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

[emilynghiem]

Hi I voted Constitutionalist, because I found out the hard way
this trumps anything else that is then protected underneath it.

Without due process, equal protections of CREEDS (which I am pushing to recognize political beliefs equally as religious beliefs),
and free speech/press/right to petition, how can you even DEFEND your beliefs whatever they are?

Whenever humans run into political or religious (or personal) conflict,
we revert back to natural laws of trying to redress and resolve grievances
to DEFEND our interests, beliefs and consent in the matter affecting us.

So that is defended and exercising principles of Constitutionalism based on natural laws.

All the other beliefs or subgroups you mentioned are defended equally under Constitutionalism.

My Christian friends worry that I put these principles even above some of the Bible
that requires believes to accept Govt as God given -- well that doesn't mean you don't petition the heck out of it.

the govt IS the people
like the church IS the people.

so it is up to us to petition EACH OTHER to redress grievances.
So we all need Constitutional principles of due process and protections to secure that ability to resolve conflicts
and establish agreements, laws and contract by consent of the governed.

The Christian spirit of Restorative Justice is needed to enforce Constitutional laws inclusively and consistently.
but not necessarily the Bible which isn't the authority for everyone.

but everyone I know reverts to natural laws and 'due process' when they run into conflicts
and have to defend their interests and input in a decision affecting them.

So to me that is more universal to defend, and all other versions or beliefs are equally protected thereunder.

I took a vow to uphold the First Amendment to the Constitution and all religions protected thereunder
which is actually the Fourteenth. And only recently did I learn why that is the default law that everyone relies on
in one form or another.

Muslims call it natural laws from God that even Mohammad taught, but that is not respected equally
through that source. I believe the Constitution CAN become a central source if everyone unites
under it and considers local political beliefs and parties to be denominations protected thereunder.
We can do more to help protect these minority beliefs, similar to states, by uniting under one law of the land.
And then let the separate parties or groups have sovereignty under that, similar to states rights.

so I believe that approach is more universal as an umbrella that can respect all other beliefs equally,
even if they clash with each other, and can provide the tools and backbone necessary for each group to become self-governing.

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

[rexbeccarox]

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

[Neo-Scholastic]

Historically, I would say that Totalitarian Communism has had the biggest impact.

[bennyboy]

I vote for Roman paganism. I mean, the Fathers loved Rome so much they established a Republic as the perfect government.

[Rev. Rye]

Dude, militant atheist is a term reactionaries invented for people who had the balls to say they think differently about religion.

[CristW]

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.

Hi I voted Constitutionalist, because I found out the hard way
this trumps anything else that is then protected underneath it.

Without due process, equal protections of CREEDS (which I am pushing to recognize political beliefs equally as religious beliefs),
and free speech/press/right to petition, how can you even DEFEND your beliefs whatever they are?

Whenever humans run into political or religious (or personal) conflict,
we revert back to natural laws of trying to redress and resolve grievances
to DEFEND our interests, beliefs and consent in the matter affecting us.

So that is defended and exercising principles of Constitutionalism based on natural laws.

All the other beliefs or subgroups you mentioned are defended equally under Constitutionalism.

My Christian friends worry that I put these principles even above some of the Bible
that requires believes to accept Govt as God given -- well that doesn't mean you don't petition the heck out of it.

the govt IS the people
like the church IS the people.

so it is up to us to petition EACH OTHER to redress grievances.
So we all need Constitutional principles of due process and protections to secure that ability to resolve conflicts
and establish agreements, laws and contract by consent of the governed.

The Christian spirit of Restorative Justice is needed to enforce Constitutional laws inclusively and consistently.
but not necessarily the Bible which isn't the authority for everyone.

but everyone I know reverts to natural laws and 'due process' when they run into conflicts
and have to defend their interests and input in a decision affecting them.

So to me that is more universal to defend, and all other versions or beliefs are equally protected thereunder.

