Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Stone Island]

What a profoundly undemocratic and politically obtuse thing to say.

The genius of modern democracy is precisely that your political enemies can be your friends.

I doubt that Neumann, as you may be implying, thought that Democrats and Republicans (for instance) were what he would consider political enemies. Both accept the underlying premise of the United States of America as a propositional nation even if they differ on particular applications of that premise. It's only in so far as one rejects the premise that one becomes an enemy.

 

[joobz]

I doubt that Neumann, as you may be implying, thought that Democrats and Republicans (for instance) were what he would consider political enemies. Both accept the underlying premise of the United States of America as a propositional nation even if they differ on particular applications of that premise. It's only in so far as one rejects the premise that one becomes an enemy.

Really? Do you consider people who wish enact a state religion as poltical enemies to those who wish to maintain a secular government?

Do you believe both of these views fall under the notion of "the United States of America as a propositional nation"?

If you do feel that Neumann wouldn't consider these views as political enemies, then what is the difference between someone who wishes for socialist programs and one who demands only privately funded programs?

ETA: Do you believe that skeptics can't be good citizens? Or only skeptical atheists?

 

[Stone Island]

Really? Do you consider people who wish enact a state religion as poltical enemies to those who wish to maintain a secular government?

Do you believe both of these views fall under the notion of "the United States of America as a propositional nation"?

If you do feel that Neumann wouldn't consider these views as political enemies, then what is the difference between someone who wishes for socialist programs and one who demands only privately funded programs?

ETA: Do you believe that skeptics can't be good citizens? Or only skeptical atheists?

I think you're exaggerating the size, influence, or seriousness of those who wish to "enact a state religion". A separation of church and state is very different than a separation of religion and politics and I think that if you do some research you'll find that what the Founders were worried about wasn't so much Protestant religion as the Catholic Church. A lot of the First Amendment talk today is colored by a misunderstanding of the difference between those two things.

Communists, for instance, do not believe there is any truth to the notion of natural rights. Thus, they are political enemies of the United States. Socialistic Democrats and Libertarian Republicans (for instance) all agree on the fundamental truth of natural rights, they merely disagree on how to best implement protections of those rights. Their fights are heated and bloody, but they are at bottom the fights between brothers who want only what is best for the family.

 

[JoeEllison]

Communists, for instance, do not believe there is any truth to the notion of natural rights. Thus, they are political enemies of the United States.

That doesn't make any sense, and seems to be the stupid that you're stuck on.

 

[Stone Island]

Speaking of stuck on stupid: FYI, (not a good citizen) is not equal to (a bad citizen).

 

[JoeEllison]

Speaking of stuck on stupid: FYI, (not a good citizen) is not equal to (a bad citizen).

You've got no basis or right to judge my citizenship AT ALL, and the basis you've claimed is intellectually and ethically bankrupt.

 

[Stone Island]

You've got no basis or right to judge my citizenship AT ALL, and the basis you've claimed is intellectually and ethically bankrupt.

Oh really?

 

[JoeEllison]

Oh really?

Yep, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Your bigoted attitudes are too strong for you to have been able to see the error in your ways. I hope for your sake you let go of your hatred and bigotry.

 

[Stone Island]

Yep, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Your bigoted attitudes are too strong for you to have been able to see the error in your ways. I hope for your sake you let go of your hatred and bigotry.

You don't say?

 

[joobz]

I think you're exaggerating the size, influence, or seriousness of those who wish to "enact a state religion". A separation of church and state is very different than a separation of religion and politics and I think that if you do some research you'll find that what the Founders were worried about wasn't so much Protestant religion as the Catholic Church. A lot of the First Amendment talk today is colored by a misunderstanding of the difference between those two things.

Off point evasion.
I asked:
Do you consider people who wish enact a state religion as poltical enemies to those who wish to maintain a secular government?

Communists, for instance, do not believe there is any truth to the notion of natural rights. Thus, they are political enemies of the United States.

I wasn't talking about communists, I said socialist. Also, There is no limitation between in beleiving in natural rights and being communist.


It is clear you believe a belief in natural law is required to not only be a good citizen, but are also now claiming that not believing in it means you are an enemy of the state.

again:
Do you believe skeptics can be good citizens?

 

[godless dave]

Communists, for instance, do not believe there is any truth to the notion of natural rights.

That's not true, they just have different views about what those rights are and how important they are relative to each other.

Thus, they are political enemies of the United States.

Communists who are American citizens would be (more accurately, Leninists would be because of their views on democracy and free speech), but not necessarily Communists in other countries. A Communist in Nepal who wants Nepal to have a Communist government is not a political enemy of the United States. He's the political enemy of Nepalese monarchists.

 

[godless dave]

This discussion of Neuman's statement is really a derail. Stone Island, can you comment on my point that principles based on beliefs held as a matter of faith are no less arbitrary then principles held as a matter of personal preference?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Speaking of stuck on stupid: FYI, (not a good citizen) is not equal to (a bad citizen).

Right, atheists aren't necessarily bad citizens, they're just inferior to Neuhaus.

 

[JoeEllison]

Right, atheists aren't necessarily bad citizens, they're just inferior to Neuhaus.

We're not "bad", we're just second-class citizens, according to Neuhaus.

Is there any reason why Neuhaus gets to be an authority on citizenship?

 

[joobz]

Speaking of stuck on stupid: FYI, (not a good citizen) is not equal to (a bad citizen).

I thought you realized how poor that argument is. We will never make progress if you keep repeating already debunked points..

So, now you claiming there are levels to citizenry and that what you believe dictates which levels are available to you?

In other words:
So, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes no god is able to be at best a citizen.

Whereas, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in any of the countless number of gods that have been worshiped is able to be a maximum a good citizen.

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the god of abraham is able to be a maximum a great citizen.

or

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the christian god is able to be a maximum an outstanding citizen.

...

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the southern revivalist, northeast chapter of the baptist reformationists 2nd house assembly's god is able to be a maximum a super double secret mega-happy inverted dancing magoo awesomeness great citizen.

 

[joobz]

We're not "bad", we're just second-class citizens, according to Neuhaus.

Is there any reason why Neuhaus gets to be an authority on citizenship?

IT's a bad argument. SI knows it's a bad argument. Why he chooses to repeat that bad argument is the mystery.

 

[JoeEllison]

IT's a bad argument. SI knows it's a bad argument. Why he chooses to repeat that bad argument is the mystery.

We know why, it really isn't a mystery at all... is it?

All we can do is try to catch someone who might be reading this thread and steer them away from the sort of illogical non-reasoning that SI has presented for our amusement.

 

[Ateius]

Is there any reason why Neuhaus gets to be an authority on citizenship?

Because Stone Island says so?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is there any reason why Neuhaus gets to be an authority on citizenship?

Only in the mind's of bigots. He has no expertise or even anything of value to say about it to anyone else. He's a moron, a fool, a bigot and an intellectual coward.

 

[JoeEllison]

Only in the mind's of bigots. He has no expertise or even anything of value to say about it to anyone else. He's a moron, a fool, a bigot and an intellectual coward.

Yeah, but he says "Jesus" a bunch, and hates everything that he's supposed to in order to carry religious right-wing credentials. The fact that he's collaborated with Chuck "Watergate Seven" Colson tells us something about his sick views on America, doesn't it?