22 November 2008
Atheists ignored by diversity statement
1 June 2007
By Niko Kloeten: Te Waha Nui Online
 |
Non-religious people have been overlooked in the National Statement on Religious Diversity in New Zealand, says the leader of a prominent atheist group.
Kent Stevens, president of the Humanist Society of New Zealand, thinks that people without religion are not given equal consideration when the topic of religion is raised, despite the growing number of non-religious people in this country.
“Over the years non-religious people have been persecuted, tortured and called heretics and infidels, so surely we should get the same assurances of safety as those who take part in organised religion. It should say that everyone has the right to safety and security instead.”
Atheism on the rise
The 2006 census shows the number of atheists is growing rapidly.
Nearly 1.3 million New Zealanders described themselves as having no religion, an increase of more than 250,000 people since 2001.
This was more than twice the number of Catholics, 20 times the number of Hindus and 36 times the number of Muslims.
Those with no religion made up 35 per cent of the census total.
But according to Stevens, the statement, released in November last year, does not make much mention of non-religious people at all.
He uses the example of article three, which says “Faith communities and their members have a right to security.”
“I understand why they would do that, because they’re afraid of mosques being vandalised and problems like that. But there’s not a lot in there for people without religion.”
He also says that while human rights declarations normally focus on individual rights, the National Statement on Religious Diversity focuses on groups.
He thinks it is an attempt to protect these religious communities from external criticism, particularly by non-religious people, and thinks it could undermine the rights of vulnerable people in these groups.
“If you start with a group they can attack individuals,” he says.
Stevens says that while media organisations try not to offend religious groups, who may make big protests, no such consideration is given to non-religious people, who do not have the resources and collective will of the big churches.
‘Not law’
But Carolyne Jurriaans, communications officer for the Human Rights Commission, says the statement is not the law and should not be seen as such.
“It’s not a legal document but a philosophical declaration. It has symbolic value,” she says.
Jurriaans doesn’t think people without religion are as hard done by as Stevens makes out.
She says coverage of non-religious viewpoints depends on the issue.
“In a general sense, journalists will cover issues from their perspective.
A lot of journalists are not religious. But if the issue is religion then obviously they’ll want to get religious viewpoints first.”
