AUTUMN REGULAR TOURNAMENT: Atheistic Protection Under the American Constitution.

Ideologies A basic premise of my argument is that the expressions of an ideology, including exercising ideals and values, is a component of an ideology. So to say that X ideology is protected is to say that public expressions of X are also protected. Con concedes this premise when he writes: 'In accordance with the logic above, the exercise of values and ideals encompassed within ideologies is protected under the FA, and thus is the exercise of ideologies itself.' Since there is agreement here, I will no longer devote space to arguing that the expressions of an ideology are inherent parts of that ideology. Definitions of atheism Firstly, Con denies that atheism is an ideology, which is an odd statement considering the definition of 'ideology': 'A system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.' Is atheism a system of ideas and ideals? Yes, this is what we empirically observe of atheism - atheism is a system of ideas (namely the idea that God doesn't exist) and ideals (that we should live as if God does not exist). Etymologically speaking, atheism is an ideology because it is a philosophical term with the suffix 'ism', which is used to denote an ideology. (1) Con claims that I define atheism as 'the various persons who hold and express the ideology of atheism' - but this is incorrect, I never defined atheism in this manner, all I pointed out was that the resolution does not pertain to whether atheism, as an ideology, is protected. Rather, it pertains to whether the people who ascribe to atheism and express their atheistic beliefs are protected. This wasn't so much an argument on my behalf, just an observation regarding the resolution of this debate. Tense Next, Con writes: 'My opponent claims that "The point of contention in this debate is whether the First Amendment constitutionally protects the various persons who hold and express the ideology of atheism, in such a way that pertains to their belief." This is not true. "Protects" indicates the nature of current being. What we are determining is whether or not Atheism was protected during the Founding, not is it protected now.' His quibble here is inconsequential. I know that the resolution refers to the time of the founding, it was an honest mistake to refer to atheism's protection in the present tense. For the record, I concede to Con's observation about my incorrect use of tense and so I would like to change my original comment to the past tense. Atheism Con misunderstands me, what I am saying is that ideologies are only not protected if all we take 'ideology' to mean is a certain idea in the mind (such as 'God does not exist'). But myself and my opponent are in agreement that ideologies also consist of the practices and expressions of the beliefs that form the ideology. Secondly, I do not deny that religious ideologies also consist of the beliefs, practices and expressions of the idea of God's existence. I think that expressions of belief are equally inherent parts of both religious and atheistic ideologies. Finally, I never even attempt to define atheism as a religion. It isn't; to claim that it is a religion is misguided. I don't claim that atheism is protected on the grounds of freedom of religion, I claim that it is protected on the grounds of freedom of speech and assembly. First Amendment Pro's entire rebuttal of my argument consists of court rulings after the American founding. As such, they do not pertain to the resolution of this debate, which concerns whether atheism was protected at the time of the founding, not at any point thenceforth in American history. Updegraph v. Commonwealth may have ruled against atheistic expression and assembly, but all this entails is that atheism wasn't constitutionally protected in 1824 - it in no way proves that atheism wasn't protected at the time of the founding (1776)[2]. Again, The People v. Ruggles only denied atheistic protection in 1811, not at the time of the founding. If Con is to use SCOTUS rulings from after the founding, then why should only 19th century rulings be valid? If all post-1776 Supreme Court rulings are valid, then I could easily cite the case of Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson 1952, which ruled that restrictions on blasphemy ('sacreligious' material) are an unconstitutional 'restraint on freedom of speech and thereby a violation of the First Amendment.' (3) So if Con is to be consistent, then he must either argue without reference to post-1776 court rulings, or otherwise try to argue that the 19th century rulings he cites are valid but the 20th century ruling that I just cited is invalid. The former negates most of Con's argument's content, and the latter places on Con the dubious task of proving that his cited rulings are valid whereas my own are not. Rebuttals of Pro's Opening Arguments I have little to refute here, because Con only really argues that atheism wasn't intended to be thought of as a religion by the Founding Fathers. This is inconsequential however, because I never claimed that atheism is or was ever a religion of any sort. Con's case is a non-sequitur, consisting of the logic: 1. 'Atheism wasn't intended by the founding fathers to be considered a religion'. 2. Therefore, 'Atheism wasn't protected by the right to religious freedom established in the First Amendment'. 3. Therefore, 'Atheism wasn't protected by the First Amendment'. The logical jump from 1 to 2 is perfectly sound. The non-sequitur is present in the jump from 2 to 3. The logic would only hold if the right to religious freedom is the only right established in the First Amendment, but it isn't. For whilst atheism may not be protected under the 'freedom of religion' clause of the First Amendment, it most certainly is protected by the 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of assembly' clauses. Therefore, the resolution has been affirmed. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) https://www.google.co.uk... (3) https://www.law.cornell.edu...