Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life

[trotsky]

* 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.

From the 2010 World Atheist Conference (http://www.atheist.ie/2010/06/copenhagen-declaration-on-religion-in-public-life/)

[niyad]

1. and counting down. . . . .

[Silent3]

2. Love it.

That went straight to my Facebook page. :)

[darkstar3]

3. Who wants to start a pool on when the Stalin parrot will arrive?

History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
That's almost like the "Shave and a haircut" bit from Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

[loudsue]

4. As it should be.

It's time religion was taken out of government altogether.

[TZ]

5. Some countries actually almost do this.

Australia comes to mind here. I guess those Aussies are just religion hating commies...

[ironbark]

11. It is a matter of clear historical record

That every pissant nation and fly speck island gets a turn at top dog number 1 global EMPIRE status.

Three things will categorize Empire Oz.

1/ We won’t recognize it was our turn until 50-100 years after the event.
2/ We won’t care when we do realise.
3/ Our sole religion…laying on the beach and drinking beer will be globally enforced.

“tax-free status” is currently under examination in Oz parliament through a Bill from Independent Senator Nick Zenaphon who is seeking a Parliamentary enquiry into the abuses of Scientology.

All up…..I like and support the Copenhagen Declaration.

[struggle4progress]

6. I completely agree with almost all of that. But I laughed out loud

at "We ... oppose charitable, tax-free status .. for .. any religion" because


1. "The conference was the first European event of Atheist Alliance International" http://www.atheist.ie/2010/06/copenhagen-declaration-on-religion-in-public-life/
and
2. "the activists of Atheist Alliance ... are making atheism audible, visible and intellectually irresistible" http://www.atheistalliance.org/index.php/Donate.html
and
3. "Atheist Alliance International is registered in the United States as a 501(c)3 nonprofit, educational organization. Donations to AAI are tax deductible for U.S. taxpayers." http://www.atheistalliance.org/index.php/Donate.html


Thems happy to have nonprofit status for themselfs to promote atheism but is angry at nonprofit status for churches?

:rofl:

C'mon guys. Yer killin me here

:rofl:

[darkstar3]

7. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

It is entirely possible to take advantage of a taxation loophole while working to close it. In fact, when the opposing side to your views and actions is taking advantage of said loophole and using the money they gain from it to fight your cause, it becomes prudent.

I'm reminded of a West Wing episode. Bruno Gianelli (sp?) tells the Bartlett staff that it's laudable to be against soft money, and that if the team gets elected they could do something about soft money, but that it's also stupid to run a campaign with deliberately less money than your opponent because you refused to do something that's perfectly legal right now.

I guess the point I'm making is that sometimes there is a fine but very distinct line between hypocrisy and pragmatism.

(I'd also like to point out that using 501c3 in a manner that many politicians would find appalling is a great way to get something done about that loophole.)

[trotsky]

9. Churches enjoy privileges above and beyond most charitable organizations.

:rofl: on you.

It is perfectly consistent to oppose the tax rewards for divisive, harmful religions but be in favor of them for charities and educational organizations.

[DeSwiss]

8. Wonderful. Well, almost.

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 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.

K&R

Thank you.

[trotsky]

10. What I believe is meant by that...

is that no Catholic church could be forced to hire a Rabbi as a priest. Etc.