International Atheists declare church/state principles

04SCTLS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
7
Location
Lockport
International atheists declare church/state principles
Posted by DTStrain at 6/30/2010 10:01 AM CDT


The Black Diamond building in Copenhagen. Host to the
Royal Danish Library and the AAI conference.​


The Atheist Alliance International (AAI) is an organization founded in 1992, with about 50 member organizations from 15 nations. AAI held its conference this month in Copenhagen, Denmark. The conference was on Gods & Politics, looking at the issue of religion and government and challenges facing non-believers. It hosted a wide range of speakers, including Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Dan Barker, PZ Myers, and one of my favorites, author A.C. Grayling who wrote Meditations for the Humanist.
One result of the conference was the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life. The declaration was as follows:

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:
  • We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief[1], 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.[2]
  • We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.[3]
  • History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.[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.[4]
  • We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.[5]
  • 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[6]. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.[7]
  • 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[8].
  • 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[9]. 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.
[a PDF of the declaration can be downloaded here]


NOTES

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

[2] 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

[3] The Brussels Declaration 2007.

[4] 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.

[5] The State should neither punish nor favor any group for any reason

[6] Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

[7] Recommendation 1805 (2007) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

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

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

Special thanks to Humanists of Houston President Roxie Deaton, who first informed me of this news, through an article at Atheist Ireland.

_______________________________________________________________

I'm an Agnostic but this all sounds pretty libertarian to me.
Positively Jeffersonian. 2 thumbs up!

The question is are secular societies the most successful and by what measure.
All the religious theocrasies seem pretty repulsive to our(my) values.
Foss, you call youself a libertarian,
Comment?
 
Since the very essence of atheism is negativity, the idea of people getting together because of what they DON'T believe seems amusing.

I guess it makes some sense for them to try to put a positive spin on things.

KS
 
Maybe they're looking for a tax break? Is atheism the 'gay marriage' of religion? :D
 
Since the very essence of atheism is negativity, the idea of people getting together because of what they DON'T believe seems amusing.

I guess it makes some sense for them to try to put a positive spin on things.

KS

How do you figure it is a negative thing?

Maybe they're looking for a tax break? Is atheism the 'gay marriage' of religion? :D

Why can't everyone else be as corrupt as the church?

Also, care to explain your metaphor?
 
Nah, only the simple minded don't get it.

Ad hominem attack.

Lets see....

Atheism is to Religion as Gay marriage is to marriage.

So atheism is illegal because of fear mongering religious zealots?
no I doubt you would have used this metaphor in this context

Atheism is feared by uneducated rednecks?
kinda.... then again, I don't know if you are a redneck...

The church would love to hang you for practicing atheism?
getting warmer, you certainly express this view from time to time...

Atheism is against the churches view of the world and the bible says it is wrong, therefore it is wrong.
This is probably what you were trying to say, right?:D
 
...or, atheism can be viewed as a non-religious religion (anti-religion?) just as gay marriage can be viewed as non-marriage marriage (anti-marriage?).

And before you start wondering about the gay marriage thing, that has been discussed previously on this forum (again some of the longer threads; like the Darwin threads). Please check those for possibile answers before questioning the whole marriage thing here.
 
...or, atheism can be viewed as a non-religious religion (anti-religion?) just as gay marriage can be viewed as non-marriage marriage (anti-marriage?).

And before you start wondering about the gay marriage thing, that has been discussed previously on this forum (again some of the longer threads; like the Darwin threads). Please check those for possibile answers before questioning the whole marriage thing here.

I'm aware that gay marriage has been discussed before.

However, I am unfamiliar with your premise that gay marriage is a non-marriage marriage, and how that is different from my assumption that he was saying atheism is wrong because the bible says so as gay marriage is wrong because the bible says so? Also, once again, it is not my responsibility to find justification for the statements or opinions of others. If you do not wish to justify your statement or opinion, then either it should not be stated, or if you feel it is justifiable on its own merit, then let it stand on its own instead of doing like some would do and resorting to cheap insults like, "Nah, only the simple minded don't get it." Which by the way, comes with a funny bit of irony, considering this is a thread about atheism, and one of the ideas of atheism is that religion is a shelter for the weak-minded..... but I digress.


