"Religious freedom" is often just a Trojan horse for religious privilege. That's why we should instead be promoting the freedom of all beliefs, including atheistic ones, writes Hugh Harris.

In early November, the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, will host a Religious Freedom Roundtable. Different faith and non-faith groups will come together to discuss "religious freedom" in the context of our secular society.

The main item on the agenda will no doubt be the same-sex marriage debate that has seen the collision of traditional religious beliefs with community standards. If gay marriage is allowed, how will this affect religious freedom?

Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher gave a preview of what we can expect to hear at the roundtable with his recent article for ABC Religion & Ethics. In it, he describes a nightmare vision of a future Australia in which bishops are gaoled for discriminating against gays, religious tax exemptions are gone, and there's no more religious instruction in schools. It's hardly the Earth-levelling apocalypse promised by Christian eschatology; this is simply a dream induced by fear of the Christianity's dwindling influence.

Fisher's article demonstrates that Christian leaders and lobby groups are mainly concerned with protecting "religious" beliefs. But what about other beliefs?

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) safeguards the right of "freedom of thought, conscience and religion". But we don't hear about freedom of thought or freedom of conscience as often as we hear about religious freedom. Strange, since freedom of thought is in fact the progenitor of human liberties including freedom of speech and freedom of religion. US Supreme Court Judge Benjamin Cardozo described freedom of thought as "the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom".

In addition, the UNDHR protects all types of beliefs. Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right to profess any religion or belief.

Given non-faith based beliefs are granted equal protection under the UNDHR, the phrase "religious freedom" provides an undue emphasis on "religious beliefs". In our submission to the roundtable, The Rationalist Society of Australia suggests using the far better umbrella term "freedom of belief". This accurately describes the rights protected by the UNDHR without elevating particular types of beliefs.

Adopting this term could help prevent "religious freedom" from becoming a Trojan horse for religious privilege. We've had enough of that already. Widespread exemptions to anti-discrimination law allow religious service providers in education, health and aged care to discriminate on who they employ and on what beliefs they promote. Notably, many of these organisations are government funded, which means that our taxpayer dollars go directly towards buttressing these beliefs.

Tax exemptions are enjoyed by charities. Some of these are also religious groups. This is uncontroversial. But tax exemptions are also enjoyed by religious organisations on the basis of their religiosity alone. Australian taxpayers - many of whom are nonbelievers, many of whom prefer the writings of atheist Christopher Hitchens to those of theologian David Bentley-Hart - contribute about $31 billion a year to religious organisations. It's impossible to know how much of this money is being used for bona fide charity, but what we do know is that much of it is actually being used for "the advancement of religion", which the law says is a legitimate charitable purpose.

When freedom of belief is threatened, the oppressive force is often religion itself. We see it on the news every night. In Saudi Arabia, secular writer Raif Badawi is flogged and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, and Shia activist Ali al-Nimr is sentenced to beheading and crucifixion. We see it when mobs hack secularists to death in Bangladesh, and the local police chief seemingly admonishes the victims for offending religious sentiment. Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh and Charlie Hebdo all represent the right of free expression against the tyranny of suppression.

World religions are better organised and better equipped to fight the battle of beliefs than non-believers are. Many non-believers used to be apathetic about faith rather than opposed to it. They've tolerated the gradual impost of things like the contentious National Chaplaincy scheme (its federal funding having twice been ruled unconstitutional), and policies resulting in Australia having one of the largest proportions of children studying at religious schools in the OECD?

The 2016 Census will for the first time offer the choice "no religion" at the top. In previous surveys, it was hidden at the bottom, underneath a list of "other" choices. When the results are published in 2017, there's little doubt that non-religion will become the largest religious denomination. The 2011 Census recorded "no belief" at 22.3 per cent, and even then, another 8.5 per cent failed to record a theistic option. Given the 2012 WIN-Gallop poll recorded it at 48 per cent and a 2013 Roy Morgan survey recorded it at 37.6 per cent, the next Census looks certain to record a huge bump in non-belief.

Two potent forces - the scourge of Jihadism and the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse - have conspired in the minds of many Australians to strip away the veneer of deference shielding religion from scrutiny. Following on from the New Atheism movement, a second wave of opprobrium gathers pace. A second coming of sorts, the awakening conscience of non-believers who demand an equal voice and equal treatment under the law. Those who previously gave the creeds of Abraham the benefit of the doubt, who averted their eyes from their excesses and scandals, have had to finally agree that enough is enough.

Amongst the multitude of faith interest groups, there will be only four non-religious groups represented at the Religious Freedom Roundtable. Our simple task: to promote the message that is contained within the very definition of UNDHR itself, that the beliefs of non-believers carry equal weight with those of believers. When we "let freedom ring", it won't be in order to discriminate against others.

And for those such as Archbishop Fisher who fear the clang of a fast-closing door, I offer the following consolation. The heathens in your midst don't want to invert the current situation. We aren't advocating that you have to pay for evangelical atheists to preach Nietzsche and Dawkins to your children. Nor should your children grow up to face discrimination by government funded secular businesses.

We think this would be unfair. We hope you can acknowledge the obvious asymmetry.

Sigmund Freud said, "The voice of reason is soft, but persistent." Well, perhaps it's time for unbelievers to raise their voices. And in doing so, let's get the emphasis right. Let's talk about "freedom of belief", inclusive of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Hugh Harris is a board member of the Rationalist Society of Australia and writes a blog called The Rational Razor.