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.

USA has freedom from religion (in addition to freedom of religion).

I know it's a conservative talking point that USA has only freedom of, but not from, religion.

Which is why they passed local laws prohibiting atheists from attempting to run for any office.

No that is still freedom of religion. If your religion is 'atheist' federal supremacy steps in.

Atheist is not a religion.

Atheist is irreligion.

Irreligion is non-religion.

If you think atheism is a religion, what are their core tenets?

What are their holy books?

Horseshit. The old atheist saying is "Not bowling is not a sport" Well if you have not-bowler clubs that get together and talk about how great it is to not bowl you are a sport of sorts,

Nope. Not bowling is still not a sport.

IF a system of ideas not containing a deity is not a religion then Buddhism is not a religion and Scientology is not a religion.

System of ideas? Atheists don't have one.

For example those who follow material nihilism are distinct from Buddhists (most of who are still technically atheists, along with Satanists and some of the occultists).

Which warrants a correction to my previous statement: "Atheist is irreligion" because Buddhism can be called a religion... or a philosophy. Depends on the definition of "religion".

Well scientology has no gods either just aliens.....

They'd be about as religion as Buddhism, then.

Kind of doesn't matter, the IRS has classified some secular organizations as churches and granted them exemptions

But where as Buddhism can be a religion, atheism as whole is not.