Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Prometheus]

....
According to Neuhaus, a good citizen is someone who can give a morally compelling justification for his country, in this case the United States.....

If that's his definition, then Neuhaus is a moron whose ideas warrant no further discussion.

ETA: And, yes, I'm aware that this is an ad hominem attack on Neuhaus. I just don't care any more.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Being an atheist, I feel I should invite Stone Island to dinner. We'll have a nice meal, a few drinks, then I'll beat the crap out of him, have my way with him, then kick him out into the street while keeping his car keys. I would only do this because I can't be a good citizen, I'm atheist.

 

[Polaris]

Being an atheist, I feel I should invite Stone Island to dinner. We'll have a nice meal, a few drinks, then I'll beat the crap out of him, have my way with him, then kick him out into the street while keeping his car keys. I would only do this because I can't be a good citizen, I'm atheist.

Aaargh, please don't say things like that. My right leg joint is in pain and it hurts to laugh.

 

[six7s]

If that's his definition, then Neuhaus is a moron whose ideas warrant no further discussion

Birds of a feather?

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 400,000 for Neuhaus Bush.

 

[Stone Island]

This rejection of the Declaration of Independence as an important document for understanding the animating philosophy of the Constitution, strikes me as odd. We should remember that one of the two things that Thomas Jefferson wish to be remembered for was authority the DOI.

During his First Inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln said:

"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect Union.'"

Then, of course, there is the problem of positive atheism’s metaphysics. David Hume asks,

If we take in our hands any volume...; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Martin’s presentation of the logical positivist’s argument:

• A statement has factual meaning if and only if it is empirically verifiable.
• A statement has formal meaning if and only if it is analytic or self-contradictory.
• A statement has cognitive or literal meaning if and only if it has either formal meaning or factual meaning.
• A statement has cognitive or literal meaning if and only if it is either true or false.

According to Neuhaus’s reading, neither a logical positivist nor David Hume could be a good citizen because both would have to reject the meaningfulness of any statement of natural rights. Since the United States of America is a natural rights republic, a good citizen would be one who could give a morally compelling account of its propositional nature.

Foster Zygote write, “Any atheists who rank the well-being of the national community as something greater than their individual selves prove Neuhaus to be flat out wrong.” To respond, on behalf of Neuhaus, I think we could ask how this consideration of the national community has anything to do with the truth of the propositions that those who founded the national community held to be self-evident. A good citizen could give an account of why it was right and just to preserve their national community, while for an atheist, at least of the strong type, terms like justice and right are nothing more than expressions of arbitrary preference. The well-being of the national community, for an atheist, is nothing more than an arbitrary preference. An atheist cannot give an account that suggests anything more than preference for one’s own.

As Foster Zygote is willing to admit, atheists are forced, by an attempt at consistency, to reject the Declaration of Independence as having anything authority whatsoever. They might do well to read Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

For the Founders there is a distinct difference between a separation of church and state, which isn’t, as such, contained in the Constitution anyway (being from a letter written by T. Jefferson to a religious organization), and a separation of public and religious life. They would countenance the former and reject as mistaken the latter. Remember: the 1st Amendment to the Constitution merely prevents the Federal Government for establishing a national religion, while allowing the states to establish any Church they wanted, and having nothing to say about the nation’s recognition of the manifest and overwhelming religiosity of its people.

Why is the Declaration of Independence, which was, after all, signed by “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 intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies,” less authoritative for determining the founding propositions and principles of this country than President Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist association of the state of Connecticut? As Jefferson wrote in the very same letter, “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”

 

[Stone Island]

Birds of a feather?

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 400,000 for Neuhaus Bush.

Nice: guilt by association.

 

[joobz]

This rejection of the Declaration of Independence as an important document for understanding the animating philosophy of the Constitution, strikes me as odd. We should remember that one of the two things that Thomas Jefferson wish to be remembered for was authority the DOI.

During his First Inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln said:

"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect Union.'"

Then, of course, there is the problem of positive atheism’s metaphysics. David Hume asks,

If we take in our hands any volume...; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Martin’s presentation of the logical positivist’s argument:

• A statement has factual meaning if and only if it is empirically verifiable.
• A statement has formal meaning if and only if it is analytic or self-contradictory.
• A statement has cognitive or literal meaning if and only if it has either formal meaning or factual meaning.
• A statement has cognitive or literal meaning if and only if it is either true or false.

