Atheist Ireland Declaration on Religion in Public Life

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Feedback on Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life

Here is some of the early online feedback, from various websites and forums, to the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life that was adopted by the recent Gods and Politics conference organised by Atheist Alliance International. Two of the most comprehensive discussions to date have been on Pharyngula and Metamagician and the Hellfire Club.

The Declaration was composed collectively on the margins of the Copenhagen conference. It is a starting point, from which we as atheist activists can gradually develop a more nuanced set of principles on the role of religion in public life. Next year’s follow-up to the Copenhagen conference will take place in Dublin, Ireland. Perhaps we could aim to complete a revised version of the Declaration there, after discussing it both online and within any organisations in which we are involved?

In the meantime, here is some of the early online feedback. I have grouped the comments together under the different sections of the declaration, with general feedback at the end. Please add links to any other feedback you find online about the Declaration, as well as any new comments you may have.

Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life

We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:

Feedback:

Deprogrammed wrote: “Oh noes! They’re developing doctrine! LOL. That’s what the religious nutters will say, anyway. ‘See, you atheists DO have a religion!’” AJ Milne OM wrote: “If they say this on the basis of a policy statement, they missed their opportunity by a few decades… Insofar as the humanist manifesto’s been ’round like, forever.”

TheBlackCat wrote: “Not only is it not called a manifesto, it is not called atheist either, nor does it claim to speak for anyone outside the conference. The title is “Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life” and it claims “We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:…”

Luis Dias wrote: “I’m an atheist and I can’t see anything in my atheism that would endorse almost any word in that document. Perhaps my taste for secularism, for equality, for human rights, etc.,etc. would do the trick, but not my atheism. That’s why it is a misnomer, and it should be obvious to the people who are always shouting to the webs that atheism is not a belief, but the lack thereof. Why then produce a document of atheist manifesto? It’s hypocritical at its core.”

mikerattlesnake wrote: “It seems to me that banning any and all atheists from getting together and making a statement with the word “atheist” attached to it is more constrictive than any such document would be. I don’t see this as a manifesto, as such (despite some similarities to the definition), and I think they avoided the word purposefully. Rather it is an organized list of policy positions likely to be held by atheists, which again to me seems like a good idea given most people’s nebulous ideas about atheism. If you like it and you agree with it, spread it around. If you dislike it, debate the wording and work to change it. If you disagree with the very idea that atheists can group together to discuss and come to conclusions on politics, then call your atheism “apolitical atheism” or something. For me, my lack of belief in gods affects my political views (especially in the US where theocracy is a major concern and god is certainly not absent from politics), so I find a document like this useful. I think the scope of this document should be narrowed a bit to avoid overstepping what political ideas atheism truly informs, but I don’t think the document itself is useless.”

Point 1: We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, [i] and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

Footnote [i] Article 18 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Feedback on Point 1:

VV Raman wrote: “I would add explicitly that no religious belief (including atheism), however sacred it may sound to its practitioners, should be allowed that fosters hate, contempt, and destruction vis-a-vis another religious tradition or belief-system. It is ironic, indeed sad, that these basic principles, most of which belong to nineteenth century enlightened thought, need to be reiterated by a group of atheists in the twenty-first century, provoking debates and and name-calling. This just goes to show that in history, steps forward does not mean that there will be no slippage to times past and even to darker ages. I am also inclined to think that many enlightened religious people today would resonate with most of what has been declared in Copenhagen.”

Brian wrote: “Monotheism is all about evangelism, interference and enforcing a single perspective. Hard fundamentalists simply cannot accept this kind of uncompromising push back, it’s a clear violation of the divine plan; a more egregious frustration of the divine will than even health care or social security.”

OddThinking wrote: “Nice start. They aren’t trying to say everyone should be an atheist, which is good.”

axxyaan wrote: “Well I already don’t agree with this one. What it does is to provide protection against arbitrariness only for the religious. If you have two people wanting/needing to initiate some kind of activity and some unnecessary relugation makes it impossible, the religious one can claim his religious freedom is violated and get things reversed but the unreligious one cannot, even if his need to do so can be just as great. Why should religious people get this kind of privilege vs unreligious people?”

Point 2: We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma. [ii]

Footnote [ii] Societies in the 21st century must be built on a culture of objective knowledge and rational thinking based on evidence provided by the sciences within the legal framework of international human rights. Religions are inherently based on faith and guided by myths and hearsay interpreted by a self-established clergy. Religions should therefore be relegated to the private sphere and have no role in public affairs.

Feedback on Point 2:

JohnFas wrote: “Surely public policy should be informed by the intentions of citizens. That is democracy. There are ample evidential and objective reasons not to ban fox hunting. There are subjective, and moral reasons why one might wish to ban the same. Both should be encouraged in public debate. This sort of nonsense is not just an attack on religious conscience, but on simple common sense.”

Celtic Evolution wrote: “If I asked my former priest, he would assert unequivocally that his belief is based on exactly those things… although in truth, I’m not sure how better to qualify the statement to counter that argument.”

[This comment refers to points 2, 3 and 4] TheBlackCat wrote: “I would move the second sentence of point 3 to the end of point 2. In other words:

2. We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

3. We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Since the second point deals with secularism and the third point does not, I think it goes better there.

I would also move point three to the beginning. It, to me, establishes a basic framework without which the other statements do not really make sense. It is also the least controversial of the statements. Then I would move point 4 up one, to become the new point 3. So point 1 establishes the basic framework, point 2 applies this to your specific subject, point 3 explains how to carry this out in practice in a general sense, then the rest of the points explain the specifics.”

OddThinking wrote: ”Rejecting dogma is important, but feels like an emotive term to me.”

Taner Edis wrote: “All this assumes that there is a single agreed upon form of rationality. Maybe it also assumes that people who share in this form of rationality will, if well enough informed, converge upon a single policy. And it certainly seems to assume that we would be collectively better off if everyone were to behave rationally. All of these assumptions seem dubious to me. Rationality is notoriously difficult to pin down. Is it the rational utility-maximization of agents in economic theories? A deeper rationality that is capable of determining aims as well as letting us choose means? There are many proposed forms of rationality, and their demands can conflict with one another. If we work with less ambitious (and thus more reasonable) concepts of rationality, which allow a plurality of sometimes incommensurable sets of aims or ways of life, then we also cannot demand that all rational people must converge on some kind of agreement. In such situations, why should policy not be informed by any common forms of faith that may happen to exist, including religious traditions? Moreover, rationality may not, collectively speaking, be all that good an idea. Rationality in individual choices can cause a society to collectively jump off a cliff. Some of this “irrational rationality” was easily observable in the recent global financial crisis. The incentives in many financial markets were such that financial actors had to follow the herd, even when it was clear that in a slightly longer term, disaster was extremely likely. So long term public policy, it would seem, should include mechanisms that work against individual rationality. Religion, with its often communitarian focus, and anti-rational thrust, might be just the sort of public policy instrument we need. In any case, nonbelievers need some sort of argument that our form of rationality is a good idea, instead of treating it as some kind of self-evident fact.”

Richard W wrote: “Taner, I don’t deny that the concept of rationality is much less straightforward that many people think. But I don’t see anything wrong with the statement you quoted. It’s true that any rational policy analysis must start from a set of goals which the policy aims to fulfill, and our ultimate goals are just whatever they are. They cannot be rationally justified. But I don’t see that the Copenhagen Declaration implies anything else. Since the declaration specifically opposes “evidence and reason” to “dogma”, it can be seen as referring only to matters of fact and not to the setting of ultimate goals. And yes, public policy may conflict with the most rational policies of individuals. That’s why (among other reasons) we have the law to enforce collective policies. But again the Declaration does not imply anything else. You’ve only listed two forms of rationality. And the latter appears to be based on the false claim that ultimate goals can be rationally justified. It seems to me that practical rationality (rationality of actions) is a matter of determining the policies that are likely to fulfill a set of goals to the greatest extent. If someone’s only goal is to have God’s will done, then the rational policy for him is the one which is most likely to get God’s will done (as far as that can be determined). What other form of practical rationality can there be? I don’t think it’s fair to fault the Declaration for failing to explicitly exclude all false ideas of practical rationality. This was a declaration of principles, not a philosophy paper!”

Robert N Stephenson wrote: “The mention of dogma is the introduction of a negative into a positive statement position. It is clear in the formulation base the process to be used. To add dogma signifies something to be discussed where you don’t want it discussed at all.

Jambe said wrote: “I dunno about the necessity of the dogma bit; I’d be fine with or without it. It strikes me as a reinforcement of the rest of the clause. Using evidence and reason to inform public policy would preclude dogma, wouldn’t it? On the other hand, it could be a reminder to be aware of our tendency to take laws and customs for granted, or our tendency to be less critical of long-established laws & customs.”

Robert N Stephenson wrote: “The only reason I mention dogma (leave out) is because it does suggest there is an alternative to reason and proper assessment. The two stated position create two choices or suggest the process – the other, or dogma isn’t a process at all, it is a pre-set rule packet. But again, if you include it, there is the suggestion if reason and assessment fail then there is the dogma fall back, regardless of the ‘not’ imposed. There is an odd event that happens in the human brain and it has to do with how the terms No, Not and don’t are perceived. For some strange reason (yes there is research into this) the brain selectively ignore those terms. That is probably why I opt for the possitve reinforcement within documents and try and avoid the negatives – which usually get ignored anyway. That’s another story…”

Jason Streitfeld wrote: “I found the inclusion of “dogma” slightly problematic. If taken as an exclusion of authoritarian practices, then I embrace it. But it could be taken as an attempt to exclude any received and questionable set of beliefs and principles. In that case, I think it is highly problematic. We always rely on a great many questionable and received beliefs. I’d reword the declaration to clarify this.”

Point 3: We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. [iii] History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular. [iv]

Footnote [iii] Brussels Declaration 2007. Footnote [iv] Research in social science show that strongly religious modern nations have been unsuccessful in terms of basic social and economic indicators such as levels of crime and incarceration, life expectancy, the adverse consequences of sexuality and in securing prosperity. The most secular advanced democracies are consistently the most successful.

Feedback on Point 3:

Danny wrote: “Point 2 is “We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.” Point 3 is “We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.” Isn’t this a bit contrary to the ideal of a democracy? By the ideal of a democracy, I mean a government which is given its power directly by the people, and where the decision-making power ultimately lies with the people. If the people decide to elect a representative who wishes to mix religion and politics, isn’t that democracy in its truest form?”

Plowman wrote: “The unequivocal tone of this point is contestable: “History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.” Perhaps, if one excludes ancient Greece and Rome, Byzantium, nineteenth century Britain, modern-day America and India (all largely religious societies)… and includes, er, twenty-first century China?”

MikeC101 wrote: “I find the statement to be somewhat strange, and I’d love to know exactly what societies they’re referring to. But just to point out religious societies and secularism aren’t mutually exclusive – the US Constitution and founding fathers are pretty clear on separation of church and state. I’d also consider that there were strong secular traditions in ancient Greece and Rome (the huge diversity of different gods and cults played a part) as compared to the period after the decline of the Western Roman Empire – when the divine right of Kings to rule comes to the fore, and the notion of the Pope and Church being the supreme authority on earth, up until the Reformation / Renaissance era, when that idea isn’t subscribed to by as many. I think they have a point, but I don’t think it’s as clear cut as the statement they’ve made, and it’s fairly specific to Western Europe. Also, the modern Indian constitution is explicitly secular – and during colonial rule, the British had a policy of non interference in religious matters.”

WickNight wrote: “Modern-day America as well as nineteenth century Britain are/were secular states. Twenty-first century China isn’t a secular state.”

John Small Berries wrote: “In case we are asked to provide evidence to support the latter claim, which specific societies have shown that?”

OddThinking wrote: “Whoa! Is this still an atheist declaration? What has the lack of belief in a god have to do with democracy? Obviously, a theocracy is out, but that still leaves several alternatives. I am personally in favour of the rule of law, but why attack the anarchists? The footnote explains their criteria for success and where they got this opinion from. It is very vague, and not very convincing, but perhaps that should be considered sufficient for a document at this rarefied level.”

ejh1953 wrote: “‘History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.’ This was the only statement of fact that I noticed in the declaration. While I am in full agreement for the need for a secular society I am curious as to what “successful societies” in the history books are referred too.”

James Sweet wrote: “I would shy away from this argument because of a major correlation/causation problem. In fact, more and more evidence is suggesting the causality might be pretty strong in the reverse direction, i.e. the more successful a society is, the less the citizens feel the need to “cling to their guns and their bibles”. Not that I disagree with much of anything else about the statement; I just would have left out this phrase because it’s a weak argument.”

Larry Wallberg wrote: “History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
What does that mean? Successful at what? What exactly is a secular society? What secular societies have ever existed? And in what way has history “shown” that such societies have been more “successful” than other societies, the aims were probably entirely different.”

solinferius wrote: “”History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.” This statement is at best vague enough to invite attack on it, at worst wrong. Define ’successful’. The longest-lived societies have been monarchies-by-divine-right at least de jure (Pharaonic Egypt, Dynastic China). If one said ‘the societies with the highest standard of living’, it might be more accurate — though even then, what do you mean by ’secular society’ — one where the *majority of people* are not strongly religious, or one where the *government* is not officially religious? Norway is a country with an established church but a fairly nonreligious populace; Mexico is a secular *state* with a highly religious populace.”

Bing wrote: “I would say that the “history shows” needs to be clarified to say, no, Stalinism was itself a dogmatic idealism with all the trappings of an official state religion.”

Jason Streitfeld wrote: ”History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular. Whether or not that is true depends on how you define “success.” If you define it in terms of longevity, then it’s certainly not true, because religious societies have been around much longer than secular ones. There’s also evidence that religious people tend to have more children, which is evidence that religious societies are better at propagating the species. (I’m not saying this is decisive evidence, but only that it could legitimately be used in a debate.) In any case, it’s not clear what standard is being used to measure success, and I expect any standard is hotly debatable. So I’d just avoid the point altogether–it doesn’t seem to have a role to play in the declaration.”

Russell Blackford wrote: “Actually, I could do without the history bit, too. Still, a document like this will inevitably have at least some editorialising. If it were actually being negotiated between, say, a bunch of atheists and a bunch of liberal Christians that bit could go – we could think of it as a bit of an ambit claim – but it was being put up forward by an atheist conference, and most atheists would probably be able to accept at least the spirit of it.”

Point 4: We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none. [iv]

Footnote [iv] (same footnote as is used in Point 3) Research in social science show that strongly religious modern nations have been unsuccessful in terms of basic social and economic indicators such as levels of crime and incarceration, life expectancy, the adverse consequences of sexuality and in securing prosperity. The most secular advanced democracies are consistently the most successful.

Feedback on Point 4:

OddThinking wrote: I’m happy with the second part of the sentence. The first part is limited to democratic societies; I am not sure why. Drop “in a democratic society”, and the statement seems stronger. It gets to the root of the atheist cause, without being distracted by introducing Cold War rhetoric.

Sunny Kalsi wrote: “I totally agree with the “democracy” thing. However, looked at loosely democracy really means “The people define the rules”, so I think it’s fair enough to use that terminology.”

Julian wrote: “I don’t agree with your loose definition of democracy. It seems to exclude the governments in Australia and the USA (representative democracy) and include Marxism and (perhaps correctly?) Kibbutzim.”

Point 5: We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern. [v]

Footnote [v] The State should neither punish nor favor any group for any reason. (The numbering of this footnote may be a typographical error. It seems to refer to point 6 rather than point 5.)

Feedback on Point 5:

[This comment is included in feedback under points 5 and 8] JohnFas wrote: “People can mediate or arbitrate private civil disputes in whatever way they want. This statement contradicts their previous statement that people should be allowed to do what they want in their private lives. They say above “We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction”. What if two private citizens contract to decide a dispute arising from their relationship in a specific manner? They already say that such instances should not be open to legal sanction so long as it respects the rights of others, and then they contradict themselves a few statements later.”

dbmittens wrote: “This is a bit mangled. There should be no commas or two commas. I would like there to be none and “which” changed to “that” so that it is clear that “respects the rights of others” is a restrictive clause applied to “private conduct.”

TheBlackcat wrote: “remove the comma from this.”

OddThinking wrote: “If all they are asking is that atheism not be outlawed, fine. However, that statement seems to preclude governments from outlawing drugs and income tax! Is this an atheist or libertarian manifesto?”

Peej255 wrote: “This point allows for Polygamy, which is nice, there’s not enough secular polygamy out there.” Rutee wrote: “I believe that’s because the accurate term outside of a hideous patriarchy is “Polyamory”.” solinferius wrote: “No, the distinction between polygamy and polyamory is that polygamy is marriage to multiple partners, while polyamory implies no “officialization” of the relationship. Polygamy is gender-neutral; the gender specific terms are ‘polygyny’ (one husband/multiple wives) and ‘polyandry’ (one wife/multiple husbands). However, this is often confused since polyandry is very rare.”

windy wrote: “Another bit that can be problematic if it’s interpreted broadly: So what about seat belt laws, for example? Does that fall under “private conduct”?”

solinferius wrote: “It is. I’m not fond of that bit at all, as it implies a concept of privacy which I disagree with. It seems to be an attempt to rule consensual sexual matters/reproduction/etc. entirely out of the sphere of ‘government concern’, which is not in accord with my own political views (there is no particular reason to rule an entire sphere of activity which has strong societywide effects — demographic, at the very least — out of the process of a democratic government. Obviously there should be provisions to prevent *discriminatory* laws being made — and there’s precedent for that — but ruling a whole sphere of human activity ”off limits” to even a democratic government seems rather opposed to what a democracy should be. Also I can think of several situations in which such laws could be beneficial.)

JohnFas wrote: “Ah great. The Harm Principle. I wonder did they have a few copies of Mill lying about? How about they start to define private conduct and its limits. Oh no wait, they won’t… “

Point 6: We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

Possible footnote [v] The footnote to point 5 above (“The State should neither punish nor favor any group for any reason”) seems to refer instead to this point.

Feedback on Point 6:

TheBlackCat wrote: “I would add to the end of this: and equal access to public discourse.”

OddThinking wrote: “Stop assuming and/or demanding democracy! Unless you have evidence that no other system can guarantee the rights of non-believers.

Point 7: We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. [vi] We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances. [vii]

Footnote [vi] Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Footnote [vii] Recommendation 1805 (2007) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Feedback on Point 7:

TheBlackCat wrote: “I don’t understand the “limitations only as prescribed in international law”. What sort of limitations to freedom of expression under international law are acceptable? Unless it violate the rights of others, I don’t see any case where it could be considered acceptable.”

OddThinking wrote: “I am murky on this one. I guess freedom of expression is related to being an atheist, but again this seems to be overstepping the mark on what is related to non-belief.”

TheBlackCat wrote: “I would change the end of this to: the right to criticize religion or any other ideas or beliefs, no matter how fervently held.”

tdcourtney wrote: “Does this mean they’re against hate-crime laws? And how do religious leaders fit into discrimination?”

JohnFas wrote: “Why? Why can’t the citizens of Ireland legislate for their own laws? They mention in another article that they want “government in a democratic society”. How does that conform to the notion of limiting the right of sovereign states to legislate?”

Point 8: We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

Feedback on Point 8:

[This comment is included in feedback under points 5 and 8] JohnFas wrote: “People can mediate or arbitrate private civil disputes in whatever way they want. This statement contradicts their previous statement that people should be allowed to do what they want in their private lives. They say above “We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction”. What if two private citizens contract to decide a dispute arising from their relationship in a specific manner? They already say that such instances should not be open to legal sanction so long as it respects the rights of others, and then they contradict themselves a few statements later.”

OddThinking wrote: “No religious courts? Agreed – that’s part of the separation of church and state. But no special treatment of minority communities? So, no public housing for the minority of people who can’t afford it? No special treatment of people who are qualified doctors? This wording is all over the place.”

dbmittens wrote: “This seems to unintentionally preclude laws intended to correct inequities over time, such as affirmative action laws. I have my own conflicts over such laws, but in any case, I don’t believe this declaration should have anything to say about them.”

The Rambling Taoist wrote: “I think that’s far too broad. For one thing, many minority communities have been subjugated, oppressed and legally robbed by the manipulation of past and current laws. Consequently, I think they are owed special dispensation. Another minority community — the developmentally disabled — should be granted special status, in some cases, because they are unable to comprehend fully (or at all) the privileges and responsibilities attached to most laws, protocols and regulations.”

Luis Dias wrote: “So you are against affirmative action, huh? I already detected a problem you will have with any afro-american. And you call yourself progressive.” and “the context in which this letter was created is “2010″, a year where affirmative action still exists in one of the most developed countries in the world. But this is not the worse problem. The worse problem is that minorities *should* be discriminated, positively, when they are excluded by the society as a whole or by contingencies of life. This is the *core* of progressivism.”

Gus Snarp wrote: “I’m concerned by this statement. As has been hinted at above, this can easily be read as an attack on affirmative action, something that has nothing to do with religion and is still a necessary remedy for the deep structural effects of decades of racism. It’s also the kind of language that the religious right has used to attack gay marriage and other civil rights issues. I highly doubt anyone working on this meant it this way, but it is very much the language used by the right to attack affirmative action, gay marriage, and any civil rights policies they don’t like. An atheist group’s use of it lends unwitting support to such hateful opposition of civil rights.”

Brian wrote: “The difference is that atheists really mean it, genuine equal treatment would mean an end to legislation that targets sexual proclivities, should pave the way for uniform secularised marriage arrangements and generally empower minorities that are currently the target of religious or racist bigotry. If it fools a few racists and bigots into signing on, so much the better.”

mikerattlesnake wrote: “As good as some of it is, I have the same problem with the “no special treatment for minority communities” as worded. Yes equality is great, but minority populations often need special considerations to ensure equal opportunity and treatment. Why were these statements included? What was the motivation. I suggest revision.”

Thomas Winwood wrote: “I’m no expert, so it’s possible I’m very wrong, but here’s my take on it. Bear in mind this is a primarily European declaration. In Europe (and especially in the UK, with its historically high levels of immigration from the Empire) we don’t on the whole have the same issues with racial segregation that the US has. Affirmative action would therefore be generally regarded with a great deal of suspicion; the solution to historical racism isn’t being racist in the opposite direction, it’s asserting the equality of everyone regardless of colour or language and treating them as such.”

Bernard Bumner wrote: “Er, no. The principle of positive action is enshrined in UK law, and is particularly visible with regard to the makeup of parliamentary candidate lists or the police force. Targets for recruitment of non-white, non-males in the UK do exist, are legal, and most definitely are not racist or sexist. Indeed, they are absolutely necessary to prevent discrimination and achieve a measure of equality in society.”

Gus Snarp wrote: “I find it highly likely that the European context in which this document was written is the explanation for that language being included, but it is nevertheless problematic for a global document. Those words are code in the U.S. for “keep on discriminating against teh gays”, and therefore should be removed.”

MosesZD wrote: “It’s the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life. That statement has everything to do with religion and NOTHING to do with Affirmative Action which is PURELY SECULAR. It’s clearly talking about no special treatment for religious minorities who want to subvert the secular legal processes with their own religious legal systems, hence it is written: one law for all [...] and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.”

Bernard Bumner wrote: “Only if you take the thing out of its intended context, to wit: The recent Gods and Politics conference in Copenhagen adopted the following Declaration on Religion in Public Life. It seems very clear that the document is not intended as an attack on affirmative action, which would only possibly be called and thought of as discrimination by the most historically and socially illiterate out there.

Ed S wrote: “It’s a good document. There is some mis-reading of the intent with respect to affirmative action. Affirmative action is sometimes necessary to give minority groups equal status / opportunity in society, but it is not intended to make them separate or more special in some way. Affirmative action corrects wrongs, it doesn’t create new rights. In an ideal society it would not be necessary.”

baldywilson wrote: “I see people are already mis-interpreting this. It’s not two sentences. Unless I’m wide of the mark this is addressing concerns over (not entirely serious) proposals in various countries that Shariah law should be held to be on the same standing as civil common law. It’s not particularly well stated, would follow naturally from the principle of a secular state anyway, but it’s not discussing affirmative action.”

Gus Snarp wrote: “if you are promulgating your ideas to the general public you have to write in such a way that the general public will understand. I’m not talking about dumbing things down, and I’m not talking about being nice to convince people, I’m talking about not unnecessarily using the code words of hate in a document that is about the exact opposite. It would be better if it just said: “We assert the principle of one law for all, with no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.”

Gus Snarp wrote: “The next point refers to:  grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation. So the document is not restricting its language to talking solely about religion, and that’s great. But when you have one line talking about no special treatment for minorities, and the next mentions race and sexual orientation, then we have to consider what the words mean to someone who has seen hateful neighbors with “no special rights” yard signs campaigning against their reasonable civil rights.”

Brian wrote: “maybe combine points 4 and 9 and leave out ‘no special treatment for minority communities’ So it reads : We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none. We assert the principle of one law for all, with no jurisdiction for religious courts in the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.”

mattheath wrote: “What exactly does the “one law for all” part rule out and what not? Consider “parties may enter into binding arbitration on any basis they agree to and decisions will have the force of law” (or, more credibly, something weaker with the sorts of right to appeal that exists for employment tribunals). On the face of it that’s a law for all but in some sense it gives jurisdiction to religious courts.”

foggg wrote: “What if it was instead changed to: We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for particular religious communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.”

mattheath wrote: “Arguably, that still rules out legitimate affirmative action programmes. There are cases where there has been a history of discrimination against a community and the marker of that community is religion rather than skin colour. I think the specific programme to recruit catholics (and non-believers from the “Catholic community”) into the Northern Irish police force was perfectly reasonable.”

joleenkuyper wrote: “The minorities comment jarred with me for a moment as well, but I took a few seconds to think about it, and I think it is a response to the wishy-washy treatment of certain issues such as female genital mutilation – there are many so-called liberals who would certainly never subject their own daughters to this practice, but consider that it’s ok for others to do so as it is part of their ‘culture’ or ‘religion’. Respecting other cultures and religions is fine in my opinion, as long as people make decisions for themselves. Girls who are subjected to this horrific act do not choose it, their families do. The same could be said for women who still endure marital rape or domestic violence and have it described as ‘cultural’ – abuse is abuse, if a grown woman wants to have her clitoris cut off that’s fine, but if someone has it done to their baby daughter it isn’t. In a truly secular society, religion could not be used as an excuse for abuse, and this is my interpretation of the statement.”

TheBlackCat wrote: “I would change the word minority to the word religious”

kagehi wrote: “Simple fix to the issue some people have pointed out, “save, in a positive sense, where necessary to address existing inequities.” Though, I suppose, some dipshit would then argue that there is a religious inequity in the whole “secular” thing, and whine about that too, or something. But, there has got to be a way to word it, so the only thing they get to whine about is how “unfair” it is that they can’t be unfair to everyone else.”

cerberus wrote: “I get the framing that means it’s not about that, but it’s really bad wording and the next sentence kind of betrays that this was a framing war between a bullshit libertarian and someone progressive and sane, because literally the next point is a standard non-discrimination bit (which as has been noticed is way too narrow). Obviously this was a result of a battle and it shows. Add the word religious after minority or hell, strike the sub-clause, because the rest of the sentence follows naturally without it.”

Point 9: We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation. [viii]

Footnote [viii] Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Feedback on Point 9:

OddThinking wrote: “The “religious leaders” exception really sticks out to me. I wonder how they define that. I wonder if they feel it acceptable for a church to insist that other people working on the business of the church also follow their faith. (Don’t ask me who “they” refers to in my previous sentence! I am aware I am arguing against an amorphous group of differently-minded people who happened to attend a conference.)”

Yewtree wrote: ““We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders)” — OK, so a religious leader should be an adherent of the religion in question, I guess, but I don’t see why religions should get to discriminate against LGBT people, for example.”

Giffy wrote: “Yewtree, Thats a tough one. Personally I think that to some extent freedom of religion means religious groups can discriminate within their own groups. Likewise I think any ideologically based group should be able to discriminate. If one wants to set up a whites only political movement that should be their right. In the US the line is public accommodation or the receipt of state funds. So a store, which is open to the public cannot discriminate and neither can a school that gets government money. It seems to work pretty well.”

Yewtree wrote: “It’s logical for a women’s mutual support group to be women-only, or if whites were a persecuted group, for them to have an exclusive support group, or indeed for a religion to require its ministers to be adherents. But I think it’s wrong for them to exclude a group for a quality that is not essential to the performance of the role (in this example, being straight is not essential to being a good minister).”

Giffy wrote: “I agree that it is wrong, but I am not sure it should be illegal. I am not sure what Country you are from, but in mine the right of free association is a very important value. So is the right of equal opportunity. Balancing those can be tough, but I don’t see much harm in allowing religious or social groups to be discriminatory. If the Catholics don’t want women to be priests that is silly, but fundamentally their right.”

Timberwoof wrote: “Yewtree, religions and religius organizations should have the right to discriminate against whomever they want: they are private organizations and freedom of association is a fundamental right. One big argument against legalizing gay marriage is people wailing about churches being forced by government to marry gay people … as through a gay couple (or an couple, for that matter!) would want to be married in a hostile church. By guaranteeing the right of religions to be as bigoted a they want, we support the principles of religious freedom listed in the rest of the document. If you don’t like a church because of its political beliefs, don’t go to its services. They can excommunicate you if they want, but they can’t burn you at the stake.”

DeSwiss wrote: “I can’t agree with the portion which excludes a prohibition of discrimination “other than for religious leaders” — not so long as churches remain tax-exempt and/or receive funds for services they provide. And through said services, they further promulgate their dogma — and where the source for such service provision is from tax dollars. Particularly since the discriminated class cannot avoid financially supporting their discriminators by the nonpayment of taxes.”

Jason Streitfeld wrote: “So the purpose of the “except for religious leaders” clause is to protect the right of religious organizations to ban members as they see fit? Do fitness clubs also have this right? I suspect they do. So why not mention them as well? A little Googling shows that people have sued fitness clubs which denied them membership. Why does a privately owned fitness club not have the right to deny membership on whatever basis they choose? If there is no good answer to that question, then how could there be a good argument for letting churches arbitrarily deny membership to people? On the other hand, if there is a good reason for fitness clubs to be allowed to deny membership as they see fit, then the same argument should be applicable to churches. So why single out religion here?”

SC OM wrote: “So do we support discrimination against religious leaders in employment or for them? I’m guessing the former. ”

charley wrote: “This is kind of unclear. Are they allowing religious groups to exclude those outside the religion in hiring? If so, then shouldn’t other groups based on race, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation be allowed the same exception?”

Gus Snarp wrote: “I think the point is that you can use belief to disqualify someone from the job of religious leader, but not from anything else. But from a legal standpoint, it should be written a bit more clearly. Fortunately, this isn’t a legal document. What are the odds of getting this thing revised? We could easily simply drop the “no special treatment” bit, and the “(other than for religious leaders)” bit could be rewritten as “(other than the use of religion in consideration of individuals for posts as religious leaders)”. Note that you still can’t prevent gay people from being priests with my wording. That’s intentional.”

kaonashi wrote: “Maybe I’m missing something here, but why is the the stance against discrimination just for employment? It’s important, yes, but it seems there are many other areas where people are discriminated against.”

tulse wrote: “Since when is “religious leader” a job? I thought it was supposed to be a “calling”, or “avocation”, or something like that. Is the Pope actually employed?” Gus Snarp wrote: “I don’t know, the Pope claims that Catholic Priests aren’t employees of the Catholic Church, doesn’t he? That he can’t control what they do? Confuses the hell out of me. Don’t they get a paycheck or something? I suppose the Pope doesn’t, but does covering all his expenses count?”

statansparakeet wrote: “I am also still a bit concerned about opposing tax free status for the “promotion of any religion” as I do think it is OK to allow religions the same tax free status as any other non-profit organization. It would be difficult to separate out the promotional activities of either non-profits or churches from their other daily activities. If we get too far into not allowing churches non-profit status, it could be dangerous to humanist and atheist organizations that may or may not be “religions” but are often treated as such under US law.”

svenechel wrote: “Why make an exception? I has been noted several times already by legal experts in my country that the catholic church is in violation of our anti-discrimination laws for not allowing women to become priests (and probably by extension muslims, openly gay men, etc). This has so far been ignored by every political party and the organization tasked with enforcing this law Presumably because the fallout of taking this to court would reverberate around the globe.”

TheBlackCat wrote: “I would add to the end of this point: or any other trait or belief not directly relevant to exercising one’s duties.”

Ophelia Benson wrote: “Okay that’s a big mistake right there – that just perpetuates the old “the one place it’s ok to exclude women is the top religious jobs” – which sounds nice and respectful and free conscience-y but in fact just endorses a situation in which men make all the religious rules that govern women’s lives. It systematically bans more than half of all humans from having any say in rules that can shape and distort and limit their lives in massive ways. This isn’t some minor concession, and that needs to be recognized.”

tildeb wrote: “OB, I assumed (dangerous, I know) that discrimination in employment regarding religious leaders pertained to that leader endorsing whatever religious precepts were fundamental to that religious organization. I never thought of it as based on anything else, but you are right: allowing institutionalized misogyny only under the exemption of religion is not a concession that I think is justifiable but contrary to secular values.”

Kristjan Wager wrote: “Ophelia, I can see your point, and you’re absolutely right. That should have been worded differently, as to remove the “loop-hole”

Jason Streitfeld wrote: “I don’t understand the reason for the “other than for religious leaders” clause. Is the problem that some people who don’t endorse religion X are going to become leaders of religion X? Is that a real danger? If the rationale was that religious beliefs might be essential to some job functions, then there’s no reason to make that an explicit part of the declaration. If a job requires that you profess some religious belief, then you aren’t being discriminated against if you are unwilling or unable to profess that belief. It’s not discrimination.”

Lisa wrote: “I have a tendency to get hung up on concrete specifics, even on such an idealistic and quickly assembled statement as this, so forgive the nitpicking. Still…I’m always interested in the areas where rights and freedoms clash, such as “freedom to practice one’s religion” with “nondiscrimination, or “nondiscrimination” with “freedom of association.” But how it would be acceptable for the state to interfere in the rules of choosing a religion’s own clergy by e.g. insisting they ordain women and so on, and then to still claim “separation of church and state” is beyond me. The Egyptian government selects the head of Al-Azhar in Cairo and thus this top cleric is considered merely a government mouthpiece by a lot of other Sunni Muslims. Turkey, despite being “secular,” still has a government office in charge of all mosques and clerics in the country. The governments of some countries have demanded the right to choose bishops. Of course, this kind of government “meddling” in religious affairs guarantees that religion will be infused with politics politics, with Party X demanding its candidate be chosen, the candidates tailoring their message to appeal to one or another leader or faction…it’s certainly not what I think of when I consider “separation of religion and state”!”

Point 10: We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.

Feedback on Point 10:

OddThinking wrote: “I agree with the first sentence – separation of church and state again.

The second sentence is more complicated than that. If a faith-based school can take a student, and train them to perform just as well as a non-faith-based school at a wide range of skills, including in the realm of science, civics, ethics and critical-thinking… if a faith-based school can supervise students and can keep them amused and off the streets while their parents work just as well as a non-faith-based school… if a faith-based school can do all that, while also offering them a grounding in the faith of the church (and preserving the students’ rights to not have that faith)… then it could be argued that it is appropriate for the government to share with the school some of the savings of tax-payer money that they make to encourage it. Not to pay them to teach faith, but pay them to teach maths, literature, science, history, etc. (and also to baby-sit.) I don’t claim this is a simple issue; I don’t have a clear opinion here. I don’t claim that faith-based schools meet, or fail to meet, these criteria. I just want to point out that faith-based schools may well have a place in secular society. If you accept the notion of a private school being subsidised, then I am interested in hearing how you can reject the notion of a faith-based private school being subsidised.”

Sunny Kalsi wrote: “For faith based schooling, I wonder if they’re only thinking of where faith based schooling is paid for, but not ordinary public schools. They probably should’ve said faith based schools should not be treated specially, must follow the normal curriculum, and must allow an intake of students from other faiths. At least, that’s my reading of it, esp. when taken with the first sentence “special consideration”.”

Yewtree wrote: ““We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life” — this depends on how broadly you define religion. What about if I wish to take a day off work because it’s a holiday in my religion (but it is not one of the secularised ones derived from the Christian calendar, e.g. Christmas)? Also, if my personal ethics demand a higher standard of conduct from me (e.g. not giving baksheesh in order to get a business contract), wouldn’t it then be a good thing if I brought my values into public life (my values are not dictated by my religion, as I would change my religion if it was not in accord with my ethics, but my ethics and my religion are intertwined).”

Giffy wrote: “Some work places are moving toward the idea of personal holidays. I get one a year, in addition to my vacation time, that I can use on a day of my choosing. Practicality in many countries somewhat dictates that religious holidays be days off. If the vast majority celebrate a holiday then it becomes impossible for many businesses to stay open as everyone is taking the day off. Reasonably accommodation for peoples’ time off needs is not a special consideration if it is equally given to all. As for values, its the values that matter, not where they come from. However to the extent that values conflict with work, e.g. a Muslim not wanting to make interest baring loans working at a bank or a Christian pharmacist not wanting to distribute the morning after pill, then its probably best the person find a new job. Religion is not a get out of work free card. Nothing in this document would say prevent a religious person from being honest at work because their religion tells them to.”

Yewtree wrote: “I was thinking of sensible values. For example, I used to be a Pagan and now I’m a Unitarian (not that those traditions are mutually exclusive). Both of these traditions lay strong emphasis on individual freedom and environmental responsibility, and both are inclusive towards LGBT people. So, if I was asked to do something at work that would cause massive environmental damage, or would discriminate against LGBT people, it would be against my personal values (which also happen to be espoused by my chosen religion – that’s why I chose it). So if I refuse to cause environmental damage or discriminate against LGBT people, am I bringing my religion in to public life in an inappropriate way? As you say, if the person’s moral code comes into conflict with the performance of tasks that are essential to the job, like dishing out contraceptives, then clearly they shouldn’t be in that role. I think that contraception should be freely available to all, and I expect you do too, and that’s also the consensus of our society. So the Christian pharmacist who refuses to dispense them is going against the consensus of society, but probably thinks that he or she is being perfectly reasonable (or acting in accordance with the will of God, or something).

Another example: Quakers feel a very strong call to work for peace, and would like to not pay taxes that contribute to wars. I’m a fairly strong pacifist, though not to the extent that they are, so I sympathise with their views. But they are at the far end of the normal distribution curve of views on peace, war, just war, etc (i.e. there’s not really a consensus on this issue) so their input into the debate should be valued because they’ve been discussing it amongst themselves and developing peaceful practices for centuries.”

Giffy wrote: “I think it comes down to reasonable accommodation. If you took a job as a County employee in an area that did not recognize same sex unions your personal beliefs would not give you the right to hand out marriage licences to same sex couples. Likewise if you worked for BP your values would not say allow you to refuse to drill for oil. Now in both cases you would have the right to resign and to advocate for change. However if say you were working at a grocery store and did not want to handle pork (or say meat as a vegetarian), it would not be out of line to request an assignment to the produce section assuming there was plenty of staff coverage. I think the point is that it does not matter where the values come from. I, like you am a big fan of the environment and gay rights, but come to those from a wholly secular place. For me the issue is that the fact that someones values come from religion does not make them superior or entitled to more protection then values that derive from elsewhere. Thats what I think it means by special accommodation. Values are values whether religious or not.”

wsa wrote: “It seems to me a very good document overall. Especially the point: We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants. It would be a rightful innovation.”

chrissetti wrote: “‘and oppose charitable, tax-free status’ This is the only point I would like to contend. On the whole I wouldn’t have a problem with this but many churches do provide a good and charitable role in their local communities–For many years I was in one–perhaps they should be taxed on all funds which are not demonstrably and directly involved in secular charitable activities (Like advertising, for example?)”

Celtic Evolution wrote: “Well, see, then you start introducing loopholes, and then you might as well toss the whole statement out. Charitable, tax free status is a good thing, and should be bestowed upon any organization whose primary goal is charitable activity. Religious groups do not qualify, as charitable activity is a secondary mission. Instead of bestowing blanket tax-free status on entire religious organizations, it would make more sense to tax them for their non-charitable income, and allow them to deduct their charitable activities and contributions like any other organization. As it is, they pay for their infrastructure, administration, buildings, marketing, and all manner of non-charitable activities with tax-free income. It’s the greatest racket in the world, just ask Scientologists.”

chrissetti wrote: “Perhaps a better solution, then would be to provide some sort of tax rebate for the charitable services they provide? Claim it all up front and then give back what is decided to be charitable?”

Ed S wrote: “I like the statement addressing the tax exempt status of religious organizations. Giving churches in my town a pass on property taxes means that my taxes are higher, so (indirectly) some portion of my tax dollars are being used to support these churches. It would probably be impossible to reverse that at this point in time, but just think what it would mean if the Catholic church, for example, had to pay taxes on the property value of the large cathedrals in city centers around the world. What that money could be used for…how the required contributions from the congregations to pay these taxes would impact their choice of whether to belong to organized religion…etc.”

TheBlackCat wrote: “I would add to this point: We support to the right of religious institutions to obtain tax-free status through normal channels, so long as they meet the same criteria and are subject to the same rules as secular organizations.”

Point 11: We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. [ix] We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Footnote [ix] Article 14 of Recommendation 1720 (2005) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Feedback on Point 11:

Bjorn Ostman wrote: “What do you mean by ‘rights’? Who are supposed to ensure those rights? Like the right to a secular education: if someone can’t afford school, who’s supposed to pay for it?”

OddThinking wrote: “I am not sure what “secular education” means. I wonder whether education that includes both secular parts (especially for the sciences) and non-secular parts should be acceptable. The rest, I am happy to agree with.”

Sunny Kalsi wrote: “For the “secular education” bit, remember they are talking about “the right to”. This means that a student, should they so choose, can have a schooling without any mention of any religious concepts. Having non-secular parts is compatible if someone can choose not to learn that, and no secular education is censored.”

MarkL wrote: “The statement supporting secular education for children is worth discussing. Do we support the right to education by religious instititutions? I suppose so, although personally I think that the practice of indoctrinating children is problematic. The issue of state control is going to be crucial for many of the fundamentalists. I strongly favor publicly funded education, which I believe is the backbone of healthy, productive society. At a minimum, one has to agree that the state will decertify schools which teach religious mythology instead of scientific fact in the science classroom.”

Sath wrote: “Without diverting too much into politics, I think that indoctrination by the religious when it comes to education is only one side of a very evil coin. Public education, while exceptional in most countries and many areas in the U.S., does tend to steer kids away from education and into vocational training in many areas. I’m not sure how rampant the problem is, but in MA, especially where I went to high school, the middle of the road students were practically herded like cattle out of normal classes and into Voc. Tech. Is it a bad thing? No, it’s a great opportunity for many people, but at the same time it is an institution more or less deciding for the child what he/she will or will not be allowed to do with their life. I really don’t approve of incidences such as above, revisionist history, or uncritical patriotic indoctrination any more than I approve of having jesus shoved down my throat.”

MarkL wrote: “As I understand it, kids in Europe are separated even more strongly into voc/college groups. I’m all in favor of recognizing and promoting careers that don’t require a college education, because a lot of people need those options, and don’t want to go to college at all.” Sath wrote: “I agree it can be fantastic in many cases. Keeps kids from dropping out, keeps them focused, etc. I just worry, from my own experiences, that not enough effort is being put into encouraging students to take an interest in learning and educating themselves because it is far easier to just push them down the path of least resistance.”

TheBlackCat wrote: “I would make several small changes to the last point (not bolded because they are scattered throughout): We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking, the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and the diversity of all types of beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and debate and the teaching of science free from religious interference. We are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.”

Lisa Bauer wrote: “I do have a serious question — would any of these proposals come into conflict with, for example, the UN Declaration of Human Rights or other such documents when it comes to “religious liberty”? I can imagine that a clause about being against “indoctrination” in education being a potential infringement of parents’ right to educate their children as they see fit (Article 26 of the UDHR).”

Adoption: Adopted by the conference, Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.

Feedback on adoption:

Kristjan Wager wrote: “Just to put some of the wording into context, I think it should explained how the the document came bout. The process was thus:
1) On the first day, there was a call for suggestions to the declaration.
2) On the second day, during the lunch break, people worked together to get these suggestions fused together into a draft
3) The draft was made available for attendees, who could comment on it
4) On the 3rd day, a final version was created, based upon the draft and the comment to it
5) There was a vote on the final version

All of this was done, while there was a conference going on. This, of course, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t criticize the wording, or that we shouldn’t reject, or rephrase, those arts of the declaration that we find problematic or objectionable.

Kristjan Wager wrote: “Oh, and regarding the claims that this declaration claims to be speaking for all atheists – It doesn’t even claim to speak for everyone present at the conference – TrineBM and I both demanded that they changed the phrasing “Adopted unanimously by the conference”, which was in the draft version, and we were probably not alone in this.”

General feedback:

Billy The Atheist wrote: “So how many American politicians would be willing to sign on to this?  Even part of it?  Atheists, nonreligious, freethinkers, rationalists and agnostics make up around 15% of America’s citizens.  I would hazard a guess that less than 1% of our elected representatives would agree with even a few of these rather common sense affirmations.”

Daddy Hogwash wrote: “While I consider myself more an agnostic, the secular principals of public life is a concern that I share. While most Americans would not agree with atheism in general, I do believe that upon reading the following declaration, most Americans would sympathize with much of the declaration.”

NW Ohio Skeptics wrote: “I concur with this statement 100%.”

Don Rogers wrote: “I’m no atheist, but this does make sense to me.”

Yewtree wrote: “I think this is an excellent document, but it does seem to be based on the idea that all religions are creedal and rule-based — so it’s very much religion seen through a Protestant lens.”

DoorQ wrote: “It’s a pretty good list, not perfect, but nothing ever is. As we continue to grow together as a planet and find our fates increasingly intertwined, this declaration tries to strike a balance between advancing the successful secular societies most of us live in with the protection of religious sensibilities many people practice.”

Russell Blackford wrote: “No one is being asked to sign this, which is just as well—I am reticent about signing things drafted by others. Still, I wouldn’t have too many quibbles about this one, and it’s a great document for discussion. (I can think of at least a couple of quibbles, off-hand, and maybe there’d be more if I really thought it through. But they’re not huge, and and as with other such documents, I’m not posting it for the sake of my quibbles but for info and discussion.)”

dbmittens wrote: “ I really, really like this and I look forward to hearing candidates in my country declare themselves for or against so that I can distinguish between pandering and principle.”

Seathanaich wrote: “Great manifesto. Wouldn’t it be nice to see nations start adopting this, and then international organisations?”

Seamus wrote: “Fascinating, but the cynic in me says “so what?” I say this because Australia and many other countries have signed various international conventions, none of which have any force in law. Even so- called international law can be flouted with impunity by most countries.”

Douglas Berger wrote: “I happen to agree with the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life 100%.”

TrineBM wrote: “I’m not in 100% agreement with everything on it, but it’s a fantastic beginning, and a good basis for discussions.”

OddThinking wrote: “In conclusion, I agree with the call for a greater separation of church and state, both in Australia, which seems to be doing fairly well, and globally. I agree with the call for non-belief, and the expression of that non-belief, to become legal everywhere in the world. I agree with the call to end discrimination against people due to their lack of belief, around the world. However, I think the pro-democracy, pro-libertarian biases of the attendees are showing through in this document. I don’t reject those calls – they play to the very biases I have had indoctrinated into me since I was a child – but they seem to be polluting the message here. If the goal of these people is to help people challenge the assumptions and biases they have about how a society could operate without theocratic leadership, then I suggest they also apply that to themselves. If they have reasoned arguments or good evidence to support that only a libertarian democracy, free of faith-based schools, can support the rights of atheists, then all of my objections here disappear; it falls back to my ignorance of these arguments, but I remain skeptical.”

Plowman wrote: “The declaration is rather aspirational and not very logical seeing that religion or even explicit lack thereof (the pointed declarations of a “World Atheist Conference”, for example) evidently cannot help but inform political opinion and policy. “

Lilith Saintcrow wrote: “I take this as a step forward. I have a close personal relationship with my gods, but I don’t like other peoples’ gods shoved down my throat, I do not require anyone else take my word for the existence of my gods, and I am still undecided on the question of whether or not gods actually objectively exist or are just psychological processes. (That’s reducing a complex ongoing philosophical argument I have with myself to a nutshell; I’m not going into all of it here. Suffice to say I think undecided is a good place to be when contemplating such questions.)

I consider the declaration a step forward. Secular societies have a better human-rights record than religious ones; organized religion is probably the most effective con game ever invented. I’m comfortable having my own religion/spirituality be just one of my many little personal quirks, rather like my preference for Havarti and my belief that mateless socks in the laundry are actually the larval form of wire clothes hangers. All in all, if one must believe in the unbelievable, I think that’s the healthiest route.”

cedgray wrote: “Does it need something to protect children from the fundamentalist views of their parents? See, for example, those cases where illness has been fatally treated with prayer. This will no doubt hinge on a reasonable definition of ‘abuse’, because you argue that bringing your child up to reject rationalism and science is endangering their future prospects of fully engaging in society.” Tony Jolley wrote: “I think it does need something like that added. Children are not property. Maybe it would be covered under the “freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others” part?”

Inajeep wrote: “Wow, talking about some conflicting statements. They don’t want special consideration for minorities in one statement and in the next reject discrimination which will and does occur. How exactly do you respect and criticize a religion?” Thomas Winwood wrote: “By not insulting them for being wrong in lieu of making reasonable arguments on the one hand and then not giving them special tax-exempt statuses or allowing them to break the laws of the land in the name of their religion on the other.”

MosesZD wrote: “Yesterday the Supreme Court struck down some religious intolerance here in America. Having read it, I think it’s a pretty solid ruling that addresses the real issues in the case and I’m all for the ruling as expressed in the majority opinion which is, basically: If you’re going to use taxpayer resources and student fees taken from people’s tuition, you’ve got to give them equal access to your club. Which is just common sense.”

bullofthewoods wrote: “The humanist manifesto,articles seven through eleven under the heading of democratic society seem to be addressing many of these issues more clearly than the Copenhagen Declaration.It is very well written,but that is just my opinion.”

Luis Diaz wrote: “The tribalism in here is rampant. It is BECAUSE I am an atheist that I don’t LIKE the document. And “names” are not “minor things” in politics, it’s like saying that constants are not important in physics. The big problem in here is that it’s an increasing trend clearly visible to anyone who cares, one of an increasing tendency of a *particular* political or ideological view of society and mankind to steal the word “atheism” for itself. This is akin to the idiocy of christians who, to be “real” christians, have to be right wingers. Likewise, secularism and humanism and certain views of society are *NOT* bound by atheism.”

Brian wrote: “Luis like it or hate it, there is a growing global atheist movement. This blog, the declaration being discussed, the Skeptics Guide to the Universe; all are rivers of thought streaming into a swelling atheist ocean of political will. Thus, a political movement is coalescing around anti-theism, skepticism and the demand that evidence inform policy decisions.”

Ibis3 wrote: “There are lots of problems with this document, and not just the “special treatment” clause. I don’t have time right now to pull it all apart, but really, it looks like someone just jotted this down on the back of an envelope without thinking it through and without an editor giving it a glance (no offence to participants–a committee declaration often looks like that).”

sandiseattle wrote: “I like it. Its a good start. Very neutral in its tone and so on. I’m sure some of the more militant Atheists will have problems with it. Really a sort of live and let live mentality seems to be the undertone. Not sure I agree with all of the statement but do like it.”

Larry Walberg wrote: “Very good points, very terribly written. Of course, those atheists are so reasonable that they don’t have to bother trying to make themselves clear. Or provide support for wild assertions.”

Yet Another Web Site wrote: “There’s a bit of irony in that religions tend to thrive in a secular society…”

jidashdee wrote: “Overall, I think it’s an excellent start. It could definitely benefit from some focus group work. Send a team into a meeting room with the single purpose of imagining themselves to be religious fundamentalists bent on finding loopholes and ways to intentionally misconstrue the language in the context of their belief systems. I think a few rounds of that would be quite helpful, not to mention fun.”

ajaypalster wrote: “This declaration is rather narrow in its focus, and paints religion(a social institution with a varied and considerable history and impact on life, after all) as the only problem we face. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the real problems we face are numerous from illiteracy(basic and scientific) to inequality, poverty, bad governance, unbridled corporatism, environmental destruction and yes theocractic-conservative socio-political movements, to name a few. The Neo-Humanist statement of secular principles and values, though a bit pompous, is a more pertinent one(It was mentioned by PZ, but only to kvetch abut minor things like accommodation of theists and liberal religionists). You can find it here: http://paulkurtz.net/Neo_Humanist%20Statement.pdf.

Zugswang wrote: “Plenty of people will jump on a lot of things in this declaration. They can nitpick all they want, but at the end of the day, this is a general set of guidelines. No intelligent person would look at this and hope for the answer to questions pertaining to specific situations. Like any good pragmatist, one considers each specific situation separately when making a decision. We shouldn’t have to significantly amend this in the vain hope of preventing some random jackoff from finding fault with it, because as we all know, they do a remarkably good job of selectively ignoring facts that don’t support their current worldview, anyway.”

Jason Streitfeld wrote: “All in all, there’s a lot to like in the declaration. I particularly appreciate the last two points, though I think the last one could have been fleshed out a bit more. Still, I’m not compelled to sign it. A few things give me misgivings. Ultimately, I would prefer a much simpler declaration. Still, I congratulate and thank the people who contributed for giving us something to chew on.”

Russell Blackford wrote: “I suppose if it had been me, I would have stopped much earlier. There’s no need in something like this to go into a lot of detailed issues on which there can be disagreement. It tends to make it look as if we are movement with a manifesto rather than that we just have a broad commitment to secularism (in the political sense). So, even though I agree with much that comes afterwards, I would have just said this (I’ve corrected one sentence for grammar/punctuation):

• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
• We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
• We assert that private conduct that respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.
• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all.”

Robert N Stephenson wrote: “This allows for an incorporated approach while removing aspect that will cause contention. It is simpler and direct while portraying the ideals in a fashion that would not cause concern to any involved. This would also be closer to UN understandings and acceptability:

• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only when those rights infringe on other rights.
• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reasonable assessment.
• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of secular based law.
• We assert that the most equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all.”

Wowbagger wrote: “Robert N Stephenson, you excluded from Russell’s list the rejection of using dogma to determine public policy and the right of people to conduct themselves in private as they wish without government interference. Why, exactly, did you omit those particular parts?”

Robert N Stephenson wrote: “The mention of dogma is the introduction of a negative into a positive statement position. It is clear in the formulation base the process to be used. To add dogma signifies something to be discussed where you don’t want it discussed at all. The other omission on reflection might have been a bit hasty, though it did, in a way have a repetitious feel about it. Though it is an idealists proposal, and nothing more, it is always better to be simpler than complex. What I have set about is very strong and supportive of the ideal. Also, Russell’s still stated a personal position, and in policy this can’t even be hinted at. Dry, I know, but that is how it works.”

Lisa Bauer wrote: “I do have a serious question — would any of these proposals come into conflict with, for example, the UN Declaration of Human Rights or other such documents when it comes to “religious liberty”? I can imagine that a clause about being against “indoctrination” in education being a potential infringement of parents’ right to educate their children as they see fit (Article 26 of the UDHR).”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life

The recent Gods and Politics conference in Copenhagen adopted the following Declaration on Religion in Public Life. The conference was the first European event of Atheist Alliance International, and was co-hosted by AAI and the Danish Atheist Society.

We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:

• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
• We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
• We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.
• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.
• We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
• We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.
• We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths.  We oppose state funding for faith schools.
• We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Adopted by the conference, Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.

Please circulate this as widely as you can among people and groups who advocate a secular society.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Roy Brown opens Copenhagen atheist conference

The first talk at the Copenhagen atheist conference was by Roy Brown, former president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, who argued that the history of Europe is the history of the fight of ordinary people against oppression by political and religious rulers.

He said that this oppression had been helped by money, which brings power and influence, and by the false belief that religion is benign and good. Religion used to be responsible for people being killed in Europe, and Christianity supported slavery and vilified Jews. Today, religion has a more subtle power, such as tax free status and special political treatment, including the diplomatic immunity and many concordats that the Vatican has with actual States.

Brown warned that Islamic institutions, largely funded by the Saudi Arabian regime, are infringing on human rights in Europe. He said that cultural relativism has led to European liberals allowing Muslim men to infringe on the human rights of Muslim women within Europe. These Muslims describe as discrimination against themselves what is in reality reasonable restrictions on their ability to discriminate against others. Brown warned that demographic changes could lead to islamic majorities in many inner cities in Europe in the near future.

He concluded with suggestions for political action, including zero tolerance of incitement to hatred, even if that hatred is religiously motivated; a clear distinction between the rights of human beings but not of ideas or beliefs, which cannot have rights; no public funding of faith schools and faith schools having to adhere to a national curriculum; reject self-censorship in the media; support Muslim dissidents who are campaigning for human rights; and secular states that are strictly neutral on religion as a first step towards complete separation of church and state.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Time for action on child sex abuse report

A year after the Ryan Report was published, we must not forget the decades of crimes it uncovered by Irish religious orders against children in their care. A new coalition of children’s groups is now calling for faster government action on the report. And two men are on hunger strike outside the palace of the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin seeking arrests and an international criminal investigation.

Between 1936 and 1970, about 170,000 children were sent to about fifty industrial schools, and were kept there for an average of seven years. The religious orders systematically abused the children in their care. They hit, beat, flogged and kicked children. They scalded and burned children and held them under water. They sexually molested and raped children. They told children they were worthless, and lied to them that their parents were dead. They left sick and injured children untreated. They neglected to provide children with basic standards of care, food and clothes. They shaved, beat and humiliated children who ran away and were caught.

The religious orders did all of this as a matter of policy, treating and beating children in similar ways in different schools. They wanted to create a climate of daily terror, with children not knowing where the next beating was coming from. They knew their behaviour was illegal: they reported abusive lay workers to the police, but protected priests, brothers and nuns. The Department of Education failed in its duty to inspect and monitor these schools. Despite knowing that violence was endemic, it saw its role as facilitating the religious orders.

The two men on hunger strike outside the Catholic Archbishop’s palace are John Ayres and Kevin Flanagan. John was physically abused and seriously beaten as a child, both by his parents and in institutions. Kevin’s brother Mickey was assaulted with a brush in Artane industrial school, suffering concussion and a broken arm, and was then locked in a shed for sixty hours and denied medical assistance.

The new coalition of eight groups who have come together to lobby the Government to carry out the Ryan Implementation plan are Barnardos, CARI, Children’s Rights Alliance, Irish Association of Young People in Care, ISPCC, One in Four, Rape Crisis Network of Ireland and the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. Here’s what they want the Irish Government to do:

• Ensure that a referendum to strengthen children’s rights in the Constitution is held;
• Speed up the legislation to place Children First on a statutory basis and widen its remit to include all organisations and individuals, including faith organisations, sports bodies and volunteer groups;
• Ensure children’s voices are heard in all matters affecting them. Develop the necessary legislative and policy framework to make statutory provision for the right of children’s voices to be heard in judicial proceedings affecting them;
• Introduce and progress the National Vetting Bureau Bill, ensuring that the Bill provides adequately for the sharing of information between relevant agencies;
• Ensure all children in care have an allocated social worker and care plan;
• Evaluate the National Children’s Strategy 2000-2010 and begin the consultation process in preparation for the development of the next Strategy;
• Provide the necessary funding to those providing support services to survivors of institutional child abuse;
• Amend the Child Care Act 1991 via the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2009 to place a statutory obligation on the State to provide aftercare for all children who need it and develop a comprehensive national aftercare policy;
• Ensure that separated children moving into care placements are provided with adequate supports to meet their specific needs. Ensure these children have access to aftercare services;
• Publish the promised national review of current practice in relation to Section 5 of the Child Care Act 1991 to establish current practices and gaps in the system for children experiencing homelessness;
• Commence the Health Act 2007 to allow independent inspection of foster carers and all children’s residential centres as a matter of urgency;
• Grant the Health Information and Quality Authority more independence and robust powers to enforce compliance with child care regulations, through a range of mechanisms, including penalties, sanctions and fines.

They have a website called Saving Childhood Ryan, which has a form that allows you to email your local TDs and Senators with a request for immediate action.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New blasphemous art exhibition opens in Dublin

A new art exhibition titled Blasphemous opened on Good Friday in the Irish Museum of Contemporary Art (IMOCA) in Lad Lane, off Baggott Street, Dublin 2. It’s the second art exhibition to highlight and challenge the new Irish blasphemy law, which became active on 1st January 2010.

Since then, the Irish Justice Minister has responded to the campaign against the law by saying that he will propose a referendum, later this year, to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution, thus enabling the blasphemy law to be repealed.

This makes the new exhibition in IMOCA not just a challenge to the blasphemy law, but also a celebration of artistic freedom, and freedom of expression generally. The exhibition runs until 25 April and is open from 12 noon to 5 pm every Friday, Saturday and Sunday, or by appointment through contacting IMOCA.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Pope’s letter protects church, not its victims

The Pope’s letter on child sexual abuse holds lessons for civic society.

What he writes to Catholics about religion is a matter between him and them. But the Catholic church also operates within civic society, acts as a quasi-State at the United Nations, and sends ambassadors to real States.

And the Pope’s letter includes assertions about secular society that are factually wrong.

Having read the full letter, the following seems clear:

1. The Pope’s main priority is to protect the church, not its victims
2. The Pope wrongly blames secularism for priests raping children
3. The Pope’s apologies are incomplete and his appeals are self-serving
4. The Pope’s “concrete initiatives” are a distraction not a solution
5. The Pope is evading the church’s responsibilities to civic society

1. The Pope’s main priority is to protect the church, not its victims

In a letter of close to five thousand words, the phrase “sexual abuse” appears only three times, and nowhere is it used as an active verb describing an action that Catholic priests have done to children. Instead it is twice described abstractly as “the problem of child sexual abuse”, and once passively as “the victims of child sexual abuse.” By contrast, the word “church” appears more than fifty times. Needless to say, the words “rape” and “cover-up” do not appear anywhere in the letter.

One of the three uses of the phrase “sexual abuse” is: “Since the time when the gravity and extent of the problem of child sexual abuse in Catholic institutions first began to be fully grasped, the church has done an immense amount of work in many parts of the world in order to address and remedy it.” This assertion is simply untrue. The Catholic church has known for centuries that some priests have been raping children, and they have known for centuries that raping children is gravely wrong, both as a sin in their religion and a crime in civic society.

The Pope does not even acknowledge (never mind apologise for) the Catholic church policy of bishops covering up the repeated rape of children by priests. Instead he refers euphemistically to “mistakes” made by bishops in responding to allegations, and he does not even include the Vatican or himself as making any of these “mistakes”. In using this evasive language, he is actually moving the church backwards from last December, when the Irish bishops admitted that the Murphy report indicated a widespread culture in the church of covering up child sexual abuse by priests.

In a statement issued during their December 2009 meeting in Maynooth, the Irish bishops said: “We are deeply shocked by the scale and depravity of abuse as described in the report. We are shamed by the extent to which child sexual abuse was covered up in the archdiocese of Dublin and recognise that this indicates a culture that was widespread in the church. The avoidance of scandal, the preservation of the reputations of individuals and of the church, took precedence over the safety and welfare of children. This should never have happened and must never be allowed to happen again. We humbly ask for forgiveness.”

Despite this explicit admission last December by the Irish bishops, the Pope’s pastoral letter begins with some subliminal hints of what concerns him most about this issue. In Section 1, the Pope writes: “I have been deeply disturbed by the information which has come to light regarding the abuse of children…” How much stronger that opening sentence would be if it simply read: “I have been deeply disturbed by the abuse of children…” How much stronger it would have been if he had then used the same type of language as the Irish bishops did last December.

