If evolution were part of the religion of atheism, creationism should still be banned.

"Constitutionally if atheism were a religion and evolution were part of that religion without any good secular purpose (which those stipulations would tend to imply) then the legal remedy to the teaching of a religious doctrine of evolution is to stop teaching evolution. If evolution is religious in nature it should be struck down and forbidden via the first amendment." --> The resolution states : "If evolution were part of the religion of atheism, creationism should still be banned." --> This resolution implies that since creationism would still be banned, then evolution would remain the way of teaching. --> Thus, I claimed my 3rd observation "The conclusion to Contention I is acceptable. There's a chance that a religious evolution as part of atheism might have a secular purpose of more primacy than indoctrination and therefore be legal much like blue laws are legal because though religious they do have secular purposes. However, if a teaching was violating the first amendment, "that teaching should be banned." --> We come to a conclusion that if something is part of a religion, then it should not be banned. However, this comes down to something illogical. At this time it really only comes down to evolution or creationism. (I believe in a mix of the 2, but w/e) If both were banned, then the 1st Amendment is being counter-productive rather then productive. Teaching about existence is important to know. Thus, these two ways ought to be taught because it achieves some secular purpose, even though both involve religion. Furthermore, you either believe or do not believe, thus in this hypothetical resolution, everyone is a religious member. This leads me to Contention II. (I will refute what my opponent said, then clarify the contentional link.) "The conclusion of Contention II is categorically unacceptable. There is no principle of equality in the first amendment. If "In God We Trust" is found to be an unconstitutional religious statement on a government coin we do not remedy the situation by adding "There Is No God" to other coins in equal amounts. If we cannot remedy the first problem, we do not counter one wrong with another wrong." --> I never once said that the 1st Amendment grants equality. This was more a philosophical contention. I will clarify. According to Rawls, an institution, like the government, must be based on justice. Justice can be equated with fairness and equality. When the government is not fair, i.e. creates a double standard, then it becomes illegitimate. Contentional Link --> Link contention I and II together. Contention I: 1. Types of theories of existence. Evolution and Creationism 2. Teaching one of these or both has some secular purpose. I.e. higher knowledge 3. Hypothetically in this resolution, religious is secular because in this case religion includes both belief and non-belief. Contention II: 1. Justice is equality and fairness 2. If one is allowed to be taught, then the other must be 3. If not, then a double standard has been created Contention Link/Conclusion Evolution and Creationism are both religious. Only the two (in this case) can answer the question of existence. This is knowledge. Knowledge is a secular purpose, and according to the 1st Amendment, religious ideas are allowed if they fulfill such a burden. If evolution was taught, but not creationism, then the government is vioalting the bedrock principle of democracy, and liberty, and that is fairness and equality. Thus, in the affirmative world, the government would be acting unjustly, and thus the negative's world is the only just one. For this reason, I urge a negation.