 Make a donation
of $12 or more and you get a t-shirt!
|
Get News & Event Updates
|
Suggested Links
| Public Policy Positions |
|
Minnesota Atheists' Public Policy Positions
Prologue The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is the foundation of the political policies of Minnesota Atheists: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
We further endorse the three-pronged test established in the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman Supreme Court case:
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
We are committed in support of secular government at every level, and oppose every government preference for religion.
We actively support the rights of all individuals under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. We recognize that if government is ever permitted to define religious orthodoxy, that power will surely be wielded against us. We recognize, however, that government may properly restrict practices of religion that may be harmful to others or endanger public safety. Free Exercise should also not be interpreted to entitle individuals to exemption from laws with a secular purpose that are uniformly applied in nonreligious cases. Such exemptions violate government neutrality towards religion.
On other questions of government policy, we support objective application of consequential reasoning, and oppose arguments, whether from the left or right, based upon superstition, religious values and cultural identity based on religious history. We will speak out to oppose the intrusion of religion into public policy debate. Laws must have a secular purpose and justification.
We recognize that a significant, organized and consistent threat to secular government in the United States is posed by politically intrusive religious groups, exemplified by the conservative Christian movement. Minnesota Atheists addresses particular effort to opposing the political agenda of these religious groups. The salient objectives of this political movement have been opposition to reproductive rights such as abortion and birth control; opposition to the legal rights of homosexuals, such as civil marriage and non-discrimination in employment; and the introduction of religious teaching and advocacy in the public education curriculum, such as Intelligent Design, Creationism and abstinence-only sex education.
Minnesota Atheists opposes these religious arguments. We hold that public policy decisions should instead address benefit to society and the rights of individual autonomy. We are a politically diverse community that welcomes as members everyone who opposes religious thinking in public policy, and who advocates consequentially for policies that promote the public good.
Government Entanglement with Religion
Government endorsement of religion Minnesota Atheists is committed to rigorous adherence to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." As this principle has been extended to all branches of government by the 14th Amendment, and interpreted by court decisions, it guarantees that government may not prefer one religion over another, nor religion over non-religion.
Display of religious symbols on public property: Opponents of the Establishment Clause work to create symbolic government endorsement of their religion by placing religious symbols prominently on public property. Most common among these displays are Ten Commandments monuments and Christmas nativity scenes. While we believe that these displays should always be considered an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, courts have ruled that they are permissible as part of a larger display of diverse content, as long as its history has shown that it has not created the perception that it is an endorsement of religion.
We believe that these displays should be challenged whenever compliance to this standard of diverse content is in question. Responses to be considered include litigation, if a plaintiff can be found. Then we may work with groups that specialize in First Amendment cases, such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or even religious groups that also support the Establishment Clause. Alternately, we may offer a comparable secular monument to create content balance.
Prayer at government sessions: The Supreme Court of the United States has given the federal and state legislatures the right to open their sessions with prayer, and prayer has generally been permitted at City Council meetings. Minnesota Atheists holds that in fact the practice is a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause, but that if it is permitted it must be non-sectarian and non-denominational. It should be compatible with the views of the entire community, including the nonreligious. The presiding celebrant should be rotated among organizations representing the diverse beliefs of the community. If a representative of Minnesota Atheists should ever have an opportunity to provide the invocation for a government meeting, the invocation should be respectful of the body and its members, and appeal for sound judgment and to universal values such as justice and human rights.
Government funding of church-based programs: Minnesota Atheists supports the blanket prohibition against payment to any religious society as stated in Article 1, Section 16 of the Minnesota State Constitution: "... nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries." We oppose also federal funding of social welfare programs that are run by church-based organizations, and would like the courts to recommit to the standards of the Lemon Test. Even if government funds are strictly segregated so that none go directly to religious activities, the tax-paid subsidy permits the organization to divert other funds away from the social program.
We therefore call for closing the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. We are also opposed to all earmarks for religious societies in funding bills, and call for whatever action is needed to provide legal standing to affected taxpayers to litigate against establishment clause violations.
Threats to Secular Government A core policy concern of Minnesota Atheists is to secure secular government from the superstitions, prejudices and dogma of religion. The most acute threat around the world is from a global network of religiously inspired paramilitary cells.
Religious insurrection can never be defeated by bullets, because there will always be more of the faithful ready to take up arms. Paramilitary groups can only exist when they have support in their communities. Victory in this war depends much less on the action of armies than the contest of beliefs and values. Armies can never win the clash of cultures, though they will have occasional, limited roles.
