Is atheism protected by the Constitution?

[Boss]

I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?

 

[Brochacholomigo]

...Is this supposed to be satire?

 

[Redress]

I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?

They are not recognized as religions, they are recognized as being legally entitled to the same protections as religions. Small but important distinction.

And protected how? For example, and attempt to impose a religion would fail a first amendment test, which does protect atheists(as well as literally everyone else).

 

[StillBallin75]

I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?

Give us a practical legal example of what atheism protection under the Constitution would look like. Or what it WOULDN'T protect if you were in charge.

 

[Lursa]

I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?

What is there to protect?

The interpretation of 'separation of church and state' prevents religious beliefs being imposed by law (the govt) on those that do not believe the same. That can apply to those of other religions, or of no belief.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?

Is not playing a sport an official sport at the Olympic games?

 

[BillM]

I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?

According to the constitution we have freedom of religion.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

...Is this supposed to be satire?

These days I feel like I have to assuming everything is serious until proven otherwise.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?

Ummm....

Whut? Wouldn't freedom of religion also cover freedom from religion?

 

[soylentgreen]

I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?

Some!!! Begs the question of which sects have not been recognised?

 

[SuperDS77]

Is atheism protected by the Constitution? - @Boss​

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? Despite the fact that the constitution does not mention the words "separation of church and state".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

All have equal protection under the law.

 

[Gordy327]

I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?

Yes, atheism is protected as much as any religion under the law. One has the tight to have a religion or no religion. The government cannot favor one over the other.

 

[Gordy327]

Ummm....

Whut? Wouldn't freedom of religion also cover freedom from religion?

Yes, it does.

 

[Mircea]

Give us a practical legal example of what atheism protection under the Constitution would look like. Or what it WOULDN'T protect if you were in charge.

1st Amendment, specifically the freedom to peaceably assemble clause.

According to the constitution we have freedom of religion.

Ummm....

Whut? Wouldn't freedom of religion also cover freedom from religion?

It does.

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? Despite the fact that the constitution does not mention the words "separation of church and state".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

All have equal protection under the law.

The Constitution need not specifically contain the phrase "separation of church and state" because the 1st Amendment was designed to do that.

The men who wrote the Constitution were painfully aware of the role religion played in politics and the many wars in Europe.

Over the centuries, the Poops meddled in the political affairs of States and instigated wars, and then also sicked the Holy Roman Empire on States that rejected the meddling of the Poops.

To that end, the federal government -- but not the States -- was prohibited from establishing an official State religion, like all States in Europe had via the first part of the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The men who wrote the Constitution were brilliant. They realized the federal government could start banning religions left and right until the only religion that was not banned became the de facto State religion.

Right? I mean if Congress banned every religion except Greek Orthodoxy, then the only legal religion is Greek Orthodoxy and it is the de facto State religion.

That's why you have the second part of the religion clause prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The 1st Amendment's religious clause did not apply to the States (and neither did the 1st Amendment in its entirety.)

The Supreme Court bound the States to the free exercise of religion sub-clause in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940).

The Supreme Court bound the States to the establishment of religion sub-clause in Everson v. Board of Education (1947).

 

[Lisa]

I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?

I know that you are banned by Thomas Jefferson was very clear that nonbelievers enjpo0yed the same religious and secular rights as the believers of every religion. This is one of the core ideas of the Virginia statute for religious freedom and enshrined in both the Free Exercise clause and the separation of church and state that is created by the Establishment Clause.

Jefferson believed that the Statute guaranteed religious freedom for “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”

I am a secular Huamnist. Just s as you have the right to worship and believe I have the very same right not to be required to worship or believe in any god or any myth, yours or anyone else's be they 20 billion or just one people.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.


Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

www.loc.gov

 

[AZRWinger]

Ummm....

Whut? Wouldn't freedom of religion also cover freedom from religion?

Definitely not. The doctrine of freedom from religion enforced by judicial edict mean the sensitivities of the atheist dictate to the rest of us. A cross must be purged from public space lest it damage an atheists delicate beliefs.

 

[Gordy327]

Definitely not. The doctrine of freedom from religion enforced by judicial edict mean the sensitivities of the atheist dictate to the rest of us. A cross must be purged from public space lest it damage an atheists delicate beliefs.