I took a vow to uphold the First Amendment to the Constitution and all religions protected thereunder
which is actually the Fourteenth. And only recently did I learn why that is the default law that everyone relies on
in one form or another.

Muslims call it natural laws from God that even Mohammad taught, but that is not respected equally
through that source. I believe the Constitution CAN become a central source if everyone unites
under it and considers local political beliefs and parties to be denominations protected thereunder.
We can do more to help protect these minority beliefs, similar to states, by uniting under one law of the land.
And then let the separate parties or groups have sovereignty under that, similar to states rights.

so I believe that approach is more universal as an umbrella that can respect all other beliefs equally,
even if they clash with each other, and can provide the tools and backbone necessary for each group to become self-governing.

---

Well, I have not voted yet. I see that militant atheism is winning so far. Yes, I am aware that some of the options may be subsets of the other options.

I was thinking of secular humanism also but I was thinking of atheists by themselves. Secular humanists could be agnostics and others including atheists. Secular humanists means that you would still accept some form of religion existing in society: Free Exercise clause as an example but also protecting the Establishment clause.

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.

Militant Atheism comes in some forms but its violent form is revolutionary marxism and communism. The non-violent form is anti-theist (intellectual atheists debating against the religious apologists as an example). Within this set there are differences. For example, you could be an anti-theist but a capitalist and accept the current state structure.

Marxism or communism champions the establishment of the state to create a new culture and social structure without religious notions. It uses the state, as a tool, to remove the "vestiges" of religion from society. With this occurring, it means that the state would direct all human activities and uphold pure atheism (not secularism).

Political Nihilism is similar to communism. However, its goals also calls for the removal of the state and it will NOT utilize the state entity for the creation of a new society. It is violent and atheistic, some anarchists may associate with this label.

[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.]

[CristW]

Apolitical Atheism - Epicurus is an example used eventhough he is an ancient form of atheism. Why is this relevant to "political atheism" because being apolitical actually affects the "demos" and public policy. Therefore, those who are apolitical affects the political landscape overall.

Libertarian Atheism - champions absolute individuality and individual choice. However, even absolute individual liberty affects others. For example, when someone in a family decides to gamble their money (which may represents most of the percentage of the family unit) it affects the whole family. This position may be gradually yielding to the utilitarian argument. Ayn Rand is one of the most known historical proponents of Libertarian Atheism. Yes, it is good to oppose the ancient institution of the state but the state entity should be a tool for change not its total demise (my subjective opinion). Political Nihilist have a common focus with Libertarian Atheism but may differ in some aspects.

Conservative Atheism - Share common aspects with constitutionalism. The difference is that conservative atheism does not rely on a common social contract to find social values. Constitutionalism depends on the social contract agreement for social values (which means also it could go liberal when a state passes liberal-like or leaning legislation). However, for conservative atheists, there is a deep connection with Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative and even hypothetical imperatives. For example, saying "murder" is never justified. Or "rape" is never justified. These values will never change is a conservative atheist position. These values are not subject to new constitutional legislation. Example, bills of attainder was popular in England. Bills of attainder was also noted as illegal in the U.S. constitution. Bills of attainder in England meant that someone or a group of people were declared enemies of the state, by parliament, without proper process. The problem with conservative atheism may be that they could not identify which are valid social values or invalid social values according to their definitions. In other words, which social values, by default, are absolute or relativistic? For instance, the issue of slavery or usury. Even now, Liberal Progressives would never remove "murder" and "rape" as social values. Liberal Progressives would never say "slavery" is valid. Or that "usury" is a social vice.

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

Uh, I still think that's wrong, and I have no idea how you came up with the "true" Christianity. We have a handful of theists that differ from you that also claim to have the true Christianity.

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

No, I couldn't care less what 'messed up things' Christians have done when it comes to the Constitution, there is nothing in the Constitution that comes from Christianity.

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.)

Drivel, crowbarring your personal interpretation of Christianity into the secular Constitution is exactly what theists have been trying to do for years, all with slightly different versions of the "True" Christianity.