Around the world, perceived insults to their religion have incited immigrant communities to violent rioting. The response to these problems must be not only in police actions, but also in cultural outreach. It is crucial that countries that have adopted secular values do not compromise them. We cannot abandon our commitment to equality and justice, or condone religious discrimination, and not be recognized as hypocrites. Neither can we yield on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We must not succumb to the self-censorship that silences legitimate criticism of religion for fear of violent retaliation.
Religious Law In nations where law is dictated by religion we find severe human rights violations (particularly against women and the GLBT community); legal suppression of non-believers (including criminalizing apostasy); and religious indoctrination that masquerades as education. This clearly demonstrates that secular government leads to a higher quality of life and greater equality.
We must strive to strengthen the world's commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Especially we have to oppose the efforts in the United Nations to have defamation of religion recognized as an international crime.
Taxation of Churches and other nonprofit Corporations
This discussion should be viewed in the context of our country's history that surrounds the writing and enforcement of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." When we read the principles expressed in this statement, how should we view the taxation of religious property? It is a question that has a long history in our government debate. We will separate our position into two areas of taxation: income and property.
Income: IRS tax exempt status provides churches an exemption from income taxes and allows donors to claim a deduction for funds they donate. Currently, without much review, the IRS gives most religions nonprofit status upon application. The church, however, gives up its right to participate in partisan politics and must not endorse candidates for public office. Secular nonprofits have similar restrictions, although the application and filing process is more in-depth, requires filing an IRS 990 tax form, and provides for annual review of financial statements. Time and again churches violate the requirement to stay out of politics. We call for the IRS to step up enforcement of violations and for all nonprofits to be held to the same standard of reporting.
Property: Today most church property is exempt from taxation. Some states tax church property that is used to generate income, and some do not. Secular nonprofit holdings have a similar exemption but must meet more requirements, while some states that exempt churches from property taxes do not exempt the properties of secular nonprofits. The prevailing law of the land was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Walz v. Tax Common of the City of New York 1970, which established that churches should be exempt from property taxation because they provide a public benefit with their chartable works. The court held that this does not violate the Establishment Clause because it does not take money out of the treasury. The Walz decision assumes that religions provide a greater good than the costs to society of the lost tax revenue. Consider that most property taxes are used to pay for police and fire services and, in some communities, public schools. We contend that the tax should go with the land, and that all properties should pay their fair share, thereby lowering the tax rate of each owner as a way of providing for the good of each owner.
We find support for this argument in the following:
President James A. Garfield addressing Congress on June 22, 1874: The divorce between Church and state ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no church property anywhere, in any state, or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation, for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that you impose a tax upon the whole community.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, womens' suffrage campaign, circa 1877: For every dollar of church property untaxed, all other properties must be taxed one dollar more, and thus the poor man's home bears the burden of maintaining costly edifices from which he & his family are as effectively excluded -- as though a policeman stood to bar their entrance, and in smaller towns all sects are building, building, building, not a little town in the western prairies but has its three & four churches & this immense accumulation of wealth is all exempt from taxation. In the new world as well as the old these rich ecclesiastical corporations are a heavy load on the shoulders of the people, for what wealth escapes, the laboring masses are compelled to meet. If all the church property in this country were taxed, in the same ratio poor widows are today, we could soon roll off the national debt.
In 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant's message to Congress: We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall be no longer exempt from taxation. I would also call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land....it is the accumulation of vast amounts of untaxed church property....In 1850, the church properties in the U.S. which paid no taxes, municipal or state, amounted to about $83 million. In 1860, the amount had doubled; in 1875, it is about $1 billion. By 1900, without check, it is safe to say this property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion....so vast a sum, receiving all the protection and benefits of government without bearing its portion of the burdens and expenses of the same, will not be looked upon acquiescently by those who have to pay the taxes....I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation.
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) Rights
Minnesota Atheists supports equal rights for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. This support is based on two rules of law:
1. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states "...nor shall any State... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Thus the Equal Protection Clause demands that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) citizens be treated the same under the law as heterosexual citizens. We are particularly concerned with countering religious groups that wish to limit equal protection under the law due to their religious dogma.
2. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution The Establishment Clause has been interpreted in Supreme Court decisions to place the following restrictions on government:
a) Secular laws must have a secular basis. Any law that would reduce the rights of any class of citizens must have a secular justification. There is no secular reason to deny equal rights and equal protection under the law due to a person's sexual orientation.
b) Religious tenets for which the only basis is belief in the supernatural should not become civil law. To turn such religious tenets into civil law is to create a theocracy. Religious arguments against equal rights and equal protection under the law for GLBT people are based solely on belief in a particular type of god who advocates limiting such rights and protections. As we cannot demonstrate that this god exists, much less confirm its instructions to humanity, we cannot base any secular laws on this supernatural belief.