Instead, in Section 2, the Pope writes that: “In order to recover from this grievous wound, the church in Ireland must first acknowledge before the Lord and before others the serious sins committed against defenceless children. Such an acknowledgement, accompanied by sincere sorrow for the damage caused to these victims and their families, must lead to a concerted effort to ensure the protection of children from similar crimes in the future.”

On the face if it, this looks commendable. But read it again for its nuances. The reason that sins against children must be acknowledged is to allow the church (not the victims) to recover from “this grievous wound”. It is only as a follow-up point that this must be accompanied by sorrow for the damage caused to the victims. If you parse the language throughout this letter, these same priorities are repeated again and again. The priority of this letter is to revitalise the Catholic church, not to pursue justice for or make reparation to its victims.

2. The Pope wrongly blames secularism for priests raping children

Section 3 is a brief potted history, from the Pope’s perspective, of Irish Catholicism and the impact of Irish Catholic missionaries on Europe and other continents. As an overview, he suggests that, for centuries, Irish clerics “dedicated their lives to Christ, sharing the gift of faith with others, and putting that faith into action in loving service of God and neighbour.”

In Section 4, the Pope asserts that this has all changed in recent decades, because of “new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid transformation and secularization of Irish society.” He writes that “fast-paced social change” has led to Irish Catholics going to confession less often and praying less often, and Irish priests “assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel.” This included “a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations.”

This, the Pope writes, is the “overall context” in which “we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the church and her teachings.” Look again at the nuances of this language. The pope is suggesting that secularization of society is the context in which we must understand priests raping children, which in turn weakens faith and respect for the church. This is self-serving nonsense. The reality is almost the exact opposite.

Catholic priests were raping children, and Catholic bishops and the Vatican were covering up these crimes, long before Irish society became more secular. What secularisation has done is empower the victims of these crimes to speak out about their experiences, and more importantly be heard and believed. And secularisation has helped to reveal the traditional methods used by the Catholic hierarchy to cover up these crimes, such as swearing children to secrecy and moving the criminals to another parish, diocese or country where they could rape more children.

The Pope then lists four specific factors that he says contributed to the problem. Three are within the control of the church: procedures for selecting priests; training in seminaries, and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties. Notably, he does not include as a factor the failure by bishops to report serious crimes to the police. And the Pope’s fourth contributory factor is “a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures”. But how could secularism possibly cause this tendency? In fact, it has done almost the exact opposite.

The Pope’s muddled and manifestly false claim about secularism is part of a pattern of the Catholic church denying responsibility for its own actions. Earlier this month the Vatican’s official exorcist (!) blamed “Satan at work in the Vatican” for priests raping children. And last September, the Vatican’s representative at the UN argued that child sexual abuse was common among Jews; that fewer than 5% of Catholic clergy were sex abusers; and that most of them are actually ephebophiles and not paedophiles, because they are attracted to adolescent males. This evasion has to stop. It is time the Catholic church stopped blaming others for its own crimes.

3. The Pope’s apologies are incomplete and his appeals are self-serving

In Section 5, the Pope writes that he has met with victims of sexual abuse, and is ready to do so again. He says that he has already asked the Irish bishops to establish the truth of what happened in the past, to prevent it from happening again, and to bring justice and healing to the victims of these crimes. He then introduces a series of paragraphs aimed directly at victims, their abusers, parents, children and young people, priests and religious, bishops and all the faithful in Ireland. None of these serves the purpose of bringing justice and healing to the victims of these crimes.

3(a) Victims and priests who abused them

In Section 6, the Pope finally addresses the victims of abuse and their families. He apologises for their suffering, but describes the abuse in the passive tense: “You have suffered… the wrong you have endured… your trust has been betrayed… your dignity has been violated…” He seems unable to bring himself to directly take responsibility for the church actively doing things. This would take the form of “We have caused you to suffer… we have betrayed your trust…” etc. The Pope then moves away from the real world by telling the victims that Jesus understands their pain because he too was a victim of injustice, but that the very wounds of Jesus broke the power of evil and people were reborn. He concludes that the victims can find peace “by drawing nearer to Christ and by participating in the life of his church.” Two points arise here: firstly, the Pope should have apologised to the victims at the start of the letter, not as point number 6. And secondly, the suggestion that they can best find peace, by participating in the church that is still covering up the crimes against them and other children around the world, is deeply offensive.

In Section 7, the Pope addresses priests and religious who have abused children. He says they have betrayed the trust placed in them by children, and “must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals.” He does not specify what the ambiguous phrase “properly constituted tribunals” means. He tells them they have done great damage to the church and the public perception of the priesthood. He says that Christ can forgive them for the gravest of sins, but that “God’s justice” demands they conceal nothing about their actions. He urges them to “openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God’s mercy.” Given that the preceding sentence refers to “God’s justice” it is unclear whether or not the “submitting yourselves to the demands of justice” means handing yourself in to the police and admitting your crimes.

3(b) Other Irish priests and Irish bishops

In Section 10, the Pope addresses the Irish priests and religious. He tells them that: “All of us are suffering as a result of the sins of our confreres who betrayed a sacred trust or failed to deal justly and responsibly with allegations of abuse.” Notably, the Pope does not include himself among those who “failed to deal justly and responsibly with allegations of abuse.” This is perhaps the most significant sentence in the letter, with a crucial point hidden away indirectly in the making of a different point. Because, until the Pope accepts that he bears ultimate responsibility for the cover-up of these crimes, both as Pope and in his former roles as Cardinal and Bishop, he will be unable to address this issue in the way that it needs to be addressed.

In Section 11, the Pope finally addresses his “brother bishops” in Ireland. This should really be Section 2, after the apology to the victims, which should be Section 1. In this Section, the Pope writes that some bishops “failed, at times grievously”, to apply canon law to the (presumably canon law) crime of child abuse. He adds that: “I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice.” This is complete nonsense. The “problem” was not at all complex. If you are aware that a man is repeatedly raping children, and you have even a minimally functioning moral compass, you know that this is a serious crime that you must report to the police.

The Pope then tells the Irish bishops: “Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence.” We can note here the order of priority: canon law first, civil authorities second, and civil authorities is qualified by the condescending phrase “in their area of competence.” The priority of canon law appears again the next sentence: bishops are to ensure that child safety laws be applied fully and impartially “in conformity with canon law.’ There is no parallel reference to “in conformity with civic law.” The pope then asks for “decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency,” but the stated purpose of this decisive action is not to bring about justice or reparation, but to restore the reputation of the church.

The Pope does not repeat to the bishops the things that he said to the priests whose crimes the bishops covered up. He does not tell the bishops that they have betrayed the trust placed in them by children, and “must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals.” He does not tell the bishops that “God’s justice” demands they conceal nothing about their actions. He does not tell the bishops to “openly acknowledge your guilt [and] submit yourselves to the demands of justice.” This is because the Pope sees “the problem of child sexual abuse” as being caused by individual priests, and he clearly does not accept the findings of independent inquiries that the church, on an institutional level, covered up these horrific crimes.

3(c) Parents, children and the faithful

In Sections 8 and 9, the Pope addresses parents and young people. He says that parents are in the first place responsible for bringing up their children, educating them in authentic moral values, and inspiring them with the truth of the Catholic faith. He says that parents should do this while the church “continues to implement the measures adopted in recent years to protect young people in parish and school environments.” And he tells children and young people to seek a personal relationship with Jesus within the church, because Jesus will never betray them. He concludes by asking young people to be faithful disciples in rebuilding and renewing the church.

In Section 12 and 13, the Pope addresses the Catholic faithful in Ireland. He again attacks “our increasingly secularised society, where even we Christians often find it difficult to speak of the transcendent dimension of our existence.” This is simply not true, and the Pope must know this. A secular society does not prevent people from speaking of any transcendent beliefs they may have. It simply prevents such beliefs from being the basis on which civic policy is formulated. The Pope then writes that, while “measures to deal justly with individual crimes are essential, on their own they are not enough.” as they must be augmented by a new vision based on following the commandments of the Gospel. The Pope concludes by saying that he is praying in solidarity with all of his brothers and sisters in Christ.

4. The Pope’s “concrete initiatives” are a distraction not a solution

In Section 14, by far the longest Section, the Pope proposes what he calls “some concrete initiatives to address the situation.” These initiatives turn out to be: asking all Irish Catholics to pray more often and go to confession more often for a period of one year; having an apostolic visitation of certain dioceses and seminaries in Ireland; having a Mission for Irish bishops and priests through the intercession of a 19th century French priest who preached total obedience to the hierarchy and who engaged in bodily mortification; and writing a new prayer for the church in Ireland. That is the sum total of the Pope’s “concrete initiatives”.

4(a) More prayer and more confession

The Pope’s first “concrete initiative” is to ask all Irish Catholics, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to devote their Friday penances to praying for “an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts and strength” upon the church in Ireland. He asks Irish Catholics to fast, pray, read scripture and do works of mercy for this specific purpose; to go to Confession more frequently; and to worship the Holy Eucharist outside of Mass. The Pope says that, by such intense prayer, all Irish Catholics “can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm”.

Let’s examine each aspect of this proposal. All Irish Catholics are asked to pray more often and intensely, not for the children who were raped by Catholic priests, but for a rebirth of the Catholic church in Ireland. They are asked to offer up works of mercy, not for the purpose of being merciful, but again for a rebirth of the Irish church. The Pope says that this, plus more Confession and more worship of the Eucharist, can “make reparation for the sins of abuse”. But why should all Irish Catholics be responsible for making reparation for priests raping children and bishops covering up those rapes?

This is not a concrete initiative at all, but an abstract appeal to all Irish Catholics to share the blame for the crimes of priests and the cover-ups of bishops. Scientific studies have shown that prayer does not impact on the natural world. The Pope’s proposed prayers have an arbitrary timetable of “a period of one year”, which coincidentally matches his arbitrary one-year offer of free plenary indulgences to Catholics who visited Lourdes during 2009. And the focus on worshiping the Holy Eucharist outside Mass highlights the most superstitious aspect of Catholic teaching.

4(b) An apostolic visitation and a mission

The Pope’s second “concrete initiative” is that Vatican officials will visit certain dioceses and seminaries and religious institutions in Ireland. The stated purpose is not to make reparation to children raped by priests, but “to assist the local church on her path to renewal.” The Pope’s third “concrete initiative” is that all Irish bishops, priests and religious should attend a nationwide Mission at which they could re-learn about their vocations and recent pontifical teachings. Here the Pope commends to Irish bishops and priests the example of Saint John Vianney, and says that the proposed Mission should operate through Vianney’s intercession.

So who is this model saint whose example the Pope commends to Irish bishops and priests? A Vatican encyclical by Pope John XXIII says that Vianney was “outstanding in the virtue of obedience… we are offering clerics this total obedience as a model… the effectiveness of any apostolate has constant and faithful obedience to the hierarchy as its solid foundation”. The same encyclical says that Vianney was “outstanding in a unique way in voluntary affliction of his body… this led him to abstain almost completely from food and from sleep [and] to carry out the harshest kinds of penances… he brought his body into subjection through voluntary mortification”. Is this type of fundamentalism really the foundation on which to revitalise the Irish Catholic church today?

The Pope concludes his letter with a prayer for the church in Ireland. He wants Irish Catholics to make use of this prayer in their families, parishes and communities. The prayer asks God to renew Irish Catholics in faith hope and charity. It asks Jesus to help the Catholic church in Ireland to educate young people in the way truth and goodness. It asks the Holy Spirit to inspire a new springtime of holiness and apostolic zeal in Ireland. It asks that the sorrow and tears of Irish catholics as they attempt to address past wrongs, should cause grace that will deepen the Catholic faith in Ireland. And it ends by entrusting to the Triune God “ourselves, our children, and the needs of the church in Ireland.” Nowhere in this prayer do the words victim, sexual abuse, rape, crime, cover-up or apology appear. Unsurprisingly, in tune with the overall tone of the letter, the prayer concludes by focusing on “the needs of the church”.

5. The Pope is evading the church’s responsibilities to civic society

Having read the full pastoral letter, the following seems clear:

1. The Pope’s main priority is to protect the church, not its victims
2. The Pope wrongly blames secularism for priests raping children
3. The Pope’s apologies are incomplete and his appeals are self-serving
4. The Pope’s “concrete initiatives” are a distraction not a solution
5. The Pope is evading the church’s responsibilities to civic society

All of the Pope’s proposed initiatives are a distraction from the types of initiatives that could really make a difference. These could include voluntarily acknowledging that the church is subject to the same democratic civic laws as the rest of us; openly accepting the findings of the various Irish enquiries; voluntarily acknowledging that the Catholic church at an institutional level has covered up crimes by priests against children; voluntarily making public all church files that victims wish to have public about these crimes and about the cover-up of these crimes; voluntarily selling church property to voluntarily compensate victims; voluntarily reporting to the police all priests who have committed crimes and all bishops who have covered up these crimes, and voluntarily pleading guilty to whatever crimes were committed.

