Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Robin]

Please reference mention of "natural law" in the United States Constitution.

Even the article cited in the OP does not mention it. It is a concept raised entirely by Stone Island.

Neuhas states quite explicitly and openly that those he deems "good citizens" are not in any case bound by such niceties as the United States Constitution.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well, there's the more perfect Union, which leads one to believe that there was a less perfect Union, which gets one wondering about when the Union was created, which leads one back to the DOI.

You're kidding, right? The Articles of Confederation.

But, also, there is Article I: "the legislative powers herein granted shall be vested" which gives one an indication that there are legislative powers not granted herein, especially when compared to the vesting language of Article II. Of course, knowing Amendments 9 and 10, we know that some of those legislative powers were probably understood as being given or retained by the states, but some were also given or retained by the people themselves.

What does this have to do with "natural law"?

 

[Robin]

If you won't read the article...?

I have read it all the way through several times, including the waffle. Have you done more than skimmed? I see no evidence of that.

And I repeat, Neuhaus does not state why a "compelling account" is more important than actual acts of good citizenship. He merely asserts it as an axiom.

Feel free to point out where he does.

Oh, and:

My thought is that if religious language is meaningless then natural law and "rights" language is meaningless too, probably for the same reason (assuming I understand Martin's argument).

So in other words the article you cited in the OP is also meaningless for the same reason. Yes?

Will you go for for a fifth evasion?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

**plonk**

Should I take that as an affirmation of my point?

Well, the feeling (and the killfiling) is mutual, you bigoted ass.

Please keep in mind that the Membership Agreement expects you to be civil and polite toward other members; attack the argument and not the person.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[KingMerv00]

"If the founding fathers agreed with Neuhaus, why didn't that insert a religious test into the USC?", he asked again.

 

[Stone Island]

You're kidding, right? The Articles of Confederation.


What does this have to do with "natural law"?

Maybe this is something you can tell me, but how do legislative powers retained by the people (and the rights spoken of as being retained by the people in the 9th and 10th Amendments) make any sense outside of a natural law conception?

Whether or not you believe in natural law, and whether or not the concept is coherent, I think it's fairly clear that the Founders believed in it and thought that it was coherent.

 

[Stone Island]

And I repeat, Neuhaus does not state why a "compelling account" is more important than actual acts of good citizenship. He merely asserts it as an axiom.

Yes, he does. Read the article, please.

 

[bokonon]

I can make up any sort of axiomatic principles I want. The question, can I make an argument for their truth?

You mean like, "God exists, and this is how he wants America to behave."?

 

[bokonon]

Except, empirically, we know that all men are not equal, being born quite differently, into many different circumstances. Your axiom is arbitrary.

Except, historically, we know that this means the law should be equally applicable to all men, without regard to the circumstances of their birth. Your objection is specious.

And again, the empirical or anthropological investigation and evaluation of what happened with different societies that had differing considerations concerning their founding principles is, in the end, an evaluation based on the acceptance of a definition of the good, which, I hasten to add, is purely arbitrary without some sort of standard.

And again, waving a self-contradictory holy book aloft as a standard is no less arbitrary.

"Treat others as you would wish to be treated if your positions were reversed" does not require any deity for its morality. Can you make a compelling argument that it does?

 

[Robin]

OK, let's rerun:

It's quote mining if you don't turn to the question of why it's important to Neuhaus that a good citizen is one who can give a morally compelling account of the regime of which she is a part.

Neuhaus does not state why, he merely asserts it as an axiom, with no justification.

If you won't read the article...?

I have read it all the way through several times, including the waffle. Have you done more than skimmed? I see no evidence of that.

And I repeat, Neuhaus does not state why a "compelling account" is more important than actual acts of good citizenship. He merely asserts it as an axiom.

Feel free to point out where he does.

Yes, he does. Read the article, please.

Now I realise it is a big ask for an irrationalist like yourself to understand that when I ask for evidence for your assertion, I am not asking you to simply repeat the original assertion unchanged. I am asking for evidence.

And I realise that it is a big ask for you to actually read Neuhaus's articles since as demonstrated above you are not up to the task of reading a simple 50 word post.

But I repeat, I have read the article. Carefully. Several times. It is a lot more attention than the quality of Neuhaus's argument merits.

Again, feel free to point out where he does state why. If you are still unable to provide evidence for your assertion, please don't waste my time by asserting it a third time.

 

[Stone Island]

"Treat others as you would wish to be treated if your positions were reversed" does not require any deity for its morality. Can you make a compelling argument that it does?

"The strong do what they will; the weak suffer what they must" does not require any deity for its morality, either.

 

[Robin]

Maybe this is something you can tell me, but how do legislative powers retained by the people (and the rights spoken of as being retained by the people in the 9th and 10th Amendments) make any sense outside of a natural law conception?

It simply means that the world did not begin on March 4 1789. There was government and governance before that and that the mere fact of not being mentioned in the constitution does not necessarily extinguish a right. Even in Australia we learn that in high school.

