Today in Brussels Atheist Ireland became the first Irish philosophical organisation, and the first European atheist advocacy group, to meet with the Presidents of the European Commission, European Parliament and European Council.

The meeting discussed European Union policy on poverty and social exclusion, as part of the dialogue process under the Lisbon Treaty with religious and philosophical organisations.

There were 17 European philosophical and nonconfessional organisations present including atheist, humanist, freethought and masonic groups. Atheist Ireland was represented by chairperson Michael Nugent and secretary Grania Spingies.

Submission from Atheist Ireland on
Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion

Overview

Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group for an ethical and secular society. We want a secular State for a pluralist people. Our submission to this dialogue about poverty and social exclusion makes the following recommendations. By ‘The Institutions’, we mean the Commission, Parliament and Council.

1. Political priorities in combating poverty

(a) The most urgent priority is to eradicate absolute poverty, directly within Europe and helping outside Europe, as this most directly maximises suffering and minimises wellbeing.
(b) The Institutions should continue their multi-faceted approach to combating relative poverty within Europe, encompassing material wealth, social cohesion and good governance.
(c) The Institutions should use a more nuanced measure of relative poverty than 60% of median income, perhaps bands of 0-20%, 20-40% and 40-60% of median income.
(d) The Institutions should vindicate the fundamental right of all citizens to equal treatment in employment, education, social security and provision of goods and services.
(e) The Institutions should educate all citizens, particularly those at risk of or suffering from poverty, about how to vindicate their rights.

2. Questions of ethics and human dignity

(a) We agree with Presidents of the Institutions that Article 17 dialogue is not only political but also ethical, and that combating poverty addresses questions of human dignity.
(b) When incorporating ethics and esteem for human dignity into public policies, the Institutions should objectively apply reason to the evidence of empirical research, with the aim of minimising suffering and maximising wellbeing among humans and other sentient beings.
(c) Such policies should take account of recent developments in positive psychology, which scientifically identifies factors that are important to human wellbeing.
(d) Such policies should take account of the ongoing findings of the World Values Survey, including the link between social wealth, self-expression values, and secular rational values.
(e) The Institutions should only fund anti-poverty initiatives that do not promote either religious or atheist metaphysics or moral rules to vulnerable people while providing such services.

3. Gay and lesbian couple families and poverty

(a) The Institutions should conduct research to determine whether gay and lesbian couple families in Europe have the same higher likelihood of poverty as has been found in the USA.
(b) If this is the case, the Institutions should add gay and lesbian couple families to the categories of those at more risk of poverty and social exclusion, and add sexual orientation to gender and age as priority aspects of tackling poverty in the EU policy framework.
(d) Where gay and lesbian couples are able to adopt children, and take them out of the poverty net, they should be subject to the same criteria as is used for heterosexual couples.

1. Political Priorities in Combating Poverty

1(a) The most urgent policy priority should be to eradicate absolute poverty wherever it exists within the European Union, and to assist other States to tackle absolute poverty in other parts of the world, as it is absolute poverty that most directly maximises human suffering and minimises human wellbeing.

1(b) The Institutions should continue their multi-faceted approach to combating relative poverty within Europe, encompassing material wealth, social cohesion and good governance as well as interaction with the objectives of Lisbon and Sustainable Development Strategies. Only a co-ordinated approach to all factors will succeed in reducing relative poverty.

1(c) When measuring and publishing the risk of relative poverty, the Institutions should use a more nuanced measure of relative income than “60% of median income”. For example, the published statistics could cover three bands of relative income: 0-20% of median income, 20-40% of median income, and 40-60% of median income. This would give a more accurate immediate overview of the scale of the problem in different countries, and would allow more targeted strategies to be developed, implemented and promoted for public awareness.

1(d) The Institutions should vindicate the fundamental right of all citizens to equal treatment in employment, education, social security and provision of goods and services. Directive 2000/78/EC prohibits discrimination in employment on the grounds of religion and belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. Directive 2000/43/EC prohibits discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin in wide range of areas, including employment, education, social security and provision of goods and services. Breaches of these regulations can cause and sustain relative poverty and social exclusion.

1(e) The Institutions should educate all citizens about all fundamental rights, including those in the Universal Declaration of Human RIghts; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the European Convention on Human Rights; and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is especially important that citizens who are at risk of poverty or social exclusion, or who are suffering from poverty or social exclusion, should be made aware of their fundamental rights and how to have these rights vindicated.

2. Questions of Ethics and Human Dignity

2(a) We agree with the following statements by Presidents of the three Institutions. At the June 2009 meeting with philosophical organisations, Commission President Barroso said this dialogue is “essential to building a Europe that is not only political but also ethical”, and Parliament President Pottering said it is important “in our common search for an ethical underpinning to European policy.” At the July 2010 meeting with religious leaders, Council President Van Rompuy said that “combating poverty and social exclusion is also, in essence, willing to restore human dignity, the dignity of both men and women. And that is why societal, cultural and ethical questions should also be taken into account.”

2(b) When incorporating ethics and esteem for human dignity into public policies, the Institutions should objectively apply reason to the evidence of empirical research, with the aim of minimising suffering and maximising wellbeing among humans and other sentient beings. While individual citizens or organisations have the right to evaluate ethics and human dignity based on subjective revelations, the Institutions should operate on a rational and secular basis.

2(c) Such policies should take account of recent developments in the field of positive psychology, which scientifically identifies factors that are important to human wellbeing. As well as a basic level of income, these factors include supportive relationships with other people, absorption in activities that give positive psychological feedback, self-perception of control of your life, and a sense of connection with something larger than yourself. Policies to restore human dignity as part of tackling poverty should encourage such personal developments, without being prescriptive as to the content of the relationships, activities or connections that are being encouraged. Also, one of the current indicators for measuring the risk of poverty and social exclusion is healthy life years. This should be supplemented by an indicator that scientifically measures happy life years.

2(d) Such policies should take account of the ongoing findings of the World Values Survey, the world’s most comprehensive investigation of political and sociocultural change. It has been conducted in several waves from 1990 to 2009, in over eighty countries spanning all inhabited continents, by a network of interdisciplinary social scientists at leading universities. The findings suggest a link between increased social wealth when applied to health, education, communications technologies etc, and a shift in personal values from survival to self-expression values, and a shift in social values from traditional to secular rational values.

2(e) The Institutions should only fund anti-poverty initiatives that do not promote either religious or atheist metaphysics or moral rules to vulnerable people while providing such services. We support the right of all citizens to freedom of belief and religion, and to manifest and promote their religion consistently with respecting the rights of others. However, in the provision of social services, particularly to psychologically vulnerable people, the Institutions should not fund initiatives that promote either religious or atheist metaphysics or moral rules.

3. Gay and Lesbian Couple Families and Poverty

3(a) The Institutions should conduct research to determine whether gay and lesbian couple families in Europe have the same higher likelihood of poverty as has been found in the USA.

In March 2009 the Williams Institute, University of California Los Angeles School of Law, published a study titled “Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community’. It identifies several situations that could increase the likelihood of poverty among LGB people. These include vulnerability to employment discrimination, lack of access to marriage, higher rates of being uninsured, less family support, and family conflict over coming out.

The main findings include that poverty is at least as common in the LGB population as in the heterosexual population; that after adjusting for a range of family characteristics that help explain poverty, gay and lesbian couple families are significantly more likely to be poor than heterosexual married couple families; that lesbian couples and their families are much more likely to be poor than heterosexual couples and their families; and that children in gay and lesbian couple households have poverty rates twice those of children in heterosexual married couple households.

(b) If research shows that gay and lesbian couple families in Europe have the same higher likelihood of poverty as has been found in the USA, the Institutions should add gay and lesbian couple families to the categories of those at more risk of poverty and social exclusion, and add sexual orientation to gender and age as priority aspects of tackling poverty in the EU policy framework.

(c) On the other end of the scale, where gay and lesbian couples are able to adopt children, and take them out of the poverty net, they should be subject to the same criteria as is used for heterosexual couples.