• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is atheism protected by the Constitution?

The Danbury letter is an expression of concern over legislation favoring one Christian sect, denomination, over another. The wall of separation is to prevent another church of England situation not to ban Christianity from the public square so as to make the world safe for atheism.

President Jefferson helped organize and regularly attended Christian religious services from various sects conducted in the US Capitol rotunda. The wall of separation as practiced by Jefferson isn't as portrayed by the atheist

Atheism teaches there is no God therefore "worship" calls for the purging of religious symbols. The aberrant interpretation of the wall of separation caters to the atheist ideal favoring one religious belief over all others
Atheism isn't a religion. But it is just as equally recognized and protected under the law as any religion. Jefferson's letter was also used by the SCOTUS to affirm the separation of church and state, in their landmark case Reynolds v. US (1878).
 
Youu are confusing freedom of religion with freedom from religion. The former is protected by the Constitution. The latter is rule by atheists.

The Constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion is meaningless in the scenario you describe. When religious symbols are banned, atheism becomes the defacto state religion. That's not freedom of religion.
Atheism isn’t a religion. You are using a tired and incorrect assumption of atheism to claim that it is a religion.

Also, you are assuming secularism is atheism…which it most certainly is not. You made a blanket statement there that is also not correct. One can have faith but also be secular concerning governance.

Ironically, however, you are proving the point with your misguided assumptions: if atheism is truly a religion, and you have expressed the desire that having atheism as a state religion is undesirable…then that is the whole point of not having a state religion as per the First Amendment! You don’t want to be under tyranny of the religion of atheism…and the Founders wanted to be free of the tyranny of religion as well and not have one over others!

Thank you for making the point!
 
Atheism isn't a religion. But it is just as equally recognized and protected under the law as any religion. Jefferson's letter was also used by the SCOTUS to affirm the separation of church and state, in their landmark case Reynolds v. US (1878).
The first amendment specifies religion. If atheism isn't a religion then no protections. That is unless there is some secret provision buried in the Constitution yoi can cite.

Relax, the judiciary treats atheism not just as a religion but as the most favored one.
 
The Danbury letter is an expression of concern over legislation favoring one Christian sect, denomination, over another. The wall of separation is to prevent another church of England situation not to ban Christianity from the public square so as to make the world safe for atheism.

President Jefferson helped organize and regularly attended Christian religious services from various sects conducted in the US Capitol rotunda. The wall of separation as practiced by Jefferson isn't as portrayed by the atheist Left.

Atheism teaches there is no God therefore "worship" calls for the purging of religious symbols. The aberrant interpretation of the wall of separation caters to the atheist ideal favoring one religious belief over all others
No, I disagree. Atheism Does not call for anything.
Believe what you want. put up religious symbols if you want. Why should I care.

But try an force your beliefs on me, then you have a problem.

Atheism is a live an let live thing.
 
Atheism is not protected by the Constitution. Neither is Christianity.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
The Danbury letter is an expression of concern over legislation favoring one Christian sect, denomination, over another. The wall of separation is to prevent another church of England situation not to ban Christianity from the public square so as to make the world safe for atheism.

President Jefferson helped organize and regularly attended Christian religious services from various sects conducted in the US Capitol rotunda. The wall of separation as practiced by Jefferson isn't as portrayed by the atheist Left.

Atheism teaches there is no God therefore "worship" calls for the purging of religious symbols. The aberrant interpretation of the wall of separation caters to the atheist ideal favoring one religious belief over all others
Atheism doesn't "teach" anything. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That is it. Atheism is not a religious belief. It is the lack of belief. The country was founded as a secular nation, not a religious or christian nation.
 
The first amendment specifies religion. If atheism isn't a religion then no protections. That is unless there is some secret provision buried in the Constitution yoi can cite.

Relax, the judiciary treats atheism not just as a religion but as the most favored one.
The courts disagree. Atheism is just as protected under the law as theism is. Religion cannot be favored over nonreligion and vice versa per the principles separation of church and state, and equality. Freedom of/from religion also means one is free to not have or follow any religion.
 
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?
Of course it is, both the establishment and the free exercise clause can be applied to people that do not worship any god.
 
Youu are confusing freedom of religion with freedom from religion. The former is protected by the Constitution. The latter is rule by atheists.
Freedom to practice religion necessarily includes freedom not to.

The Constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion is meaningless in the scenario you describe.
You are correct…it’s the establishment clause that is relevant. Even if no one’s free exercise is affected, the government still cannot promote or disparage any religious belief..
When religious symbols are banned, atheism becomes the defacto state religion. That's not freedom of religion.
That would be true if PRIVATE display of symbols were banned, but whose freedom of religion is affected by the government not displaying religious symbols? And there is no ban on religious symbols, btw, the government just can’t play favorites.
 
In the US no one is being forced to practice religion. Freedom from religion is used as a red herring for banning religion from the public square.

Kindly point out the text in the Constitution that limits free exercise of religion to private settings only. You can't. It doesn't.

The ban on government displaying religious symbols, primarily Christian symbols, favors the atheist teaching over all others. It's therefor unconstitutional.
 
The ban on government displaying religious symbols, primarily Christian symbols, favors the atheist teaching over all others. It's therefor unconstitutional.
For eligible veterans who have died, the government will provide, free of charge, headstones and grave markings,
Available Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers

So what ban are you talking about? The only cases I can think of that you could be referring to are those when there is no purpose or reason to display the religious symbol except to promote that religion and/or where not all religions are equally able to display their symbol.
 
freedom of expression.. I dont get what the debate is here, also, what is your problem with atheism anyway, out of the 7000 or so gods in the world, you agree with atheists that 6999 of them are false, thats pretty much in agreement
 
The exact same logic & reasoning could be used to say this:

Is theism protected by the Constitution? I would say not. While some theistic "sects" or belief systems have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that theism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?
 
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?
The Constitution doesn't protect religions or sects. It limits the government from making a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not all religions are theistic. Buddhism is atheistic, for example. Moreover, if the government may not make a law respecting an establishment of religion and it may not prohibit the free exercise thereof, then it is essentially required to adopt neutrality toward religion - neither being religious nor a-religious. As such, the government or the state may not be theistic or atheistic.
 
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.
Well, the law and SCOTUS opinions do not require crosses to be purged from public spaces. The law and the Constitution does, however, prohibit the state from establishing a religion or adopting an official religion, or preferring one religion over another, or preferring religion over non-religion. So, if the government is going to erect a cross, it would generally have to do so in a neutral fashion - such as allowing other symbols to also be erected and by not itself sponsoring or endorsing religion or non-religion. It's kinda like how you can have crosses in a State/government run cemetary, but only if they also allow other symbols to be used as gravestones, too. The idea is that the State should be neutral when it comes to religion, neither favoring nor disfavoring a religion or non-religion.
 
Back
Top Bottom