The Countries Where They Kill You for Being an Atheist

In response to yesterday’s publication of a “Global Report on Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists and the Non-religious,” the Washington Post‘s Max Fisher posted this map highlighting the seven countries in which you can be executed for being an atheist (Afghanistan, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan). Also on the map are countries where atheists can be imprisoned for their beliefs or have certain rights taken away (click to enlarge):

The countries in red are, at least in theory, committed to killing people for blasphemy or “thought crimes.” In all seven countries, Islam is the state religion. Six of the countries are run by a dictator, while Pakistan is (kind of) a democracy.

And in all seven countries, there are undoubtedly a large number of atheists pretending to be religious — or discussing their atheism only in the most discreet of ways — so they can live without fear of being captured and executed.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Ryan Jean

    This has always made me nervous as a military service-member. I’ve been to several of the countries where atheism is either punishable by death or severely restricted/sanctioned. So far, I haven’t deployed *since* being open about my atheism, but that could always change. I’ve always wondered, if I were captured in combat (or even detained for other reasons in some of those countries), would that nation be quicker to mistreat (or worse) me for no other reason, and would the evangelical majority of the U.S. military command structure be able to muster nearly as much of an effort to do something about my situation? My intuition, based on the experiences I’ve had so far since being open on my atheism, would be ‘yes’ and ‘maybe’ respectively, but I sure hope I’d never have to find out for sure.

    • Pseudonym

      I do feel for you, I really do.

      Stepping back from your personal situation, however, I feel compelled to point out that part of the reason you have a right to be nervous is that your country is deploying you to (presumably help) dictatorial regimes. Something is wrong there.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rocky-Morrison/100001552602936 Rocky Morrison

      Since you signed up to kill if the government orders you too, I guess thats a chance you take.

      • Pseudonym

        I think that’s more than a little glib. Soldiers do a dirty job, a necessary evil, that I (and presumably you) couldn’t do.

        The OP is presumably rightly proud of the notion of defending his country by any just and proportional means. What he didn’t sign up for is to be used by corrupt special interests as a tool for dubious foreign policy.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/SAH3NB237ZCVT32PSUTYOS6UB4 J.

        Say, Rocky. You’re kind of an asshat.

    • http://www.facebook.com/JAMichail Joshua Michail

       I think we all hope that you never find out for sure. I hope also that you finish your contract with the government without any incidents at all. Thank you for your service and good luck.

    • David Gilchrist

      just lie about it if captured or “convert” to islam. Its not like we believe a god will take offense if you pretend to believe in one.

  • ActualFreethinker

    And in some of those countries they kill you for being a Christian.

    Not to mention the Officially Atheistic states where that is still happening…

    • Cecelia Baines

      Name them and provide citations. Right now, without the aid of Google State or Wiki University.

    • Ryan Jean

       Oh, yay! A brand-new troll account that has so far posted drive-by comments in two threads. Your comments won’t find much traction here, where people know how to spot the obvious false-hoods.

      For example: “And in some of those countries they kill you for being a Christian.”
      Nope! In none of them will the state kill you for *being* a Christian. If they execute a Christian the offense is either apostasy or blasphemy. Those are both utterly-BS reasons, but keep in mind that’s the same sort of law that a disturbingly-powerful group of *Christians* want in THIS country, just against all the other faiths…

      Also: “Not to mention the Officially Atheistic states where that is still happening…”
      Nope! There are no “Officially Atheistic” states, nor are there records for any having ever existed that I’ve ever heard of. I’m guessing you’re thinking of the repressive regimes in North Korea, China, and the former USSR, but they were not Atheist (and not having an official state religion isn’t the same as being officially atheistic except in the minds of idiots). They were/are authoritarian governments that used religious repression as just one of many forms of control, and in that they are much more in line with the fascist right-wing in this country that wants to dominate the lives of all inhabitants.

      I find it strange that the most common reason cited for hating atheists is that we all apparently want to emulate the selfishness of the atheist Ayn Rand, but in reality most atheists firmly refute that and the only atheists who actually want to emulate that are firmly aligned with the right wing, where they are in good company with the religious who also wish to emulate selfishness.

      Oh, look, now you’re 0/2 on your comments meaning a damn thing other than being ripe for further ridicule. Care to play again?

