Constitutional rights we all should have.

The right to orgasm at least once annually.

1 pint monthly of butter pecan ice cream.

One elected politician to stone to death annually, and free travel to the place of stoning for everyone who wants to participate. And free stones.

I would be happy with expanding the freedom of religion protections to philosophy/secular belief.

One orgasm a year? That is supposed to be a good thing?

It’s a guaranteed minimum, provided by the government if not obtained by other means.

I trust the government to do a lot of things, but I’m drawing the line here.

Chocolate fudge for me, thanks. Oh, and I reserve the right to not gain weight because of it. (If we get to make the rules…)

YES! Thank you so much. I want to join the Stoning Party!

If atheists are going to keep going around claiming that atheism isn’t a belief, it’s simply a lack of belief (in order to avoid having to shoulder any burden of proof), then I can’t see why they would expect to be covered by religious freedom protections.

That said, I think that generally atheists and secularists do pretty much enjoy the same freedoms that theists do. Secularist organizations can register as non-profits and enjoy similar tax breaks as churches. And I certainly don’t see anyone trying to suppress secular speech in public forums. So what’s the problem?

It should be my right to tell off my employer with impunity, at least once per year. Absolutely no retaliation permitted.

It should be my right to receive one, absolutely perfect, watermelon per summer. Just the right ripeness and sweetness.

Count me in on the politician stoning.

Will the government also supply beards for women attending stonings?

Atheism is a belief, one I happen to hold. Agnosticism is lack of belief.

It falls under “pursuit of happiness”. It’s in the Declaration of Independence, but did not make the cut for a Constitutional Right.

Exactly wrong, and I say it as an atheist.

That’s backwards.
An atheist lacks belief in god(s).
An agnostic believes that it’s not possible to know if god(s) do or do not exist.

You have to have some faith to be agnostic. You can’t have any to be atheist.

I think people are using different definitions for the word “believe” and “belief”.

Atheists believe there is no god. It is their belief that no god(s) exist. Is this not true?

“I’m from the government, and I’m here to give you your handjob.”

No, atheists don’t believe. The preponderance (OK, all of it) of evidence indicates there are no gods, so they proceed through life operating under that hypothesis.
“Lazy writing/speech” sometimes collapsing this process into saying “I believe X” in daily life and by scientists about a lot of topics, but they don’t really mean “they believe X.” They mean the evidence supports X.

The constitutional right to melvin any politician that doesn’t directly answer a question given during a press conference or debate. The answer can be even be “I refuse to answer”, but any attempt to slickly change the subject, or pretend not to hear the question-atomic wedgie time!

It’s kind a semantics game at this point. Sure, you can say I “believe” there is no god, but in the same way I “believe” there is no Santa.
It’s not something that I talk about all that often so I’ve never really worked on how exactly to express it without coming off like an ass and saying “I know there’s no god” since I’m not a ‘militant’ atheist, in fact, when the subject comes up, I usually just use some variation of “I’m not religious”.
Having said that…IMO, there’s a difference (again with the semantics, I know) between “I don’t believe in god” or “I lack belief in god” and “I believe there is no god”
I guess, for me, getting rid of the phrase “I believe” is what sets the atheism apart from the theism.

a-theism
without-belief.

ETA because I looked up the suffix
ag-theism
ambiguous-belief

Wait, how are atheists the ones who are supposed to be bringing proof, here? Y’all are the ones making claims, not us.

The constitutional right to melvin thread hijackers. :smiley: