Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[joobz]

Don't flatter yourself. This is merely an amusing distraction from me. I'm sorry, but the standard here is generally way too low to make much use of.

I would believe this if you had been making and defending solid arguments. Unfortunately, the evidence you provide does not support that case.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Thus Spake Zarathustra:

That's nice.

What do you think? Can you articulate a rebuttal?

 

[Stone Island]

The operational theory of the United States of America is that something very much like "nature and nature's God" created man with inalienable rights. From my readings it's clear that the writers of the Constitution believed something very much like that to be the case.

Now, the question is, is belief in natural rights a justified true belief (i.e., knowledge), a true belief (but not justified and only could be held as a matter of faith), or merely a belief (and thus an arbitrary position akin to saying "I prefer").

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The operational theory of the United States of America is that something very much like "nature and nature's God" created man with inalienable rights. From my readings it's clear that the writers of the Constitution believed something very much like that to be the case.

Now, the question is, is belief in natural rights a justified true belief (i.e., knowledge), a true belief (but not justified), or merely a belief (and thus arbitrary).

Ahem.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let me repeat the most salient part.

We the people of the United States

The U.S. Constitution does not assume a god or rights derived from a god. It is an entirely secular document, a social contract worthy of Thomas Paine. The Constitution is a mutal agreement of the people, it does not make reference to god, derive rights, laws, or authoirty from god. It is a document in which the nation to be built is build on the best intentions and best efforts of the people. You might perhaps be thinking, erroneously, of the Declaration of Independence, which make reference to a creator, in the minimalist, deistic sense - which was as minimal a god as could be agreed on at the time.

That document, however, is not in any sense the legal foundation for the government of the United States. It was a diplomatic screed.

Your premise is false, therefore your conclusion is false.

 

[Stone Island]

Ahem.



Let me repeat the most salient part.




The U.S. Constitution does not assume a god or rights derived from a god. It is an entirely secular document, a social contract worthy of Thomas Paine. The Constitution is a mutal agreement of the people, it does not make reference to god, derive rights, laws, or authoirty from god. It is a document in which the nation to be built is build on the best intentions and best efforts of the people. You might perhaps be thinking, erroneously, of the Declaration of Independence, which make reference to a creator, in the minimalist, deistic sense - which was as minimal a god as could be agreed on at the time.

That document, however, is not in any sense the legal foundation for the government of the United States. It was a diplomatic screed.

Your premise is false, therefore your conclusion is false.

Your use of "diplomatic screed" is poisoning the well. What did Thomas Jefferson want to be remembered for? Founding the Univ. of Virginia and writing the DOI. That is, of course, an argument from authority.

I hold that the DOI and the Constitution both derive from the same political/philosophical tradition and that to separate them does violence to what the Founders actually thought. Simply put, it's an empirical question. It's not whether the Founders need to believe in the truth of the DOI to write the Constitution, it's whether they did or not that must be answered.

WE, THEREFORE, THE REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these Colonies...

The Constitution, unamended, makes use of rights language (habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws etc...) . Article 9 and 10 of the Constitution are helpful for understanding this as well.

 

[godless dave]

What other sort of justification for rights could you offer, other than mere arbitrary preference?

What's wrong with human preference? Why do rights even need justification? It seems to me, the one's who would want to take away rights - which is to say, prevent other humans from doing or saying things - are the ones who I would demand justification from.

Are cannibal societies less justified than natural rights republics? Why?

Societies aren't "justified" at all.

 

[godless dave]

Are those laws good? How do you know?

You can't "know" if laws are good. You can only judge if laws are good, by a subjective value judgement based on human values and human experience.

Apart from whether you prefer the law to be one way or another, is there some objective standard against which the laws can be judged?

No. The preferences of the citizens to whom the laws apply is the only standard, and it is the only one that is needed.

Wouldn't a good citizen be one who helps the state make it's laws adhere more closely to what is actually good as opposed to what is apparently good?

What's the difference?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Your use of "diplomatic screed" is poisoning the well. What did Thomas Jefferson want to be remembered for? Founding the Univ. of Virginia and writing the DOI. That is, of course, an argument from authority.

I hold that the DOI and the Constitution both derive from the same political/philosophical tradition and that to separate them does violence to what the Founders actually thought. Simply put, it's an empirical question. It's not whether the Founders need to believe in the truth of the DOI to write the Constitution, it's whether they did or not that must be answered.

The Constitution, unamended, makes use of rights language (habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws etc...) . Article 9 and 10 of the Constitution are helpful for understanding this as well.

It merely assumes those laws exist and seeks to protect them. By incorproating them into the highest law of the land it makes them the de facto rights we are endowed with by our Constitution. It makes no legal or logical difference whether one believes habeas corpus is a right derived from English Common Law traditions and incorporated into the legal framework of the U.S., or if you believe that God on his throne, flocks of angels buzzing around his head once said, "LET THERE BE HABEAS CORPUS - BUT WAIT FOR LATIN FIRST." The U.S. government does not require that we believe the later, and belief in the later isn't required to be a good citizen or for society to function.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution explicetely says it's a document writen by the people to form a more perfect union. They used the frameworks they had on hand and could devise. No god required.

 

[godless dave]

Now, the question is, is belief in natural rights a justified true belief (i.e., knowledge), a true belief (but not justified and only could be held as a matter of faith), or merely a belief (and thus an arbitrary position akin to saying "I prefer").

There is no difference between the latter two. A belief held as a matter of faith is identical to a belief based on preference.

 

[Stone Island]

I would suggest that anyone interested in the natural rights basis of the Constitution read The Federalist #84 written by Alexander Hamilton.

 

[godless dave]

I hold that the DOI and the Constitution both derive from the same political/philosophical tradition and that to separate them does violence to what the Founders actually thought. Simply put, it's an empirical question. It's not whether the Founders need to believe in the truth of the DOI to write the Constitution, it's whether they did or not that must be answered.

I agree with your first statement, but not with the importance you gave to it. What philosophies the founders had is irrelevant to the practice of being a good citizen of the US. Being a good citizen of the US requires certain behavior; it does not require a philosophy.

The Constitution, unamended, makes use of rights language (habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws etc...) . Article 9 and 10 of the Constitution are helpful for understanding this as well.

So what? That doesn't help your argument at all. Being an atheist does not prevent someone from valuing human rights.

 

[godless dave]

I would suggest that anyone interested in the natural rights basis of the Constitution read The Federalist #84 written by Alexander Hamilton.

I've read it; I have the book of Federalist Papers at home. It's irrelevant to your argument. The philosophical motiviations of the authors of the Constitution are irrelevant to the question of good citizenship.

 

[Complexity]

The point is that I've been busy and I haven't given some very good points the answer they deserve.

ABD, Ph.D. Political Science (Political Theory and American)

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Neither a communist nor an atheist cannot be a good citizen of the United States of America because they both reject the possibility that natural rights or natural law is true in any metaphysically interesting or morally obligatory sense. Communists because they bow to other gods. Atheists because they reject the possibility of any gods.

I know the coward has put me on ignore, or at least claims to have done so, but that will not protect his arguments from criticisms that everyone else can read.

First of all, I would like to know what precludes a communist from believing in natural rights. The familiar Communists regimes may have officially backed a doctrine of atheism, but why can a US citizen who is also a communist not believe in the concept of natural rights, or even a god? This is a perfect example of the sort of sloppy arguments Stone Island puts forth.

And what does he mean by "morally obligatory"? Could an atheist feel "morally obliged" by his own code of ethics to risk his life by leaping into a freezing river to rescue strangers from a car wreck?

And if it's really because they "bow to other gods" then what's to stop someone else like Neuhaus coming along and declaring arbitrarily that one must be able to give an account of the Abrahamic god to be a good citizen, declaring all who are not Jewish, Christian or Muslim from being good citizens. What's to stop someone from claiming arbitrarily that only those who can offer an account of the Christian god are capable of good citizenry. These are equally as arbitrary as Neuhaus' argument regarding atheism and citizenship considering that no one has yet offered a convincing reason to conclude that any legal document of the United States makes the slightest mention of natural rights or even god.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I would suggest that anyone interested in the natural rights basis of the Constitution read The Federalist #84 written by Alexander Hamilton.

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.

 

[joobz]

I noticed you had not addressed this post, I'm simply repeating it to give you an opportunity to make yourself clear.

What do you mean by "your argument." Are you claiming that I'm misrepresenting the argument at hand or are you claiming that this is all Neuhaus' argument? If it is the former, you are wrong. I've simply extrapolated the argument you've made. If it is the later, that's irrelevant as the argument that you presented is weak regardless who came up with it. And it is that argument which I am challenging as poor.

So how is my argument wrong? You now claim that citizenry requires not JUST the belief in god(s) but the belief in the right god(s). Your are simply reinforcing my critique.

And if you meant that "communists bow to other gods" as a metaphor that a person who is communist can't be a good citizen in a capitalist democracy, then doesn't it stand to reason that a capitalist can't be a good citizen in a communist society?

 

[Belz...]

Don't flatter yourself. This is merely an amusing distraction from me. I'm sorry, but the standard here is generally way too low to make much use of.

This smells of an inferiority complex. It's not the first time I see this and the person is invariably wrong when they do.

 

[Belz...]

That's nice.

What do you think? Can you articulate a rebuttal?

He reminds me of the Junkions in Transformers, who always quote stupid commercials instead of speaking on their own.

 

[Belz...]

The operational theory of the United States of America is that something very much like "nature and nature's God" created man with inalienable rights.

Actually, it speaks of inalienable HUMAN rights, determined by MEN, not gods. Sheesh, I know this and I'm not even American.

 

[Belz...]

What's wrong with human preference? Why do rights even need justification? It seems to me, the one's who would want to take away rights - which is to say, prevent other humans from doing or saying things - are the ones who I would demand justification from.

Marvelous. Damn straight.