Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Foster Zygote said:
Sorry, but the United States as it is today is defined by the United States Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. Citizenship requires only that one abide by the Constitution. Why did the authors of the Constitution write Article VI section 3?
.
If what you claim about the importance of the Declaration of Independence is true then why is there no mention of this concept in the Constitution? Why are atheists not mentioned specifically?


Your style of apologetics is worthy of a major organized religious institution.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is practical document. The DOI is a philosophical statement of principles.

Again, you're ignoring that it's a moral claim, not a claim about the absolute minimum standard (which is, by the way, merely being born); a good citizen is something more than a mere citizen.

I think I've spotted an error in your reasoning: Do you have to be a good citizen to serve in office? Heck, that's why the Founders insisted on a high frequency of elections. If the schmuck you elected today turned out to really be a bad citizen, you could get rid of him and try again.

(Since mail was delivered on Sundays well into the 1830s (or so), why are Sundays not counted for pocket vetoes?)
 
Anyone who questions wether fellow citizens are good citizens, based only on those persons religous beliefs or lack of such beliefs, that person is definetely a bad citizen, a very bad one actually. And thats a fact.
 
The problem is Stone gets to redraw the line of Good Citizen wherever he wants by gratuitous quoting and lack of any real argument.

Hey Stone, can Atheists be good citizens? Answer this, and we can start the discussion.
 
Stone Island said:
Can atheists provide an objective moral grounding for the Constitution consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of natural law?
Click to expand...
Can theists?

For example what scriptural authority is there for the idea that the Creator endowed us with inalienable rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
 
I suspect that Stone Island may not understand my argument. As such, I am going to try and explain why the argument he presents doesn't require any debunk beyond what Darth Rotor provided in post 9.

Consider this analogy.

I could make the following argument,
"All Christians are evil. By Christians I mean integers and by evil I mean real numbers"

This would make my argument, All integers are real numbers, which is exactly true. As such the statement, "All christians are evil," is true when I apply the definitions I gave. Yet, this doesn't mean that the statement is true when applying the common usage of christian and evil. Any attempt to make such an implication is inherently intellectually dishonest.

By the common use of athiest(one who doesn't believe in a god or gods) and good citizen (A positively productive member of society), the statement "Atheists can't be good citizens" is simply wrong. As such, Neuhaus' entire argument is simply an intellectually dishonest exercise.

Further, many people would view the presentation of such an argument in a third party fashion, while simultaneously evading direct questions regarding their views, as a cowardly act.
 
Last edited:
Joobz beat me to the post. :p

This is reminiscent of the Creationist attack on evolution: just make up your own definition of what you're speaking against, and you can always win the argument. They aren't right, and neither is Stone Island.
 
He quotes Lincoln... and Lincoln was not a religionist... many think he was an atheist.

I don't think theists are capable of determining who can and can't be good citizens--their minds don't think clearly because they've been muddled by "faith".
 
joobz said:
Further, many people would view the presentation of such an argument in a third party fashion, while simultaneously evading direct questions regarding your views, as a cowardly act.
Click to expand...

Count me in as one of those "many people." Bad enough to be a bigot, even worse to preach to your moral betters the way StoneIsland has. The worst part is that he won't even stand up for his own bigotry directly.
 
Does this mean that all theists (no matter what god they follow) are more likely to be better citizens than atheists, or does it only apply to 'your' god/religion?

I would have to think that those who follow 'thugee' (the god kali) would be a bad bunch to have in your citizenry, or are they ok as well?
 
Last edited:
PBTree said:
Does this mean that all theists (no matter what god they follow) are more likely to be better citizens than atheists, or does it only apply to 'your' god/religion?

I would have to think that those who follow 'thugee' (the god kali) would be a bad bunch to have in your citizenry, or are they ok as well?
Click to expand...

He doesn't answer questions-- just delivers his brand of hellfire sermon by proxy.
 
In any case as far as I am concerned the state exists for the benefit of the people, not the other way round.
 
JoeEllison said:
The worst part is that he won't even stand up for his own bigotry directly.
Click to expand...

But isn't this exactly the definition of the religious zelot/theist?.
By the very definition of their belief they are not only unable but NOT allowed to think for them selves. That is what defines the good "christian soldier" and the muslim like sunni man no?