According to Neuhaus’s reading, neither a logical positivist nor David Hume could be a good citizen because both would have to reject the meaningfulness of any statement of natural rights. Since the United States of America is a natural rights republic, a good citizen would be one who could give a morally compelling account of its propositional nature.

Foster Zygote write, “Any atheists who rank the well-being of the national community as something greater than their individual selves prove Neuhaus to be flat out wrong.” To respond, on behalf of Neuhaus, I think we could ask how this consideration of the national community has anything to do with the truth of the propositions that those who founded the national community held to be self-evident. A good citizen could give an account of why it was right and just to preserve their national community, while for an atheist, at least of the strong type, terms like justice and right are nothing more than expressions of arbitrary preference. The well-being of the national community, for an atheist, is nothing more than an arbitrary preference. An atheist cannot give an account that suggests anything more than preference for one’s own.

As Foster Zygote is willing to admit, atheists are forced, by an attempt at consistency, to reject the Declaration of Independence as having anything authority whatsoever. They might do well to read Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

For the Founders there is a distinct difference between a separation of church and state, which isn’t, as such, contained in the Constitution anyway (being from a letter written by T. Jefferson to a religious organization), and a separation of public and religious life. They would countenance the former and reject as mistaken the latter. Remember: the 1st Amendment to the Constitution merely prevents the Federal Government for establishing a national religion, while allowing the states to establish any Church they wanted, and having nothing to say about the nation’s recognition of the manifest and overwhelming religiosity of its people.

Why is the Declaration of Independence, which was, after all, signed by “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 intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies,” less authoritative for determining the founding propositions and principles of this country than President Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist association of the state of Connecticut? As Jefferson wrote in the very same letter, “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”

*sound of something slapping onto the table*
These balls aren't round.

 

[JoeEllison]

Hi...haven't been on the thread this weekend. Any progress?

Nope. Stone Island is still shilling his ignorant, hate-filled, and deeply bigoted opinions as a shining example of "morality" for atheists to look up to.

 

[Stone Island]

*sound of something slapping onto the table*
These balls aren't round.

And?

 

[Stone Island]

George Washington, 1st Inaugural Address:

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

 

[articulett]

Hi...haven't been on the thread this weekend. Any progress?

I thought you were a skeptic. --'Expecting miracles, are you?

 

[GreyICE]

James Madison, 3rd inaugural address:

Stone Island, can Atheists be good citizens?

 

[joobz]

And?

*ahem*

Any attempt to redefine the terms atheist and citizen to such a degree that it would make the statement "Atheists can't be good citizens" true would be so different from common usage as to render the statement unitelligible in english. These new definitions (which make that sentence true) do not by proxy make the original definitions hold true in that sentence. Yet, it appears that this is the whole goal of this exercise. That is the reason for the continual question, Do you believe that atheists can't be good citizens?

This proof by proxy is intellectually dishonest and meaningless

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hey Stone Island, would you like to come over and have dinner?

 

[Foster Zygote]

This rejection of the Declaration of Independence as an important document for understanding the animating philosophy of the Constitution, strikes me as odd. We should remember that one of the two things that Thomas Jefferson wish to be remembered for was authority the DOI.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and establishes no laws. Get over it. And just because Jefferson was proud of it as a piece of writing it does not follow that he intended any law of governance to be established by it. It was a piece of political rhetoric intended more to rally Americans to the separatist cause than justify their actions to English authority.

During his First Inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln said:

"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect Union.'"

The Articles of Association are not legal documents. You may not appeal to them in any court of law. They were a list of grievances that began "We, his majesty's most loyal subjects...".

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. At no time could anyone appeal to it in a court of law.

The Articles of Confederation was a legal document. It was scrapped because of its perceived weaknesses. It never made the slightest mention of God.

The United States Constitution is a legal document and the only one mentioned that is of any current relevance to the United States and its laws. It does not mention God anywhere (unless one is pedantic enough to consider "in the year of our lord" an invocation of God).

Then, of course, there is the problem of positive atheism’s metaphysics. David Hume asks,

, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Martin’s presentation of the logical positivist’s argument:

• A statement has factual meaning if and only if it is empirically verifiable.
• A statement has formal meaning if and only if it is analytic or self-contradictory.
• A statement has cognitive or literal meaning if and only if it has either formal meaning or factual meaning.
• A statement has cognitive or literal meaning if and only if it is either true or false.

According to Neuhaus’s reading, neither a logical positivist nor David Hume could be a good citizen because both would have to reject the meaningfulness of any statement of natural rights. Since the United States of America is a natural rights republic, a good citizen would be one who could give a morally compelling account of its propositional nature.