Whether or not you believe in natural law, and whether or not the concept is coherent, I think it's fairly clear that the Founders believed in it and thought that it was coherent.

Whether they did or not is neither here not there (quite a lot of them believed in the right to own slaves). The fact is it was never made a basis for the US Constitution. Given the care and consideration in the drafting of the document I hardly think this can be a careless omission, do you?

 

[bokonon]

"The strong do what they will; the weak suffer what they must" does not require any deity for its morality, either.

And presumably one could have been a good citizen of Sparta by following that philosophy.

The problem you and Neuhaus still have is that stirring a deity into the pot is an attempt to create the appearance of objectivity where none can be demonstrated. Until and unless your hypothetical God chooses to assert his opinion directly, "good" is what men agree is good.

 

[Robin]

"The strong do what they will; the weak suffer what they must" does not require any deity for its morality, either.

This morality was referred to as "Natural Law" before the 18th century. The Christian Church seemed happy with this morality for quite a few centuries before the beginnings of modern democracy.

See that is the problem with the concept of "Natural Law" it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.

 

[Stone Island]

It simply means that the world did not begin on March 4 1789. There was government and governance before that and that the mere fact of not being mentioned in the constitution does not necessarily extinguish a right. Even in Australia we learn that in high school.

Whether they did or not is neither here not there (quite a lot of them believed in the right to own slaves). The fact is it was never made a basis for the US Constitution. Given the care and consideration in the drafting of the document I hardly think this can be a careless omission, do you?

Australia is a natural law republic as well. "Right" is natural law talk. Say thank you to your English heritage.

I don't think a single Founding Father made an argument for the right to own slaves. Nobody serious (until Calhoun who later repudiate his arguments)) made an argument for the positive good of slavery. This is why, of course, the word slavery does not appear in our Constitution.

Again, a more perfect union: by what standard of perfection?

 

[Stone Island]

And presumably one could have been a good citizen of Sparta by following that philosophy.

Athens. And the weak were the Melians.

 

[godless dave]

Except what you're not understanding is that the kind of justification necessary to make a morally compelling case for the United States as a natural law republic is the same kind of justification necessary for the existence of God, i.e., non-empirically-verifiable.

Oh we understand that, all right. What we have been saying for the past 17 or 18 pages is that making a morally compelling case for the United States as a natural law republic is not required for good citizenship.

I can make up any sort of axiomatic principles I want. The question, can I make an argument for their truth?

Truth, no. Desirability, effectiveness, and value, yes.

Except, empirically, we know that all men are not equal, being born quite differently, into many different circumstances. Your axiom is arbitrary.

Being born into different circumstances is not being born unequal. The DNA is human DNA and the biology is the same.

Maybe this is something you can tell me, but how do legislative powers retained by the people (and the rights spoken of as being retained by the people in the 9th and 10th Amendments) make any sense outside of a natural law conception?

They make sense as rights people want and think they should have. They make sense because there is nothing in nature that suggests that any one adult should have authority over any other adult.

Again, a more perfect union: by what standard of perfection?

Again, a subjective human standard.

 

[Robin]

Australia is a natural law republic as well. "Right" is natural law talk. Say thank you to your English heritage.

The Australian Constitution hardly mentions at all and when it does it refers to rights conferred by governments or attaching to hereditary Monarchy.

I don't think a single Founding Father made an argument for the right to own slaves. Nobody serious (until Calhoun who later repudiate his arguments)) made an argument for the positive good of slavery. This is why, of course, the word slavery does not appear in our Constitution.

Precisely, they believed in it personally (since if they didn't they wouldn't own slaves) but they did not put it in the Constitution.

Just as they didn't put God and natural law into the constitution. You can't have it both ways.

Again, a more perfect union: by what standard of perfection?

"We the people"?

 

[CriticalThanking]

I don't think a single Founding Father made an argument for the right to own slaves. Nobody serious (until Calhoun who later repudiate his arguments)) made an argument for the positive good of slavery. This is why, of course, the word slavery does not appear in our Constitution.

Was not slavery specifically codified with the "3/5 compromise" during the constitutional convention? IIRC, the word slavery was specifically avoided and the wink-wink-nudge-nudge phrase was "other persons."

ETA - Article one, section 2.
ETA2 - "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

My cut-and-paste fu doth suck.

CT

 

[Robin]

1. Neuhaus states his opinion that good citizenship depends upon the ability to give a compelling account of the regime to which you belong (for some reason)
2. Neuhaus states his opinion that the most compelling account of any regime is to state that your allegiance to that regime is limited and conditional (for some reason).
3. Stone Island thinks Neuhaus has presented some reasoning for these rather odd opinions but is unable to state where.
4. Stone Island has stated an entirely unrelated opinion that good citizenship depends upon acceptance of a concept called "natural law"
5. The US Constitution does not even obliquely refer to this concept.
6. In any case "natural law" was used to justify the strong and powerful over the weak and powerless up until the 18th century, and in most parts of the world beyond that.
7. Everywhere in the real world atheists and theists alike are demonstrating their good cizitenship by the actual practice of good citizenship.

Anything I have missed?