Which type of Political Atheism is most influential in human society currently?

[emilynghiem]

The Christian spirit of Restorative Justice is needed to enforce Constitutional laws inclusively and consistently.

Erm...no. There's nothing specifically Christian about the Constitution at all, and any ideas that it has in common with some Christian doctrine are not unique to Christianity at all.

Hi @FatAndFaithless
Sorry that what I post comes across the opposite to you
as what I'm saying.

I'm saying that the Constitution has to be enforced with the same spirit of Restorative Justice that is the TRUE meaning of Christianity.

I think you are taking some messed up teachings that Christians do to their own religion, and then thinking I'm applying that.

We are supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves
and Love one another as "Jesus loves us" which is SUPPOSED
to mean EQUAL Justice under Law, so we are SUPPOSED
to defend and protect each other's rights equally.

That's not happening with either Christianity or Constitutional
laws unless you really inject the equal love of neighbor into them.

I agree, that people ain't doing this and that's why political bullying has corrupted both church and state authority and turned them into insufferable messes.

People AREN'T respecting or protecting each other's interests
equally but are pushing their own ABOVE the beliefs/will of others.

To correct that, we need to start enforcing Equal Justice for All.
And that is what Christianity is SUPPOSED to mean. I'm going by the REAL meaning, not the garbage you see going on with religious abuses

(same with how real Constitutionalism ain't what we see politicians, courts or congress doing either. just making messes by abusing power for private interests corrupting both church and state.)

---

This is a misconception. "Natural Law" was a term invented by religious constitutionalists and possibly deists: John Locke and others. They attempted to connect religious laws(verdicts and dictates) to their social conditions. 'Rights' are not from "Natural Law", it derives from human beings themselves without a creator. We just have to rewrite it as ... "rights derive from nature without a creator".

In reality (with new data and scientific facts) we could actually say that "constitutionalism" is an utilitarian invention.
...

Therefore as an Atheists then you would be a Civil Religious Atheist (secular humanist). It derives from the idea of "Civil Religion" which emphasize on the national symbols to keep society cohesive and secular.

Nevertheless, an atheist constitutionalist is utilitarian holding on to "conservative" social values derived from religious dictates (almost a chemical process separating the two elements from the single compound - Values / Religion). It may be a form of conservative utilitarianism.

The liberal form of the previous would be Liberal Progressive Atheism - liberal utilitarianism. Using the above hypothetical chemical example. Liberal Progressive Atheism would disregard the connection and simply say that human values always existed (without god or a religion) and these human values are bound to change over time.

1. RE: natural law
I still count it as coming from human nature (and "laws" governing human nature as natural laws) that people have a natural sense of conscience, and develop an understanding that by AGREEMENT with others, then we recognize each other's rights within that agreement.

I do believe that happens by nature, by man being a social animal and having social relations and needs to form contracts/agreement with each other. We CALL these rights/freedoms etc. but it's basically part of free will and consent. Maybe what you mean by "derive" is similar to what I am saying that it comes from our inherent nature of how humans operate.

NOTE: Just because Locke coined the term, doesn't mean it doesn't inherently exist independent of the terms for it. Sorry if I use these things more loosely and not so limited to just what Locke/Rousseau and others shaped these concepts as.

Thanks for putting concepts to historical terms and contexts/origins;
even if it is not a perfect match for what I say and believe, it's the closest I will probably get. So I'm willing to stretch a bit to make it fit.

2. as for secular humanist vs. Constitutionalist
I do consider myself both, but emphasize Constitutionalist due to the need to have this particular language for the laws/principles that can be unifying. not just unifying in language but really connect on concepts.

People do not generally all relate to 'secular humanist' and some reject it per se. So if it is not as universal to all people/groups, then a more common base would have greater impact on more people using it.

Note: I do not necessarily limit Constitutionalism to conservative terms because things like "right to life" would be considered a basic Constitutional right by conservatives while "right to choose" as a secular form of religious freedom would be liberal/progressive which I am.
I include "right to life" as a religious belief, but not as a given, since that doesn't leave room for equal political beliefs of prochoice. So I frame both of these under religious freedom and equal protection of creed. I consider this progressive/liberal to use prochoice/freedom of religion to be inclusive of diversity. That's not necessarily considered conservative.

3. as for what you point out for liberals on "changing values over time"
this can equally be accounted for under conservatives by keeping most of the values/social issues private to begin with so it doesn't have to involve govt reform every time there are social changes.

So "changing values" can be taken care of under "rights reserved to the people or states"

that is not necessarily liberal but is included in constitutionalism
==========================
this is very interesting, thanks for posting.

I think even though you and I may apply the labels and terms
differently, all the same elements are there, just not covered
in the same order or divided among the names the same way.

I would say it takes ALL of these working together to include
all views and influence ALL people. Since we don't divide
the spectrum the same way, but keeping the entire set
together WOULD include them all REGARDLESS where we file what!

Cool!

---

It pisses me off that anyone has even answered the ridiculous poll.

Maybe this thread is just for me and CristW to jack around
or jack off. Not as much fun to do it alone. Sorry you all have to watch us get off on Constitutional porn.
Yuck!

[P.S. Can I post some political pornish satire on the forum somewhere here? It's a dialogue, spoofing 1-900 language while masking political statements in erotic terms between two consenting adults.]