      • Xuuths

        Actually, Ryan Jean, the act of “being a Christian” (or any other religion other than the state sanctioned one)  is evidence of apostacy or blasphemy in those countries, so ActualFreeThinker is correct.

        • Michael Aquino

           “In those countries”… which countries? Can we at least name some countries where those laws are in effect before concluding that countries will “kill you for being Christian”?

        • C Peterson

          Which countries? I think all of the ones with extreme blasphemy laws are Islamic theocracies, and I’m not aware of any which kill people for being Christian. Christians have reduced rights, and Muslims can be killed for the act of converting to Christianity, but AFAIK all those countries have at least small Christian communities.

        • Pseudonym

          Almost.  In the countries named, “being a Christian” typically isn’t illegal. What’s typically illegal is becoming a Christian, or marrying a Christian.

          In other countries what’s typically illegal is being the wrong sort of Christian. Vietnam, China, North Korea and so on only allow certain state-sanctioned religious organisations, and you can be imprisoned or killed for forming your own.

          Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world by head count. Seeing as it’s the largest religious group in the world by head count, this shouldn’t be a surprise.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rocky-Morrison/100001552602936 Rocky Morrison

            So you can be killed for becoming a Christian but not being a Christian?

            Oh well, the atheists who have murdered Hundreds of Thousands of Christians in the past century must not have been TRUE ATHEISTS.    snicker

            • Cecelia Baines

              Name those “atheists” responsible for these alleged murders and deaths.

              Come on mouth, give us the proof. Put up or shut up you ass-hat.

              • FreedomFighter

                 Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and their thousands of henchmen were all Atheists.

                And they had Christians killed.

                I don’t give a crap if the did it “because” of atheism…although in many cases they did.

                They were atheists and they did it.

                • Cecelia Baines

                  Nnnnnt…..fctually incorrect on SO many levels. And your admission that you don’t care what the facts are, you are going to believe whatever you want just illustrates your ignorance and stupidity.

                  Patrick Moynahan (spl) said it best – “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts”. 

                • BlazeL

                  It doesn’t make a Gawd Damn bit of difference to the victims as to WHY the atheists killed them.

                  Fact is, Atheists Killed Them.

                • Coyotenose

                   Oh wow, another religionist who is too incompetent to grasp the difference between “having a viewpoint and doing something” and “doing something because of a viewpoint”. How *yawn* shocking.

                  Oops, my bad. You “don’t give a crap” about that, so grasping facts was never on your To-Do List in the first place.

                  You twits are old and well-refuted.

                • BlazeL

                  The victims didn’t give a crap about why the atheists killed them.

                  But to pretend that the perpetors atheism had nothing to do with their actions means either that there atheism is just plain stupid. 

                  Even Christopher Hitchens admitted that ” Lenin and Trotsky were certainly convinced atheists who believed that illusions in religion could be destroyed by acts of policy…page 244 GING

                  Clearly, their atheism inspired their “acts of policy”.

                  Quit hiding from it.  It happened. Face it. Deal with it.

                  You are startling to look Willfully Dishonest.

            • Pseudonym

              I think we’re talking cross-purposes.

              I can think of quite a few atheists who have killed explicitly in the name of atheist causes. The car bomb, as we all should know, was invented by anarchists of the early 20th century trying to overthrow established churches.

              However, this is history. It’s in living memory in many cases, but history nonetheless.

              There is no country that I’m aware of for which you legally can be killed merely for being Christian. You can be denied citizenship for being Christian. You can be the victim of the attack of a violent mob just for being Christian, and the local government will not punish anyone for the crime. You can be thrown in jail for practising Christianity. You can face the death penalty for becoming Christian. You can have your property confiscated for being the wrong sort of Christian. But you can’t legally be killed justfor being Christian.

