is made, if they were not.

OK. So I read it (again).

Care to tell me where there is any Biblical or other support for: "If you read the Declaration Independence then you'll know that the Supreme Judge of the World supports the principles therein because they're good."?

It's not proved in the document and the "Divine Right of Kings" has excellent Biblical support -- "Render unto Caesar" and etc. :confused:

[bobcarp]

Can a Christian be a good citizen of a Muslim country?

[joobz]

I'm curious to know, where the transcript of god saying that all men have certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness?

[KingMerv00]

According to an article by Dr. Tom West I'm reading, John Adams wrote about the Declaration of Independence:

Jeez, now he is arguing by proxy by proxy by proxy by proxy by proxy by proxy by proxy by proxy.

1) Tom West writes about...

2) John Adams who wrote about...

3) The Declaration of Independence which was written by...

4) Thomas Jefferson and altered by...

5-8) the rest of the Committe of Five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Five)

I think Stone has become Borg.

[Stone Island]

OK. So I read it (again).

Care to tell me where there is any Biblical or other support for: "If you read the Declaration Independence then you'll know that the Supreme Judge of the World supports the principles therein because they're good."?

It's not proved in the document and the "Divine Right of Kings" has excellent Biblical support -- "Render unto Caesar" and etc. :confused:

The 1st of Locke's Two Treatises of Government.
(http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=763&chapter=65196&layout=html&Itemid=27)

[Darth Rotor]

Irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence is not a document of US government. A good citizen is expected to defend the US Constitution. Why could an atheist not defend the Constitution?
I will pick another nit, if you will indulge me.

A good citizen would be expected to abide by the Constitution, or, to attempt to reform it (along with other like minded citizens) via the Constitutionally agreed process when said citizen at odds with what the Constitution contains. (See women's suffrage for an example of said reform attempts.)

The only people I would expect to defend the Constitution would be those who so swore, like all members of Congress, Executive Branch, etc, who take official oaths to do so, and those inclined to defend its merits on political or philosophicls grounds.

That leaves a lot of perfectly good citizens who are content to simply acknowledge and abide by it, delegating to their duly elected officials, etcetera as above, the task of defending the Constitution.

DR

[thaiboxerken]

Did Stone ever answer the relevant question? Does he think atheists can be good citizens?

I've read through the thread and didn't see any answer to that question. I can conclude this, though, that he really does think atheists can't be good citizens AND he's too cowardly to come out and say it directly.

[GreyICE]

The 1st of Locke's Two Treatises of Government.
(http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=763&chapter=65196&layout=html&Itemid=27) Can atheists be good citizens? What's YOUR ideas on the matter?

(Run, Forrest, Run!)

[KingMerv00]

Did Stone ever answer the relevant question? Does he think atheists can be good citizens?

I've read through the thread and didn't see any answer to that question. I can conclude this, though, that he really does think atheists can't be good citizens AND he's too cowardly to come out and say it directly.

No he hasn't but I'm getting to that conclusion too.

His current record is speaking through 8 puppets at once.

[thaiboxerken]

Can atheists be good citizens? What's YOUR ideas on the matter?

(Run, Forrest, Run!)

Although I said relevant question earlier, I think that the "Can atheists be good citizens?" question is irrelevant. Stone has been giving reasons as to why he thinks atheists can't be good citizens, so the question has already been answered, indirectly but conclusively.

[AkuManiMani]

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
(http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738&var_recherche=atheism+citizen)

That sounds like a rhetorical question meant to imply that they aren't.

[thaiboxerken]

Well, if you assume the same things Stone does, then it's pretty obvious they can't. Of course, his assumptions are false, but not everyone can be correct. A couple of his assumptions are 1. Atheists are immoral and 2. good citizens have to moral.

[Polaris]

The 1st of Locke's Two Treatises of Government.
(http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=763&chapter=65196&layout=html&Itemid=27)

:dig:

[joobz]

Jeez, now he is arguing by proxy by proxy by proxy by proxy by proxy by proxy by proxy by proxy.

1) Tom West writes about...

2) John Adams who wrote about...

3) The Declaration of Independence which was written by...

4) Thomas Jefferson and altered by...

5-8) the rest of the Committe of Five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Five)

I think Stone has become Borg.
:dl:
It's rare that I get to use the dog laugh, but that earns it.

[Stone Island]

Well, if you assume the same things Stone does, then it's pretty obvious they can't. Of course, his assumptions are false, but not everyone can be correct. A couple of his assumptions are 1. Atheists are immoral and 2. good citizens have to moral.

http://www.farfromneutral.com/exodus/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/o_rly.jpg