Atheism and conseqentialism vs. Daentology

I'm glad our founding fathers were niether radical religious zealots nor atheists.

i don't think atheism is is consistent with the values that make America great which is natural rights.

In my opinion, Deism is the most compatable with the concept because it allows the concept of natural rights. The consistution guarnatees us rights which are guaranteed by God himself.
I believe had we not been committed to the idea of natural rights, we'd be much more consequentialist.

I'm not trying to blame atheists for the attacks on free speech, but you'll notice many of these European countries guilty of the most anti-free speech action tend to be very athiest.
Because atheism lends itself more to consequentialism. And consequentialism isn't compatable with guaranteed freedoms like free speech. I suspect the reason Canada, Germany and France are so anti-free speech is because they don't see the value in free speech inherently.
They see things like "Hate speech" as grounds for making it illegal on the basis that it's not "useful" or "helpful" speech.

Someone dedicated to the concept of God given rights will support hate speech on the basis that it is a natural right of man. I don't think atheism is good enough to protect these freedoms because a consequentialist morality would not support things like free speech.

And I know we don't have "absolute free speech" but here in America, free speech restrictions are based on immediate safety, not whether or not such speech is "bad" for society.
The idea that saying "faggot" is akin to yelling fire in a movie theater is absolutely insane. One is about public safety the other is about not offending people

The problem is that people have equated actual, physical harm with hurt feelings. Threats of violence or incitements to violence obviously are an exception to free speech, but insulting, demeaning, and belittling, while not nice, actually cause no physical harm.