joinnow.png
 
New Policies
mn_atheists_logo.jpgThe first annual review of our public policies was completed, and Revision B was accepted at the October meeting of the Board of Directors.  Members of the committee that performed the review were Bjorn Watland, Crystal Dervetski, August Berkshire and myself.  The review committee made minor, non-substantive edits to existing policies, and added new policies, which are provided below.  – George Kane
 
Government Entanglement with Religion
 
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.
 
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.
Trackback(0)
Comments (3)add comment

Robert Janckila said:

...
Given that the purpose of our constitutions on the federal and state levels are to establish governments that serve the all people in general, not any person or group of persons in specific the focus on religious freedom in our constitutions is too specific. I believe the focus should have been on all activity in general. The constitutions should include the idea of separation of state and all belief systems whether religious or secular.

The focus on separation of church and state leads some people to believe the state does not have to be separate from secular activities, only religious activities. This leads to the state's interference in a whole host of activities or freedoms, including educational freedoms.

Some school districts call themselves independent school districts. We should take this to mean the school districts are independent from the state and any other political entity. They are dependent only on and to the parents of their students. Any state law that attempts to force a school to teach or not to teach a point of view is wrong. If Minnesota Atheists is attempting to mandate educational policies it is wrong. If it is attempting to educate parents then it is in the right. What gives Minn. Atheists the right to say what should be taught in a school district in which no member of Minn. Atheists live?

For instance, the statement "Abstinence may be advocated only in conjunction with instruction in safe prophylactic practices" sounds like a mandate. Don't many schools prohibit tobacco and alcohol use by students? Couldn't those same schools prohibit sexual activity by students?

The statement "The teaching of any subject should protect the right of an educator to present their material without infringement" also sounds like a mandate. The educators of students are limited by wishes of the parents and school board. Educators are hired and paid by the parents and so remain subject to the parents wishes.

The state funding of schools leads some to think that the state has the right to meddle in the operation of independent schools. This is not true and is the problem with state funding of any educational body. What state funded school is going to teach that the state funding of schools is wrong (or that anything the state does is wrong)? Is it right to force the citizens of the Dassel-Cokato Independent School District #466 to fund the St. Louis County Schools Independent School District #2142? This is not what is meant by publicly funded schools.

Minnesota Atheists' policies should be educational and acknowledge the rights of parents to teach their children even if it disagrees with those teachings.
November 21, 2009

me said:

...
I think what I am reading by your comment is that you are advocating that a public school system should be free to teach religious based propaganda counter to state law if there are a lot of self righteous parents in the community who don't mind intimidating others into submission if they don't share their brand of religion or lack of thereof. Secular activities are those activities that are inherently nonreligious - like eating, bathing, driving a car, voting or testifying in court. There is no need for constitutional protections from these things. Secularity is NOT a belief system. Unfortunately, religious zealots wish every single event in everyone's life to be subject to their own religious scrutiny - you know, like in Iran. Such rigid control over a community is what the forefathers sought to avoid so that those with divergent points of view, who usually represent a minority, are not burned at the stake or lynched. If there isn't a higher authority to provide protections such as these, in these near monoculture communities that you speak of that is exactly what would happen. Aside from that, parents do not have dominion over their children. Society as a whole has deemed it proper than they are human beings and benefit from exposure to the diversity that exists around them in the interest of fostering peace and mutual understanding. Religion just makes people argue and kill each other.
December 18, 2009

Robert Janckila said:

...
My first comment advocates freedom. The freedom of parents to teach their children as they see fit which includes freedom from state laws and mandates. Don't misconstrue my comment to encourage religious intimidation. Independent school districts are not governed by the state constitution therefore the over-used and too-limited principle of separation of church and state does not apply. Parents set the teaching policy of their school and parents not agreeing with the particular teachings of their school can contradict those teachings at home. They also can remove their children from the school and ought to be able to remove their funds from the school. In a school district or a local community, majority-rule has more legitimacy than at the state or national level where the rule of law applies exclusively.

As far as secularity: to quote Ayn Rand "All work is an act of philosophy" which means all activities put forth a point of view and secularity IS a belief system. To focus on religious zealots misses the zealots of other types, even secularity zealots. The principle of independent school districts protects schools from zealots outside one's school district. Zealots inside a school district are another problem, and can be defeated with knowledge and logic not with state mandates.

Parents do have near-absolute dominion over their children. A person's home is their castle and a parent can homeschool their children inside it. "Society as a whole" (which seems to be another way to say "the majority") cannot do anything about it. Paradoxically the first part of the comment by "me" seeks to limit the majority but then uses it for purposes which he/she agrees with.

Religion is not the only belief system that makes people argue and kill each other nor is it the only one wishing to subject every single event to scrutiny. Government revenue zealots have succeeded in getting almost all financial activity subject to the scrutiny of the IRS. Healthcare zealots want to dictate business operations of insurance companies and have done so with restuarants and bars.

Zealots of almost every stripe have sought to have their beliefs taught in schools or mandated by the state. Focusing on religion may be Minnesota Atheists goal but at least acknowledge the harm caused by other zealots.
January 01, 2010

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 
< Prev   Next >
© 2010 Minnesota Atheists, a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Educational Organization
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.