OddThinking

[Update: Turns out the document I was reading wasn’t a true copy of the original source, and it omitted some clarifying footnotes. Discovering this didn’t totally wipe out my original complaints, but does make them far less powerful. I guess this is a good thing, but I am dismayed to have learned this after posting, it means this post wasn’t worth posting.]

So, it appears that OddThinking Editorial Policy, at least for the time being, is not to take sides with one religious belief or another, or the absense of one but to promote the separation of church and state.

Similarly, the editorial policy is not to generally not take sides with one political belief or another, but to promote the use of reason in the political sphere. (I may have strayed once or twice when politicians have offended me.) This extends past political parties to the whole political system. Part of the justification for this policy is ignorance. I am aware that, while I am not pro-communist/pro-anarchist/pro-dictatorship, my reasons for this are from growing up in a democratic society, with constant pro-democracy propaganda and culture. I haven’t given other forms of government sufficient consideration to justify my default position. (Aside, of course, from being pro-dictatorship, when I am the dictator.) Hey, I appreciate all the rights and advantages that people tell me that democracy gives me. Thanks! I just haven’t looked very hard at the claims that only democracy would give me these rights, that only democracy can lead to “successful” societies, and that capitalism and democracy are an inseparable pair, so I don’t feel comfortable weighing in on the subject.

Keep all this in mind, as you consider how I reacted to this:

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.

Okay, so part of the fight of the politically-motivated atheists is to promote the separation of church and state, and to challenge people to overcome some of the biases that they have inherited, without thinking, from their grandparents’ times. I read on with interest.

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.

Nice start. They aren’t trying to say everyone should be an atheist, which is good.

• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

I have to agree with the first part. Rejecting dogma is important, but feels like an emotive term to me; is that just me?

• 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.

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?

And what is that second sentence doing there? It is a non-sequitur, it is meaningless without a definition of “successful”, and a citation to some evidence for the claim is desperately needed!

[Update: The original did have a footnote here, just not the version I was reading. The footnote states:

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.

That means that, yes, they have explained 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. This undermines some of my argument below, dammit! Nice one, AAI, how to pull the wind from a guy’s sails….]

• 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.

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.

• We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

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?

• 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.

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

• 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.

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.

• 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.

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.

• 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.

I have no comment here, except to point out that 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.)

• 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.

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.

• 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.

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.

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.