WI: the first amendment explitly defeneded atheism

I had a conversation recently where someone told me that Atheism isn't covered by the first amendment, because it says "religion" and says nothing about "lack of religion". What if the first amendment was slightly different:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise or refusal 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.
 
A worthy question to ask would be if the Founding Fathers understood the term religion in the same sense as us. It is well-known that the Founding Fathers were tolerant of Deism, and in fact included a few Deists. However, Deism doesn't come with any set of commandments, no doctrines, no holidays that have to be celebrated, no services and makes no comment on the afterlife. Essentially, it's a minimalistic version of intelligent design: The Universe originated through some intelligent agent. Period.

Is this really what we would consider a religion? Perhaps not. However, seeing we don't hear Thomas Paine complaining loudly about how the Deists were treated unfairly in the wording of the First Amendment, all we can conclude is that the Founding Fathers understood the First Amendment to give a perfect defense of Deism.

As such, one may very well begin to wonder if the Founding Fathers' definition of religion wouldn't actually be more closer in line with theological philosophy in the terminology of today. If so, then the First Amendment does actually already provide a perfect and full defense of Atheism.
 
I had a conversation recently where someone told me that Atheism isn't covered by the first amendment, because it says "religion" and says nothing about "lack of religion". What if the first amendment was slightly different:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise or refusal 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.

Far more people back then would have considered themselves Christians in cultural terms, even if they didn't personally believe, or weren't church-goers.
 
I had a conversation recently where someone told me that Atheism isn't covered by the first amendment, because it says "religion" and says nothing about "lack of religion". What if the first amendment was slightly different:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise or refusal 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.

Respectfully, that person has no idea what they're talking about. The First Amendment clearly protects nonbelief, and a century's worth of establishment clause jurisprudence bears that out.

I would suggest you read the Wikipedia entry on Lemon v. Kurtzman as a starting point; it's not a bad summary of the key Supreme Court case that's still in effect today.

I should add that there are efforts today by those who call themselves accomodationists to undermine the Lemon test, so I suppose having an even-more-clear First Amendment would put us in a better position today to ward off those sorts of arguments. But I can't see how it would be alternate history.
 
IMO, it's more likely they'd explicitly defend Monarchy than Atheism.

Even the free-est thinkers among the Founding Fathers were Deists rather than Atheists.

No, they're not going to put in an explicit mention of Atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Voodoo, Satanism, Paganism, or any other irrelevant (to the time) belief system.
 
I had a conversation recently where someone told me that Atheism isn't covered by the first amendment, because it says "religion" and says nothing about "lack of religion". What if the first amendment was slightly different:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise or refusal 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.

At the time, I suspect this language would just be interpreted as supporting the right of an individual to refuse participation in a particular faith, not supporting "atheism" itself. Today, it would probably be interpreted to allow atheists to believe what they believe and advocate their views without risk of legal prosecution. In other words, pretty much like the existing language. There might be some cosmetic changes around the edges (such eliminating explicit faith statements as part of the Boy Scout oath or any other non-church based organization that requires religious belief for membership), but most of these are going by the wayside anyway.
 
IMO, it's more likely they'd explicitly defend Monarchy than Atheism.

Even the free-est thinkers among the Founding Fathers were Deists rather than Atheists.

No, they're not going to put in an explicit mention of Atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Voodoo, Satanism, Paganism, or any other irrelevant (to the time) belief system.

True, but many of the Founders were aware of religions such as those of the "Mohammedans", "Hebrews", and "Hindoos" and certainly intended for them to be protected, and other recognized world religions would also, by the very fact that no specific religion is mentioned.

But, I doubt if it would have been the intention of even the most freethinking of the Founders that Voodoo, or anything resembling Witchcraft be protected. For one, if you really believed in these religions, they incorporated spells, curses, and other acts that had a direct impact on the health and lives of citizens no less than shooting them with a gun. If you didn't believe in them, they would be percieved as the primitive beliefs of slaves and Indians that only a good dose of missionary work would solve.
 
Top