Is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applicable to atheists as atheists?

[struggle4progress]

Here, for example, is Part II, Article 2.1:

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. hrweb.com

Suppose one is a lawyer, who on behalf of an atheist client, must persuade a very diligent bureaucrat that the Covenant protects atheist. How does one argue? The question is whether atheism falls under "race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

Atheism appears not to be a race, colour, sex, or language; nor is it a matter of national or social origin, or property

If one reads "birth or other status" as involving a typographical error (for which "birth, or other status" was the actually intended reading) one might suppose atheism to be covered under the catch-all other status. The difficulty to such a reading is simply that there then is no indication whatsoever regarding what "other status" might signify, whereas if one reads birth or other status as a unitary descriptor, it might naturally indicate notions of social class (aristocrat? serf?) and caste (untouchable?). Since one may have lower caste clients in the future, the second reading seems rather preferable

So if atheism is covered, one must explain to the bureaucrat that it is certainly covered either as "religion" or "political or other opinion." However, the argumentative client (who frequents the R/T forum here) has already had many discussions with the bureaucrat and has already convinced the bureaucrat that atheism is not covered under the Covenant category of religion. One therefore persuades the bureaucrat that atheism is essentially a kind of political or other opinion

Some time after one makes this argument, an agnostic presents as a client, again seeking the Covenant rights. Various friends of the agnostic have very helpfully written to the bureaucrat, describing the agnostic as an atheist -- and therefore certainly not religious. The road then seems smooth: after all, is it not just like the prior case? But at the last minute, the bureaucrat asks, On the basis of what opinions, is the client seeking these rights? It appears the client's agnosticism is not associated with any definite opinions. The bureaucrat rereads the Covenant, acknowledges the client cannot be discriminated against for holding opinions, but concludes that nothing prevents discrimination against the client for not holding opinions -- for the Covenant plainly protects definite opinions, but does not mention protecting an absence of opinion, the latter silence implying no such protection was intended

The correct solution to the problem, of course, is to get rid of idiots who insist on precise and limiting definitions (when illustrative and encompassing interpretations are intended) or who insist on reading pragmatic texts intended to promote certain objectives with the logical rigor appropriate to a mathematical script

[papau]

1. atheism is covered as "religion" given it's belief in something that can not be proven (no God), the

agnostic is covered under "opinion" given his opinion that nothing is proven for or against the existence of God.

[SidDithers]

26. Ooooh, missed it by that much...nt

Sid

[smoogatz]

28. Sigh.

Why is this so hard for people? Atheism is neither a religion nor a "belief that God does not exist." It's a non-belief in god(s) and, for most of us (I think) in the supernatural in general. If you can't grasp the distinction, then probably the subject is too difficult for you and you shouldn't make an ass of yourself by bringing it up in public. Also, If you don't want me to characterize your belief in imaginary beings as evidence of your stupidity, gullibility, childishness or mental illness, don't characterize my non-belief as a religion.

[MrModerate]

2. Well, yes, you've answered your own question, but . . .

Since attorneys are in the business of straining at gnats and their activities impinge on the lives of others, wishing that such pettifogging fools will spontaneously combust is probably not an adequate response.

For me it's pretty clear: atheism and agnosticism fall under the "other opinion," category, because regardless of the fact that the basic premise of both is that there's no there there -- especially in a world where almost all governments include religious components in their assumption of legitimacy -- not having religious feelings is definitely an "opinion," and hence protected.

[uberllama42]

3. This may be the most passive-aggressive post I have ever read

I don't want to start another belching contest, so all I'm going to say about this is that I guess I might do the same thing if I felt that I was trying to say the same thing over and over against and people weren't listening to me.

[struggle4progress]

4. The only intent of the post was to make a certain point regarding use of definitions

and logic

The post is not directed against anyone and does not attack anyone. Nor does <it> attribute motives to anyone nor call anyone names

[varkam]

9. Really? eom

[struggle4progress]

11. Nope. Not bitin. Here:

The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of “Religion” in International Law

Introduction: The Understandable, But Misguided, Quest for a Legal Definition of “Religion”

... the term “religion” remains undefined as a matter of international law ... Among non-legal scholars in philosophy and religion there is a very lively debate as to whether the word “religion” can or should be defined ... In fact, “dozens, if not hundreds of proposals have been made, each claiming to solve the definitional problem in a new and unique way. Needless to say, no one definition of religion has garnered a consensus ... While academics have the luxury of debating whether the term “religion” is hopelessly ambiguous, judges and lawyers often do not ...

... the most serious conceptual obstacles for adjudicators may derive from well-intentioned but mistaken assumptions about what religion means from their personal perspective or that of scholars rather than from the perspective of how religious discrimination and religious persecution are actually practiced ...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml

[varkam]

12. As previously with my apparent reading comprehension problem...

I am not the only one who thinks that it is the case.

[struggle4progress]

13. Sorry: Unable to parse "I am not the only one who thinks that it is the case"

Reason: unclear clause "it is the case"

[varkam]

15. That it is the case that this post is not directed at someone...

for me, the rather acrimonious language in the closing within the context of the subject of the post brings to memory a recent discussion in which you took part.

[struggle4progress]

17. Read my comments in #6 regarding Iran. I think the case can be made

that arguing, about the applicability of the Covenant to "apostates" or homosexuals, with an official there, on the basis of definitions alone, is an enterprise from which one does not expect much success, if the official is committed to the view that "apostates" and homosexuals are anathema

I suppose, that in any concrete situation, one may well be morally compelled to make such an argument, whether one expected success possible or not, but I would not hold much hope of success, and I might reasonably worry about unintended ugly tangles if forced to develop such an argument in much detail

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Read Article 18 of the Charter

This is the article that protects religious freedom. It states "religion or belief". Such a juxtaposition would indicate that where "religion" is used elsewhere in the Charter, one can read it as "religion or belief." While atheism, agnosticism and apatheism are not religions per se, they are beliefs which touch upon religion and, as such, are protected by Article 18. Looking at the sense of Article 2, which says that the rights recognized by the Charter are not to be limited on the grounds of membership in a group, I assert that 1) the lack of religious belief is itself a protected belief and 2) a person who lacks religious beliefs cannot have other rights curtailed as a result of that lack of religious beliefs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. It's not applicable to anyone *as* anyone

It's just applicable to everyone. The whole point is it's not about being a member of any group.

"to all individuals ... , without distinction of any kind, such as ..."

The list that follows isn't exclusive - "such as ..." .

[struggle4progress]

6. I agree in principle -- but the claim is too vague to mean anything. Until

a successful complaint was filed, Australia apparently took the POV that "sex" did not include sexual orientation -- though it is my understanding that Australia complied with the more expansive interpretation of the Covenant when its more narrow interpretation lost

Iran, on the other hand, though apparently a party to the Convention, regularly hangs homosexuals and does not seem terribly tolerant of deviation from a short list of prescribed religious views. One might, I suppose, try to argue with the theocrats about their definitions, but I am pessimistic about the prospects there: perhaps definitions are not the problem

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. What's vague about 'all individuals'?

I'd suggest that any problems may lie in what gets listed in the Covenant as the rights, and how you define them. It's clear that they apply to everybody.

[struggle4progress]

14. See the discussion linked in #11 explaining why a precise definition may be undesirable

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. You're now saying that covering all individuals is 'undesirable'?

You're advocating something vaguer, than won't cover some people?

[struggle4progress]

23. I think what you're trying to say is that you didn't read #11

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. I didn't follow the link, because your excerpt seemed irrelevant

We don't need a definition of 'religion', precise or imprecise, for this; it's mentioned as one of several examples of excuses for discrimination that aren't allowed. But you think a precise definition of something is undesirable; since your OP is about 'all individuals', and you were replying to my post which emphasised that point, that seems the best candidate for what you were wanting a bit fuzzier - which would mean someone possibly being excluded from teh group of 'all individuals'.

However, now looking at the conclusion of that piece, I find:

Rather than focus on defining “religion,” it would be much more valuable for adjudicators of claims involving religious discrimination and persecution to heed the words of Professor Amor, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief: “The victims of intolerance and discrimination on grounds of religion or belief are quite diverse: they may be believers or non-believers, communities of religion or belief or they may belong to society at large. Particularly affected, however, are vulnerable groups, such as women and minorities.”

