Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Australia is a natural law republic as well. "Right" is natural law talk. Say thank you to your English heritage.
Oh and I almost missed your impeccable research here. Australia is a republic? Did somebody forget to tell me? Gee, I thought that vote went the other way!

No, Stone, Australia is a Monarchy, thanks to our British heritage.
 
Except, empirically, we know that all men are not equal, being born quite differently, into many different circumstances. Your axiom is arbitrary.
You are equivocating between equal meaning same and equal meaning possessed of equal rights. Such word play is unbecoming.

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.

Even your empirical evaluation rests on axiomatic standard. Can you make a morally compelling case for that standard that is consistent?
That's rather dumb. All you are doing is remaining vague in the attempts to avoid being pinned down. Of course at some level axiomatic law is arbitrary that's it's nature. But it doesn't mean we can't logically detemine which set of axioms are to your best self interest. With all parties participating with the same set of self-interest, you can use the axoims to achieve the most universially beneficial system. It's an extention of "I'll cut the cake, and you can select the first peice" set of rules. Due to the people's self-interest, we achieve equal halves.

Again, You seem to intentially avoid my first (and more important) of the 2 part reason why your position is wrong.
joobz said:
You keep asserting that line "a morally compelling reason to support...." as a prerequisite for good citizenry. Unfortunately,
1.) there is no reason to agree to this premise. It represents a fallacious change in the definition of good citizen. Citizenry is defined by actions not thoughts.
Continuing with your wrong premise, just makes you continually wrong.
 
I take from your failure to comment that you acknowledge that The Articles of Confederation predate the Constitution and that there is no reason to assume that the "less perfect union" was established by the Declaration of Independence. It is also worth noting that even if we do grant your assumption, the fact that the "more perfect union" omits any mention of natural law at all would have seemed to indicate that the concept was considered one of the imperfections of the previous union.

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?
IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution is a "living" document designed so that it can be changed as seen fit. The framers had no idea what those changes might be. They realized that in the future rights other than those detailed in the first eight amendments might become relevant. One example is the establishment of a woman's right to have an abortion as in Roe v. Wade. I see no reason to assume that these "other rights" are intended to refer to a concept of natural law.

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.
Then why did they not include it in the Constitution? Natural law was mentioned in a work of political rhetoric intended to appeal to people emotionally. Yet when it came to the actual nuts and bolts of establishing the legal foundation of a new nation mention of natural law is conspicuously absent. In the entire history of the United States has anyone ever made a legal appeal to natural law?
 
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

I'm sorry, but the person and the argument are inseparable.
 
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.

A natural law republic ? What's your evidence for this ?

Will you answer me at any point concerning this: laws are arbitrary human constructs ?

If the case for God is, as one might say, is not-proved, not meaningful, or not true, then the case for natural law and natural rights is likely not-proved, not-meaningful, or not true as well.

Indeed. What's your point ?

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

Indeed. Historically, empathy and reciprocity have been beneficial. Ergo, treating people well is good for society. Isn't that a logical, compelling argument about the truth value of such a principle ?
 
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?

You're making up your own definitions, here. Laws and principles are human concepts. The only natural laws are the forces of nature, and they don't tend to be very nice to us.

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.

Even assuming you're correct, how does that help you ?

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

I'll take that as an admission that you agree with bokonon on this.

"Right" is natural law talk.

What the hell are you talking about ? A father can give rights to his children. How is that "natural" ?
 
Indeed. What's your point ?
His point is that, "Um, that's moral relativism and that's bad, mmm'kay."
Amusingly, according to his code, not only can athiests not be good citizens, anyone who isn't privy to the "one true code(TM)" can't be good citizens.

Since he has taken on as matter of principle, that this "one true code(TM)" is natural law, by his standards people operating under the concept of Shiria law can't be good. And we could go further and say that perhaps these "true laws" are even more specific. What if the one true law is the only only taught by the north-west, revivalist baptist church-pre-reformation? So then the South-east revivalist church-pre-reformation parish could never be good citizens?


Now, if his position is "You can be a good citizen as long as you believe."
Well, considering the highly variable and flexible nature of that word and that most people have no trouble believing in a set of moral codes, than yes, athiests can be good citizens. The only thing an athiest doesn't believe in is god and the god and state or god and morals are NOT I repeat THESE are not equivilent concepts.
 
Joobz, I have a feeling that Stone Island doesn't really have a definition of what a good citizen is or who can be one. He just doesn't like atheists, probably because of his local pastor's sermons.
 
Stone,

If the founding fathers thought that atheists were bad citizens why did they explicitly forbid religious tests for public office?

The third time I've asked now. You don't even have to give YOUR opinion if you don't want.
 
The only thing an athiest doesn't believe in is god and the god and state or god and morals are NOT I repeat THESE are not equivilent concepts.

Unless of course you're some flavor of logical positivist. Then they are, i.e., equivalently meaningless.

In any case, as a matter of rhetoric, I'm not exactly trying to get you to change your mind. I just want us to be clear about what it is that we disagree about.
 
Unless of course you're some flavor of logical positivist. Then they are, i.e., equivalently meaningless.

In any case, as a matter of rhetoric, I'm not exactly trying to get you to change your mind. I just want us to be clear about what it is that we disagree about.
Than, I apologize, because you did not clarify matters for me. I do not understand what your disagreement is with my statement.

Do you believe god and state are equal?
Do you believe god and morality are equal?
 
Last edited:
**plonk**
When I first read this (with your post to Mark), , I thought you were giving the sound effect of your balls being added to the table. :)

A quick google has informed me of my error, but i still like the onamonopeia:
***plonk***
"these balls aren't round."
 
I think we have established that axiomatic principles are subjective, based solely on human desires, thoughts, and values.

We have also established that religious beliefs are subjective, based solely on human desires, thoughts, and values.

So if atheists cannot be good citizens by Neuhaus's criteria, then neither can theists. Would you agree, Stone Island?
 

Back
Top Bottom