No

Atheism isn't a religion so it doesn't need protection under the religion clause.

All atheist need is the right to assemble. People have the right to assemble just because they want to. They have the right to assemble in protest on the streets if they want and it is not under the religion clause that they get this right.

Atheists outside of prison do not need the first ammendment because they are not a religion.

Atheist get to assemble just because they are people who assemble which is a right somewhere else in the bill of rights.

old news



References to "Zeitgeist: The Movie" in the mainstream media are relatively few and mostly negative. "Zeitgeist Addendum" has mostly been ignored. As far as "the Movie", commonly the film’s factual accuracy has been challenged. A review in the Irish Times entitled “Zeitgeist: the Nonsense” wrote that “these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization—there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones."[22] Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan criticizes the first part of the film on the origins of Christianity:

Some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally—and sloppily—mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. […] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids.[23]

Other reviews assert that it is "conspiracy crap",[24] “based solely on anecdotal evidence” and “fiction couched in a few facts”,[25] or disparaging reference is made to its part in "the 9/11 truth movement.[14]

Academic coverage of Zeitgeist has also been sparse, mainly lumping the movie in with other conspiracy movies, although at least one academic has made a more detailed (and highly critical) analysis of the scholarship (see below). Again, the coverage has been largely negative, and typically treated as part of a contemporary phenomenon of “truth” movies. According to Scientific American

“The postmodernist belief in the relativism of truth, coupled to the clicker culture of mass media where attention spans are measured in New York minutes, leaves us with a bewildering array of truth claims packaged in infotainment units. It must be true—I saw it on television, at the movies, on the Internet, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, That's Incredible, The Sixth Sense, Poltergeist, Loose Change, Zeitgeist the Movie.”[26]

A more severe overall treatment is given by Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, who analyzes Zeitgeist (“A fast-paced assemblage of agitprop”) as an example of unethical film-making.[27] She accuses Joseph of deceit through the use of unsourced and unreferenced assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques. While parts of the film are, she says, “comically” self-defeating, the nature of “twisted evidence” and the false attribution of Madrid bomb footage as being in London (which she calls a “lie”) amount to ethical abuse in sourcing (in later versions of the movie, a subtitle is added to this footage identifying it as from the Madrid bombings). She finishes her analysis with the comment:

Thus legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film’s determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.

Dr Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, has severely criticized Part I of the movie as having no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, relying on amateur sources that "borrow ideas from each other, and who recycle the same silly stuff" and "not a single serious source" can be found in official reference lists attached to the movie.[28] Of the film he says "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[28]

Forbes claims there is no evidence in Egyptian sources saying that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin. Similarly, neither Krishna (the eighth son), Dionysus (whose mother had slept with Zeus) nor Attis were ever supposed born of virgins. He points out that "son" and "sun" are not homophonic words in either Latin, Ancient Egyptian, or Greek, and therefore no such misunderstanding would occur; that the December 25 birth is not part of any of the myths—including that of Jesus, for whom Christmas Day was appointed as a festival day in open knowledge that the real date was not known.

Dr. Forbes also criticizes the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus didn't exist, noting that a long list flashed across the screen of supposed contemporary historians that did not mention Jesus is actually comprised of geographers, gardening writers, poets and philosophers, who should not be expected to mention him. The allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was added later is criticized as misleading. Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, with only one reference believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages but to change an already existing mention of him. He also argues that the film misrepresents Constantine when it presents him as making Christianity compulsory (when he only legalized it) and inventing the historical Jesus (when early church records show that the historicity of Jesus had been a key element of faith from early on).

-wiki

blaming religion for atrocities committed is the same as blaming the Y chromosome for it. Stalin committed atrocities...what was his excuse?

The Supreme Court ruled that Atheism is a religion as well. Atheists have a belief that they follow as well as churches.

His religion is one of the things I held against Obama but he was still a better choice than McCain.

You have to define "religion". For example, do you consider Buddhism a religion?

They only did that for a purpose during a trial.

It still doesn't classify as a religion.

Special circumstances were applied because of the prison situation

How so?

Because he won the Nobel peace prize for - what was it - something he MIGHT do?

Religion or believing in one can be a bad mark against someone in power. Because they will make choices based on the philosophy of the religion making them possibly very dangerous.

What?????



What have you been