Is atheism protected by the Constitution?

[Gateman_Wen]

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

I'm gonna get a pentangle opposite the anarchy sign.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

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?

So...not to bring up a painful subject, I'm not insensitive. But I've heard a few things....and yeahhhhh I guess you're not posting here anymore huh?

 

[Gordy327]

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.

A strawman argument. No one said atheists had superior rights. Nonbelievers are as equally recognized and protected by the government and law. The government is not supposed to favor believers over Nonbelievers and vice versa.

 

[Deuce]

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.

Are we going to pretend you'd be fine with Islamic symbols sitting over every courthouse?

 

[Lisa]

Are we going to pretend you'd be fine with Islamic symbols sitting over every courthouse?

As a godless atheist, I'd like to know what the judicial edit of the sensitivities of the atheists is? Its sounds a lot like the equally invisible gay agenda.

 

[Gordy327]

As a godless atheist, I'd like to know what the judicial edit of the sensitivities of the atheists is? Its sounds a lot like the equally invisible gay agenda.

As a fellow godless atheist, I too would like to know this. I would also like to know what specific "judicial edicts" atheists dictated to anyone? If they are judicial edicts, surely there must be a legal record of them, right?

 

[Lisa]

As a fellow godless atheist, I too would like to know this. I would also like to know what specific "judicial edicts" atheists dictated to anyone? If they are judicial edicts, surely there must be a legal record of them, right?

That is supposed to be how it works but maybe we atheists have invested in secret courts that write their edicts with invisible ink.

We are just sneaky like that.

 

[Gordy327]

That is supposed to be how it works but maybe we atheists have invested in secret courts that write their edicts with invisible ink.

We are just sneaky like that.

It would not surprise me if some people actually believe that. Who knew atheists were so powerful? Lol

 

[Lisa]

It would not surprise me if some people actually believe that. Who knew atheists were so powerful? Lol

I have my George Soros decoder ring but lately, I'm not getting updates from George or Hillary's underground pizza shop either. Maybe I forgot to pay my dues to the US Socialist party that is chaired by Bernie and AOC. I'll have to check my bank statement.

 

[yankintx]

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 first amendment guarantees there right.

What a stupid thread

 

[Lursa]

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.

Are you a Christian? If not, what religion do you practice?

And now please tell me how you have been enjoined from practicing it?

 

[Nickyjo]

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?

To prevent the persecution of atheists. Obviously. The government cannot round them up because they don't believe in a god. It is as protected as is witchcraft.

 

[ataraxia]

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

I swear even the staff at SNL couldn't come up with the stuff coming out of the rightwing world these days.

 

[bomberfox]

Yes it is protected. Next easy question?

 

[bomberfox]

I swear even the staff at SNL couldn't come up with the stuff coming out of the rightwing world these days.

Hell SNL often underestimates the insanity of the world these days and its not exactly their fault.

 

[soylentgreen]

I am amused by this thread. Americans boast loudly and often of being the freest of countries and here you lot are arguing whether the constitution allows you to be an atheist. You need to be told you are free rather than actually being free to be an atheist.

Atheism is more a , "I do not need to give a **** whether you agree or not. I choose to be an atheist."

 

[Questerr]

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.

Why should the cross be in public spaces? Why does the government need to give your religion special acknowledgement?

 

[pinqy]

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.

Nope. It has nothing to do with offense. The government cannot support any religious position, for or against, period. Even if every single person in a town was of the same religion and voted unanimously to erect a symbol of that religion in front of the courthouse or town hall, it would still be a violation of the establishment clause.

 

[AZRWinger]

Nope. It has nothing to do with offense. The government cannot support any religious position, for or against, period. Even if every single person in a town was of the same religion and voted unanimously to erect a symbol of that religion in front of the courthouse or town hall, it would still be a violation of the establishment clause.

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.

 

[Gordy327]

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.

There is both freedom of and from religion. The government cannot endorse or display religious symbols, especially over other religions symbols. Individual citizens are free to show off their symbols. But the government cannot do it for them.

 

[AZRWinger]

There is both freedom of and from religion. The government cannot endorse or display religious symbols, especially over other religions symbols. Individual citizens are free to show off their symbols. But the government cannot do it for them.

The first amendment explictly guarantees freedom of religion and the practice thereof. Kindly cite the text in the Constitution that guarantees freedom FROM religion. It's not there.

Before citing SCOTUS decisions supposedly granting atheists the right to censor religious expression please keep in mind the building where they meet is decorated with many religious symbols.

 

[Jason Warfield]

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.

No. The cross isn't placed in a public place because to do so would be to state that the government puts Christianity over others which flies in the face of the First Amendment. It has nothing to do with atheism. It would have to do with the "delicate beliefs" of other religions. Having said that...

The Danbury letter, which prompted the policy of Jefferson's separation of church and state in accordance to the First Amendment had to do with two different Christian churches. One Christian church asked Jefferson as president to interfere with another Christian church and to use his office to help limit the voting power of the larger church that won at the ballot more than the Danbury church was able to (the Danbury church supported candidates and laws opposed by the numerically superior rival church). Jefferson declined by invoking the First Amendment and comparing it to a "separation of church and state".

So, how would you categorize that? They were both Christian churches that supported different candidates...whose cross gets to be in the public square while the other doesn't (hypothetical)? Both churches felt the other was wrong in their beliefs.

So whose "delicate beliefs" would be "damaged"?

And if one church, with one set of beliefs about God and Jesus wins over the other church and their views on God and Jesus...do they not get to dictate terms via government decree if Jefferson had done what was asked of him and his office in the Executive Branch?

Would the Danbury church dictate policy over other as the power of the government was on their side?

Would this not be in violation of the First Amendment?

Atheism doesn't prevent the cross from being in the public square as you put it: all other religions do. Even sects within each religion as I just pointed out. Atheism doesn't prevent a Christian from being a Christian, to go to church and to worship...where does atheism do that? It doesn't. And while you may not be able to have a cross in a public square...you can have it in your church, on your label, in your home...that's what the First Amendment does: it enables you to worship and it protects the others from having your beliefs dictate their lives.

SIDE NOTE: if not having a cross in a public square affects your ability to worship God and Jesus, might I suggest that your faith isn't as strong as you might think.

 

[Jason Warfield]

The first amendment explictly guarantees freedom of religion and the practice thereof. Kindly cite the text in the Constitution that guarantees freedom FROM religion. It's not there.

Before citing SCOTUS decisions supposedly granting atheists the right to censor religious expression please keep in mind the building where they meet is decorated with many religious symbols.

"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."

Atheism would fall under freedom of speech...also freedom from religion would come from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" because the whole point was to protect American citizens from the possible tyranny of one religion over all if the government established one over all others its citizens.

Think of it this way: if you don't want the government to control and ban firearms....why would you let government establish a state religion?

And if you say that America is a Christian nation, I'll ask you which branch because we already went through one Christian church trying to get the power of the presidency behind them to dictate terms to rival Christian church (Jefferson and the Danbury letter).

 

[Lursa]

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.

Still hoping for a couple of answers:

Are you a Christian? If not, what religion do you practice?​

​

And now please tell me how you have been enjoined from practicing it?​

 

[AZRWinger]

No. The cross isn't placed in a public place because to do so would be to state that the government puts Christianity over others which flies in the face of the First Amendment. It has nothing to do with atheism. It would have to do with the "delicate beliefs" of other religions. Having said that...

The Danbury letter, which prompted the policy of Jefferson's separation of church and state in accordance to the First Amendment had to do with two different Christian churches. One Christian church asked Jefferson as president to interfere with another Christian church and to use his office to help limit the voting power of the larger church that won at the ballot more than the Danbury church was able to (the Danbury church supported candidates and laws opposed by the numerically superior rival church). Jefferson declined by invoking the First Amendment and comparing it to a "separation of church and state".

So, how would you categorize that? They were both Christian churches that supported different candidates...whose cross gets to be in the public square while the other doesn't (hypothetical)? Both churches felt the other was wrong in their beliefs.

So whose "delicate beliefs" would be "damaged"?

And if one church, with one set of beliefs about God and Jesus wins over the other church and their views on God and Jesus...do they not get to dictate terms via government decree if Jefferson had done what was asked of him and his office in the Executive Branch?

Would the Danbury church dictate policy over other as the power of the government was on their side?

Would this not be in violation of the First Amendment?

Atheism doesn't prevent the cross from being in the public square as you put it: all other religions do. Even sects within each religion as I just pointed out. Atheism doesn't prevent a Christian from being a Christian, to go to church and to worship...where does atheism do that? It doesn't. And while you may not be able to have a cross in a public square...you can have it in your church, on your label, in your home...that's what the First Amendment does: it enables you to worship and it protects the others from having your beliefs dictate their lives.

SIDE NOTE: if not having a cross in a public square affects your ability to worship God and Jesus, might I suggest that your faith isn't as strong as you might think.

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