It’s kinda funny – we three – A Brit, a Canadian and a Kiwi are arguing about who protects the US constitution. And NZ and GB don’t even have a formal constitution (two of only three countries in the world – the other is Israel). You could argue that it’s SCOTUS who protects the constitution too, although imo, they often don’t do a very good job e.g. in 2006 they decided, after 219 years, that the second amendment meant pretty much everyone could carry guns. Not all the current group seem to think all adults have the right to vote though. “All men” originally meant only male, white, straight, Protestant Christians – thank goodness that’s changed, although there’s still a way to go in some areas, such as same-sex marriage.

Anyway, I think we need to agree to differ on the subject – there are valid points all ’round and we’ve got to the point where we’re mainly arguing on styles of expressing ourselves and semantics.

Hi Heather,

I am afraid I cannot agree with you.

Sure, she said “typically” once, but even then, typically is quite vague. She then followed it up with:

“Ironically it is atheists, one of the most despised groups in the US, who protect the right of many of the people that hate them so, to practice their religion.”

But of course, as I pointed out, it is the Constitution that protects the rights.

Diana then argued that “it is atheists who reject constitutional violations and oppose changes to the constitution that many religious people would prefer. I think atheists are unusual among groups in that we will point out and try to resolve issues of violation of the freedom of religion when we see it while many religious groups look the other way or actively participate in the violation.”

But that is wrong – you cannot make such blanket statements about a group of people. It is absolute nonsense – atheists aren’t a group of people who all act and feel the same way, but the above suggests they are.
So I therefore clarified that this is a simplistic view, and Diana came back with “non-sequitur” – which I did find annoying, because I have a postgraduate degree in Logic, and I absolutely hate it when people throw around that word when it doesn’t even make sense.

Anyway, Diana had many chances to clarify her position. She could have made it clear that

1) yes, it is true that not all atheists want to protect the constitution
2) yes, is is true that some atheists want to change the constitution
3) yes, it is true that some religious people want to protect the constitution

but she consistently failed to do so – she wanted to continue presenting the simplistic view of the world that she wants to believe in.

Thank you, Heather.

Keep on arguing with your made up argument.

Hi AU, I think this is getting a bit out of hand – Diana originally said “typically”, which to me doesn’t mean “all” atheists. Statistically, she is correct – atheists are more likely than theists to support values like freedom of speech. Of course, there are both atheists and theists who don’t do this. I’ve followed Diana’s comments and articles on other websites, and I’ve never found her to be bigoted. In fact, I’ve come to respect her a lot, as I respect you.

Please give each other a chance – I like the comments of you both and wouldn’t want to lose either of you.

This is quite unreal. YOU are using the straw man, and then somehow manage to accuse me of it?

Let me show why you are using a straw man. I never said there do not exist atheists that support the constitution. I simply said some atheists support the constitution and some do not, and I gave you examples of atheists who would like to see certain sections of the constitution amended.

What I was saying was you cannot make a blanket statement whereby you act as if all atheists support the constitution and that many religious people don’t – the reality is a lot more complex. To counter the fact I showed you examples of atheists who do not support the constitution, you cited two atheist organisations that support the “right of belief” and said this is proof that atheists support the constitution. First of all, just because these organisations support one part of the constitution, it doesn’t mean they support the whole constitution – I mean, would you say that if a right wing Christian supports the right to bear arms, it implies they support the whole constitution? Of course not, that would be absolutely ridiculous, so, yes, your claim that just because an atheist group supports the “right of belief” it means they support every aspect of the constitution is just ridiculous – they might, or they might not, I don’t know, and neither do you.
Secondly, even if we assume they do support the whole constitution, it still doesn’t change my point – because I never said atheists cannot support the constitution. I simply said your claim that atheists are the protectors of the constitution from many religious people is misleading, because some atheists protect the constitution from some religious people, some religious people protect the constitution from some atheists, some atheists protect the constitution from other atheists, some religious people protect the constitution from other religious people – but if you want to continue believing what you want to believe, and if in your world all atheists are good guys and the majority of religious people are bad guys, then feel free to do so.

As for bigotry, yes, you do display bigotry, you do not seem interested in honest debate but you come to the table with your arguments already formed and you will they try and twist things to downplay anything bad done by atheists and overplay anything bad done by religious people – that is bigotry.

In fact, I got bored with this “religion versus atheism” debate ages ago because of the bigotry displayed by a lot of people from both sides, and the only reason I post on this blog is that even though I might not agree with everything Heather says (and I am sure she doesn’t agree with everything I say) at least she isn’t a bigot and that I respect.

Your strawmanning. My point was that atheists support the consitituion. I showed that the do. You have decided to make vague references to bigotry falling just short of calling me a bigot. I’m not going to argue anymore about this. You want to believe what you want to believe and assert without evidence things that have nothing to do with what my point is.

As for, “Can you cite major religious institutions that do so?”

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/

This is an alliance made up largely of religious people, and their mission is:

We respect the inherent rights of all individuals – as well as their differences.
We promote policies that protect vital boundaries between religion and government.
We unite diverse voices to challenge extremism and build common ground.

So, yes, there are religious people who want to protect the constitution too.

No, you are not being factual. You cherry-pick one part of the constitution (which is the freedom of belief) that two atheist groups want protected (which, incidentally, is in their interest to protect as they could be persecuted if this freedom was lost), and then use that to say that “And it is atheists who reject constitutional violations and oppose changes to the constitution that many religious people would”.

See what you’re doing? When it comes to atheists, you just want to describe them as one homogeneous entity – you don’t say “some atheists” or “many atheists”, you simply say atheists. When it comes to religious people, you say “many” – even though this “many” could be in the minority. And you choose one bit of the constitution that atheists don’t want changed, and project this onto the whole constitution, ignoring bits of the constitution that prominent atheists have said they would like changed. So, yes, your statement isn’t factual. But my statement was, so I will repeat it: “It is the constitution that protects the rights of the people, not atheists or theists.”

Yes, maybe there are more theists who want changes to the constitution than there are atheists. I can’t comment on this as I haven’t studied it. If you have, then maybe you can point me to some study which has looked at the attitude of atheists and theists towards the constitution. Until you can do so, your statement cannot be considered factual, it is simply you choosing to cherry-pick things which suit your agenda.

Thank you.