|
News updates:
Atheists Talk Radio Show:
Atheists Talk Cable Show Audio:
Atheists Talk Cable Show Video:
|
| Public Policy Positions |
Minnesota Atheists’ Public Policy PositionsPrologueThe Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is the foundation of the political policies of Minnesota Atheists. 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 marriage; 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 ReligionGovernment 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. Our First Amendment Committee will recommend actions to the Board based on the individual merits of each case it comes upon. 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. Taxation of Churches and other nonprofit CorporationsThis 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 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 RightsMinnesota Atheists supports equal rights for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. This support is based on three rules of law: 1. The Equal Protection Clause of 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.” 2. 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. 3. 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 PracticeMinnesota 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.The Equal Right to Civil MarriageA well known example in which GLBT people are denied equal rights is in marriage. Marriage is both a civil (government) institution and a religious institution. Often the ceremonies are performed simultaneously. The religious leader may say, “And now, by the power invested in me by the state, and before the eyes of God, I pronounce you married.” This mixing of church and state has led to much confusion between the two types of marriage.Minnesota Atheists suggests separating religious marriage from civil marriage. Religious marriage would remain private. Religious institutions would decide the parameters of their own religious ceremonies (if they choose to offer such ceremonies at all). Due to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, religions are free to discriminate in their private religious marriage ceremonies on any basis they please. For example, Catholic priests could refuse to re-marry divorced people. Orthodox Jewish rabbis could refuse to marry interfaith couples. Protestant ministers could refuse to marry interracial couples. They could all decide not to marry same gender couples. However, the government should not be free to discriminate in the civil marriage contract it offers couples. Thus the government should not deny a marriage license to couples that are divorced, of different faiths, of different races, or who are the same gender. Minnesota Atheists takes no position as to the name the state uses for civil marriage, so long as the same name, and only that name, applies to both same-gender and opposite-gender couples. So, for example, religions could be allowed to keep the word “marriage” for their private, religious ceremonies. The state could adopt a different term for civil marriage, such as “civil union” or “domestic partnership.” Thus it would be possible for a person to have both a religion-recognized “marriage” and a state-recognized “civil union.” Clergy performing private religious “marriages” would be free to choose to have those “marriages” also be recognized as state “civil unions,” provided they meet state guidelines. Reproductive RightsThe 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 excessive state and local regulation, federal legislation, 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. 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. 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. It is a common mistake, however, to base upon medical attributes a determination that the fetus becomes a person at any particular stage of its development, such as 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. Rather, as with all public policy questions, the decision of when the conceptus becomes a person must be decided by whether that policy produces net benefit for society. We can only justify a policy that abortion is illegal, for example, after the onset of the third trimester, by showing that society benefits from it. American society is best served when that decision is made by the woman or couple 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.
|
||||||||||||||||