You apparently do not understand what freedom from religion means. And perhaps not the separation of church and state either?

 

[AZRWinger]

You apparently do not understand what freedom from religion means. And perhaps not the separation of church and state either?

Only someone ignorant of the concepts and history of the Constitutionally protected right of freedom of religion would write such nonsense.

Please explain the inherently superior rights of atheists to censor other religious expression including citation of the Constitutional text granting such a superior right. Of course it's an impossible task for the atheist bigot having rejected religion now seeking to enjoin others from practicing theirs by perverting freedom into censorship.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Definitely not. The doctrine of freedom from religion enforced by judicial edict mean the sensitivities of the atheist dictate to the rest of us. A cross must be purged from public space lest it damage an atheists delicate beliefs.

Ever heard of separation of church and state? Do crosses belong in public spaces? Do you approve of the Muslim crescent and star being displayed in public places? How about the "baphomet in a manger" thing the Satanists put up last christmas?

 

[Bodi]

They are not recognized as religions, they are recognized as being legally entitled to the same protections as religions. Small but important distinction.

And protected how? For example, and attempt to impose a religion would fail a first amendment test, which does protect atheists(as well as literally everyone else).

It is protected speech at the end of the day.

 

[Bodi]

Only someone ignorant of the concepts and history of the Constitutionally protected right of freedom of religion would write such nonsense.

Please explain the inherently superior rights of atheists to censor other religious expression including citation of the Constitutional text granting such a superior right. Of course it's an impossible task for the atheist bigot having rejected religion now seeking to enjoin others from practicing theirs by perverting freedom into censorship.

You are trying to frame yourself as correct by asking him to do something that can not be done even though it was not his argument.

 

[Bodi]

Definitely not. The doctrine of freedom from religion enforced by judicial edict mean the sensitivities of the atheist dictate to the rest of us. A cross must be purged from public space lest it damage an atheists delicate beliefs.

The Judiciary is following the Constitution. Separating the Church from the State. Nobody is stopping the Church from being the Church though.

 

[reinaert]

Definitely not. The doctrine of freedom from religion enforced by judicial edict mean the sensitivities of the atheist dictate to the rest of us. A cross must be purged from public space lest it damage an atheists delicate beliefs.

Mind if I respond very directly?

I like the Nativity story. I like Jesus, the radical rabbi. I like Jesus, who spoke so eloquently against wealth and power. There are Christians (ortho and heterodox) whose courage moves me: Bonhoeffer, Kolbe, the Perfecti, the Berrigans; and whose thought has challenged me: Kierkegaard, Boehme, Berdyaev, Eckhart, Buridan, Barth and Keller.

I don't care if your churches, parishes, kingdom halls, temples, hermitages and revivals display your iconography, or broadcast your sermons and liturgies. I don't care that your holy book is sold in stores, or given away to strangers. I don't care if you ask me to listen to or to talk about the stories of your belief. Your concern for my soul does not offend me.

I don't care if your faith compels you to believe a cosmology that doesn't seem to explain the world, its origins, its ends. I don't care if you have a teleology and I do not. I don't think the rationality of the scientific method is or ought to be mandatory for private conscience

I have no gods. You have a god, whom you love. And that's just fine with me.

And yet, somehow, you surely act more atheist than I, because your conception of the divine demands that we all see it as weak and powerless if it does not have Leviathan as its helpmeet.

And because of that, I cannot trust you with that leviathan power of government.

 

[Lisa]

Definitely not. The doctrine of freedom from religion enforced by judicial edict mean the sensitivities of the atheist dictate to the rest of us. A cross must be purged from public space lest it damage an atheists delicate beliefs.

Can we replace that cross with an Islamic or Buddhist symbol it is only your cross permitted on public property?

Why is a Christian cross on government property instead of private property where it belongs and is constitutionally protected?

 

[Lisa]

Ever heard of separation of church and state? Do crosses belong in public spaces? Do you approve of the Muslim crescent and star being displayed in public places? How about the "baphomet in a manger" thing the Satanists put up last christmas?

I won't stop until we see Satanist or FSM decals on police cars and snowplows.