A Groundbreaking declaration. (International Humanism).

On November 23-25, 2001, I was privileged to attend the United Nations International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation to Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance, and Nondiscrimination. The conference was held in Madrid and cosponsored by the Spanish government.

Called to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, the conference sought to enlist schools throughout the world in the effort to reduce discrimination based on belief or lack thereof. More than 600 people attended, including delegates from seventy-nine countries and hundreds of non-governmental organizations of the UN, religious groups, experts, and observers.

Curiously, despite the importance of this event, to the best of my knowledge it has not been mentioned once in the mainstream U.S. media.

At the conclusion of two days of intense debate, delegates approved a unique seven-page position paper, detailing nineteen points, including the following. The conference:

* underlines the urgent need to promote, through education, the protection and the respect of religion or belief in order to strengthen peace, understanding, and tolerance among individuals, groups, and nations, and with a view to developing a respect for pluralism;

* deems that every human being has an intrinsic and inviolable dignity and value which includes the right to freedom of religion, conscience, or belief that should be respected and safeguarded;

* considers that the young generation should be brought up in a spirit of peace, tolerance, mutual understanding, and respect for human rights, and especially for the respect of freedom of religion or belief, and that they should be protected against all forms of discrimination and intolerance based on their religion or belief;

* deems that each State, at the appropriate level of government, should promote and respect educational policies aimed at strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights, eradicating prejudices and conceptions incompatible with freedom of religion or belief, and ensuring respect for and acceptance of pluralism and diversity in the field of religion or belief as well as the right not to receive religious instruction inconsistent with his or her conviction;

* deems also that each State should take appropriate measures to ensure equal rights to women and men in the field of education and freedom of religion or belief, and in particular reinforce the protection of the right of girls to education, especially for those coming from vulnerable groups.

The final document notes that "freedom of religion includes theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief."

The rhetoric of the delegates and experts was generally constructive but at times masked practices or policies that don't measure up to the religious neutrality essential to full religious freedom. The official Norwegian delegate, for example, praised her country's school program which teaches about religion; yet humanists and others in Norway are challenging in court that program's tilt toward the state church.

The U.S. government delegate to the conference, Thomas F. Farr, praised the goals of the meeting but his remarks can be seen as less than optimally friendly toward public education and church-state separtion and may have a tinge of anti-UN paranoia. He said, for instance, that the U.S. First Amendment "is designed to prevent the establishment of any particular religion"--a stance taken by conservatives and "accommodationists" who part company with the U.S. courts' traditional position that the First Amendment "erected a wall of separation between church and state" and prohibits even nonpreferential government aid to all religions. Farr also expressed opposition to the "imposition by government education authorities of a state-funded one-size-fits-all human rights curriculum." He said such "a monopolistic human rights curriculum could stifle educational creativity, competition, and innovation, such as we find in public charter schools, parochial schools, and the growing home school movement in the United States."

A humanist perspective was eloquently presented by International Humanist and Ethical Union Executive Director Babu Gogineni. Gogineni underscored the "glaring insanities of Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, the barbaric blasphemy laws of Pakistan, the newly resurgent Hindu cultural nationalism [in India], the religio-tribal conflicts in Africa and in Eastern Europe, the sectarian divisiveness of Northern Ireland," and other "foundations for injustices ... sanctified by religion and glorified by tradition." He criticized sectarian indoctrination in public schools in some countries, such as Norway and Argentina, and urged that "public education be scientific and religiously neutral."

Another humanist perspective was put forth by David Pollock of the British Humanist Association. Pollock said the BHA is opposing the British government's efforts to expand the number of tax-supported religious schools and urging an end to mandatory worship in British schools.

While I agree with the final conference document that schools can and should work to reduce intolerance, I have no illusions as to how easy this will be to accomplish--in the United States or elsewhere. It is easy to say that ignorance about religions and life stances should be alleviated, but there is no agreement among experts as to how precisely to go about it. Instruction should be neutral, objective, fair, balanced, and inclusive, but actually putting together such a curriculum is extraordinarily difficult.

Meanwhile, all who care about this problem should work toward solutions and to eliminate the imbalances that presently exist in even well-meaning attempts to teach about religion in public schools.

Edd Doerr is president of the American Humanist Association.