• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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! ;)
 
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.
 
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!!
 
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.
 
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?!?
 
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.
 
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.
 

Back
Top Bottom