Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Belz... said:
Actually, it speaks of inalienable HUMAN rights, determined by MEN, not gods. Sheesh, I know this and I'm not even American.
Click to expand...
The greatly amusing fact to this whole argument is that NOWHERE in the constitution are any rights inaleinable. Rights are protected by the constitution, but the constitution can be changed. Indeed, THAT is one of the most important facts of the constitution. That is has provisions allowing for amendments to fit the needs of the changing populus.

If natural law (laws decreed by god) was indeed the central feature of the constitution, these laws would have been protected from any future change. Indeed, these laws would have been described in the main body of the text and not added on as the first 10 amendments.

Since it is clear, that these rights are NOT inaleinable, that the constitution allows for them to be changed and or/removed, then it stands to reason that the framers of the constitution did not view them as god-driven natural law let alone a prerequisite for being a good citizen in america.
 
Complexity said:
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

I cannot help but suspect that Stone Island is exaggerating. He asserts that the Declaration of Independence was the obvious choice for the establishment of the "less perfect Union" implied in the preamble to the Constitution, when any decent student of high school level US history would be able to argue convincingly that the Philadelphia convention was called to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. He didn't even see the obvious problem that if the Declaration of Independence had indeed established the earlier "less perfect Union" that the complete omission of any language of natural rights from the Constitution implies that natural rights language was among the perceived mistakes that the "more perfect Union" was intended to correct.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I would suggest that anyone attempting to make an argument by citing a document, especially a graduate student writing a disseration, quote the specific material they feel cannot be summarized without either misrepresenting the quotation as their own words, or refer to the works of others with a link and/or footnote where a broader point owes support or its genesis to an earlier work.

I would suggest that person take pains to carefully structure their argument and show how their position is not merely a parroting of earlier authors, nor mere plagarism.

I would suggest that person use the experience of having their arguments rebutted on an internet forum as thoroughly as this consider the weak points of their work and revise, edit, or buttress their material accordingly.

I would suggest that person learn how to articulate their own thoughts.
Click to expand...

Well met. I can't imagine that Stone Island's professors are any more fooled by his pretense than we are.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Well met. I can't imagine that Stone Island's professors are any more fooled by his pretense than we are.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Honestly, I'm an undergraduate student soon to wrap up my degree. I don't feel remotely academically qualified to persue a PhD and yet this ninny claims to be in middle of getting one, but he can't even form a coherent argument? He'll be evicerated.
 
Complexity said:
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

Ha!

ImaginalDisc said:
Thanks.

Honestly, I'm an undergraduate student soon to wrap up my degree. I don't feel remotely academically qualified to persue a PhD and yet this ninny claims to be in middle of getting one, but he can't even form a coherent argument? He'll be evicerated.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you're not conflating a "coherent" argument with an argument you agree with. Graduate school will teach you that they're two very different things.

And I got a 100% scholarship (a stipend would have been nice)! And a 3.75 GPA at the end of it all (not really that impressive because if you don't know how it works by this level you're in the wrong line of work)! Is there no justice in the world?

:p
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
Ha!



I wonder if you're not conflating a "coherent" argument with an argument you agree with. Graduate school will teach you that they're two very different things.

And I got a 100% scholarship (a stipend would have been nice)! And a 3.75 GPA at the end of it all (not really that impressive because if you don't know how it works by this level you're in the wrong line of work)! Is there no justice in the world?

:p
Click to expand...


You make a habit of posting articles and linking to documents without composing an argument or comment yourself. You conflate unrelated issues, and you demonstrate an apalling lack of understanding of the fundamental structure of the Federal Government, the DoI, and the Constitution for someone so close to having a PhD in political science that I sincirely doubt you are qualified to attain that high academic honor. I hope for your sake your disseration is in some entirely unrelated subject, which might excuse your glaring ineptitude if one were in a charitable mood.

I, however, think you're either a liar or unable to distinguish the difference between reasoning towards a conclusion, and apologetics in the name of a position you cling to by faith. The later will not serve you well in academia.

I warn you that when you attempt to defend your disseration, honest acadmeics will not softball you. You will not be allowed to weasel or worm your way around points raised in criticisim or probing inquiry of your work. Unless you are in a rather low grade university, the rhetorical and debate skills you have demonstrated here would cause you to fail miserably in front of a high school debate team, much less a group of qualified academics.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
In that case I am much more likely to believe you're a liar than I am inclined to believe that a nitwit such as you could possibly get a PhD.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't have a Ph.D. yet. I'm still ABD, old sport. Also, the qualification exams (6 hours each, written, one in Political Theory and one in American), which I had to pass before they let me start on my dissertation, were graded anonymously.

:D

I bet that just blows your mind.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
You make a habit of posting articles and linking to documents without composing an argument or comment yourself. You conflate unrelated issues, and you demonstrate an apalling lack of understanding of the fundamental structure of the Federal Government, the DoI, and the Constitution for someone so close to having a PhD in political science that I sincirely doubt you are qualified to attain that high academic honor. I hope for your sake your disseration is in some entirely unrelated subject, which might excuse your glaring ineptitude if one were in a charitable mood.