The Pope may conclude his letter with a prayer, but his church continues to switch between being a religion when it suits them to being a State it suits them. The mechanism for this is its quasi-State in the Vatican City, which has none of the attributes of a State such as citizenry, territory and economy, but nevertheless sends ambassadors to real States and is treated almost like a real State by the United Nations. What the Catholic church does as a religion is its own business. But it is clearly still in deep denial about the impact of its behaviour on wider society, so the rest of us should recognise that in our interactions with this church.

The Irish DPP and police should take steps now to ensure that bishops who covered up serious crimes against children are brought before the law. The Irish Government should take steps to remove the influence of the Catholic church on our health and education system. In particular, the human rights of nonreligious parents to have a secular education system should be vindicated in every area of the country. The Government should review its relations with the Catholic church’s quasi-State in the Vatican City. The Government should seek to have the United Nations treat the Catholic church like any other religion, by listening to it as a nongovernmental organisation, and not by treating it as a quasi-State.

If the Catholic church will not voluntarily face up to its responsibilities within civic society, then the institutions of State must ensure that it does so. And we the people should lobby our politicians to make this happen sooner rather than later.

Photo: Pope Benedict by Roblisameehan (cc)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Ahern proposes referendum on blasphemy

Atheist Ireland welcomes the statement from Dermot Ahern, the Irish Justice Minister, that he is proposing a referendum this Autumn to remove the offence of blasphemy from the Irish Constitution, along with two other referendums that the government is already committed to.

The Minister has told the Sunday Times that “I was only doing my duty” in bringing in the new blasphemy law, and that “there was an incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet.”

Atheist Ireland thanks everyone who has helped to make the campaign against this new law as effective as it has been to date. It is now important we maintain the pressure on this issue to ensure that the referendum happens as proposed and, more importantly, that it is won.

We reiterate our position that this law is both silly and dangerous: silly because it is introducing medieval canon law offence into a modern plularist republic; and dangerous because it incentives religious outrage and because its wording has already been adopted by Islamic States as part of their campaign to make blasphemy a crime internationally.

The following is the text of the article in today’s Sunday Times:

Ahern proposes a referendum on scrapping blasphemy law

Dermot Ahern, the justice minister, is proposing that a vote to remove the criminal offence of blasphemy be held as part of a planned series of referendums this autumn, writes Stephen O’Brien.

Ahern, who was criticised for increasing the fine for blasphemy to €25,000 last year, said he never regarded the provision in the new Defamation Bill as anything more than a short-term solution.

“There was a lot of nonsense about that blasphemy issue and people making me out to be a complete right-winger at the time,” he said. “There was an incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet. I was only doing my duty in relation to it, because clearly it is in the constitution. The attorney general said ‘there is this absolute, mandatory thing… it is an offence, punishable by law.”

A final decision on a blasphemy referendum rests with the cabinet, but if Ahern remains justice minister after this month’s reshuffle, he is likely to propose that it be added to the autumn list. The government is already committed to referendums on children’s rights and establishing a permanent court of civil appeal.

The plebiscites are expected to take place in October, on the same day as the a vote for a new directly elected mayor of Dublin, and three Dail by-elections in Donegal South-West, Dublin South and Waterford.

“I said [last year] that I didn’t want a wasteful standalone referendum on blasphemy in the middle of an economic crisis,” said Ahern. “My preference was to reform [the blasphemy provision] in the short term and to have a referendum in the medium term when it could be bundled with a number of others.”

A defamation bill was already in preparation when Ahern became justice minister in May 2008.

Ahern then said he had three options: to abandon the bill; to hold a single-issue referendum to remove the constitutional reference to blasphemy; or to update the references in the 1961 Defamation Act.

Opting for reform, he said he had removed the seven-year jail sentence from the old legislation.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The case for a secular education system

This is the second in a series of articles on secular education and human rights law. The first article is here.

Secular schools are neither religious nor atheist

There are two reasons why State schools should be run on a secular basis. But first, it is important to explain that a secular school is not the same thing as an atheist school.

A religious school teaches that a god exists, an atheist school would teach that no gods exist, and a secular school is neutral on the question of religion: it does not teach that gods either do or do not exist.

Instead, a secular school teaches children in a neutral, objective way about the different beliefs that different people have about gods, and leaves it up to parents and churches to teach specific religious beliefs outside of school hours.

As a symbolic example, a recent European court case ruled that Italian schools should not display crucifixes on classroom walls. But removing the crucifixes would not turn the school into an atheist school: that would require replacing the crucifixes with signs saying that there is no god. A classroom wall with no religious symbols of any type would symbolise a secular school.

Secular schools are good for society

That said, here are the two reasons why State schools should be run on a secular basis.

Firstly, it is good for society for children to be educated together. We in Ireland can see from the recent history of Northern Ireland how separate schooling contributed to the problems of children understanding and respecting each other across religious divides.

Secular schools bring children together. They teach them the normal subjects that have a basis in scientific fact, like mathematics and languages and history and critical thinking. They teach them about different religious beliefs and help them to understand other beliefs and respect other people.

And, outside of school hours, the children’s parents and churches can teach them more about their own specific beliefs about the nature of reality and personal morality.

Secular schools respect human rights

Secondly, in practical terms, secular schools are the only way to ensure that everybody has their human rights respected with regard to education.

Under international human rights law, parents have a right to have their children educated in a way that is consistent with their religious or philosophical beliefs. I will outline in a later article the reasons why this is so.

At a minimum, this means that schools should not indoctrinate children with religious beliefs that conflict with those of their parents.

In theory, this could be done by having schools based on every religious view and atheism, and to have enough of these schools spread around the country so that, in practice, each child can attend one suitable to their circumstances.

In practice, this impossible to do. There is simply not enough money to provide so many schools, and even if there was it would be an administrative nightmare.

So that leaves the other option: have secular schools that are neutral with regard to religious beliefs, as I have described above. This option respects the human rights of all children equally. That is what a fair and just society would do.

The case for secular education

Combine both reasons, and the argument is clear. Secular schools are good for society, because they help children to understand differences and respect other people; and secular schools are the only way in practice to respect the human rights of all of our parents and children.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Secular education and human rights law

Parents and children have a right to a secular education under international human rights law. This is the first in a series of posts outlining the issues involved.

International Human Rights Treaties

What are the main international human rights treaties? Founded in the aftermath of World War Two, the United Nations soon adopted the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was later strengthened by two legally binding treaties: the 1976 International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Together, these three UN documents became known as the International Bill of Human Rights. By then Europe in 1950 and America in 1969 had already adopted regional human rights treaties, followed later by Africa in 1981. Islamic states signed a rival treaty in Cairo in 1990 based on Sharia law, which limits rather than protects many human rights. The UN has also brokered other treaties dealing with specific human rights issues including children, women, race, genocide, slavery and torture. So today, thanks to an ongoing process first triggered by the horrors of World War Two, many but not all people have someplace to turn to if their own State denies them their human rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration is built on the principle that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. You have the right to life, liberty and security of person; to not be enslaved or tortured; to be held equal before the law; to not be arbitrarily arrested; to be presumed innocent until found guilty by a fair trial; to have your privacy and reputation protected; to have a nationality and to move freely between countries, including asylum from persecution; to marry and to own property; to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, expression and peaceful assembly; to democratic government based on free and fair elections; to fairly paid work, rest and leisure, social security and a basic standard of living; to health and education, including free elementary education; to take part in the cultural life of your community; and to have all of these rights protected by law, and only limited to protect the rights of others.

International Covenants on Human Rights

Over 160 States have ratified the two main UN treaties that give these rights the force of law (about seventy more have signed but not yet ratified them). Under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States must respect and ensure the rights to life, liberty and security of person, equality and procedural fairness in law, individual liberties and political participation. And under the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, States must take steps, to the maximum of their available resources, to progressively realise the rights to work, social security, family life, an adequate standard of living, health and education, and participation in cultural life. States can also sign optional protocols to these treaties, to abolish the death penalty or to allow individual citizens to complain directly about violations of either treaty. The treaties are monitored by UN Committees that regularly consider compliance reports from States, and sometimes consider complaints from individuals.

European Treaties on Human Rights

Two separate alliances of European States also protect human rights. The Council of Europe, which includes 47 States, runs the European Court of Human Rights. This Court enforces the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, as well as other treaties on specific human rights issues. Individual citizens can take a case to this Court, once they have exhausted domestic avenues, and the Court has the power to award them damages. The Court gives some leeway, called a margin of appreciation, to individual States in deciding how to protect and respect human rights.  And the European Union, which includes 27 States, runs the European Court of Justice. This Court enforces the Charter of Fundamental Rights which became law as part of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. This Charter is binding on all EU institutions, as well as to member States when they are implementing EU law. While the Council of Europe and the European Union are separate bodies, they work together to promote European integration.

Secular Education and Human Rights Law

All of these treaties include clauses that balance the right to education with the right to freedom of religion and conscience. I will outline the clauses, and the test cases that have flowed from them, in a later post.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

European Lawyer journal debates blasphemy law

In the current edition of The European Lawyer magazine, I argue against the new Irish blasphemy law and Thomas Byrne TD of the Oireachtas Justice Committee argues in favour of it. I am publishing the text of both articles here, and I will analyse the arguments made by Thomas Byrne TD in a separate post.

(The European Lawyer is the leading monthly magazine for the legal profession across Europe. Its subscribers – predominately senior private practice and in-house lawyers – are based in jurisdictions across the European continent as well as the UK and North America.)

This is the argument for the law:

Necessary modernisation

Thomas Byrne TD is a solicitor and a member of the Oireachtas Justice Committee

Long awaited reform and modernisation of defamation law in Ireland has unfortunately been overshadowed by ill informed and somewhat hysterical campaigning over the arcane issue of blasphemy libel.

The Defamation Act 2009 came into operation at the beginning of this year and introduces a modern statutory framework, providing for:

• comprehensive reform;
• statutory expression to developments in the jurisprudence of Irish courts, and elsewhere, including the European Court of Human Rights;
• respect for the necessary balance between the competing rights of freedom of expression (article 40.6.1 of the Irish Constitution) and of respect for ones good name and reputation. (article 40.3).

In completing the reform and modernisation of defamation law, the Minister for Justice had to consider the provision on blasphemous libel contained in section 13 of the old Defamation Act 1961. That section provided for the offence to be punishable by monetary and prison penalties (a term of up to two years’ imprisonment was possible). The section gave expression to article 40.6.1.i. of the Constitution, which is its only criminal offence provision, stating: ‘The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.’

This issue has onlv come to prominence in the context of the reform of Ireland’s defamation legislation. The minister had previously explained in some detail, both before the Oireachtas (the parliament) and in the media, the position in relation to the constitutional obligation involved here.

The Irish government was required to respect the provision of our constitution. Successive attorneys general advised that until the constitution is amended, by referendum of the Irish people, it is necessary that blasphemous libel remain a crime and that legislation must make provision for sanctions for this crime. Thus, to proceed with the reform of defamation law, it was necessary to address this issue.

At the Dail (the lower house of parliament) committee stage examination of the Defamation Bill last May, Justice Minister Dermot Ahern made it clear that (we as legislators do not have the luxury of pursuing a do-nothing approach while we wait for an opportune moment to move a constitutional amendment’. He set out all the relevant elements involved and drew particular attention to the nature of the constitutional obligation imposed.

The government’s preference, which I believe was widely supported, was to proceed with reform of defamation legislation rather than postpone it to await a possible referendum on blasphemous libel. I have expressed the hope that sanctions in regard to blasphemous libel will be little, if ever, a point of issue in the future. This was the case in the past under the provisions of the previous Defamation Act of 1961.

It is important to understand, despite claims to the contrary, that the provisions in the Defamation Act 2009 are not designed for the protection or promotion of any particular religion. I received no representations from any particular religion in regard to the drafting of those provisions.

Despite the criticism directed towards Mr Ahern by some, as a minister he is not in a position to advise anyone as to any potential breach of the law nor to offer a view as to any possible prosecution. Prosecution of criminal offences in Ireland is a matter solely for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions.

I hope that we will not have to wait a long time before a suitable occasion arises to put a proposal to the Irish people to delete the reference to blasphemy from our constitution. This course of action was proposed by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in July 2008, which suggested that we might avail of any appropriate opportunity in the future.

However, I am not necessarily convinced that a referendum needs to be held as a matter of urgency, given the other serious challenges facing our country. I should also point out that one should not anticipate a positive result in a referendum.

And this is the argument against the law:

Blaspheme and be damned

Michael Nugent is an Irish writer and chairperson of the advocacy group Atheist Ireland.

Why has the Irish Government introduced a medieval canon law offence into the criminal law of a modern pluralist democratic republic? Officially, it is because blasphemy is an offence under the Irish Constitution. But in 1999, the Supreme Court had found that the existing law was unenforceable, as blasphemy was not defined. However, between 1996 and 2008, four Constitution Review Committees had called for the deletion of religious references, including blasphemy, from the Constitution.

And in 2008, the Venice Commission, the body that advises the Council of Europe on constitutional matters, recommended that incitement to hatred, including religious hatred, should be a crime; that insult to religious feelings should not be a crime; and that the offence of blasphemy should be abolished (which is already the case in most European States) and should not be reintroduced.

