The Instigator
Leo.Messi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TrustmeImlying
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points

Is athiesm protected under the fisrt amendment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
TrustmeImlying
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/4/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 700 times Debate No: 66352
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

Leo.Messi

Con

Athiesm is ALLOWED under the constitution but is not protected.
Protected and allowed have to different meanings and protected does not apply to atheism. but I do agree that atheism is allowed under the constitution.
TrustmeImlying

Pro

I accept.

Atheism is not only "allowed" but protected under the constitution according to the federal government.
Debate Round No. 1
Leo.Messi

Con

Here is the quote from the bill of rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" t: http://constitution.findlaw.com...
So, from this statement we can conclude that congress can make no law against religious practices, or religion. This is protection. However no where in the constitution does it say that congress can make no law prohibiting the exercise of atheism- which is non-religion. Religion is a right and just as you have the freedom to believe you have the freedom not to believe. But congress could make laws prohibiting the exercise of atheism because the constitution only prohibits congress from making laws against a religion. And atheism, not being a religion, would not be protected by this first amendment. Just allowed.

Let me give an example. The law allows people to drink alcohol. But the constitution does not prohibit congress from making laws against alcohol (which they did for a time). So the constitution does not prohibit laws against the consumption of alcohol. It is allowed currently, but is not protected (the law can be changed) But In the constitution It prohibits congress from making a law against religion. So congress cannot outlaw religion. But the constitution does not prohibit laws against non-religion(Atheism) So atheism really isn't protected by the 1st amendment.

Thanks for this debate

Good luck!
TrustmeImlying

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for inviting me to debate this topic with him.
Let's get to it.

Atheism is as fully protected under the first amendment of the constitution as much as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

CASE LAW

Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003)
"The First Amendment, in order to be effective in protecting all beliefs must guarantee the freedom to hold no religious belief."

"We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion."

"However, the U.S. Supreme Court and several other federal courts have recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment."
http://thelawschoolguys.com...

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
"When the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org...

Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 682 (7th Cir. 2005)
"The court stated that 'Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman"s religion for purposes of the First Amendment'."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com...

McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005)
"The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls 'nonreligion'."
http://www.oyez.org...

Secular Humanism Case
"Just as the Establishment Clause protects Christian or Muslim prisoners who wish to hold a discussion group where they promote belief in God, so it also protects Secular Humanists or atheists who want to promote the opposite view."

"The same legal principles that protect Secular Humanists and conventional religious believers also protect atheists."

"It does not matter whether atheism, Secular Humanism, or any other belief system that takes positions on religious issues is actually a 'religion' or not."

"As First Amendment scholar Doug Laycock puts it, "the Religion Clauses [of the Amendment] should protect freedom of belief about religion, not just beliefs in religion'."
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.atheist-community.org...
http://law.justia.com...
http://atheistsoffloridainc.org...

Conclusion
Listed above are several examples of the supreme court, federal district courts, circuit courts, and more ruling that atheism is unarguably protected under the 1st amendment of the United States constitution.
Regardless of what we may consider a religion or if something should be considered a religion is irrelevant; the only relevant factor is what is recognized by federal legislation.

This is irrefutable evidence that supports my claim:
The United States government has ruled that atheism is protected under the 1st amendment.

Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
Thanks Leo! I appreciate the opportunity to debate with you.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The whole concept of our Judeo-chdistian influenced government is the freedom to choose and protects us against government making our decisions for us. That is why welfare and all the government intrusions are so unconstitutional. Government has effectively made the decision where and how our labor is to be spent and to whom.

Id a man wants to dismiss the knowledge there is a God, that is his right to do so. If a man chooses to believe in anything, as long as it causes no restrictions on others three main rights, Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, he is protected under our constitution.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
Good arguments con-did not realize atheism was ruled "protected" by US courts.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
Good luck to pro
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
21MolonLabe
My Pleasure
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
yeah bro-thanks for posting that opinion thing.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
21MolonLabe
Good luck to the both of you and may the best man win.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
yes it was a good question. Thanks. Good luck in the debate!
Posted by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
It was a very good question!
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
21MolonLabe
I'm glad someone was inspired by my opinion question.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Leo.MessiTrustmeImlying
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brought up several court cases to support the resolution while at the same time upholding the resolution. I have no choice, but to give this debate to Pro.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Leo.MessiTrustmeImlying
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Not even close
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
Leo.MessiTrustmeImlying
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not really give any information on there side. Just there personal option.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Leo.MessiTrustmeImlying
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: pro completely destroys con's case. Leo seriously should not have made this thing two rounds.
Vote Placed by dhardage 2 years ago
dhardage
Leo.MessiTrustmeImlying
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: It's quite clear that law has been made over and over and Pro made the point with more than sufficient evidence
Vote Placed by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Leo.MessiTrustmeImlying
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided historical evidence showing Atheism has been protected under the first amendment.