So it's OK to be religious but you could be jailed for being irreligious?

The evangelocon argument to bringing Christian rules to court houses.

Basically, free to be Christian, but no freedom to be not Christian.

1st A protects especially freedom **FROM** religion, mind you.

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

1st A specifically prohibits theocracy, ensures right of disbelief in particular religion (whether atheist or member of another religion).

1st A is especially and only freedom **FROM** religion, not freedom of.

It does not say you are free to do animal sacrifice or human sacrifice or other freedom **OF** religion.

Not at all. I'm saying that the current liberal atheist position is inherited from European Continental thought and not related to the 1st.

It states that the government cannot impose a religion.

I'm sorry but the latter is also the basisi of US position on religious freedom.

It is freedom from enforcement of state religion.

It's freedom **FROM** religion.

Not even state merely federal. By the 10th.

It does not state "you are free to practice religion". it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

**or preventing the exercise thereof**

Oh. That part. So it's both freedom from and of.

Yep

But it does include "from" as well.

You cannot say it's only "of".

It goes all ways

Many Christian conservatives think it's only freedom "of" but not at all "from".

They use that as an argument for unconstitutional laws that prohibit atheists from running for any state office.

An interesting experiment is comparing the Alexa ranks of Sam Harris's website to the alexa rank of Atheist movement organizations. Basically, it seems like half the atheist movement transitioned into the SJW movement as Scott Alexander points out, but also that the other half of the atheist movement moved to outlets like Quillette, SamHarris.org, Joe Rogan Experience, AiU, etc.

Yeah, because the non-SJW atheism didn't exist. It was split up to individuals who opposed SJWs.

Every single atheist **institution** in USA was pro-SJW.

That's because they made the mistake of thinking *everything* in conservativism was wrong.

And there's undoubtedly something good with it.

This is a misunderstanding of the state and federal. The constitution sets limits on **federal** power. Not the state or local or sovereign. This is clearly stated in the 9th and 10th.

Both economically and in the pro-family thinking (although even conservatives twist it into being just anti-gay, rather than actually focusing on keeping heterosexual families intact).

Atheist movement committed pretty much suicide.

@Jym So individual states can prohibit 1st and 2nd A?

This is again a misunderstanding. Where there is a federal mandate or constituent power that law is supreme.

If constitution only restricts the Federation but not the states, how do 5th A apply?

I mean, FBI **DIDN'T EVEN EXIST** originally, so 5th A would not apply to anyone at all! For fucks sake.

If FBI doesn't exist, there's no Federal police, and 5th A is meaningless.

Why was 5th A even passed if there's no federal power that it is affected by?

Again, where the fed has a delegated power it is supreme over the state. So all those civil rights override any local ordinance. But those powers *not specifically delegated to the fed* are free to local interpretation.

Well, I think 1st A overrides any local law to prohibit an atheist for running for an office.

And SCOTUS is on my side.

Because there are such laws, and they've consistently ruled unconstitutional.