      • Quintin van Zuijlen

        Ryan, I must correct you on just one thing. There was exactly one officially atheist state once. It was known as the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania. Article 37 of its 1976 constitution stipulates
        “The state recognizes no religion whatever and supports atheist propaganda for the purpose of inculcating the scientific materialist world outlook in people.” 
        Further enforcing that article 55 states “The creation of any type of organization of a fascist, anti-democratic, religious, and anti-socialist character is prohibited. Fascist, anti-democratic, religious, war-mongering, and anti-socialist activities and propaganda, as well as the incitement of national and racial hatred are prohibited.”
        It should be obvious though that nothing of this sort is desired by secularists. This is in fact the opposite of secularism. It should also be noted that very little effect can be noticed. Albania is still a Muslim majority nation with large Christian minorities. Meanwhile the most non-religious nations are without a doubt the Scandinavian Kingdoms, where state religions still exist.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rocky-Morrison/100001552602936 Rocky Morrison

          The USSR went through a period of State Atheism…Offically Atheistic Government.

          And of course nothing of this sort is desired by secularists…except maybe Sam Harris would like to round up the Muslims, and Dawkins would like to imprison parents for teaching about religion to kids (after he arrested the Pope…snicker…and Daniel Dennet would like to put Baptists in zoos)

          Besides, even if secularists did want something like that they should would not talk about it until they had the power.

          And I of course won’t count the local atheist groups around here where some of the leaders want Christians to shut up and crawl under a rock and die, and where one of them said (on a very public blog) that Christians would end up “in a ditch” like “Jimmy Hoffa”.

          But of course most Militant Athesits are all for love an tolerance..

          • Ryan Jean

            Gosateizm, the closest equivalent of USSR ideology on religion to “state atheism,” is not quite the same as atheism as a philosophical idea, nor has it ever been (despite desperate attempts by the religious to paint them as equivalent).

            At the risk of being accused of a “no true Scotsman” fallacy, I will emphatically point out that most *atheists* would reject as “atheism” any definition not explicitly including and highlighting: 1) the philosophical position that there are no gods, or 2) the philosophical position that (at a bare minimum) there is no evidential reason to assume the existence of any gods.The alternative view, and in particular the one espoused by Marx (and adopted by all Communist/Marxist regimes for at least some period of time, as in the given example of gosateizm) is that religion is a harmful delusion pushed by the powerful on the rest as a means of control.

            I will readily grant that one can certainly hold both views, as many self-described atheists most certainly do (my own position is that 1) I find no evidential reason to believe but do not rule the concept fundamentally impossible, 2) religious belief *is* almost certainly delusion, *can* be harmful, and *is often* used as a means of control, but 3) not that religion necessarily *must* be harmful or controlling).

            The difference is that philosophical atheism IS WHAT ATHEISM FUNDAMENTALLY IS while the communist idea of atheism IS ANTI-RELIGION (usually for reasons of establishing its own authoritarian nature and/or pseudo-religious leader worship), but is not actually atheism unless explicitly partnered with the philosophical requirement inherent in atheism.

            Taking all of that into account, then, there are zero nations in ANY modern account of history (just to cover the off-chance that there was some ancient but unknown atheist country since lost to time), including the USSR, China, Albania, Cuba, and North Korea that have institutionalized the philosophical underpinning of atheism as a core principle, and all of the examples so-far given have expressly followed the Marxian position that religion is an exploitative evil (as well as also using that as a means of control in itself).

            This is what so many people, even (unfortunately) many atheists, gloss over in the discussion of Communism: atheism in Communist/Marxist doctrine has always been a means to an end, not a core principle of the doctrine that stands on its own apart from its use in controlling people. To call that atheism buys into the long-running effort of religion to deny the reality not just of what has happened in those countries, but WHY it happened, in an effort to further prop up their beliefs. If that truly is the best religion can do to defend itself against reality, no wonder so many believers are so scared…

            • FreedomFighter

               In other words, “No True Scotsman Atheist”.

              • Ryan Jean

                 Way to walk right into it.

                I openly attest that drawing the distinction opens up the possibility for the accusation, as I specifically mentioned. Whether that accusation is warranted depends upon a few things: whether my description of atheism is accurate, whether it is widely-held among actual atheists, and perhaps most importantly whether I shift it over time to get out of a tight spot (And I don’t mean merely being explicit about a definition where one was not as explicit prior; I mean being explicit originally and then shifting that already explicit definition to mean something other than before).

