AUTUMN REGULAR TOURNAMENT: Atheistic Protection Under the American Constitution.

Thank you for an interesting opening argument, VOT, and I would also like to extend my thanks to bsh1 and Tejretics for hosting this tournament.ObservationThe full resolution, as stated by Con, is:"Resolved: That, at the Time of the American Founding, Atheism was Constitutionally Protected Under the First Amendment."The use of 'atheism' in this context clearly isn't used to mean 'the ideology of atheism', because ideologies aren't granted constitutional protection; only US citizens are granted constitutional protections (1). Therefore, I am justified in interpreting 'atheism' in this context to mean 'the various persons who hold and express the ideology of atheism'.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.What is atheism?Atheism is defined as:'Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.' (2)In other words, atheism is prima facie a particular ideological set of thoughts/ideas. These thoughts and ideas include the belief that there is no God.However, in a political sense, atheism is far more than simply an idea that God does not exist. The Government has no way of knowing what ideas a given person holds to (ideas, in themselves, are not visible to outside observers); so if atheism is simply the belief in the idea of God's non-existence, then the Government, or anyone else for that matter, cannot possibly know that someone is an atheist.But our everyday empirical observations often do recognize atheists, this is because atheism invariably encompasses the expression of the idea of God's non-existence. Granted, some atheists may potentially hold the idea of God in their minds but give no outwards expression of that belief, but almost all atheists express their beliefs through books, speech, social media or debate. And it is fair to say that these expressions of atheism, are actually a fundamental part of atheistic belief in a similar way to how the public expressions of theism are a fundamental part of theistic belief.Therefore it is fair to say that, in a political/sociological context, atheism is not solely the belief in God's non-existence, the outward expressions of that belief are parts of it as well.The First Amendment"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."In other words, the First Amendment (henceforth referred to as the FA), outlines five distinct individualistic rights/protections:1. The right to free exercise of any particular religion.2. The right to freedom of speech3. The right to freedom of the press4. The right to peaceably assemble5. The right to petition Government for a redress of grievancesSince atheism isn't a religion in the proper sense of the word, right #1 doesn't protect atheism.Right #3 may or may not protect atheism, dependent on whether there exists such a thing as an atheistic press. However, I do not think the debate over freedoms of atheistic press is relevant to this particular resolution.Finally, right #5 doesn't pertain to any specific theological ideology, either religious or atheistic, so atheism per se isn't protected by the right to petition Government.This leaves us with two remaining rights:2. The right to freedom of speech4. The right to peaceably assembleBringing it all togetherNow, consider that atheism includes the outward expression of the idea of God's non-existence (already established). What may the 'outward expression' consist of?Well, humans are both vocal and social creatures, in that we naturally seek to communicate ideas vocally through speech as well as congregate together to share and support these ideas.Given this, an outward expression of any kind is most likely to be either vocal and/or social. An atheist would therefore express their belief through speech, and may even decide to participate in an atheistic society. In other words, the outward expression requires freedom of speech and/or freedom to peaceably assemble.These are both outward expressions of atheism and therefore an inherent part of atheism.In a logical form, if A = B and B is protected by the FA, then it logically follows that A is protected by the FA as well.If A is atheism and B is the freedom of atheistic speech and atheistic assembly, then A = B (as established above).Since freedom of atheistic speech and atheistic assembly are encompassed by the general right to freedom of speech and assembly, which are protected by the FA, then freedom of both atheistic speech and atheistic assembly are also protected by the FA.As atheistic speech and assembly are inherent parts of atheism, it stands to reason that atheism is protected by the First Amendment.Hence I affirm the resolution. (1) http://www.theabsurdreport.com...(2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...