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml

So, although your original observation that 'The question is whether atheism falls under "race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."' was wrong, because those were just examples, you have anyway been looking at an article that says "don't concentrate on the definition of religion: everyone should be covered". This I can agree with, but it makes me wonder why you brought up the idea of someone trying to exclude someone in the first place. Your "very diligent bureaucrat" seems a straw man, to me.

[varkam]

7. Bingo. eom

[varkam]

8. As muriel noted, the fact that atheism isn't explictly listed doesn't exclude...

atheism from the things for which an individual is protected. Moreover, I would think that atheism could be covered under "political or other opinion".

[struggle4progress]

16. If you wish to insist on precise definitions, and then want to insist that

atheism is covered as "other opinion," does this mean that the Covenant would not cover someone who strongly objected to a description of his/her atheism as "not merely opinion but fact"?

[varkam]

22. Seeing as how it still applies to all individuals...

I would say yes, regardless of how strident an individual might be.

[HamdenRice]

19. Practically, where there is a right, there is a remedy; but where there's a remedy, there's a wrong

I appreciate the abstract question, but I'm going to take a somewhat different, practical tack.

These covenants were written by lawyers for lawyers and courts. For them "rights" don't exist in the abstract. For example, under our Constitution, I have a right to free speech, but it doesn't exist in the abstract. It doesn't mean the society must somehow promote my free speech. Instead, it is a limit on what the government can do to me. I can't go to court to enforce my free speech right unless some level of government has tried to take it away from me. Then my right comes into play, and if I win my case, I can tell the government, "you can't do that to me."

You are correct that an agnostic can always say, "I don't have an opinion" so maybe I have no "right" under the ICCPR. But his inchoate right not to have an opinion would never arise until it becomes a remedy for a wrong.

So you have to imagine: when would an agnostic be wronged such that he would need to assert his remedy?

It would be when a government state party says "you have to believe this." It could be in an Islamic country perhaps that wanted everyone to acknowledge that he or she is a Muslim; it could be in a school in the American South that required school prayer.

At that point the agnostic would, by default, express an opinion or engage in a protected behavior -- "I don't accept Islam," or "I won't pray." So even the agnostic's non-opinion becomes an opinion at that point.

Having said that, there is a big debate in international human rights about negative rights and positive rights. The entire scenario I sketched out is based on the idea of rights as they evolved, especially in Britain and the U.S., and spread around the world as a rights legal culture. After WWII, however, a "positive rights" idea came into play. This was partly rooted in Frankin Delano Roosevelt's articulation of "Four Freedoms," which in the U.S., for the first time began to suggest that people had rights to cause the government affirmatively to do things. In other words, if citizens have a "Freedom from Want," that cannot be achieved by telling the government "you can't do that." It can only be achieved by telling the government, "you have to do this," which might, for example, be distributing food to the starving.

These ideas also developed strongly in the Third World during the decolonization movement, when many scholars and activists in the Third World began arguing that "negative rights" were inadequate to address the problems of the poor. They wanted to impose obligations on the international community and were also very idealistic about what their new governments could accomplish, so they articulated a whole range of positive rights, from the right to decolonization and self-determination, to the right to subsistence, rights of children to education and so on.

(Proponents of negative rights and parliamentary/congressional supremacy don't like positive rights because they force governments to re-order priorities according to litigation, rather than according to democratic decision making, and without regard to realistic budget making processes.)

The idea of positive rights was incorporated into the U.N. Charter, and some of the U.N. charters of rights. The ICCPR is generally thought of as a charter of negative rights, but the International Covenant on Social and Cultural Rights is considered, at least in part, a charter of positive rights.

The reason I'm digressing about this is to consider your scenario in a country like South Africa, where the Constitution was drafted with the clear intention of incorporating positive rights. (It was the concept of positive material rights that led the Consitutional Court to order the South African government to expand its AIDS treatment program.)

The South African Constitutional Court imposes a positive social and cultural right -- the obligation of the government to promote the cultural and religious diversity of the country.

So I think that situation might pose the insoluble puzzle you sketched out. Afrikaner language schools, Muslim organizations, the Anglican church, the Zulu monarchy -- all to some extent can ask the government to promote their cultural or religious identity.

But I don't think an agnostic could ask for equal promotion -- because it is basically a non-opinion or non-identity. Since this arises in the context of positive, rather than negative, rights, no wrong has been done to the agnostic -- except perhaps the diversion of his or her tax dollars to beliefs he doesn't accept, but then again that's a condition that every other group accepts. I suppose the agnostic's complaint would be unique -- that he is opposed to the promotion of religion altogether, but in practical terms, the agnostic's rights would probably not be cognizable.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Your question is meaningless

You asked, The question is whether atheism falls under "race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

Try reading what you are quoting from Article 2:

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

The use of "such as" demonstrates that the list is exemplary, not exhaustive: The rights outlined in this charter are to be guaranteed, regardless.

Now, take a look at Article 18:

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

My belief is that I do not believe religion or theology is relevant. My right to that belief is protected under Article 18. Article 2 states that other rights which are protected by the Charter may not be withheld or restricted because I excercise my rights protected under Article 18.

Now, do have any other scarecrows that need to be knocked down?

[struggle4progress]

24. How could atheism be protected as a belief if (as often trumpeted here) "it's not a belief"?

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. Atheism is a belief. It is not a religion.

There is a big difference between "belief" and "religion."

[Evoman]

32. I think of it more as a lack of belief instead of an actualy belief.

Although in no shape or form is it religion, nor do you ever need faith to be an atheist.

[uberllama42]

33. I think this entire question hinges on an overweening distinction

although I can't argue no lawyer is ever going to put this proposition forward. Antonin Scalia posits that excessive jail sentences are acceptable because the Eighth Amendment refers merely to "excessive fines" and "cruel and unusual punishment." In his world, James Madison et al. were only bothered by excessive fines but not by excessive jail terms.

In a scholarly sense, atheism is not a religion. Any definition of "religion" I would use in an academic discussion would not be nearly broad enough to encompass a lack of belief in God. But for the purpose of a legal classification, "atheist" might be an acceptable placeholder. My religion on Facebook is "atheist," for instance. Doesn't mean I actually consider it a religion, but that's what the field is labeled in the profile.

[TechBear_Seattle]

35. Valid arguments can be made either way

"I believe there are no gods" and "I do not believe in any gods" are both common statements regarding atheism. The affirmative statement describes "strong" atheism; the negative statement describes "weak" atheism. And even then, the statement "I do not believe" is itself a statement with regards to beliefs.

Ultimately, though, atheism holds the same place in the life of an atheist that religion holds in the life of a religious person. While atheism is not a religion per se, it has a religious "shape." This is not just a matter of my opinion: this is established common law, at least in the United States. In the 1965 ruling on United States v Seeger 380 U. S. 163, the US Supreme Court ruled that the expression, "religious training and belief" included any belief, including non-religious beliefs, which occupies an equivalent role as religious belief in a person's life. This ruling led directly to Welsh v United States 398 U. S. 333 in 1970, which said that moral or philosophical beliefs carry the same weight as religious beliefs with regard to conscientious objection to the draft. Seeger has also been cited in several other decisions with regards to the rights of non-believiers.

I would argue that non-believers -- atheists, apatheists, agnostics, whatever -- are therefore protected by Article 18 of the ICCPR, which in turn means that non-believers are alos covered by Article 2 of the same.

[SidDithers]

27. No, atheists are not covered...

and hrweb should be updated to read "race, colour, sex, language, religion or lack of religion, political or other opinion..."

Then it would be accurate.

Sid

[Goblinmonger]

29. Here's what I think everyone is missing

It is this little phrase here:

"without distinction of any kind"

In other words you can't punish someone with distinction in regard to religion, i.e. you can't persecute someone because they are OR AREN'T a particular religion. That would include a lack of religion.

[uberllama42]

30. Precisely (eom)

[Random_Australian]

34. Eh? Discriminating against someone for not having a religion is the same as

discriminating against someone for having a religion, no?