Atheist rights

Hank Fox at Unscrewing the Inscrutable has posted an Atheist Declaration of Rights. With two minor changes I reprint it below the fold.

Nonreligious Declaration of Rights

1. Freedom from Fear and Hate:

In every part of a secular society, the nonreligious have the right to live free of fear for their personal safety, their homes, pets and possessions. The nonreligious have the right to be safe from public hate speech and vilification.

2. Freedom of Speech:

The nonreligious have the right to freely speak of atheism in public, or to publicly display characteristic messages or symbols, without fear of repercussion, in the same degree that religious speakers enjoy.

3. Equal Time:

The nonreligious have the right to equal time with religious voices on any public issue. They have the right to equal and open airing of their convictions, views and concerns, and to participate in any public discussion of morality, ethics or social issues, to the exact degree that religious voices are invited to speak. The nonreligious have the right to equal time to respond, on any stage or medium, anytime non-religiousness is covered in a negative light. The nonreligious have the right to equal access to media in order to weigh in on science, medicine, social policy, political campaigns, etc., and to receive respect equal to that given religious voices.

4. Equal Rights:

The nonreligious have equal rights in the work environment, in voting, in running for public office, in serving on juries or any other public or social/civic duty. The nonreligious have the right to be free from religious discrimination in the seeking of housing or jobs.

The nonreligious have the right to join any civic or educational organization that people of religion can join, without discrimination.

Nonreligious organizations have the right to public resources, information or publicity on an equal basis with religious groups. Nonreligious organizations aimed at good works have a right to the same sort of tax advantages that religious organizations have.

The nonreligious have the right to decline to take part in religious ceremonies, and to refuse religious oaths, without fear of reprisal or disenfranchisement. Nonreligious soldiers have the right to claim conscientious objector status on an equal footing with those of any religious persuasion.

5. Equal Representation:

The nonreligious have the right as taxpayers to know that tax money intended for public works and charities is not diverted to bolster the coffers or support the sectarian message of any church or religious group. The nonreligious have the right to government free of religious influence, schools free of religious coercion, and courthouses free of religious oaths.

6. Religious Freedom:

The nonreligious, like all citizens, have the right to be free of religious proselytizing in captive public environments such as schools, courthouses, and public sporting events.

All people, including minor teens, have the right to express religious preferences – including atheism – different from any historic religious tradition without fear of reprisal from family, social or political group, tribe, church, or government.

7. Family Integrity:

Nonreligious parents have the right to expect that their children will be safe from harassment and prejudice when away from home. They have the right to expect that their children will not be singled out for ridicule or aggressive religious proselytizing.

The nonreligious and their children have the right to freedom from religious proselytizing, baptizing, involuntary conversion practices or invasive medical procedures in any venue such as hospitals, emergency medical or senior care facilities.

The nonreligious have the right to NOT have their words or deeds rewritten after their deaths through stories of deathbed conversions.

8. Scientific Integrity:

The nonreligious, like all citizens, have the right to expect that publicly-funded scientific research is carried out by scientific principles rather than religious ones, and that medical research and decisions should be informed by science and reason rather than religion.

What were the two minor changes? Well Hank's version mentioned only America. As a non-American I would like to suggest these rights pertain in any secular society, and indeed in any society that strives to become secular to avoid religious and sectarian violence.

The other is to replace the term "Atheist" and "Atheists" with "Nonreligious". Otherwise we end up treating atheism as a positive ideology with a standing equivalent to the various theisms, and disenfranchising agnostics. I trust Hank won't mind much

More like this

wow.
You mean as a nonreligious scientist I can't already take these things for granted? Well, I sort of knew that. Having had the typical British university experience in which on encounters a large number of evangelical religious groups, it immediately becomes apparent that nonreligious people are believed be different than religious people. Indeed, many assumptions were made on the basis of religion - ultimately it was implied that one would not act in a moral manner if one was not a member of certain religious groups. Some of those people went on to become close friends, I think we educated each other, but it scares me that people feel that the above should be put in writing. (I would agree with some of the comments on the original post - these should be rights for anyone regardless of religion, race, gender or anything).

The nonreligious have the right to join any civic or educational organization that people of religion can join, without discrimination.

I think this one has to be thought through. OK, the Anglican Church abides by this, but some other denominations might be a bit wary.

Bob

Well, if the Anglican Church is acting as an educational or civic institution, then it has no right to exclude others. Few denominations do this. But if they are civic/educational institutions, then they ought to either be inclusive or stick to their last...

Okay, most of it looks good (though I haven't a clue how you enforce a "right" not to have people say you convered just before you died) but this one:

The nonreligious have the right to equal time with religious voices on any public issue. They have the right to equal and open airing of their convictions, views and concerns, and to participate in any public discussion of morality, ethics or social issues, to the exact degree that religious voices are invited to speak.

... is at least potentially a problem, depending on what you mean by "equal." In my country the nonreligious (depending on how it is defined) is about 20% of the population. To require that that 20% be given literally equal time in the media, in debates in government and other public forums is actually to give them greater rights than the religious. Never mind what kind of slippery slope you get on with that sort of portioning out of public attention ... why shouldn't Judaism, being both a religion and an ethnicity (sort of) get equal time with Christianity? And us agnostics should definitely get equal time with those loud-mouthed atheists!

The other is to replace the term "Atheist" and "Atheists" with "Nonreligious".

Good call, considering one can be atheistic without being non-religious.

One of the things which the religious right in America has been pushing is a form of religious training in prison - typically by the more evangelical churches - in exchange for reduced sentences or better prison conditions.

Here are a few stories on it:

http://www.au.org/site/PageNavigator/search?cx=015092546853082832047%3A…

This might not seem important, but in essence, the non-religious or the religious of other denominations are being penalized if they do not subject themselves to indoctrination by what are largely fundamentalist churches.

More on topic, I think the list is a good idea in terms of helping to make people aware of the ways in which the religious freedom of the non-religious is infringed upon. However, when it comes down to the actual arguments, in essays or elsewhere, I would recommend phrasing things in terms of abstract principles which are applcable to everyone. In the United States, for example, atheists constitute a minority of perhaps five percent, and it is always easier for a minority to defend their rights by appealing to and defending the rights of all.

By Timothy Chase (not verified) on 15 Apr 2007 #permalink

..The other is to replace the term "Atheist" and "Atheists" with "Nonreligious". Otherwise we end up treating atheism as a positive ideology with a standing equivalent to the various theisms, and disenfranchising agnostics.

Why would it disenfranchise Agnostics?
Agnostics can be religious, non-religious, ignostic, apatheist etc

By Chris' Wills (not verified) on 16 Apr 2007 #permalink

I'd add the right to declare oneself a moral individual; this is often denied to atheists (ok, non-religious) by religious people (in my experience, this is usually in their first sentence after I proclaim my non-faith).

By dileffante (not verified) on 17 Apr 2007 #permalink

Me: "No, I don't believe in God."
Theist who shall remain nameless: "Ya know, if I didn't believe in God, I'd be out rapin' little girls, 'cause, ya know, who's to stop ya?"
Me: "You know little girls have feelings too, and you know they'd be terribly hurt. That would be enough to stop you."
Theist who shall remain nameless: "I guess ya gotta point there."