One is William J. Federer, who offers three basic arguments involving rights, equality, and limited government:
To have individual rights the government cannot take away, rights must come from a power "higher" than government. ...Without God, government transitions from being our servant to our master.
The concept of all citizens being equal before the law, having an equal vote in elections, is based on equality before a Supreme Being. ... But if there is no God - then men are not only not "created," they are not "equal," as Darwin espoused, some are more evolved than others.
[O]ur government was designed to govern people who could govern themselves. We could get by with few laws if people had an internal law. ... But if that person did not believe in God and in a future state of rewards and punishments, when presented with the same temptation to do wrong and not get caught, they would give in. In fact, if there is no God and this life is all there is, they would be a fool not to.
Unfortunately for Federer, he is wrong in every single point he argues. Gods do not ensure that governments are servants rather than masters even a cursory look at the average theocracy should disabuse people of that notion. In contrast, those nations which rank highest in terms of liberty, well-being, and longevity are those with the lowest amounts of religious and theistic beliefs.
In fact, it could be argued that far from defending individual rights, Federer's perspective is fundamentally authoritarian and thus antithetical to individuals rights. Federer's argument boils down to saying that without a higher authority God to control government, then government will act badly towards the people. This is no different from saying that without the higher authority of God to impose certain moral rules on us, then we won't behave morally, or that without the higher authority of the state to tell us what to do, then we won't do the right thing.
This is an authoritarian stance because it presumes that no one will do what is right unless they are forced to do so, or at least threatened with force, by some higher and unaccountable authority which we are all obligated to obey. There is no room in such a system for genuine freedom of thought, belief, conscience, or action. That, however, is what many Christian Nationalists have in mind when they promote a "Christian Nation" in which everyone is forced to submit to their god and rules they insist their god has laid down for us all.
Second, it is wrong that gods are required in order for people to be treated as equals under the law. Devout theists have consistently treated others, even co-religionists, as unequal a fact which proves that being "under God" doesn't promote equality at all. Devout Christians may sincerely believe in equality before the law, but that isn't a position which their Christianity requires in any way, shape, or form. Federer is also guilty of spreading misinformation when he argues that Darwin espouses that some human beings are more "evolved" than others.
Finally, William Federer engages in defamation when he argues that atheists are more likely to give in to temptation to do wrong than theists. On the contrary, if the statistics of religion are any indication the exact opposite might be true. Perhaps it makes Federer feel better to imagine that there is a connection between theism and morality, but certainly doesn't try to argue that this is so a fact that is not surprising, since such arguments inevitably fail.
If this is the best that people can manage when it comes to non-religious arguments for theism or denying church/state separation, then theism is well and truly a lost cause.
Austin, the link to the original article returns a “page not found” error.
Actually, Vox Day (popular religious blogger) makes it quite clear that he (and many of his supporters) does not think that women should have the right to vote, so I’m not sure how religion preserves equality under the law. His sentiment is hardly uncommon, either. Women are still not considered equal, in either status or position, in religious law. It is quite clear that the role of the woman is to be “submissive” to her husband, accept his authority, and not to remain unmarried.
This might the place Austin meant to link to. If not, it seems to be close.
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/05-23-05.asp
Actually Austin, while I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your line of reasoning. I don’t think it follows from any of Federer’s arguments that no theistic regime would violate rights and treat people the way theistic regimes have historically treated people. I think he’s arguing that gods are necessary, but not sufficient for rights and equality.
I think a better rebuttal of Federer’s arguments would be to point out that most modern, functioning democracies hold that their existences and the rights they grant derive from the sovereignty of the people – not supernatural beings. The fact that they do not derive their legitimacy nor the legitimacy of the rights they offer from deities while still functioning as free societies is enough to refute his claims.
>To have individual rights the government cannot take away, rights must come from a power “higher” than government. [He goes on to indicate god.]
I’m guessing he’s never heard these words before, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” [emphasis added]
There is a power “higher” than the government–that would be _the governed_. Ask the French aristocracy what happens when you forget that little point. Oh wait, we can’t ask them, they were all executed.
That would be my point.
I love America. And God. And I love my country. I am a part of the Christian Coalition of the United States.
You may phone me at ###. And ask for Niki. I live in Atlanta. It may be long distance.
But let’s talk about saving your souls. Please I am only here to help.
Niki
First, each person is responsible for the integrity of his/her own soul. second, I question the wisdom of posting your telephone number on the internet. security and safety issues are involved. I am a nice person (just ask me), but there are people who surf the net who are NOT NICE! There are ways to use your phone number to find out who you are and where you live. If it were me, I think I would have my number changed at this time. I say this because I have concern for your safety. I know you mean well, but you are naive, and mis-guided
Tracie. Could you do me a favor and post the title of this document so I can access it? I have read it, but can’t remember where. Thank you. Ron
(That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [emphasis added])
Declaration of Independence.
Declaration of Independence
Thank you. And I note that Austin took care of the phone number.
Austin, Niki’s number is still shown on the Scopes Monkey Trial comments section. Might you want to remove it from there, too?
Niki, we are trying to help you, too, with something more tangible than one’s soul.
I thought of something last night that was interesting. The Declaration of Independence also mentions a creator god. I find that interesting because Austin’s analysis starts right off the bat by indicating that one can have a belief in god and support a secularly empowered government. Ironically, that’s exactly what the U.S. Declaration of Independence does.
(The Declaration of Independence also mentions a creator god)
I think this concept is Deistic. To me, the creator God simply means whatever it was that brought the universe into existence. Would this be incompatible with atheism? I don’t think so.
Personally, I am Deist, so I can confirm that the God referred to in the Declaration of Independence was the God of Deism and not the God of the Bible. Deists refer to God by names such as “the Creator” and “Nature’s God,” but you’ll never hear those from a Christian. Almost all of the founders were Deists or at the very least were Unitarians. The Christian founders were very few in number (Hamilton, Jay, and Hancock are 3 of them) and not as important as the non-Christian founders (among them Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, as well as the outspokenly Deist Thomas Paine who actually incited the Revolution).
The claim about America being founded on Christianity is a complete lie based upon fabricated quotes and Orwellesque revisionist history to write Deism out of existence.
Niki.Thank you for your concern,but no thank you.there are a lot of nasty people in this world,and a hell a lot of them profess a religious belief, so don’t give them your telephone number.Did you know that US prisons are over-represented by people professing a religion in comparison with the general population of the US?
As regards deism,I admit freely it’s a less threatening belief than theism.But its heyday was the hundred years or so pre-Darwin.Even a superficial look at natural selection leaves Deism redundant.