Atheists should have their own Constution and Bill of Rights.

Your argument in inherently flawed in two ways. I will address these two issues first, then address the other less important issues you rose up (Because they're really irrelevant rants on how evil atheism is) FIRSTLY- your proposition and following arguments are flawed in that you claim that 'Atheists should' or that 'Atheists believe'.... The only thing you can be sure that atheists believe is that they believe there is no God. Not all Atheists hold the same beliefs. Atheism is a religious belief, you are bringing up very political issues. Atheists are not a single entity, they do not hold the same political beliefs, and they can have a sense of morality outside of the bible. Morality can and does exist outside of the bible. You prove your own argument wrong when you bring up the argument of how 'immoral' the atheists were because they did not have the bible as guidance. Christians use THE BIBLE as guidance, and not the constitution. The Constitution is entirely secular, even to the point where it suggests total religious freedom. Religious people have the bible for moral guidance, and the nonreligious might have some other souse, their own logic, or holding some sort of philosophy (such as, for example, Objectivism). The bible is not the only source of morals, and the constitution is not based around the ten commandments. If this were truly as much of a religious nation as you say, and these atheists breaking the moral codes of the religious was a problem requiring a new constitution for the atheists, the constitution would simply be the ten commandments. The bill of rights and the ten commandments are totally separate. This is the way most of the founding fathers wanted it, and the way all those who hold liberty to be important want it as well. Law and religious / philosophical morals should not interject nor interfere with each other. As far as the constitution goes, it brings up no religious sorts of morals, only rights guaranteed to you by the constitution- those that you want to take away. You bring up many things which you believe are 'behaviors' not 'rights'. You are totally incorrect on all examples. Everybody has the right to be a homosexual, even though it is not outlined as such in the constitution strictly. You also have the rights to have sex with your own animals, have pedophillic desires (so long as you do not act on them), ETC. These are examples of behavior that might not be accepted, but that should be totally legal. Whether or not you accept this behavior is on your end and no one elses'. So long as these people do not harm another person, what is the harm? Does it make you feel bad that somebody has an attraction to children (but doesn't hurt any kids?) Sure, I don't appreciate those people either. I won't make any quick moves to accept them. Homosexuals aren't very big on my 'bad' list, but that's irrelevant. Just because you don't appreciate somebody's behavior doesn't mean you have a right to oppress them! Creating laws claiming that their actions are immoral and thus illegal is selfish and wrong! You have the right to limit your own personal behavior, but when it comes to somebody elses personal behavior- why should YOU TELL THEM WHAT TO DO in regards to their own body, when they harm nothing but your feelings? Your idea that we should oppress those who we find disagreeable is totalitarian, oppressive, and sickening. The claim that atheists would like all of the religious out of office because no religious person could stand not oppressing other people is absurd. Just because you believe something does not mean you should impose those beliefs on others, when you are in a position to oppress others such as when you are a politician, it is your responsibility as a politician, religious or not, to uphold the constitutional protection of Life, Liberty, and Property- regardless of your personal beliefs. In fact, your personal beliefs need not be halted. You can still believe that homosexuality is wrong while still allowing that behavior, and perhaps praying for them to become heterosexual. This goes back to the sick premise that we should oppress all people whom we disagree with rather than simply looking down at them, believing that they are incorrect. Personally, I have a problem with people like you who arrogantly suggest we arrest people, put people in jail, and throw away their liberties because they make you uncomfortable- but I will never suggest you not have the right to say or think those things, some right you will never afford other people. You try to claim that atheists tend to be immoral because they have nothing to go by while the Christians have very much to go by, The Bible, and are thusly moral. They are not doing lude acts on the street, and being evil like those darned atheists. This is totally untrue, in fact, most of the prison population is Christian, if I remember correctly- even if you include the factor that there are more religious than non religious in the US. Almost everybody, religious and non religious included try to follow their own set of moral code, whether they got this blindly from the bible or if they managed to come up with this based on their own logic, reason, or even another philosophy. The difference between a Christian saying it is not alright to do things that are immoral to a christian, and an Atheist saying it is alright to do such things is thus. The Christian is trying to take rights AWAY from people, while the non christian (in this case) is trying to keep it at a neutral standpoint. Let me explain, in a situation where, for example, homosexuality is outlawed homosexuals are not free to have sexual relations, or even their natural emotions. However, in a situation in which it is not outlawed, they are free to do as they please. Christians are also free to disapprove of their behavior without having to throw them in jail. It's neutral. Homosexuals can do what they want and disapprove of the lifestyles of Christians, and Christians can disapprove of the lifestyles of the homosexuals. When it gets to the point where one group takes advantage of the small numbers of one group and oppress them. You have every right to disapprove of somebody's behavior, but you have absolutely no right to take away anybody's right to do anything unless that person is violating the Life, Liberty, or Property of another.