Seven Countries Have Death Penalty For Atheism

Stedman-hangingDon’t tell anyone you’re an atheist if you live in Afghanistan, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Sudan! Story via Reuters:

Atheists and other religious skeptics suffer persecution or discrimination in many parts of the world and in at least seven nations can be executed if their beliefs become known, according to a report issued on Monday.

The study, from the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), showed that “unbelievers” in Islamic countries face the most severe – sometimes brutal – treatment at the hands of the state and adherents of the official religion.

But it also points to policies in some European countries and the United States which favor the religious and their organizations and treat atheists and humanists as outsiders.

The report, “Freedom of Thought 2012″, said “there are laws that deny atheists’ right to exist, curtail their freedom of belief and expression, revoke their right to citizenship, restrict their right to marry.”

Other laws “obstruct their access to public education, prohibit them from holding public office, prevent them from working for the state, criminalize their criticism of religion, and execute them for leaving the religion of their parents.”…

[continues at Reuters]

, , , , , , , ,

20 Responses to Seven Countries Have Death Penalty For Atheism

  1. Liam_McGonagle December 10, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    You’re just providing cover for these b*st*rds by mentioning a bunch of countries nobody would want to live in in the first place.

  2. howiebledsoe December 10, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    Actually, I took a French language course in Paris, and was the only westerner. The students were from all over, eastern europe, india, far and middle east, africa, etc. We were meant at one point to tell our religious beliefs, and I said “Athiest.” Not only was I the only athiest in a class of about 40, but only an elderly Chinese woman would even look at me from that point on. I quit shortly after, because no one wanted to have a thing to do with me. I don’t care, but I was very surprised at the intolerance from so called “enlightened” individuals.

    • Monkey See Monkey Do December 11, 2012 at 7:41 am #

      I believe it was the atheists that lay claim to the age of ‘enlightenment’. I’m not religious in any way but some of us think a bit more philosophically about things which inevitably leads to agnostic thinking. Atheism is just reactionary double-think.

      • Daniel Yang December 11, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

        How does thinking about things more philosophically inevitably lead to agnostic thinking? You should explain yourself if you want to stake a claim.

        • Adam Goodwin December 12, 2012 at 8:51 am #

          Thinking things more philosophically leads one to understand the limitations of one’s knowledge, and that means certainty goes out the window. That’s the basic claim of agnostic thinking–I just don’t know, and neither do you.

  3. alizardx December 10, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

    How many of these nations receive military or non-military fkriegn aid from the US and why? With non-traditional sources of oil coming online, just what do we need Saudi Arabia for? As for Afghani natural resources, it would probably be cheaper to withdraw US military presence, let China take over, and buy the resources in refined or end-product form from the Chinese.

  4. Adam Goodwin December 10, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

    The religious ideologues in those countries are just trying to prove their point to the atheists. “See, there is an after life!”

  5. BuzzCoastin December 10, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    even God has serious reservations about visiting those seven countries

  6. DeepCough December 10, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    Y’know, it’s terribly ironic: with all the Constitutional principles the United States prohibiting special privileges for religion within and from the government, you would think the United States would have the most irreligious bent on the planet, but it’s the exact opposite. I would be surprised to see a presidential candidate who just plain didn’t make any mention of his or her religion at all in a campaign.

  7. Butch Krichmar December 10, 2012 at 9:23 pm #

    NON BELIEVERS SHOULD BAN TOGETHER AND GET RID OF ORGANIZED RELIGION

    • Andrew December 10, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

      Are you kidding? We’d get creamed!

      • Monkey See Monkey Do December 11, 2012 at 7:27 am #

        You did ok in soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Mao’s China. Keep at it, one day….

        • Andrew December 11, 2012 at 11:09 am #

          I don’t disagree with you about the USSR or Mao’s China, but ask the Catholics about Nazi Germany.

        • Bob December 11, 2012 at 11:27 am #

          Soviet Russia and Maoist China had NOTHING , ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM, IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH POWER!!!!! I am tired of seeing this crock of shit “argument on the net. Dictatorial theocracies outnumber so called “atheistic” autocracies by orders of magnitude, in fact theocracies still exist! In fact, the first governments of humankind were dictatorial theocracies for christ’s sakes!

          Of course Mao and Stalin would get rid or religion because it undermined their power base, in those countries religious traditions acquired tremendous POLITICAL power and influence over the people to the detriment of rulers. SO Mao and Stalin told religion to fuck off, not simply because they didn’t give a rat’s ass about it, but more importantly because they wanted ABSOLUTE POWER. Idiot.

          • tristan eldritch December 11, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

            The point, though, is that what you say regarding Mao and Stalin is also equally true regarding the majority of wars and atrocities which are laid firmly at the door of religion. According the anthropologist Jack David Eller (himself an atheist): “When a pure or hybrid religious group and/or its interests are
            threatened, or merely blocked from achieving its interests by another
            group, conflict and violence may ensue. In such cases, although religion
            is part of the issue and religious groups form the competitors, or
            combatants, it would be simplistic or wrong to assume the religion is
            the “cause” of the trouble or that the parties are “fighting about
            religion”. Religion in the circumstances may be more a marker of the
            groups than an actual point of contention between them.” What is irksome to some people is the degree to which atheists ignore the underlying secular causes of conflicts in instances where religion can be blamed, but are quick to point out the underlying causes where an atheist state is involved. There is a double standard at work there.

          • Bob December 11, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

            What the fuck are you talking bout? LOL. Secular causes? As far as I and the rest of humanity is concerned, every conflict of interest is inherently secular and political, whether it deals around “religion” or not. “Religion” is politics under a different name, religion is proto-politics. The whole fucking thing is political. Obey the deity, obey the representatives, (the pope imam rabbi shaman) of the deity, obey the codes of the deity, never disbelieve in the deity Religion is politics. This is why ATHEISM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MAO AND STALIN. They developed a system of belief of faith in the “state” authority over “god’s” authority just as disastrous as religion. China and Russia already backwards dystopias due to religion which existed long before Mao and Stalin’s “so-called atheism”

          • tristan eldritch December 12, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

            Yes, but my point (not directed against you, but against atheistic arguments against religion based on its apparently deleterious effects on society) is that if “every conflict of interest is inherently secular and political”, then this would render null and void a good 80 to 90 percent of the arguments made against religion by new atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins. If religion is merely secular concerns in drag (and this would be true of institutional religion at any rate) then there is no reason whatsoever why a secular state should be any better, in ethical terms, or more stable, than a religious one. I’m not sure why you felt the need to all-cap atheism having nothing with Stalin and Mao again – I agree completely. But my point is that, by the same token, religion has little or nothing to do with a great many of the crimes and upheavals which are routinely laid at its door by atheists. Blaming atheism for Mao and Stalin is simply applying the same simple-minded logic that atheists so frequently employ when they blame religion for all the world’s ills.

        • Daniel Yang December 11, 2012 at 5:28 pm #

          Same argument, same stupidity.

  8. Monkey See Monkey Do December 11, 2012 at 7:41 am #

    Listen religious people, I know you may feel like killing your fellow atheists (we all do sometimes) but little do you know they pretty much think the same way as you. Recognize the certainty in the other.

    • Bob December 11, 2012 at 11:17 am #

      I am an atheist and I do not think “the same way as the religious”. If somebody tells me they are religious I don’t want to kill them or ignore them. At best I look at them perplexingly and wonder how can they believe in something they have never seen or experienced or witnessed or talked with or can even share and show to others for crying out loud! The certainty you speak of is of a different quality between the religious and atheist. The atheist is sure that god is fake in much the same way the easter bunny is unquestionably fake, the religious person is certain of god as if it had manifested itself in the world for all to see, ironically the atheists of the world have yet to see god, and more profoundly most ALL humans of the world have yet to agree on which version of god is the “true” god. So fuck off you smug shit.

Leave a Reply