In this context, nobody in Ireland expected the offence of blasphemy to survive the recent updating of the Defamation Act which contained it. The Justice Minister had three options: to leave the law as it was, to seek a referendum to remove blasphemy from the Constitution, or to make the law enforceable by defining blasphemy. He chose the third option. And so, for the first time, Ireland now has an enforceable blasphemy law.

This new law is both dangerous and silly. It incentivises religious outrage by making it the first test of blasphemy, in a Europe where cartoons or novels can trigger such harmful behaviour. The new law also treats religious beliefs as more valuable than secular, scientific or political beliefs. But the criminal law should protect people from harm, not ideas from criticism. In any case, we should be removing 1930s religious references from our Constitution, not legislating to enforce them. For example, you cannot become President or a Judge in Ireland without taking a religious oath.

Even if the Minister felt obliged to bring in a blasphemy law, he was certainly not obliged to bring in this particular one. It is too vague to enable citizens to regulate their conduct, and is discriminatory in its ambiguities. For example, what is “a substantial number of adherents” of a religion? If it is an actual number, it discriminates against smaller religions. If it is a proportion, it discriminates against larger religions.

In 2007, the English High Court held that it was the prevention of imminent public disorder that made the old English blasphemy law compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. But “causing outrage” is a far lower hurdle than the risk of public disorder. If the Irish Supreme Court were to use the same criteria as the English High Court, it could find this law unconstitutional.

The new law also discriminates against atheists. In 1999, the Irish Supreme Court said the old common law of blasphemy would have to be adapted to the circumstances of a modern State which guarantees freedom of conscience and of religion. The new law attempts to do this by redefining blasphemy as protection from outrage and extending such protection to citizens of any religion. However, it arbitrarily excludes such protection from citizens whose fundamental belief system is based on no religion.

Under political pressure, the Minister reduced the fine from €100,000 to €25,000 and introduced some safeguards that merely add more problems. The ‘genuine value’ defence shifts the burden of proof to the defendant in a criminal trial. And the exclusion of so-called ‘cults’ from being classified as religions is an arbitrary interference in the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and from discrimination.

The Minister just doesn’t get it. The problem with a blasphemy law in a modern republic is its existence, not its detail. On the day it became operational, Atheist Ireland published 25 blasphemous statements on our website. If we are prosecuted, we will challenge the constitutionality of the law. If we are not prosecuted, it strengthens the political case for the repeal of a law that serves no purpose.

Worryingly, this law is also harmful outside Ireland. In recent years, Islamic States have been trying to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level. Ireland has voted with our fellow EU States against this concept. Now Pakistan, on behalf of the Islamic States, has adopted the wording of the new Irish law to advance their agenda at UN level. This silly and dangerous Irish law will eventually be repealed. For everybody’s sake and for the reputation of Ireland, this should happen sooner rather than later.

As mentioned earlier, I will analyse the arguments made by Thomas Byrne TD in a separate post.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Hot Press tackles blasphemy law

Hot Press magazine has published a comprehensive feature on the new Irish blasphemy law. In it, Valerie Flynn argues that, in truth, Ireland’s ludicrous new blasphemy laws are no laughing matter and, what’s worse, there is now a move to get others to copy us!

2010: Yeah, it sounds like the future, but my hover skateboard and phaser gun seem to have gone missing! Instead, out here on the farthest, weirdest edge of Europe, we’re keeping things nice and retro in this sci-fi sounding year by reintroducing some Middle Ages-style blasphemy laws.

To quote: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000. He or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.”

Hot Press asked Michael Nugent, of campaigning secularist group Atheist Ireland, what he thinks of this absurd new addition to the Irish statute book.

“Well, there are two categories of concern. One is that it’s a silly law,” says Nugent. “Blasphemy is a theological concept and it shouldn’t have any place in the criminal law of a pluralistic country. When there are a number of religions it doesn’t make sense – any one religion’s stated beliefs are blasphemous to another religion’s stated beliefs.”

For example: in 2006 Pope Benedict XVI quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor – and caused quite a bit of offence – when he said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman.”

On January 1, Atheist Ireland marked the introduction of the new law by publishing this sentence on their website – one of 25 (arguably) ‘blasphemous’ quotations thus enshrined. Also on the list was “Actually, I’m a bit gay” – that one from ‘Jesus’ in Jerry Springer: The Opera. A law that criminalises that kind of joke sounds like a joke itself. But Irish Independent cartoonist Aongus Collins reckons there’s a real and serious dimension to the blasphemy law when it comes to freedom of speech.

Here’s why: the maximum fine for blaspheming is €25,000. The only possible defence, under the terms of the law, is that “a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.”

According to Collins: “The problem is that you have to defend yourself in court. A national broadcaster or a national newspaper will have a libel fund. But a small book publisher or a small magazine could be literally bankrupted because legal costs are so high in Ireland. What it does is that any small publisher of, say, [militant atheist] Richard Dawkins in Ireland would have to go to a barrister before publishing. It is intended to have a chilling effect on free speech.”

Collins believes that for non-mainstream publishers – bloggers, freelance journalists, left-field magazines, smaller or radical publishing houses – the new law, with its hefty fine, will be a meaningful and material inhibition to freedom of expression.

“I work for the Irish Independent, the Irish Times and the [Sunday] Tribune, but I got started working in smaller magazines like In Dublin. In the 1980s, I did a few cartoons that were a bit close to the bone in terms of the Catholic Church. I didn’t think twice in my 20s or 30s – but I would now. A small magazine would have to decide if it can afford to go to court.”

Another disturbing aspect of this law, and one that has been very much under-reported since the Bill was first announced last year, is the powers given to the Gardaí. Where a garda has reason to believe that copies of a “blasphemous statement” are to be found at a premises – including a dwelling – he or she is authorised, “if necessary by the use of reasonable force… to seize and remove any copies.”

“I’m a cartoonist and it’s very easy to offend, for example, Islam,” Aongus says. “The definition of blasphemy is so subjective. It’s carte blanche for some religious extremist to make a complaint to the guards. If they make a complaint, the guards can enter a business premises or even enter your house and grab all copies of this statement. So they could take your PC.”

For many Irish people, the blasphemy law seems like a depressingly familiar throwback to the days when Monty Python’s Life of Brian was banned. That’s not so far from living memory, kids – 1987 to be precise. But Michael Nugent believes we shouldn’t just look at this law just in the context of our own, fairly miserable, history of censorship and of the cultural dominance of the church. We should pay close attention to the international implications.

“At the UN for the last 10 years, the Islamic countries have been trying to make defamation of religion a crime and the western states, including Ireland, are opposing those attempts. But now they have the opportunity to say, ‘Here’s one of your own countries doing this’,” says Nugent.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – the collective body representing Muslim states – has already adopted the wording of Ireland’s blasphemy law for the purposes of lobbying the UN General Assembly to introduce an international treaty criminalising defamation of religion. Now there is a contribution to the campaign for Freedom of Ideas!

So you’re probably wondering why in the name of god (oops – blasphemy?) this law was enacted? It’s a bit of a mystery. Before news of the blasphemy Bill came out last year, Foreign Affairs Minister Mícheál Martin had been actively opposing the OIC’s attempts to have blasphemy declared a crime. Surprisingly, there is no evidence to suggest that the Catholic Church lobbied for this new law. Neither did the Protestant churches, nor the Islamic community in Ireland – although the latter subsequently welcomed it.

The official line from Justice Minister Dermot Ahern (he wasn’t available for interview) seems to be that his hands were tied: previously, blasphemy was prohibited by the Constitution but there was no corresponding crime on the statute books.

Fianna Fáil TD Seán Connick, convenor of the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, told Hot Press the Government had a choice between a referendum on the blasphemy provision in the Constitution and reform of the existing law. It was the Minister’s choice, and he went down the road of ‘reform’. Too much is being “read into” this piece of legislation, he added.

Connick denies the blasphemy law will stifle free speech, using as a (slightly mystifying) example, last year’s pseudo-scandal, Portraitgate – when a nudey picture of the Taoiseach was hung on the wall of the National Gallery. But RTÉ was pressurised into issuing a full apology for reporting that story. “What one person finds humorous, another person might find offensive,” responds Connick.

Words of wisdom indeed – which underline very well the dangerous side to this blasphemy law.

By all accounts, Dermot Ahern is highly conservative. He (in)famously spoke against the de-criminalisation of homosexuality in the Dáil in 1993 (“We have a duty to legislate for the standards and norms which we regard as appropriate for the Irish people.”) In light of this, some observers have speculated that the influence of hardcore Catholic organisation Opus Dei within the public service might have been a factor behind the blasphemy law. We are unlikely to find out.

Whatever the impetus, it’s pretty clear that anyone publishing or broadcasting in Ireland on the topic of religion is going to have this law at the back of their mind. Michael Nugent says most media organisations have shied away from printing the exact words of Atheist Ireland’s 25 ‘blasphemous’ quotations. And Hot Press has already spoken to one frequent participant on RTÉ’s The Panel, who said he was reminded to be aware of the new law – even before it was enacted on January 1.

So far, one month and two weeks into 2010, no one has yet been prosecuted yet for ‘grossly offending’ Jesus, Allah, Yahweh or any other deity. As they say in the clearly aberrant and thoroughly blasphemous Life of Brian: “Always look on the bright side of life.”

This article appeared in the Feb 3-24 print edition of Hot Press magazine. It is is online, along with further analysis of the blasphemy law, on the Hot Press website.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New version of Angelus on RTE

RTE, Ireland’s public service broadcaster, schedules the Angelus at 6 pm every day before the main evening news. This week it has revised it to keep the bells, but to include less overtly Roman Catholic images.

However, this merely subsumes non-denominational or even secular images into a specifically Roman Catholic call to prayer. If they are going to do that, here’s an alternative version that I much prefer:

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Christian church promotes gay rights

A Christian Church in Texas has launched a public billboard campaign in support of gay rights.

The slogan is Would Jesus Discriminate? and it is run by five of the worldwide Metropolitan Community Churches. And the Rev Dr Cindi Love has published a book of the same title.

I believe that atheist and humanist groups should be working with religious groups like these to promote an ethical and secular society.

The billboards will be displayed in north Texas throughout September, and their use of scripture has already been challenged by other Texas Christians. One local baptist Pastor, Sam Dennis, while agreeing that Christians shouldn’t hate gay people, told CBS: “I’m hard pressed to find that scripture advocates that it’s alright to live in a gay lifestyle.”

Bizarrely, he felt the need to add: “Just like I’m hard pressed to find that scripture advocates that’s it’s alright to live in an adulterous relationship or as a wife abuser or as a murderer.” So that’s the collective category in which Rev Dennis places gay people in his mind: alongside adulterers, wife abusers and murderers.

The first Metropolitan Community Church was founded in 1968 in Los Angeles, as the world’s first church group with a primary, positive ministry to gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender persons. The Churches now have over 40,000 members in 22 countries.

The Would Jesus Discriminate? campaign is organised in several American States as well as in the UK and Australia. You can download campaign materials from their website.

The campaign asks Christians to consider, “What if we are wrong about the issue of gay people’s place in society and in our churches? What if we offered them full citizenship and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How would our country improve if we simply stopped oppressing at least ten percent of our best and brightest people?”

The Metropolitan Community Churches also support initiatives like next year’s Soulforce Q Equality Ride in which young adults travel around America to illuminate the damaging consequences of discriminatory religious doctrine through non-violent resistance.

And here is a speech by Rev Candy Holmes, a lesbian clergywoman with Metropolitan Community Churches, giving testimony to a US Congress Committee in support of domestic partnership benefits and obligations.

My question is, what are the possibilities for formal campaigns on secular and equality issues, organised jointly by atheist and humanist groups and Christian groups like these? What are the advantages and disadvantages? How could such campaigns work in practice?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mass card law protects sale of magic

The Irish Times today published this letter from Atheist Ireland.

Madam, – From September 1st, the Charities Act 2009 has been offering State protection to the Roman Catholic Church, and only this one church, to sell Mass cards (Home News, September 1st). The legality of this Act is being challenged in the High Court, but for a reason that turns ethics upside down.

It is not being challenged to prevent people from selling claims of intercession with the creator of the universe to bereaved and vulnerable people. Instead, it is being challenged to allow a wider number of people to sell such unverifiable claims.

Such thinking exists in the realm of magic and superstition. It is like last year’s special offer by the Pope that, if you visited Lourdes during 2008, you would get a free “plenary indulgence” which would get you early release from a place called Purgatory after you die, and get you sooner to another place called Heaven.

In any other field of regulation, it would be seen as fraudulent to persuade sick or bereaved people to part with money in return for prayers or plenary indulgences. And the underlying purpose of a Charities Act is surely to protect vulnerable people, not to exploit them.

Atheist Ireland is a new advocacy group for an ethical and secular Ireland, free from superstition and supernaturalism, where the State does not support or give special treatment to any religion. 

– Yours, etc,
Michael Nugent,
Chairperson,
Atheist Ireland

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »