Discrimination against atheists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (December 2008) |
Discrimination against atheists is a negative categorical bias against atheists. Such prejudice and discrimination is a type of religious intolerance. In nations where freedom of belief is biased towards established religions, the issue becomes persecution of atheists. The Out Campaign, Brights movement, and Humanist Association of Canada are efforts to counter the feelings of discrimination and raise a positive public awareness about atheism and naturalism.
Contents |
[edit] Current issues
[edit] Sweden
In Sweden, generally considered one of the most secularized countries in the world,[1][2] there exist laws that could be considered[who?] discriminatory towards atheists:
- In many public schools, the commencement after each semester is held in a church and a priest delivers a sermon. Sometimes schools go to church to celebrate holidays. When atheists have objected to this "tradition", politicians have defended it. On 26 October 2006, the Swedish minister of schools, Jan Björklund, stated that "We should not have any general rules in Sweden that you may not continue to have school commencements or ceremonies in a church any longer. There will definitely be no change on that issue."[3]
- In October 2006, the Swedish Humanists filed a complaint to the ombudsmen of parliament[4] and The Chancellor of Justice[5] about sermons arranged by the parliament because, the Humanists claimed, it was contrary to secularization, and thus discriminating against non-Christians, including atheists. Both the ombudsmen and the chancellor concluded that they had no jurisdiction over the issue and chose not to comment further on the case. Thus, these sermons will continue.
[edit] United States
In the 1994 case[6] Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". [7] Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government.[8] However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists. These state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts, so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.
In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, after atheist Michael Newdow challenged the phrase "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the phrase unconstitutional. Although the decision was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal, there was the prospect that the pledge would cease to be legally usable without modification in schools in the western United States, over which the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction. This resulted in political furor, and both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning the decision, unanimously.[9]. On June 26, a Republican-dominated group of 100-150 congressmen stood outside the capital and recited the pledge, showing how much they disagreed with the decision.[9] The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision, ruling that Newdow did not have standing to bring his case, thus disposing of the case without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge.
Several private organizations, the most notable being the Boy Scouts of America, do not allow atheist members.[10] However, this policy has come under fire by organizations who assert that the Boy Scouts of America do benefit from taxpayer money and thus cannot be called a truly private organization, and thus must admit atheists (along with homosexuals, and others currently barred from membership). An organization called Scouting for All, founded by Eagle Scout Steven Cozza, is at the forefront of the movement to expose perceived hypocrisy on the part of the Boy Scouts of America. Cozza and others allege that when the BSA wants to discriminate, they act as a private organization; when they want money or the use of publicly-funded buildings, venues, or property, they act as a public organization.
[edit] State constitutions
Some state constitutions in the US require belief in God or a Supreme Being as a prerequisite for holding public office or being a witness in court. Examples include Arkansas,[11] Maryland,[12] South Carolina,[13] Tennessee[14] and Texas.[15]
A unanimous 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override these state requirements,[16] so they are not enforced.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ see e.g. the Inglehart Values Map
- ^ Largest Atheist/Agnostic Populations
- ^ Kammarens protokoll - Riksdagen
- ^ Registration number 4882-2006
- ^ Registration number 6726-06-21
- ^ FindLaw
- ^ Cornell Law
- ^ About Atheism
- ^ a b CNN
- ^ Downey, Margaret (June-July 2004). "Discrimination against atheists: the facts". Free Inquiry 24 (4): 41-43.
- ^ "§ 1. Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness".
- ^ "Maryland Constitution - Declaration of Rights".
- ^ "S.C. Constitution Article VI Officers - www.scstatehouse.net-LPITS".
- ^ "Tennessee Constitution - Article Ix. Disqualifications - Hosted By Tncrimlaw".
- ^ "The Texas Constitution - Art 1 - Sec 4".
- ^ "FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code".
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||