I, however, think you're either a liar or unable to distinguish the difference between reasoning towards a conclusion, and apologetics in the name of a position you cling to by faith. The later will not serve you well in academia.

I warn you that when you attempt to defend your disseration, honest acadmeics will not softball you. You will not be allowed to weasel or worm your way around points raised in criticisim or probing inquiry of your work. Unless you are in a rather low grade university, the rhetorical and debate skills you have demonstrated here would cause you to fail miserably in front of a high school debate team, much less a group of qualified academics.
Click to expand...

I doubt he'll learn much from his mistakes, not without a fundamental change in attitude anyway. His point in being here, in my opinion, seems to be to demonstrate how clever he believes himself to be. It's just a pissing contest to him and he views any admission of error as a sign of weakness. Acknowledging his errors does not serve his purpose of demonstrating his intellectual superiority. He isn't here to exchange ideas and broaden his knowledge, he's here to bestow the gift of his superior knowledge upon us. Even the subject of this very thread confirms this. On a forum with a large number of atheists he has the nerve to preach to us as to why we are morally inferior to others.

Truly clever people realize that errors are nothing to be ashamed of as long as one acknowledges and corrects them. I think it was Harlan Ellison who once stated "I hate it when I'm wrong, but I love it when I'm put straight". Without the ability to admit errors and endeavor to correct them Stone Island will always be severely limited in his ability to learn. His single minded focus on proving that he is not incorrect will blind him to just how foolish he makes himself appear.
 
I'm done with this thread, as the OP put me on ignore and didn't even have the manners and maturity to tell me. And I'm returning the favor. I have manners and maturity, thanks.
 
six7s said:
The stoopid... it burns

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
by Richard John Neuhaus
Copyright (c) 1991 First Things (August/September 1991).
Click to expand...

Context, my son:

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.
Click to expand...

What does it follow from? Locke and Rousseau.

What does Neuhaus write only a few paragraphs later, when speaking about America, and giving his opinion? Only this:

In such a nation, an atheist can be a citizen, but he cannot be a good citizen. 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.
Click to expand...

He also says this, in his conclusion:
An older form of atheism pitted reason against the knowledge of God. The newer atheism is the atheism of unreason. It is much the more dangerous because the more insidious. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Americans—and, I believe, the majority of our intellectual elites, if put to the test—are not atheists of any of the varieties we have discussed. They believe that there are good reasons for this ordering of the civitas, reasons that have public purchase, reasons that go beyond contingent convenience, reasons that entail what is just, the laws of nature, and maybe even the will of God.
Click to expand...
 
Stone Island said:
Context, my son:



What does it follow from? Locke and Rousseau.

What does Neuhaus write only a few paragraphs later, when speaking about America, and giving his opinion? Only this:



He also says this, in his conclusion:
Click to expand...

So, not only does he conclude that atheists cannot be good citizens, he makes a baseless differentation between the atheism of previous generations, and recent atheism?
 
six7s said:
The stoopid... it burns
Click to expand...

Mea culpa, I'm a quote miner!

Our great leader (aka the educator of our children) has just PMd me to point out that, a few paragraphs later, Neuheus does indeed contradict himself

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
by Richard John Neuhaus
Copyright (c) 1991 First Things (August/September 1991).

Richard John Neuhaus said:
It follows that an atheist could not be trusted to be a good citizen, and therefore could not be a citizen at all. <restOfParagraphSnipped/>

<wholeParagraphSnipped/>

<wholeParagraphSnipped/>

<wholeParagraphSnipped/>

<wholeParagraphSnipped/>

In such a nation, an atheist can be a citizen, but he cannot be a good citizen. <restOfParagraphSnipped/>
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
I wonder if you're not conflating a "coherent" argument with an argument you agree with. Graduate school will teach you that they're two very different things.
Click to expand...
Not at all.
I've seen many good arguments made for positions I am inherently opposed to. This isn't one of those cases. The Neuhaus arguement is laughably shallow. redefining terms because you want to doesn't change the original definition and therefore makes any conlusions drawn fallacious.

Again:
If I say,
Christian = Integers
Evil = Real Numbers
then the statement "All Christians are evil" is true using my terms. However, it doesn't mean that All christians are evil is true using the commonly accepted definitions.

Stone Island said:
And I got a 100% scholarship (a stipend would have been nice)! And a 3.75 GPA at the end of it all (not really that impressive because if you don't know how it works by this level you're in the wrong line of work)! Is there no justice in the world?

:p
Click to expand...
I see no problem believing you are a grad student. It's just a bit suprising. I have to believe that it simply means you aren't presenting your best game here.
 
Neither a communist nor an atheist cannot be a good citizen of the United States of America ...
Click to expand...

False. In fact, an argument could be made that atheists can be better citizens, becuase they have no loyalties to churches, religions, popes, priests, pastors, or gods to interfere with their being good citizens.

Any theist who puts his or her god/religion/church/prophet/pope above citizenship has divided loyalties and cannot, then, be a 'good citizen.'

That makes about as much sense as the assertation that atheists can't be good citizens ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom