Atheists becoming less unpopular?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't think you are reading that correctly. Aquinas is most definitely not saying that human rights come from earthly rulers. Notice how he referes to "true good" and "divine justice" and how someone can be good with respect to the ruler but still in opposition to Divine justice. Human rights are grounded not in the ruler's whim but in the Divine good to the extent that it comes through the ruler.

I don't see "Liberty & Justice for All" in Aquinas' teachings.  In fact, Saint Thomas was quite content with the institution of slavery:

Considered absolutely, the fact that this particular man should be a slave rather than another man, is based, not on natural reason, but on some resultant utility, in that it is useful to this man to be ruled by a wiser man, and to the latter to be helped by the former, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2). Wherefore slavery which belongs to the right of nations is natural in the second way, but not in the first. (Summa Theologica II II, 57, 3, ad 2)

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3057.htm

And, so, morality, and hence, the "natural law" evolves over time, something that one would expect under naturalism but not under super-naturalism.

You seem to be deliberately misreading Aquinas. Look back to Article 1 of the same Question and you will find this:

"I answer that, It is proper to justice, as compared with the other virtues, to direct man in his relations with others: because it denotes a kind of equality, as its very name implies; indeed we are wont to say that things are adjusted when they are made equal, for equality is in reference of one thing to some other."

And in the part you quoted Aquinas is answering these objections:

"Objection 1. It would seem that the right of nations is the same as the natural right. For all men do not agree save in that which is natural to them. Now all men agree in the right of nations; since the jurist [Ulpian: Digest. i, 1; De Just. et Jure i] "the right of nations is that which is in use among all nations." Therefore the right of nations is the natural right.

Objection 2. Further, slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 2). Now "slavery belongs to the right of nations," as Isidore states (Etym. v, 4). Therefore the right of nations is a natural right.

Objection 3. Further, right as stated above (Article 2) is divided into natural and positive. Now the right of nations is not a positive right, since all nations never agreed to decree anything by common agreement. Therefore the right of nations is a natural right."

It would be very odd for Aquinas to reply to these objections by agreeing with them, which is what you are suggesting.

[Jehanne]

I quoted Saint Thomas' reply:

Reply to Objection 2. Considered absolutely, the fact that this particular man should be a slave rather than another man, is based, not on natural reason, but on some resultant utility, in that it is useful to this man to be ruled by a wiser man, and to the latter to be helped by the former, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2). Wherefore slavery which belongs to the right of nations is natural in the second way, but not in the first.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not as if there is no secular foundation for such a position.

Try the UN preamble, for starters.

Recognition of inalienable human rights is not the same and having a foundation for them. It's kind of like your objections to intelligent design. Both ID and neo-Dawinists recognize the same complex systems but differ significantly on how those complex systems came to be. Wouldn't you say that ID proponents haven't adequately demonstrated that presence of a designer and that biological systems only appear to be designed? In other words, knowing "that something is" is not the same as knowing "why something is." So no, Khem, there is no secular foundation for human rights.

Neither your disagreement with the various secular foundations of inalienable rights, nor your preference for godidit™ over those secular foundations.....have the ability to make them disappear.  

...........?

[Catholic_Lady]

I wouldn't have a problem voting for anyone on the list except for maybe the socialist, depending on what exactly was meant by that. It kinda doesn't fit in with the rest of what was on the list, because it is itself a political stance.

There can be Mormons, Muslims, Atheists, etc, who share similar political views as myself. Tibs, for example, has a lot of the same political views as myself and he's an atheist. I'd vote for his ass.

[Brian37]

I wouldn't have a problem voting for anyone on the list except for maybe the socialist, depending on what exactly was meant by that. It kinda doesn't fit in with the rest of what was on the list, because it is itself a political stance.

There can be Mormons, Muslims, Atheists, etc, who share similar political views as myself. Tibs, for example, has a lot of the same political views as myself and he's an atheist. I'd vote for his ass.

It is a bullshit myth that the GOP has unfortunately sold since Reagan, that liberals, even liberal theists, not just liberal atheists, that somehow because we value livable wages, workers rights, equal pay for women, affordable health care, and lower pay gap between the top and bottom, that somehow that means we want to end the private sector.

No most liberals outside a very few DO NOT want to end the private sector, just the monopolies and greed that has run the 1% attitude. There certainly are decent business owners, morso at the mom and pop level local yes. But the global corporate climate is far too full of horrible quick satisfaction marketing having less to do with providing for humanity and more to do with megga corporations competing for shareholders.

No CL, I don't want the west or America to become Stalin's Russia or Castro's Cuba. But when the economic right falsely misuses the word "capitalism", the rich economists at the top know better but don't give a shit that they lie to people. China IS also a capitalist country, it has western businesses that are located there because of the cheaper labor. Saudi Arabia's Royal Family owns oil companies and invests in global banks and the global weapons industry.

Despite what many falsely think about Cuba, Fidel was not poor and had a net worth of 100s of millions. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE. 

Corporate abuse is what I am against. Lies about taxes being robbery are what I am against. The idea that a billionaire family like the Walmart Family will end up on cat food if they pay higher taxes. None of this paragraph is a demand on my part to end the private sector. Just calling it bullshit when those at the top who have way more than they actually need still act like they are the victims.

I do enjoy going to a local pizza joint one day, get hot dogs at the gas station the next, get chinese food the next day, ect ect ect. But I don't like the attitude that the rich think they are the only class that is important. The bulk of the sweat isn't being done by 1 CEO, but the labor that company stands on. Workers don't want the private sector to go away, not even most liberal theists and liberal atheists. Workers simply don't want to sink and they also want more time outside their jobs so they can be with family and friends and be healther so that when they have that balance, they can be more productive while on the job.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I quoted Saint Thomas' reply:

Reply to Objection 2. Considered absolutely, the fact that this particular man should be a slave rather than another man, is based, not on natural reason, but on some resultant utility, in that it is useful to this man to be ruled by a wiser man, and to the latter to be helped by the former, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2). Wherefore slavery which belongs to the right of nations is natural in the second way, but not in the first.

This echos Justinian's Institutes in which it says, "slavery is an institution according to the law of nations whereby one person falls under the property rights of another, contrary to nature." Slavery belongs to the "right of nations" as a legal mechanism to impose punishment for wrong-doing. Slavery is NOT based on natural reason. Or as Aquinas says immediately proceeding the part you quoted "The right of nations is distinct from natural right" Thus he makes the distinction between inherent natural rights and the justice system that protects them.

So it is clear, human beings do have divinely created existential equality and as such inherent rights as part of their essential nature. These come from God. In contrast to this, the "right of nations" does not come from God but was allowed by God in the ancient world to accomodate a world corrupted by sin. As a legally imposed punishment people can loose those rights and become slaves, almost without exception in situations where one would otherwise have died*, according to the laws by which their nation is governed. To this day our justice system takes away the rights of convicted criminals. Being given a life-sentence for murder is a modern luxury and is in its own way just another type of slavery.

*The Egyptian sociologist  'Abd al-Wahid Wafi faced the same problem within Islamic tradition. He lists the conditions under which slavery got imposed in the ancient world. He concluded that slavery was in some sense a practical legal substitute for execution resulting from crime (like unpayable debt) or military slaughter.

[Jehanne]

I quoted Saint Thomas' reply:

Reply to Objection 2. Considered absolutely, the fact that this particular man should be a slave rather than another man, is based, not on natural reason, but on some resultant utility, in that it is useful to this man to be ruled by a wiser man, and to the latter to be helped by the former, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2). Wherefore slavery which belongs to the right of nations is natural in the second way, but not in the first.

This echos Justinian's Institutes in which it says, "slavery is an institution according to the law of nations whereby one person falls under the property rights of another, contrary to nature." Slavery belongs to the "right of nations" as a legal mechanism to impose punishment for wrong-doing. Slavery is NOT based on natural reason. Or as Aquinas says immediately proceeding the part you quoted "The right of nations is distinct from natural right" Thus he makes the distinction between inherent natural rights and the justice system that protects them.

So it is clear, human beings do have divinely created existential equality and as such inherent rights as part of their essential nature. These come from God. In contrast to this, the "right of nations" does not come from God but was allowed by God in the ancient world to accomodate a world corrupted by sin. As a legally imposed punishment people can loose those rights and become slaves, almost without exception in situations where one would otherwise have died*, according to the laws by which their nation is governed. To this day our justice system takes away the rights of convicted criminals. Being given a life-sentence for murder is a modern luxury and is in its own way just another type of slavery.

