maybe an obvious question... but are you arguing that it is impossible to have self-worth without believing in a deity? 

personally, i think that every human being is worth something simply because they are, in fact, human.  i don't think i need to believe in God to think that (and i don't). 

@nyclegodesi24@xanga - well, i guess it depends on whether you believe that simply being human can be a source of worth.  to me, natural law is the notion that humanity in and of itself is of worth, and that laws should reflect that.  

@nyclegodesi24@xanga - worth itself may not be, but what it is based on is. 

well, i won't pretend i know much about law.... but based on what you've shared, i'm much more of a proponent of positivism.  

@nyclegodesi24@xanga - Hardly a dud; I think it's a good launching ground for future discussion.  I just finished the skeleton on a loooong reflection on justice and will post shortly (in part & parcel, but it touches on the points you raise of the relationship between justice and religion/faith.

In democratic or constitutional nations, I don't think it should apply.  There should be freedom of religion stated in the constitution or charter of rights and freedoms.

There are exceptions in secular nations like Norway that have a recognized official state religion.

@nyclegodesi24@xanga - hardly.  but i think that you forget that there are plenty of people out there who view humanity as the only necessary basis for natural law.  to me, it's nothing more than the premise of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  i respect and fight for others' rights because i feel i deserve those rights.  and i feel i deserve those rights because *drumroll?* i'm a human being.  the only innate, inalienable right i think human beings really have is the right to fair treatment... the right to be treated fairly under the laws governing you, regardless of what they are. 

if religion is an integral part of natural law... well, which religion?  when the Athenians created the first true democracy (and the only true democracy, in my opinion), they did so with a firm basis in religious thought.  except, their natural law stated that freedom was the foundation of equality.... in American democracy, it's the other way around. 

I agree with you.

The idea that one can be absolute "neutral" is a fallacy.

In order to be neutral someone has to be able to recognize their predispositions (which incorporates their beliefs) and disguarding any irrellevant bias.  However, you have to remember, this can cause 2 primary reactions: 1) the person will toss out their predispositions and will react to their natural tendency by swaying themselves to vote against their own bias, simply to avoid being biased towards their natural tendency.  This results in a new bias, and is equally bad because it creates dual operating predispositions (those which you use in your every-day life and truly believe, and those which you use in your professional, or decision making capacity).  Of course this will lead to a great deal of cognitive dissinence. 2) The person will successfully remove any irrelevant bias from the decision making process and retain rellevant bias.  This results in a higher probability of incorporating one's retained predisposition and rejecting any other option. 

It is not impossible to have some neutrality, but the idolized absolute neutrality that America seems to be obssesed with will only result in bias or apathy.

It is Apathy that can be considered a 3rd result in the pursuit of neutrality.  One might realize the utter impossibility of the task and, like you mentioned, begin to lose interest in trying resolving to know nothing, rather than know (and believe) anything.

I do believe true neutrality can be achieved on subjects that the individual has not formulated a firm disposition on; however, on many topics, such as abortion, feelings and beliefs have already been established firmly. 

@foxes_have_holes@xanga - You make a good point about abortion but on another front you need to learn about "The Family", an organization of Christians bent on getting rid of democracy and replacing it with a "kingdom" in which they of course will be the officers. Senator Ensign is one of the them. Conrad lied to the press several months ago about his attempt to broker a deal for Ensign with the family of the wife with whom Ensign had an extramarital affair. Now he is admitting to brokering a deal which involved a payoff of millions of dollars. The members of The Family believe that Jesus told the common people one thing but his real message was for them. They justify doing anything because they believe they are the few chosen people and they are powerful in Washington. It's worth looking into, even if you only check the list of politicians who are members at Wikipedia. An insider named Jeff Sharlet wrote a book about the group called "The Family" in case you want to look further into it. Their address in D.C. is called C Street. Governor Sanford is another member btw. 

Faith and belief cannot be quantified and what one has faith or belief in cannot be empirically proven or demonstrated nor can it be disproved. Faith and belief are experiential. We see many people in the United States doing bizarre things, sometimes including murder, stating in their defense that God told them to do whatever it is they did. Believers in God committed suicide together because they believed there was a spaceship behind a comet heading toward our sun that would take them to heaven if they killed themselves. Imagine if their party had won the election that term. It would have been considered unpatriotic *not* to commit suicide and the public at large might have joined in for flag and country.