AUTUMN REGULAR TOURNAMENT: Atheistic Protection Under the American Constitution.

Thank you for waiting to post, Phil. Ideologies:Pro states: “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.” What he fails to point out is that he also asserts in R1 that ideologies are not protected under the FA: “…ideologies aren't granted constitutional protection; only US citizens are granted constitutional protections…” Pro claims that Ideologies are constitutionally protected, but in R1, in order to support his side, he stated that ideologies aren’t protected under the Constitution. To sum-up Pro’s logic: “Ideologies are protected under the FA, but they are not protected under the FA; however, the exercise thereof is.” A bit contradictory, isn’t it? If he were only to assert that ideologies aren’t protected under the FA, his reasoning would be flawed — how can the exercise of ideologies be protected, but not ideologies themselves? Ideologies and the exercise of ideologies go hand-in-hand; if one is protected, so is the other. If he were to argue that ideologies were protected under the FA, then he would concede my arguments entirely. This is the point I was trying to make when I addressed this particular contention earlier. So when Pro claims: “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.’” It is actually Pro that concedes my point, as Pro previously stated that ideologies were not constitutionally protected. All of this to say, the resolution includes the protection of Atheism as an ideology. Definition of Atheism:I did not deny Atheism being an ideology. It is true, though, that I showed Atheism was not being defined as an ideology. I pointed this out to show that Pro’s arguments surrounding Atheistic protection due to it’s being an ideology were null according to his own logic, as, following his statements in R1, we are not debating this particular subject, as ideologies are not constitutionally protected. I used it to show the contradiction. Here is Pro’s main rebuttal to my indication of his false definition of Atheism: “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.” This is inaccurate. Pro does define Atheism as this. For he even says: “…I am justified in interpreting 'atheism' in this context to mean 'the various persons who hold and express the ideology of atheism’…” What does interpret mean? To interpret something means “to assign meaning to, to explain or translate.” This is also called DEFINING. [1] Just to clarify, the “various persons” who exercise Atheism are Atheists, not Atheism in and of itself. Defining the adherents to a belief as a belief is a bit fallacious; it is an unwarranted assumption, equivocation, and a suppressed correlative all at once. Atheism:Pro says: “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’).” This is not true. I understood what was being said, thus my saying “…using this logic, Christianity (or any other religion) is the belief in God's existence, and the government cannot know who is Christian (or Buddhist, etc). Religion is the expression of the idea of God's existence…” Religion is protected under the FA. Religion consists of worship, beliefs, and ideas. Ideas are expressed through actions, or the exercise of ideologies. Ideas are thusly protected under the FA, and so are ideologies. Pro says: “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.” Then why are ideologies not protected under the FA if we refer to ideas? Are ideas not a key component of beliefs? Religion has beliefs, which consists of ideas. The protection of religion encompasses all aspects thereof. After reading this, one naturally concludes that, if ideas are not protected, and religion has ideas, religion is not protected under the FA — we all know this false statement to be self-evident. Pro says: “Finally, I never even attempt to define atheism as a religion. It isn't; to claim that it is a religion is misguided.” I said it was reasonable to assert that Pro was inadvertently defining Atheism as a religion. Pro says that Atheism is the outward expression of a lack of belief; I claim that religion is the outward expression of belief. Using this comparison of Pro’s take on Atheism and my take on religion, we can see how they are very similar, and, though there lacks a literal exactness, we can say that the same concept is used in these definitions. Thus, Atheism is being defined as a religion by Pro. Pro says: “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.” I know this already, but he claims that ideas are not protected, which reasonably means that religion is not protected, either, as established above. Tense:It seems this issue has been resolved, so I will not debate this any further. First Amendment:It is true that my rebuttals consist of SC cases after the Founding — but these decisions were made when some the Founders still existed, and thus still reflected their views. Some of the Founders that were still alive during the two above decisions were: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Monroe, and Alexander Hamilton [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Needless to say, these decisions still accurately reflected the values of the Founders, as none of them objected to the decisions [2] Pro begs the question: “If Con is to use SCOTUS rulings…. a violation of the First Amendment.’” Not all SC decisions after the Founding are valid. Beginning with Everson v. Board of education, 1947, SC precedence was violated [1]. Most SC decisions after the 1940s that concern religion or Atheism are inaccurate, as they deviate from precedence. Thus my arguments about double-standards and the importance of court-room precedence that Pro seems to have completely dropped. Pro then moves on to say: “So if Con is to be consistent…. whereas my own are not.” It is valid to use SC rulings up to the 20th Century, as the decisions made did not deviate from original precedence and former rulings, as those of the 20th Century did and those of the 21st still do. My content is sound and remains upheld, and my cited rulings are proved valid via. my arguments from precedence and double-standards, which, again, were dropped. Opening Arguments:This should have been the only thing that Pro addressed. Nevertheless, I will overlook the error. Pro’s rebuttal: “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.” I was discussing Atheism as a whole, but I did include the intended protection of Atheism as a religion for sake of argument. I have shown using SC cases, as well as definitions and reasoning, that Atheism was not meant to be protected under the FA, whether religiously or ideologically, and the free exercise of it was never protected. Pro’s argument here fails. Conclusion:My contentions hold true, and the resolution remains negated. ___________ 1: Webster’s New World Dictionary 2: The Myth of Separation: by David Barton 3: http://www.history.com... 4: http://www.history.com... 5: http://www.history.com... 6: http://www.history.com...