Anyways, on the subject of marriage, marriage wasn't even a principle that came from religion. People just became accustomed to having their religion back their marriages because religion was the most powerful entity, therefore no one could dispute a persons marriage since there was an authority behind said marriage. Therefore, accepting religious definitions of marriage are silly anyways.
 
Ad hominem attack.
Why do you automatically assume I was calling you simple minded? Paranoid much? But hey, if the shoe fits...:rolleyes:

And how was your 'corrupt church' comment not an ad hominem attack?

Lets see....

Atheism is to Religion as Gay marriage is to marriage.

So atheism is illegal because of fear mongering religious zealots?
no I doubt you would have used this metaphor in this context

Atheism is feared by uneducated rednecks?
kinda.... then again, I don't know if you are a redneck...

The church would love to hang you for practicing atheism?
getting warmer, you certainly express this view from time to time...

Atheism is against the churches view of the world and the bible says it is wrong, therefore it is wrong.
This is probably what you were trying to say, right?:D
If you're going to skim posts without reading them in their entirety, then it is likely you will miss the point. I made a reference to tax breaks. I thought even the most rudimentary intellect could see what I was getting at. I find it hard to believe that you were interested enough in my point to actually want to know what it meant, so it's more likely that you were being deliberately obtuse. Of course, in saying that I might be giving you more intellectual credit than you deserve. :rolleyes:

Why don't you just clear it up for the rest of us: Were you being deliberately or truly obtuse?
 
English-Greek lesson

How do you figure it is a negative thing?


Gee, I guess it's just because an 'a' prefix means, roughly, 'not'. 'Not'-something is usually looked on as being a negative or denial of the something.

It's standard English language usage, even if it has Greek roots.

KS
 
Why do you automatically assume I was calling you simple minded? Paranoid much? But hey, if the shoe fits...:rolleyes:

hmmm, context

And how was your 'corrupt church' comment not an ad hominem attack?

Are you aware of what ad hominem means?

If you're going to skim posts without reading them in their entirety, then it is likely you will miss the point. I made a reference to tax breaks.

And I made the joke that if the church can have it, why not everyone else.

I thought even the most rudimentary intellect could see what I was getting at. I find it hard to believe that you were interested enough in my point to actually want to know what it meant, so it's more likely that you were being deliberately obtuse. Of course, in saying that I might be giving you more intellectual credit than you deserve. :rolleyes:

..... huh? Do you have any idea what you are saying?

Why don't you just clear it up for the rest of us: Were you being deliberately or truly obtuse?

Neither.
 
Gee, I guess it's just because an 'a' prefix means, roughly, 'not'. 'Not'-something is usually looked on as being a negative or denial of the something.

It's standard English language usage, even if it has Greek roots.

KS

But, looking at it in another light, one may consider religion a weakness or a crutch, so in that context reliance on religion may be considered a negative thing. Would you consider being not dead a negative thing? Not having a disease implies you are lacking a disease, but this is not generally considered a negative statement.
 
However, I am unfamiliar with your premise that gay marriage is a non-marriage marriage, and how that is different from my assumption that he was saying atheism is wrong because the bible says so as gay marriage is wrong because the bible says so?

Marriage has traditionally been understood to serve a specific purpose; the procreation and raising of children.

By that understanding, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron because it takes something that is not a marriage and says it is a marriage.

Does that explain the rationale better?
 
Marriage has traditionally been understood to serve a specific purpose; the procreation and raising of children.

By that understanding, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron because it takes something that is not a marriage and says it is a marriage.

Does that explain the rationale better?

I'm not really for or against gay marriage, but there are some positive side effects. If we outlaw abortion, then there will be a lot more children put up for adoption. Gay couples usually wind up adopting children. I'm not sure of the exact statistics, but it sounds pretty plausible to me.
 
I'm not really for or against gay marriage, but there are some positive side effects. If we outlaw abortion, then there will be a lot more children put up for adoption. Gay couples usually wind up adopting children. I'm not sure of the exact statistics, but it sounds pretty plausible to me.

It is a real interesting issue (I actually did a stats project on it last year). Personally, I am waiting to be convinced in favor of gay marriage. All I tend to get from most proponents of gay marriage is moral posturing, condescension, indignation, etc. Not a very credible argument.

