brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
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.