                By those three metrics, the worst someone could honestly assess is that I didn’t pin down the exact limit of what I meant soon enough (or as is commonly attributed [falsely] to Aristotle, “Wisdom starts with a definition of terms”). It is also a fact that, in other avenues where I have described the specifics of atheism in detail to others, those descriptions are consistent with now. The specifics, however, are also an accurate representation of the philosophically atheist position, and are widely-held among atheists, even though many will say that their atheism doesn’t *stop* there nor do I even remotely demand that they do (A+, anyone? I call my more expansive worldview Humanism, but to each their own).

                So, unless you have something meaningful to offer rather than pretending to be profound with a not-so-pithy retort, go find something better to do with your time.

                • BlazeL

                  He was right…you are making the “Not A True Atheist” argument.

                  Call if whatever you want, but that’s what you did.

                • Ryan Jean

                  If you’re saying that I (and most atheists) define atheism to require at a minimum a commitment to a certain philosophical opinion, and that therefore authoritarian regimes can call themselves atheist without actual atheists considering it such*, then yes, but that’s not saying much since actual atheists have been pretty firm on this for generations so it’s not something new here.

                  If you’re trying to make the claim that it’s a “no true Scotsman” fallacy in particular, you have to show that atheists have been shifting the definition to selectively remove groups that would have qualified under previously accepted definitions — espoused not by the religious that want to make that link, but by the atheists themselves. This is something you cannot show, since for all other argumentation about what *else* atheism is/might-be/should-be, there is long-standing agreement about the minimum standards of what it *must* entail.

                  Claiming the former is meaningless; claiming the latter is dishonest. Since the only one that matters for your attempt is the latter, it overall fails as an insult and you fundamentally know it. 

                  * (This really does come down to a raw question of definitions, as much as I hate for it to do so. I can call myself anything I want; it doesn’t mean anything if I don’t use proper definitions for the terms employed. Just like calling the sky brown on a bright, sunny day is meaningless since it defies the proper definition of brown, calling anything atheist that does not include the actual atheist position [that gods either do not exists or that their is no evidence to reasonably even venture that they do] makes no sense since that is the essence of what atheism is. No state has ever had a commitment to the fundamental principle, and atheism quickly becomes a short-hand for anti-religious, which is in reality a whole different phenomenon, especially when done for authoritarian purposes in the first place. That re-branding, by non-atheists, as to what atheism supposedly is makes up a large part of the BS stigma that actual atheists have to break through. I think it interesting though, that the only example of “state atheism” actually brought up as enshrined in a country’s fundamental laws comes from the Albanian example, which actually proves my point: it says the state *recognizes* no religion (not the same as atheism) and supports atheistic *propaganda*… If you have to label it as propaganda in your own documents, you’re already showing that you don’t buy into the principle but are using it as a means to an end. Hence, my original position that there is no history of an officially atheist country stands.)

        • Philip ‘Yuna’ Wester

          We Swedes separated our church and state by law in 2000 (though it was a mere formality at that point). Finland, Denmark and Norway still have a state church, however. In all 4 countries, Lutheranism is the majority religion.

          Trivia:
          The Top 4 countries in a 2009 poll that asked the question “The least people who say ‘Religion holds an important place in my life’” consists of Estonia (1st), Sweden (2nd), Denmark (3rd) and Norway (4th).

          • Quintin van Zuijlen

            It seems you are indeed entirely correct. Please excuse my ignorance.

      • Robert Freid

        Don’t make me laugh, China and North Korea are still what you call “Atheist States.” I did alot of research into the North Korea in particular where it has been said that they believe their leaders to be “divine gods.” Such as the sun turning red at Kim il Sung’s death, the ability of Kim Jong il to control whether, Kim il Sung splashing a bit of ink on a map of Japan and the whole nation pouring rain, etc. But I could not find any evidence that the North Korean regime actually propagandizes these “divine myths” outside U.S. media.

        Here are some quotes from both China and North Korea:

         
        NORTH KOREA:

        “A miracle is not a gift from Heaven; it is something inevitable wrought by the people.” -Kim Jong Il

        “Science has long established the fact that man is a product of ages of evolution. Man is a product of evolution, but not his independence. Independence is a social product.” -Kim Jong Il

        “We [could not] turn into a Communist society along with the religious people. Therefore, we purged the key leaders above the rank of deacons in Protestant or Catholic churches and the wicked among the rest were put on trial. The general religious people were…put into prison camps [and given a chance to reform]…. We learned later that those of religion can do away with their old habits only after they have been killed.”

