A/62/280 2. Issues of concern for atheists and non-theists 68. In the context of previous country visits, the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors from atheistic or non-theistic backgrounds raised several issues of concern, for example that some of the taxes paid by atheists or non-theists are used to finance religious activities of the State (see A/55/280/Add.1, para. 16) and that many atheists do not publicly admit their belief because this would be perceived negatively by society (see A/55/280/Add.2, para. 7). On the other hand, religious communities complained about obstacles which hampered their evangelizing activities in atheistic totalitarian regimes, whose leaders are hostile to religion (see E/CN.4/2000/65, para. 150). 69. More recently, atheists and non-theists made the Special Rapporteur aware of the following issues of concern with regard to blasphemy laws, education issues, equality legislation, as well as official consultations held only with religious representatives. (a) Blasphemy laws and “defamation of religions” 70. Several national laws which prohibit blasphemy afford different levels of protection to different religions. Such domestic blasphemy laws for example protect only the prevailing religion in the State concerned, or they are applied in a discriminatory sense. Some laws against blasphemy are used in practice to repress not only religious minorities or dissenters but also atheists and non-theists. The notion of “belief” is usually absent from such legal instruments and consequently these laws against blasphemy establish a normative hierarchy of theistic and atheistic/non-theistic beliefs. 71. Moreover, groups of atheists and non-theists have recently voiced their deep concerns about the present exercise to combat “defamation of religions” at the international level. These atheist and non-theist groups argue that the very concept of “defamation of religions” is flawed, since it is individuals — both believers and non-believers alike — who have rights, not religions. They furthermore assert that the lack of an objective definition of the term “defamation of religions” makes the whole concept open to abuse. In their view, attempts to protect religions from “defamation” are really seeking to protect religion from critical evaluation and aim to stifle religious dissent. (b) Education issues 72. Further concerns relate to education in publicly funded schools. Atheist and non-theist groups regard an obligation for pupils to take part in collective religious worship, especially when no adequate rights of withdrawal are provided, as indefensible in terms of human rights. Laws and policies which require education about religions but not about non-religious alternatives are criticized as being discriminatory. Furthermore, they object to the manner in which syllabuses of religious education are drawn up, especially that atheists and non-theists are rarely represented on the relevant committees or advisory bodies. Some countries afford a special status to faith-based schools and allow them to discriminate in their admissions and employment policies. Consequently, teachers with no religious beliefs or with beliefs incompatible with those of the faith-based school are put at a disadvantage in comparison to theistic colleagues. 20 07-48490