Dublin Declaration on Religion in Public Life - opinions welcome

Michael Nugent

This weekend, June 3-5, the World Atheist Convention will take place in Dublin. On Sunday we will discuss and adopt the Dublin Declaration on Religion in Public Life. This will be a follow-up to the Copenhagen Declaration that was adopted at last year’s convention in Denmark.

We will discuss two alternative formats for the Dublin Declaration. The first is an adaptation of the Copenhagen Declaration that addresses some ambiguities that existed within it, and the second is a rewrite from scratch proposed by Richard Green of Atheism UK.

You can read both drafts here:

Dublin Declaration on Religion in Public Life – opinions welcome

Whether or not you are attending the Convention, we would be happy to hear your opinions, including suggestions for improving either version. If you comment on this post, we will try to incorporate your comments into the discussion of the Declaration.

drkpower

First one is far better than the second. The second talks far too much of 'must nots' rather than positively asserting the merits of a public life without religon.

The second one will be gobbled up by those who want to paint atheism/secularism in a negative light (but perhaps that is the aim of the game).

Dades

What drkpower said.

Turtwig

First draft is miles better than the second, imo.

Don't like this line.

Public policy should be formed by applying reason to evidence.

As everyone has different impressions of what constitutes evidence and reason I'd suggest a subtle rewording along the lines of any issues to be discussed should be discussed in a manner such that all parties involved can understand. I'm thinking along the lines of this Obama speech in the US.
"Democracy demands that the religious motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion specific values."
Also Don't like this.

Children should be educated in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge.

Distinction between faith and reason implies one is superior to the other. That may be the case, but to our achieve our goals there is no need to take a higher ground. How about,critical thinking and rational deduction? Leave out the whole bit on faith and reason. Not necessary, imo.

Also might I suggest one more addition?
The concept of marriages, funerals etc. are not exclusively religious affairs.

Either I'm understanding it wrong, or the following has a mistake in its phrasing:

Draft B, 2. Secular State, (3)

"State Institutions must not include members of any Religion because of their membership of it."

That comes across as very discriminatory from my interpretation. It says, to me, that "State Institutions must not include members of any Religion". Surely you mean something along the lines of:

"State Institutions must not discriminate against members of any particular Religion. The inclusion or exclusion of an individual in a State Institution must not have any basis on that individual's beliefs in or affiliations with any particular Religion."

strobe

This is probably not the kind of thing you are looking for but...

A 1. (c) Freedom of expression should be limited only as prescribed in international law. All blasphemy laws should be repealed.

I presume the "international law" referred to is article 19 of the ICCPR (3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals."

Yeah, the UN can go fukk themselves with article 19 subsection 3 basically. Freedom of expression doesn't count if the state thinks what I am saying will corrupt peoples morals? Will endanger national security or public order?

"Women shouldn't be punished for having sex out of wedlock".

"Shut your mouth you filthy heathen, stop trying to corrupt our great peoples morals!! Allah Akbar!

"I'm afraid we will have to shut this website down sir. National security you understand. Can't have you getting the proles all riled up now can we?"

...and another thing! :mad:

Wait... what was the question?

I like Declaration A slightly better too, but I did like the 'Definitions' part of Dec. B. Good idea considering how often what atheists say is deliberately mis-defined/misinterpreted by that other shower.

legspin

gvn wrote: »

Either I'm understanding it wrong, or the following has a mistake in its phrasing:

Draft B, 2. Secular State, (3)

"State Institutions must not include members of any Religion because of their membership of it."

That comes across as very discriminatory from my interpretation. It says, to me, that "State Institutions must not include members of any Religion". Surely you mean something along the lines of:

"State Institutions must not discriminate against members of any particular Religion. The inclusion or exclusion of an individual in a State Institution must not have any basis on that individual's beliefs in or affiliations with any particular Religion."

No, you have the meaning wrong.
No state institution is allowed to appoint anyone because of their religion. ie your religion will never be the reason you are appointed to anything state run. It will not dis-bar you but it won't help you either.

strobe

gvn wrote: »

Either I'm understanding it wrong, or the following has a mistake in its phrasing:

Draft B, 2. Secular State, (3)

"State Institutions must not include members of any Religion because of their membership of it."

That comes across as very discriminatory from my interpretation. It says, to me, that "State Institutions must not include members of any Religion". Surely you mean something along the lines of:

"State Institutions must not discriminate against members of any particular Religion. The inclusion or exclusion of an individual in a State Institution must not have any basis on that individual's beliefs in or affiliations with any particular Religion."

Yeah I'd agree with that. I'm sure they mean the second thing you posted but it could do with being worded a bit differently for clarities sake.

legspin

legspin wrote: »

No, you have the meaning wrong.
No state institution is allowed to appoint anyone because of their religion. ie your religion will never be the reason you are appointed to anything state run. It will not dis-bar you but it won't help you either.

Yeah, I understand that it says that. It's just a little too ambiguous for my liking. It can easily be interpreted in different ways, simply because it's very badly phrased.