My only question is and always has been sort of a chicken and the egg thing.
Is it religion that draws these cowards because they need the excuse or does the religion seek these weak minded fools out to use them as pawns to do their dirty work?
 
Stone Island said:
The Constitution is practical document. The DOI is a philosophical statement of principles.
Click to expand...
You are chasing your tail. Please explain why when the founders of the United States government sat down to write the Constitution they made no mention of these principals nor any need for theism as a foundation of the republic, and in fact specifically prohibited the requirement of any sort of religious test to hold federal office.

Again, you're ignoring that it's a moral claim, not a claim about the absolute minimum standard (which is, by the way, merely being born); a good citizen is something more than a mere citizen.
Click to expand...
The "moral claim" was that atheists cannot be good citizens because they do not hold anything to be greater than themselves. This is false. An atheist is perfectly capable of holding a strong conviction regarding the importance of community and the equality of all humanity. Theists, on the other hand are perfectly capable of believing that some people are inferior to themselves. How many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves?

I think I've spotted an error in your reasoning: Do you have to be a good citizen to serve in office? Heck, that's why the Founders insisted on a high frequency of elections. If the schmuck you elected today turned out to really be a bad citizen, you could get rid of him and try again.
Click to expand...
This is not a part of my argument at all.

(Since mail was delivered on Sundays well into the 1830s (or so), why are Sundays not counted for pocket vetoes?)
Click to expand...
DOC, is that you?

At this point I'm with HRH Merv00. I grow tired of games, please respond to one of the following queries:

In your opinion, can atheists be good citizens of the United States?

How many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves?
 
Whether theists can be good citizens is not a legal question. Grinspittle made that clear from the beginning.

Whether theists can be a good citizens is a moral question.

Can theists provide an objective moral grounding for the Constitution consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of natural law?

Grinspittle argues persuasively that they cannot. Each theist attempts to interpret these documents and philosophies according to his (or her) subjective understanding of something called "god's law." Since no objective criteria exist for evaluating god claims, "god's law" becomes nothing more than the words each individual attempts to project onto the ventriloquist's dummy called "god". Such subjective projections lack any objective basis, such as is provided by secular case law, and two centuries of interpretation and modification by the three branches of government and the American people they represent.

Worse, the theists feel their highest loyalty is to god, rather than to the principles forged in the crucible of more than two centuries of real-world application. It is primarily for this reason that Grinspittle reluctantly concludes that theists cannot ultimately be considered good citizens.
 
Last edited:
Good... we've got that cleared up. Atheists CAN be good citizens, but theists really can't be. They must obey the invisible guy over and above the laws of the land.
 
articulett said:
Good... we've got that cleared up. Atheists CAN be good citizens, but theists really can't be. They must obey the invisible guy over and above the laws of the land.
Click to expand...


Based upon a really good analogy (can't remember who the poster was, cause I am old) and I surely won't do it justice;

"We are all atheists, we just believe in one less god than theists"

ergo; Stone Island must be an atheist and a 'good citizen'. :)
 
Foster Zygote said:
Why did the authors of the Constitution write Article VI section 3?

Article VI said:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This appears to contradict Grinspittle's assertion that theists cannot be good citizens, since the question of "theism" is clearly a religious Test.

At the same time, it also contradicts Neuhaus's assertion that atheists cannot be good citizens, since the question of "atheism" is also clearly a religious Test, just as good citizenship is a public trust.

I suppose the most that can be stated with validity is that theists like Neuhaus (and atheists like Grinspittle), by attempting to enforce standards which are clearly at odds with the Constitution which any good citizen necessarily supports, have shown themselves to be substandard citizens.
 
Last edited:
PBTree said:
Does this mean that all theists (no matter what god they follow) are more likely to be better citizens than atheists, or does it only apply to 'your' god/religion?

I would have to think that those who follow 'thugee' (the god kali) would be a bad bunch to have in your citizenry, or are they ok as well?
Click to expand...

No, Neuhaus means that it is impossible for an atheist to be a good citizen. Theists who are not good citizens are entirely possible, maybe even likely. He would probably suppose that Thugee who are enthusiastic in the prosecution of their religion would be very bad citizens indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom