Persecuted Atheists Around the World

[cybercoma]

A recent report by the International Humanists and Ethical Union (IHEU) has shown that atheists around the world are being persecuted for their beliefs. In at least seven countries they can be executed when discovered, while they suffer persecution and discrimination in many other nations. The report also shows that some policies in the US and Europe favour the religious and their organizations, treating atheists and non-believers as outsiders.

Some examples of the most egregious abusers of atheists:

Execution of atheists

Mauritania

Maldives

Afghanistan

Iran

Pakistan

Sudan

Saudia Arabia

Full ban on atheist publications (partial list)

Egypt

Bangladesh

Indonesia

Kuwait

Jordan

Moreover, in many of these nations and others, people must register as adherents to a religion in order to get their documentation. If people admitted to being atheists, they wouldn't be able to go to school, drive, travel, or go to a doctor.

In seven US state constitutions, atheists are barred from running for office, while in Arkansas atheists are not allowed to testify in trials.

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE8B900520121210

[Shady]

Moreover, in many of these nations and others, people must register as adherents to a religion

Hmmm, I wonder which religion of peace that would be.

In seven US state constitutions, atheists are barred from running for office, while in Arkansas atheists are not allowed to testify in trials.

source: http://www.reuters.c...E8B900520121210

Probably really really old laws that have not been updated. Because they'd never survive a constitutional court challenge.

[dre]

A recent report by the International Humanists and Ethical Union (IHEU) has shown that atheists around the world are being persecuted for their beliefs. In at least seven countries they can be executed when discovered, while they suffer persecution and discrimination in many other nations. The report also shows that some policies in the US and Europe favour the religious and their organizations, treating atheists and non-believers as outsiders.

Some examples of the most egregious abusers of atheists:

Execution of atheists

Mauritania

Maldives

Afghanistan

Iran

Pakistan

Sudan

Saudia Arabia

Full ban on atheist publications (partial list)

Egypt

Bangladesh

Indonesia

Kuwait

Jordan

Moreover, in many of these nations and others, people must register as adherents to a religion in order to get their documentation. If people admitted to being atheists, they wouldn't be able to go to school, drive, travel, or go to a doctor.

In seven US state constitutions, atheists are barred from running for office, while in Arkansas atheists are not allowed to testify in trials.

source: http://www.reuters.c...E8B900520121210

Found this interesting as well...

http://newsjunkiepos...usted-minority/

The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in ‘sharing their vision of American society.’ Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.” The results from two of the most important questions”

This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society…

Atheist: 39.6%

Muslims: 26.3%

Homosexuals: 22.6%

Hispanics: 20%

Conservative Christians: 13.5%

Recent Immigrants: 12.5%

Jews: 7.6%

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group….

Atheist: 47.6%

Muslim: 33.5%

African-American 27.2%

Asian-Americans: 18.5%

Hispanics: 18.5%

Jews: 11.8%

Conservative Christians: 6.9%

Whites: 2.3%

Edited December 12, 2012 by dre

[msj]

In seven US state constitutions, atheists are barred from running for office, while in Arkansas atheists are not allowed to testify in trials.

source: http://www.reuters.c...E8B900520121210

Not only that but in Indiana the courts say that a secular celebrant cannot solemnize a marriage. So, basically, get some clergy to do it, the mayor (good luck), a city clerk (oh, the joy!), become a member of a church (since it apparently can be done easily online for a low fee), or get a Quaker/Rabbi.

Talk about religious privilege.

As for real people being harmed, well, this guy dropped out from West Point over too much religion and not enough separation of church/state.

Edited December 12, 2012 by msj

[Mighty AC]

Found this interesting as well... http://newsjunkiepos...usted-minority/

Interesting indeed.... Though, the religious crowd has intentionally redefined the term atheist. If you listen to Christian speakers, atheists, are fanatical anti-theists who will not rest until they have destroyed the traditional American way of life. I suspect the results would be different if a term like 'non-believer' or 'non-religious' was used.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, what is an atheist to do?

Upon coronation, the reigning UK monarch becomes the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church, and must protect the Church of Scotland.

Denmark: the monarch is head of the Danish National Church (Lutheran) and thus required to be a member.

Norway: the monarch is head of the Church of Norway (Lutheran) and must be a member.

[The_Squid]

Oh, what is an atheist to do?

Upon coronation, the reigning UK monarch becomes the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church, and must protect the Church of Scotland.

Denmark: the monarch is head of the Danish National Church (Lutheran) and thus required to be a member.

Norway: the monarch is head of the Church of Norway (Lutheran) and must be a member.

That's more like discrimination, not persecution.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The irony of the all loving, forgiving and generally benevolent religion is that the followers aren't.

Ask tough questions about Christ to a fundamental Christian, you are a heretic.

Some Atheists go too far, just as Christians do. I have a relative on my wife's side, takes any chance to slag religion. It's annoying, especially since I'd label myself an agnostic who sees the benefit of religion. Mention Santa Claus/Stories told to our kids about him, he'll comment on how it's a little religion to brainwash the kids. It's just for fun, every parent tries to make the world more magical for their kids to some degree.

[Michael Hardner]

Not only that but in Indiana the courts say that a secular celebrant cannot solemnize a marriage. So, basically, get some clergy to do it, the mayor (good luck), a city clerk (oh, the joy!), become a member of a church (since it apparently can be done easily online for a low fee), or get a Quaker/Rabbi.

Talk about religious privilege.

Shady already addressed this one. It's actually evidence that religious persecution is on the wane - a relic of a bygone age.

[Michael Hardner]

The irony of the all loving, forgiving and generally benevolent religion is that the followers aren't.

Ask tough questions about Christ to a fundamental Christian, you are a heretic.

Some Atheists go too far, just as Christians do. I have a relative on my wife's side, takes any chance to slag religion. It's annoying, especially since I'd label myself an agnostic who sees the benefit of religion. Mention Santa Claus/Stories told to our kids about him, he'll comment on how it's a little religion to brainwash the kids. It's just for fun, every parent tries to make the world more magical for their kids to some degree.

That's what I say. There needs to be more religious tolerance across the board. In certain circles, religious folks are treated as ignorant too.

[Guest]

Why should there be more tolerance of rabid intolerance? No-one's getting hot under the collar about praying to mecca, or eating fish on Friday. The threads on the Bible and Darwin seem relatively good natured.

It's just the worst aspects of religion that take a pounding, and well they should.

Edited December 12, 2012 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

Why should there be more tolerance of rabid intolerance? No-one's getting hot under the collar about praying to mecca, or eating fish on Friday. The threads on the Bible and Darwin seem relatively good natured.

I say "no more tolerance of rabbit intolerance" !!!

What ? Your opening question is a mobius strip of a sentence, in that it leads nowhere. We tolerate religious beliefs, including the one that indicates that you are due for eternal damnation for that opening sentence.

It's just the worst aspects of religion that take a pounding, and well they should.

Humans are humans, no matter how smart they are. Intolerance sneaks in to your psyche, despite the degrees of degrees you hold.

[Guest]

I say "no more tolerance of rabbit intolerance" !!!

What ? Your opening question is a mobius strip of a sentence, in that it leads nowhere. We tolerate religious beliefs, including the one that indicates that you are due for eternal damnation for that opening sentence.

Now, you know that's not what I mean.

It's okay to be intolerant of some aspects of religious belief, especially if they (and they almost always are) are manifested in instances of extreme intolerance.

[Michael Hardner]

It's okay to be intolerant of some aspects of religious belief, especially if they (and they almost always are) are manifested in instances of extreme intolerance.

It's "okay" to be intolerant ? Really ? How so ? Rather than put a stake in the ground with a nonsensical slogan printed on the flag, why not come forward with some specifics ?

The fact is that the grey area between religious rights and individual rights is trampled down with the boots of many previous battles. Try and pick a new angle - I dare you. We've likely covered in on here to the point of numbness. The area of discrimination against religious people, however, is a lot newer and therefore there are quite a few new angles to discuss. New grist for the mill.

Imagine a Christian group asking for a quiet room to go to pray a few times a day in a public place. It wouldn't cause outrage, and perhaps not even any controversy. But it would be a strange request, wouldn't you say ? It might raise eyebrows in the school administration ?

[Mighty AC]

It is acceptable to be intolerant of bad ideas, especially those that cause harm. In many places religion has too much political power, so it has to be challenged. We tolerate many crazy beliefs, witches, astrology, homeopathy, a living Elvis, etc. However, if astrologists had the funds and numbers to sway political parties and get their beliefs inserted into the science curriculum we'd fight it too.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

It is acceptable to be intolerant of bad ideas, especially those that cause harm. In many places religion has too much political power, so it has to be challenged. We tolerate many crazy beliefs, witches, astrology, homeopathy, a living Elvis, etc. However, if astrologists had the funds and numbers to sway political parties and get their beliefs inserted into the science curriculum we'd fight it too.

Why is this called 'intolerance' ? Intolerance is thought of as a bad thing. But not allowing fantasy into the classroom is nothing to do with intolerance. "Intolerance" is not just a synonym for "bad".

[cybercoma]

Oh, what is an atheist to do?

Upon coronation, the reigning UK monarch becomes the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church, and must protect the Church of Scotland.

Denmark: the monarch is head of the Danish National Church (Lutheran) and thus required to be a member.

Norway: the monarch is head of the Church of Norway (Lutheran) and must be a member.

Good thing everyone else in society can run for those offices...

Oh wait.

[Mighty AC]

Why is this called 'intolerance' ? Intolerance is thought of as a bad thing. But not allowing fantasy into the classroom is nothing to do with intolerance. "Intolerance" is not just a synonym for "bad".

I don't consider it to be intolerant; however, any resistance to religion is called intolerance by some. If religious political power was diminished and an actual church/state separation were established, I'd lose interest in topic altogether. Unfortunately, that is not the case right now.

Religious groups are sort of like political unions. They are organized, easily swayed and willing to cast their ballots in support of single issues. Sometimes those issues are dangerous and supported by "fantasy". This is great for parties that co-opt those issues and the associated support, but a nightmare for anyone at odds with them. I don't see this power dissipating until their numbers do.

What is the best way to weaken support for bad ideas? In my opinion, a combination education and ridicule is the way to go. I think Tim Minchin, George Carlin, Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher style, comedic mockery is most effective; but, this is seen as intolerance. What are the reasonable to do?

[Michael Hardner]

I don't consider it to be intolerant; however, any resistance to religion is called intolerance by some.

Some ? Who ? Let's not throw darts in the air. Is anybody on MLW being called intolerant for 'any resistance' ?

There are always idiots out there - why should we pay attention to the 'some' ?

Religious groups are sort of like political unions. They are organized, easily swayed and willing to cast their ballots in support of single issues. Sometimes those issues are dangerous and supported by "fantasy". This is great for parties that co-opt those issues and the associated support, but a nightmare for anyone at odds with them. I don't see this power dissipating until their numbers do.

What is the best way to weaken support for bad ideas? In my opinion, a combination education and ridicule is the way to go. I think Tim Minchin, George Carlin, Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher style, comedic mockery is most effective; but, this is seen as intolerance. What are the reasonable to do?

Well, how is it reasonable to group everyone together because they share the same heritage and make fun of them ? Religion is, in many ways, a heritage. It's definitely a grouping, perhaps a tribal identity.

Make fun of ideas, sure. Especially if they're funny. But let's be honest - how many people with no familiarity with Christianity could have found 'Life of Brian' funny ? You see - the target audience for 'making fun' is often adherents and former adherents. That's a different thing than making fun of Jews in a room full of Christians.

[Mighty AC]

Well, how is it reasonable to group everyone together because they share the same heritage and make fun of them ? Religion is, in many ways, a heritage. It's definitely a grouping, perhaps a tribal identity.

Let's invent a group that can trace its heritage back to Never-never Land. It would be unfair to ridicule them solely for having roots in that place. However, if they used their political power to expunge pirates from the history books, insert fairies into the science curriculum, demand public funds for 'Lost Boys Day' and ban crocodiles, they should be challenged and ridiculed.

Religion with political power is dangerous. I don't want to ban Christianity, I just want its political clout reduced to the point that it becomes a benign, personal belief system.

ed: typo

Edited December 12, 2012 by Mighty AC

[msj]

Shady already addressed this one. It's actually evidence that religious persecution is on the wane - a relic of a bygone age.

Sure, if this goes to a higher court and/or the Supreme Court, then it will be addressed.

For now it is clearly religious privilege as the court has ruled and this is, in fact, the law in Indiana (and likely most states).

It may be an old and out of date law but that does not mean it does not have real effects in the present and the future.

Which is why non-religious people bring this up - to change the law to ensure proper separation of church and state.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's invent a group that can trace its heritage back to Never-never Land. It would be unfair to ridicule them solely for having roots in that place. However, if they used their political power to expunge pirates from the history books, insert fairies into the science curriculum, demand public funds for 'Lost Boys Day' and ban crocodiles, they should be challenged and ridiculed.

Why ridicule them ? Why not just criticize the idea on its own lack of merit ?

And furthermore why ridicule all religious people or all Christians when only a few are fighting to put their faith in public school books ?

Religion with political power is dangerous. I don't want to ban Christianity, I just want its political clout reduced to the point that it becomes a benign, personal belief system.

The power of religion is entirely nebulous and impossible to separate from the culture of the surrounding society. They couldn't pass a simple bill through the Senate because it encompassed a UN resolution. That's nothing to do with religion, but it's rooted in the same us-vs-them culture.

It's the culture you don't like.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure, if this goes to a higher court and/or the Supreme Court, then it will be addressed.

For now it is clearly religious privilege as the court has ruled and this is, in fact, the law in Indiana (and likely most states).

Without the ability to be enforced, it`s just a relic really.

It may be an old and out of date law but that does not mean it does not have real effects in the present and the future.

Which is why non-religious people bring this up - to change the law to ensure proper separation of church and state.

They`re arriving pretty late to the party. Religion`s influence is a shadow of what it was. It`s barely even a problem today compared to 40 or 50 years ago. Economic disparity, the degeneration of public dialogue and the decline of public services is actually an alarming problem domestically, although likely not for academics and atheist bookworms.

[Shady]

Let's invent a group that can trace its heritage back to Never-never Land. It would be unfair to ridicule them solely for having roots in that place. However, if they used their political power to expunge pirates from the history books, insert fairies into the science curriculum, demand public funds for 'Lost Boys Day' and ban crocodiles, they should be challenged and ridiculed.

Religion with political power is dangerous. I don't want to ban Christianity, I just want its political clout reduced to the point that it becomes a benign, personal belief system.

ed: typo

I think environmentalism with political power is dangerous. I want that added in too. Oh, and Marxism.

Yes, we need the government to tell us what ideas were allowed to act on politically, and which ones we can't.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Shady

[msj]

Without the ability to be enforced, it`s just a relic really.

Are we talking about the same thing here?

I'm talking about how if a non-religious person wants to have some kind of "secular celebrant" to perform the marriage ceremony then that is not allowed currently in Indiana by law.

Sure, the law is a relic but it does have real effects - i.e. having to go through the "proper" channels for the marriage ceremony which includes the clergy but does not include a suitable secular alternative.

They`re arriving pretty late to the party. Religion`s influence is a shadow of what it was. It`s barely even a problem today compared to 40 or 50 years ago. Economic disparity, the degeneration of public dialogue and the decline of public services is actually an alarming problem domestically, although likely not for academics and atheist bookworms.

Oh, I didn't know that laws can't be change when they continue to be unjust and continue to allow the intrusion of church upon the state contrary to the very Constitution of the country that is being discussed here.