*The Egyptian sociologist  'Abd al-Wahid Wafi faced the same problem within Islamic tradition. He lists the conditions under which slavery got imposed in the ancient world. He concluded that slavery was in some sense a practical legal substitute for execution resulting from crime (like unpayable debt) or military slaughter.

Your analysis is just insane -- even little children were bought and sold into slavery to varying degrees all throughout the Middle Ages throughout Christian (Catholic) Europe.  Serfdom was slavery, and one cannot help but notice that the Revolution (in France, of course) abolished the feudal system.

And so, yes, morality evolves, which means that it is not objective.  I suggest that you read more of Aquinas; you might want to have a bottle of Jack Daniels next to you while you do it, though!

[dyresand]

I wouldn't have a problem voting for anyone on the list except for maybe the socialist, depending on what exactly was meant by that. It kinda doesn't fit in with the rest of what was on the list, because it is itself a political stance.

There can be Mormons, Muslims, Atheists, etc, who share similar political views as myself. Tibs, for example, has a lot of the same political views as myself and he's an atheist. I'd vote for his ass.

Id vote for a Socialist id rather have that can a corporatist shill honestly. At least with a socialist most of the time said person  is looking out for you
than some large corporation. Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are more socialists even more people and generation is more socialist than anything.
So yeah social security is a socialist program, police is  a socialist thing so is the fire department a good bit of socialism within our government already exists 
and medicare is a social program. So i  don't know exactly why you wouldn't vote socialist they aren't bad we just get told they are because people sell us 
"options" note said "options" and or "choices" are expensive by the way (hinting at healthcare pre ACA).

[pocaracas]

Some bit of propaganda did its job too well when people in 2017 still think that "socialist" is equivalent to "communist".
I'd advise a look into European politics.

[Brian37]

I quoted Saint Thomas' reply:

Reply to Objection 2. Considered absolutely, the fact that this particular man should be a slave rather than another man, is based, not on natural reason, but on some resultant utility, in that it is useful to this man to be ruled by a wiser man, and to the latter to be helped by the former, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2). Wherefore slavery which belongs to the right of nations is natural in the second way, but not in the first.

This echos Justinian's Institutes in which it says, "slavery is an institution according to the law of nations whereby one person falls under the property rights of another, contrary to nature." Slavery belongs to the "right of nations" as a legal mechanism to impose punishment for wrong-doing. Slavery is NOT based on natural reason. Or as Aquinas says immediately proceeding the part you quoted "The right of nations is distinct from natural right" Thus he makes the distinction between inherent natural rights and the justice system that protects them.

So it is clear, human beings do have divinely created existential equality and as such inherent rights as part of their essential nature. These come from God. In contrast to this, the "right of nations" does not come from God but was allowed by God in the ancient world to accomodate a world corrupted by sin. As a legally imposed punishment people can loose those rights and become slaves, almost without exception in situations where one would otherwise have died*, according to the laws by which their nation is governed. To this day our justice system takes away the rights of convicted criminals. Being given a life-sentence for murder is a modern luxury and is in its own way just another type of slavery.

*The Egyptian sociologist  'Abd al-Wahid Wafi faced the same problem within Islamic tradition. He lists the conditions under which slavery got imposed in the ancient world. He concluded that slavery was in some sense a practical legal substitute for execution resulting from crime (like unpayable debt) or military slaughter.

So it is clear that divine quality comes from Allah.
So it is clear that divine quality comes from Yahweh.
So it is clear that divine quality comes from Buddha.
So it is clear that divine quality comes from Vishnu.

No, it is clear you merely like the idea of having a cosmic sky parent. 

And what the hell does our court system hurting minorities and the poor have to do with proving the existence of any god? Every nation, friend and foe have prisons.

It isn't a lack of religion Saudi Arabia and Iran have prisons too, and they have much more oppression of non Muslims. The problem in America is that for the past 36 years the rich and the religious right have gerrymandered voting district maps. The GOP has sold the idea of "don't tax the rich" which the rest of us have to pay what the top doesn't. If we taxed the rich and gave workers livable wages and heath care, that would increase the stability of the individual and family. 

None of your fluff of a post proves anything. If you have empathy for others, it is YOU not a god handing it to you. YOU the individual, no magic man required to explain our species ability to be cruel or compassionate.