Foster Zygote write, “Any atheists who rank the well-being of the national community as something greater than their individual selves prove Neuhaus to be flat out wrong.” To respond, on behalf of Neuhaus, I think we could ask how this consideration of the national community has anything to do with the truth of the propositions that those who founded the national community held to be self-evident. A good citizen could give an account of why it was right and just to preserve their national community, while for an atheist, at least of the strong type, terms like justice and right are nothing more than expressions of arbitrary preference. The well-being of the national community, for an atheist, is nothing more than an arbitrary preference. An atheist cannot give an account that suggests anything more than preference for one’s own.

As Foster Zygote is willing to admit, atheists are forced, by an attempt at consistency, to reject the Declaration of Independence as having anything authority whatsoever. They might do well to read Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

For the Founders there is a distinct difference between a separation of church and state, which isn’t, as such, contained in the Constitution anyway (being from a letter written by T. Jefferson to a religious organization), and a separation of public and religious life. They would countenance the former and reject as mistaken the latter. Remember: the 1st Amendment to the Constitution merely prevents the Federal Government for establishing a national religion, while allowing the states to establish any Church they wanted, and having nothing to say about the nation’s recognition of the manifest and overwhelming religiosity of its people.

Why is the Declaration of Independence, which was, after all, signed by “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 intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies,” less authoritative for determining the founding propositions and principles of this country than President Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist association of the state of Connecticut? As Jefferson wrote in the very same letter, “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”

I note that you have ignored my comments regarding atheists being unable to believe in something greater than themselves. This is a major component of your, I'm sorry, Neuhaus' argument that atheists cannot be good citizens. This is an embarrassingly obvious straw man. I put it to you again: An atheist is perfectly capable of regarding community as something greater than himself/herself, even to the point of willfully risking life and limb in defense of the community. Neuhaus' assertion that only gods can be recognized as greater than the self is asinine.

There is a big difference between arguing the influence of the Declaration of Independence (as Bailyn did) and declaring it (as you have) to have any fundamental legal power. You are reduced to this flailing argument because the actual legal documents establishing the United States of America make no appeal to gods at all.

This is turning into a DOC thread. Neuhaus has forced his desired conclusion by manipulating definitions. You are increasingly resorting to empty appeals to authority as a substitute for any argument of your own. I don't much care if Neuhaus thinks I am a good citizen or not. I find his argument manipulative and bigoted and he (or you, since you have presumed to speak for him above) is welcome to provide evidence that I am personally any less worthy of US citizenship than he.

 

[JoeEllison]

What if we suggest that no Christian can ever be a good citizen, because no Christian can put the laws of the land above the laws of the Bible... is that not actually a more fair and honest claim than the one that the bigot has made?

 

[Foster Zygote]

What if we suggest that no Christian can ever be a good citizen, because no Christian can put the laws of the land above the laws of the Bible... is that not actually a more fair and honest claim than the one that the bigot has made?

Aside from his shaky case for just what the founders intended, I find Neuhaus' assertion that one must precisely conform to this perceived ideology in order to earn citizenship to border on authoritarianism.

 

[JoeEllison]

I find his argument manipulative and bigoted and he (or you, since you have presumed to speak for him above) is welcome to provide evidence that I am personally any less worthy of US citizenship than he.

I'd like to make that challenge more explicit.

StoneIsland:

I am a veteran, from a family of veterans. I have voted in ever presidential election, and most local elections, since I was old enough to do so. I am a homeowner and an active member of my local community. I donate to charity, I follow all the laws, I don't have a criminal record, I even drive the speed limit. For the past 3 years, I have provided Thanksgiving dinners for shut-ins. Before that, I spent between $100-300 a year for the Toys For Tots. I have gone out of my way to defend people's Constitutional rights, by protesting with and donating money towards free speech causes. I've put my personal safety at risk to defend this country, its laws, as well as putting myself at risk to defend people who could not help themselves.

So, answer these questions:

1) Am I a bad citizen, simply because I'm an atheist?

and

2) What makes you think that you or anyone else is in a position to judge me?

 

[JoeEllison]

Aside from his shaky case for just what the founders intended, I find Neuhaus' assertion that one must precisely conform to this perceived ideology in order to earn citizenship to border on authoritarianism.

Personally, I think it borders on anti-Americanism.

 

[bignickel]

Stone Island, can atheists be good citizens?