The Principle of Equality in Practice Minnesota Atheists' support for equal rights for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation includes, but is not limited to, the equal right to a civil marriage, with all the accompanying benefits and responsibilities; equal rights to fertility treatments and adoption; the right to openly identify one's sexual orientation and serve in the military; and the equal right not to be discriminated against in employment and housing. Minnesota Atheists takes no position on what the state chooses to call its civil marriage contracts (e.g., "marriage," "civil union," "domestic partnership," etc.) so long as the same term is used equally for both straight and gay people.
Reproductive Rights
The right of women and couples to plan their reproductive lives is the target of a broad range of continuous legal attacks by conservative Christians. Their tactics to end abortion rights include local, state, and federal legislation and excessive regulation; campaigns to stack the judiciary with opponents of abortion; and constitutional amendment. They also support legislation and FDA regulations to ban or restrict access to varieties of contraceptives. Minnesota Atheists opposes these efforts because of our principle that public policy should never be based on religious values and superstitious thinking.
A common religious claim is that ‘life' begins at conception, based on ensoulment. More properly stated, this contention is that at the moment of conception the fetus becomes a person whose interests must be considered by public policy. This is a religious value rejected by most Americans, who understand the fetus to be only a potential person.
While Roe v. Wade is a landmark Supreme Court decision for establishing the right to choose abortion based upon an implied constitutional right to privacy, its contention that the state's interest increases with fetal development is logically untenable. Evaluating public interest requires deciding whose interests are included in the policy decision. If the conceptus were recognized as a person whose interests are included in the decision, abortion would be properly described as murder, and would therefore be unthinkable. But basing personhood upon any innate attribute of the fetus introduces a subjective value, whereas law should only be based on consequences to people.
It is a common mistake to base upon medical attributes a determination that the fetus becomes a person at any particular stage of its development, such as heartbeat, brainwaves or viability. This misconstrues as biology a decision that is an act of social valuation. Personhood begins when society invests the individual with the rights that it recognizes as universal and protected by law.
It is a basic tenet of ethics that obligation cannot be derived from statements of fact, i.e., you cannot conclude an ‘ought' statement from ‘is' statements. There is, therefore, no moment at which a fetus a priori must be designated as a person.
American society is best served when the decision to abort is made by the woman in consideration of specific social and material circumstances. In many cases, the odds of a successful parenting outcome can be greatly improved by postponing childbirth for a few years. The state usurping reproductive decisions has the pernicious result of precluding the possibility of the woman or couple exercising social responsibility.
Social responsibility also requires the availability of contraceptives and medically correct information about their use. Minnesota Atheists opposes so-called "abstinence only" sex education because it keeps from the sexually active students the information they need for responsible decisions.
Public Education
The Constitution of the state of Minnesota draws clear guidelines for the separation of religion and government Article 13, Section 2, by identifying the lines where government and religion must not intrude upon one another: "In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught," and also Article 1, Section 16: "nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries." Minnesota Atheists supports clear guidelines for separation of religion and government in all areas of public education (K- University) and asserts that it is better to err on the side of clear separation than to support a policy that violates these guidelines.
Opponents of the separation of church and state try to influence education policy in several areas:
1) Science in the classroom In the teaching of science, public schools need to adopt a curriculum that is approved by the scientific community. For example, evolution is a theory that has been accepted by established science. Religious stories of creation by supernatural means have no basis in accepted science and are matters of faith. Intelligent Design is a supernatural claim that cannot be verified empirically, makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable. Furthermore, the Kitzmiller v. Dover case clearly established that Intelligent Design is not science and should not be taught in science class.
In the non-science curriculum, public education should not display any bias toward religion. Schools should teach about the influence of religion on culture and society, but without endorsing religion or religious ideology. In literature and history classes it is permissible to use religious texts as long as there is no promotion of religion over non-religion.
2) Prayer Prayer should follow established Federal guidelines for public schools (K - university). No public employee should lead or endorse prayer in the public schools. Prayer should be a private matter and not involved in any ceremony or activity promoted by a public school. Collective prayer is always coercive for elementary and high school students. A mandated moment of silence is only a thinly veiled collective prayer.
In the event that a public school should designate a room for prayer, meditation, or silence, the room should not be used for proselytizing. Anyone using the room should do so in silence when others of a different belief system are present. No symbols, books, or literature should be permanently displayed in the room. The room should not promote any religion over any other, nor religion over non-religion.
3) Sex education in public school Public schools should provide a sex education curriculum that is consistent with the research on what is effective and helpful to the health of students. An abstinence-only program that is taught with a religious motivation violates separation. Abstinence may be advocated only in conjunction with instruction in safe prophylactic practices.
4) Religious activities in public schools In 1990, in the case Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Access Act, which permitted public school students to form religious clubs that meet during non-instructional time if they permit secular clubs, was constitutional. The Court ruled in 2001 in the case Good News Club v. Milford Central School that if public schools rent out rooms to secular groups that they must rent them to religious groups on the same terms. In both cases, the court ruled that public schools may not discriminate against groups on the basis of religious content. Earlier courts came to contrary rulings by applying the Lemon Test, which Minnesota Atheists believes should be the governing precedent.
Accepting the decisions in the Westside and Milford cases, Minnesota Atheists believes that public schools must still take care to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. Rooms should be rented to religious groups at the same rate applied to secular groups, and strictly audited. No student or staff member may be required to participate in any religious activity. There may be no religious indoctrination during instructional time. Faculty may not promote or recruit for religious Equal Access Clubs or for outside religious groups meeting on school grounds, as this would give the appearance official endorsement. All school-sponsored activities must avoid in act and appearance promoting religion.
Minnesota Atheists opposes the practice of religious release time.
5) Teaching comparative religion and texts Comparative religion and religious texts (Bible, Koran, etc.) may be taught if presented in an unbiased manner with text material that clearly has no presentation bias. Advocacy, both religious and atheistic, must be strictly avoided, even by outside presenters. The public school must balance the bias that may appear in such classes by performing a close scrutiny of the materials used and of the instructor. Instruction in comparative religion done from a secular approach may have a positive effect on students. A survey of world religions should include atheism and other non theistic worldviews.
6) Vouchers Vouchers are a method of giving parents a choice in the schools their children attend. Public funds, even where given to the parent to spend, should not be used to pay for an education at a religious school. Funding school programs that include religious activity makes it difficult if not impossible to separate the funding of religious from nonreligious instruction. It is therefore our policy that vouchers should not be used in any payment to attend a religious school.
7) Academic Freedom Academic freedom should be a guideline for the presentation of material within the public school system (K - University). The teaching of any subject should protect the right of an educator to present their material without infringement. The guideline for academic freedom does not extend to the presentation of a religious bias in any curriculum presented in a public school. For example, Intelligent Design must not be taught as an alternative to evolution in a science classroom. ID might be presented along with other concepts of creation in a study of cultural differences, but not as science. The Bible may be taught as literature, but it should not be taught with any doctrinal bias, e.g., claiming that the virgin birth of Jesus or the Trinity are matters of fact and not faith. Academic freedom does not give a license to teach lies as truth, faith as fact, myth as science, or material not endorsed by sound educational practice. Education should teach critical thinking and not dogma.
8) Charter Schools Charter schools are publicly financed schools designed for a specific need or curriculum. Charter schools should be bound by the same rules ensuring separation of church and state as conventional public schools. Even if the students of a charter school are of a single religion, the school must not be used as a vehicle of religious instruction. No school should be housed on the same grounds as a house of worship, and when school employees have church offices, there must be a clear delineation of responsibilities.
End of Life Issues
Laws regulating end-of-life issues must be based on individual freedom and secular consequences. Religious ideas - such as the belief that humans have "souls" or that a god's wishes must prevail - cannot be considered when making secular law. Such religious ideas may legitimately influence personal decisions, but they cannot be the basis for secular laws that must apply to everyone.
Minnesota Atheists supports the right of mentally competent, terminally ill people who are unable to find relief from their illness to have the voluntary options of self-termination, doctor-assisted suicide, or euthanasia. Consent of the patient in these end-of-life decisions shall be sufficient to shield doctors and others from legal prosecution in their efforts to fulfill the wishes of terminally ill patients.
Minnesota Atheists supports safeguards to ensure that the personal decision to end one's life is truly voluntary. We support efforts to make sure that the desire to self-terminate is not merely the result of depression that might be alleviated through medication or counseling, or of financial or emotional pressure being put on the person by relatives or others.
Minnesota Atheists encourages people to create living wills (advance care, end-of-life directives) to make their end-of-life desires clearly known to people they trust, who can, if necessary, act on their behalf if they become unable to communicate.
It is only by giving people the right to make such end-of-life decisions for themselves that we maintain human dignity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||