AUTUMN REGULAR TOURNAMENT: Atheistic Protection Under the American Constitution.

A brief thank-you to bsh1 and tejretics for hosting this tournament, and to Philocat for accepting.For simplicity, Supreme Court will be abbreviated as 'SC' or shall simply be referred to as 'the Court,' and First Amendment will be 'FA.'Overview:For years, Atheism was not constitutionally protected under the FA. That is, until 1978, when the SC case Theriault v. Silber, 1978 changed the meaning of religion [1, 2] In this case, the SC expanded the religious clause of the FA to included non-religion.Violation of Precedence:Theriault v. Silber, 1978 opposes the decision made by the SC in the case Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland, 1838 [1] -- a clear violation of Court precedence, which is not illegal per se, but is widely frowned upon in the American Judicial system.In Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland, 1838, the Court says the following:"[The First Amendment] embraces all who believe in the existence of God, as well... as Christians of every denomination.... This provision does not extend to Atheists, because they do not believe in God or religion; and therefore... their sentiments and professions, whatever they may be, cannot be called religious sentiments and professions." [1, 3]Let us take a look a that again:"...This provision does not extend to Atheists, because they do not believe in God or religion; and therefore... their sentiments and professions, whatever they may be, cannot be called religious sentiments and professions." There is something about "This provision does not extend to Atheists..." that makes me wonder if Atheism was meant to be constitutionally protected.Of course, under judicial review as established in Federalist No. 78 [7] and Marbury v. Madison [8], the justices of the SC can interpret the Constitution as they please, right? That is why in Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961 [4, 6] and Grove v. Meade School Dist, 1985 [1], it was resolved that Secular Humanism is a religion; and in Malnak v. Yogi, 1977 [1, 5], Atheism was found to be a religion.Although Judicial Review is established and widely accepted, it has been misapplied in the aforementioned cases. The purpose of Judicial Review is for the SC to interpret laws and formerly enacted legislature via. courtroom precedence. The above cases all violate SC precedence.The Importance of Precedence:Courtroom precedence is important to the interpretation of laws by the judiciary. Courts decide what laws and various legislature means based on previous cases and how the verdict was reached.For example, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment [8]. What exactly is cruel and unusual punishment? How may we specify what this is? This is where judicial review accounts for the lack of clarification. The Court determines via. review and analysis of previous cases what exactly defines "cruel and unusual punishment."In every instance of review, each decision is supposed to be based off of a previous decision or decisions; this is called precedent. For the SC, the precedent must be followed. [10]"To show that your constitutional rights have been violated, you point to good court decisions in earlier cases and describe how the facts in those cases are similar to the facts in your case. You should also show how the general principles of constitutional law presented in the earlier decisions apply to your situation." [10]So, judicial review in the SC is limited to what was previously resolved in preceding Courts.At the Time of the Founding:As time progresses and cultures intermingle, language changes, and along with language, so does the meanings of various words.The FA allows the freedom of religion (see R1). But what it religion? How can we know what the Founders intended to protect? Why, we look at what the definition of 'religion' was during that time period:Definition of Religion:"Noun relij'on. [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.] 1. religion in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion 2. religion as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1:26. 3. religion as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will. Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law. Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion 4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, etc. as well as of the christian religion We speak of false religion as well as of true religion 5. The rites of religion; in the plural."Hold on.... What was that? Let us take a look at #1 again:"...the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion." (Emphasis Added).Apparently, the Founders did not see Atheism as religion.Just for the sake of argument, let us look at the definition of Atheism during the time:Definition of Atheism:"Noun. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.Atheism is a ferocious system that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us, to awaken tenderness."It is apparent that the two definitions contradict each other, and it is reasonable to conclude that Atheism was not protected nor intended to be protected under the FA. Double-Standards Due to the Absurd:Ever since the implementation of the doctrine of Separation (if it were to actually stand under thorough scrutiny, but that is another debate entirely) by the SC in the 1960s, the Court has been operating under double-standards [1, 14].The SC has been slowly but surely integrating Atheism into American society, yet, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961, it is thought that Atheism is defined to be a religion [13]. If this is true, the government is removing Christianity from the public and is installing Atheism [1, 14].To back this up, I will provide a few articles concerning related issues (Note: these are not cited as sources):1. http://newsok.com...2. http://www.cbn.com...-/3. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net...So, really, after reading the above articles and the previous paragraph, it is natural to conclude that, in order to prevent the unconstitutional establishment of a religion, the government is establishing a religion..... quite a dilemma for the Court.It is thus determined that Atheism was never intended by the Founders to be protected under the FA. _______________________________1: The Myth of Separation: by David Barton2: https://casetext.com... 3: http://www.reclaimamericaforchrist.org...4: http://www.wnd.com...5: http://www.leagle.com...6: https://supreme.justia.com...7: http://www.constitution.org...8: https://en.wikipedia.org...9: https://www.law.cornell.edu...10: http://jailhouselaw.org...11: http://webstersdictionary1828.com...12: http://webstersdictionary1828.com...13: http://atheism.about.com...14: http://www.str.org...