You raise a good point, but that discussion opens up a whole new can of worms in the gay adoption issue. Are there any other positive side effects outside of the abortion issue that you see?
 
Marriage has traditionally been understood to serve a specific purpose; the procreation and raising of children.

By that understanding, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron because it takes something that is not a marriage and says it is a marriage.

Does that explain the rationale better?

Marriage certainly does generally serve that purpose, but to take that logic would leave every childless couple in a false marriage as well.

The purpose of marriage in the past was to join two people, which usually served as a means of bridging the gap between families, tribes or nations. Procreation and raising children, while it did increase that bond, was secondary.

Since marriage is so multi-purpose, to limit a definition based upon one facet of marriage would be foolhardy at best. I would generally prefer to define marriage as a "permanent" (This sounds strange coming from me since I just finalized my second divorce) union of two people based in mutual understanding, love and respect.

Does this help you see why I am at odds with that rational?
 
Exceptions don't disprove the rule, though. Just because some couples end up in a childless marriage does not mean that marriage is not primarily for the purpose of child rearing.

As to the whole "bridging the gap" thing, I don't really see that as separate. It can serve that purpose separate from child rearing, but it generally serves that purpose to further child rearing; giving the children a support structure of a family beyond the simply mother/father dynamic (grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins, etc.).

Marriage does serve a multitude of functions. Many (if not most) of those functions cannot even be articulated. However, the institution of marriage has evolved to serve society on a number of levels. While certain specific marriages my primarily serve one function in isolation, most marriages main function seems to be child rearing as a foundation of a civil society.
 
Exceptions don't disprove the rule, though. Just because some couples end up in a childless marriage does not mean that marriage is not primarily for the purpose of child rearing.

As to the whole "bridging the gap" thing, I don't really see that as separate. It can serve that purpose separate from child rearing, but it generally serves that purpose to further child rearing; giving the children a support structure of a family beyond the simply mother/father dynamic (grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins, etc.).

Marriage does serve a multitude of functions. Many (if not most) of those functions cannot even be articulated. However, the institution of marriage has evolved to serve society on a number of levels. While certain specific marriages my primarily serve one function in isolation, most marriages main function seems to be child rearing as a foundation of a civil society.

Then in that case, wouldn't gay marriage still be marriage, since, despite the fact that they are the exception to the reproductive purpose of marriage, they fulfill the other purposes of marriage? You said it yourself, exceptions do not disprove the rule. Gay marriage in this instance is no different than heterosexual childless marriage.
 
It is a real interesting issue (I actually did a stats project on it last year). Personally, I am waiting to be convinced in favor of gay marriage. All I tend to get from most proponents of gay marriage is moral posturing, condescension, indignation, etc. Not a very credible argument.

You raise a good point, but that discussion opens up a whole new can of worms in the gay adoption issue. Are there any other positive side effects outside of the abortion issue that you see?

Can't really think of any off of the top of my head, but then again I don't give it much thought.
 
Language Lesson, Continued...

But, looking at it in another light, one may consider religion a weakness or a crutch, so in that context reliance on religion may be considered a negative thing. Would you consider being not dead a negative thing? Not having a disease implies you are lacking a disease, but this is not generally considered a negative statement.

I don't care what 'light' you use, 'a'-theism is the negative of 'theism'. Your very label is negative. Atheists have chosen to define themselves by what they aren't. Hence my original comment.

Your feckless attempts at spin are amusing at best.

KS
 
I don't care what 'light' you use, 'a'-theism is the negative of 'theism'. Your very label is negative. Atheists have chosen to define themselves by what they aren't. Hence my original comment.

Your feckless attempts at spin are amusing at best.

KS

oooh touchy
 
Then in that case, wouldn't gay marriage still be marriage, since, despite the fact that they are the exception to the reproductive purpose of marriage, they fulfill the other purposes of marriage? You said it yourself, exceptions do not disprove the rule. Gay marriage in this instance is no different than heterosexual childless marriage.

No so much. The gay community is expecting nothing less then a legal redefinition of marriage to accommodate them. That is more then simply an "exception", it is an attempt to change the rule and engage in social engineering by forcing certain moral views on society that, at every turn, American society rejects.
 

Members online

Back
Top