The new atheist creed.

It's not a creed of the "new atheists," a term which I find so vague and politically pre-charged it was rendered useless before even becoming widely used, it's a new creed that's been generated by the Gods and Politics conference in Copenhagen. Let's have a look.

We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:

• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
• We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
• We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.
• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.
• We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
• We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.
• We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.
• We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Adopted by the conference, Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.

Lots of good ideas in there. It's probably come the closest to being succinct statement that I would actually support as umbrella for my personal perspectives. There's just a couple potential problems with it.

I know what radical theists might say: Why, if you don't believe in religion, is it so prominently featured in the first article of the statement? I don't want to strawman theists, (their arguments are usually weak enough as it is) so I'll admit many of them won't be stupid enough make this case, because it's total rubbish. It does seem to me to be deliberately stirring the pot on the part of the atheists, maybe they did it on purpose. No objection from me though.

My main gripe is that despite the occurrence of several articles trumpeting equality and universal rights, the authors still can't help sneaking in an exception for religion.

We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders)

What? No! Not 'other than for religious leaders!' Why do they get an out? Honestly, if an atheist wants to head up a religious organization, but is completely qualified to do so, why shouldn't they be able to? Indeed, reports of clergy losing their faith are becoming more frequent. Are the authors suggesting these people should then be fired for their lack of belief, despite their demonstrated expertise in religion? Similarly, if a theist wanted to head up an atheist organization, they should be free to apply for the job and should be duly considered. Exceptions to non-discrimination policies should not be made, period. Discrimination is a difficult enough concept to evaluate. Let's not make it more complicated by allowing different gradations of acceptability for similar scenarios.