AUTUMN REGULAR TOURNAMENT: Atheistic Protection Under the American Constitution.

Thank you, Phil, for a quick response. Ideological Protection:My opponent states that ideologies are not protected under the FA, only citizens of the U.S. This means that Atheism, as an ideology, is not protected under the FA. But what is an ideology? How about we take a look: Ideology:1. A system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. [1] 2. The ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual. [1] Do the religions of the world not have ideals? Do they not have ideas? Of course they do, and the free exercise of these ideals and such are protected under the FA. Let us take the Ten Commandments, for instance. The Ten Commandments are the basic principles of both Judaism and Christianity. These principles help establish the ideals and values of both religions. Values and ideals, as stated in the definition, are encompassed in ideologies. The free exercise of these values and ideals are permitted under the FA: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (See R1). To help illustrate what I am getting at here, let us say that Religion = A; Ideology = B; Worship of God = C. Religion equals A, which is made by combining B and C. The free exercise of religion is protected under the FA, so we can logically conclude that: FA protects the free exercise of A. A=B+C; since A is protected under the FA, we can see that B and C must be protected as well. Religion is protected, so it reasonably follows that all of its components are as well. 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 then affirmed that “Atheism” within the resolution refers to the ideology. False Definition of Atheism:In my argument concerning the definitions of various words at the time of the founding, I defined Atheism as "The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.” (See R2). The modern definition of Atheism is "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods,” as my opponent defined it. [2] There is no definition of Atheism as an ideology. Also, my opponent defining Atheism as "the various persons who hold and express the ideology of atheism" is inaccurate. This is a definition of Atheist(s), as it describes the people, not the belief. It is like me defining Christians as “the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.” The Problem of Tense: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. Concerning Atheism:My opponent defines Atheism as I did above, and then goes on to say that it is an ideology, which affirms that Atheism is not protected under the FA. However, he goes on to say that the government cannot know what ideas a given person holds, and then says "...(ideas, in themselves, are not visible to outside observers)..." This is true, but what he fails to see is that what a person says and does reflects ideology (for instance, I am doing this debate right now). He is saying that ideologies are not protected, but beliefs (which consist of ideologies) are. He then claims that Atheism is the belief in God's nonexistence, and, since it is only a belief, the government cannot know who is Atheist. Now, 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, just as Atheism is the expression of the idea in God's nonexistence. It is then reasonable to assert that Pro is inadvertently defining Atheism as a religion. Pro states that “…atheism is not solely the belief in God's non-existence, the outward expressions of that belief are parts of it as well.” It is the same for religion: it is not solely the belief in God, but the outward expression thereof as well. Pro is defining Atheism as a religion and claiming that it should be protected, but my definitions of both words provided in R2 clearly disprove that, at the time of the Founding, Atheism was meant to be protected as a religion. Concerning the FA:My opponent quite reasonably asserts that Atheism is protected under the Freedom of Speech and of Assembly. Since he says: “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.” And: “…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.” I agree with this and will accordingly not raise this issue. Now let me say this: the courts actually ruled against Atheistic expression and assembly. Here is the proof: Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 1824:“Abner Updegraph… did unlawfully… and blasphemously say…: ‘That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and though they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.’” [3] Note the use of “blasphemy.” How did the court define blasphemy? Blasphemy: “…denying his [The Almighty’s] being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on [him]…” [3] Where was this definition acquired? It was from none other than the writings of William Blackstone. Blackstone, according to Congressman Robert K. Dornan in his book Judicial Supremacy, was an oft-quoted authority among lawyers of the period. [3, 4] The following is the verdict reached by the Jury: “The jury… finds a malicious intent in the speaker to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, and this court cannot look beyond the record, nor take any notice of the allegation, that the words were uttered by the defendant, a member of a of a debating association, which convened weekly for discussion and mutual information…That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity, indecency, and scurrility…. I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice… there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such debating clubs as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city…. when [words as such are] spoken in a Christian land, and to a Christian audience, the highest contra bonos mores; and even if Christianity were not part of the law of the land, it is still the popular religion of the country, an insult on which would be indictable.” [3] It would seem that Atheistic expression was considered blasphemous, and was punishable by law. Also notice that this blasphemous statement was spoken in an atheistic debating society, which was said to be “a nursery of vice,” and was said that any good man would consider these associations “a common nuisance and disgrace to the city.” [3] Blasphemy (which, in the following cases, were Atheistic/Secularist expressions) was also ruled against in The People v. Ruggles, 1811 and Commonwealth v. Aber Kneeland, 1838. [3] The People v. Ruggles, 1811:In Ruggles, the defendant was indicted for loudly proclaiming “Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore.” The defendant was tried and found guilty. [3] The words of Chief Justice Chancellor James Kent, the author of Commentaries of American Law, ruled: “Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law… The authorities show [in the case Rex v. Woolston] that blasphemy against God… and profane ridicule… are offenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings… because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order.” [3] You may notice that these are all State SCs, so you would naturally assume that the decisions do not carry as much weight as a National SC decision would. What if I told you that the three above cases were cited as precedence in the United States SC case Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892? [3, 5] So, the USSC cites 3 State SC cases as precedence, all of which claim Atheistic blasphemy are not protected under the FA. This hereby refutes Pro’s statement: “…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.”This also disproves his claim that Atheistic expression (being B) and thusly Atheism (being A) is protected under the FA. By citing the SC cases above, the conclusion can then be logically reached that the freedom of Atheistic speech and expression and the right of Atheists to assemble are not protected. Insofar, the resolution remains negated. __________________ 1: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...; 3: The Myth of Separation; Dave Barton 4. Judicial Supremacy; The Supreme Court on Trial; Robert K. Dornan ans Csaba Vedlik, Jr. 5. https://supreme.justia.com...