        -Kim-il Sung

        PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

        “Party members are required to be atheists and must not believe in religion or engage in religious practice.”

        -Zhu Weiqun, High-ranking Chinese Communist Party member, late 2011

        “We must emphasise that a Communist Party member is an atheist, regardless of his family background or nationality. He must persist in materialism and atheism. He should not believe in any religions.”

        -Jiang Zemin’s July 20, 1994 speech, On National and Religious Issues

        “In fact, our party’s principled stance regarding forbidding members from believing in religion has not changed one iota.”

        • Coyotenose

           Most Chinese are still Buddhists IIRC

          You forgot the part where Evolution =/= Atheism. And don’t overlook how Communistic manifestos consider Christianity competition, even though it’s right there in the quotes. That should tell you a lot right there.

          There’s a difference between being an atheistic state and having officials make atheistic pronouncements. Obama praying publicly doesn’t make the U.S. a Christian nation.

          Did you look at those quotes in the original context? Quite often there’s some quote mining taking place when people start making lists of things to hold against liberals/progressives/secularists/atheists.

          • Robert Freid

            Obviously, George Herbert Walker Bush once said that: “I don’t know if atheists should be regarded as citizens-this is one nation under God.”

            Most Chinese are Buddhists? Maybe underground, last I checked China had something like a half of a nation of atheists/irreligious.

            I am not sure what you mean by “And don’t overlook how Communistic manifestos consider Christianity competition, even though it’s right there in the quotes. That should tell you a lot right there.”

            This is a quote from the Manefesto, Chapter 2:
            “But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

            • Coyotenose

               The Bush quote isn’t supported by any evidence and he has denied saying it, so I’ve always discounted it.

              What I mean is that Marxism and its derivations oppose Christianity, not because of its belief in a god, but because it is ideological competition. Christianity is useful for getting people to do what they’re told by authority, and so was an impediment to popularizing Communism (which of course quickly became about doing what you’re told by authority…)  Marxism is a religion with “The People” and “The State” switched in for supernatural terms.

        • Cecelia Baines

          Google State and Wiki University are not mega-research centers Ace. Go to grad school or work for a think tank, then come back and tell us all about your “research”.

          The Internet makes everyone believe they are the next Woodward and Bernstein.

          • Robert Freid

            What in hell do you mean? Ther’re quotes! And I just realized that last one is missing the guy who said that, and that was Zhu Weiqun who said the last one.  

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rocky-Morrison/100001552602936 Rocky Morrison

        Red China is officially Atheistic.  And they persecute Christians and other believers.

        Are you being dishonest, or just stupid?

        • Cecelia Baines

          When was the last time you were in China? Or read a Chinese government document that backs up your statement?

          Come on Rocky, give us the proof here, don’t just mouth off like a tool without some citations.

          • FreedomFighter

             Who cares if he went to China? 

            The Chinese have engaged in all kinds of atrocities.

            • Cecelia Baines

              Don’t distract. Give us the PROOF….you know, basically a writ of Habeus Corpus….

              “FreedomFighter” what a crock of shit that name is.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rocky-Morrison/100001552602936 Rocky Morrison

        I’ll play.  Didn’t you sign up for the military?  Aren’t you obligated to kill if the government orders you too?

        How does your atheism fit in there?

        • Ryan Jean

          I signed up to serve in the military forces of the Government, and
          that may require me to kill another human as a part of a military action (as either an
          attacker or in defense), but this is substantially different than an execution of someone for their beliefs or conscience.

          If you presented me, right now, with an individual who openly espoused belief that all atheists should be publicly and violently executed, along with an order from another officer appointed over me in the chain of command to execute them when they were not acting hostile but merely voicing hostility, I not only would defy the order but be both morally and legally justified in doing so (plus, most people don’t realize that moral opposition, with certain qualifying characteristics, can be an affirmative legal defense of refusing to follow an order even when it is otherwise a legal order).

          Further, my atheism doesn’t factor into this at all; atheism is a philosophical position on the existence of gods, and has no official stance as such on questions of morality other than to say that any claim of an objective morality based on a presumed deity that does not exist is therefore faulty (you can use other claims to back up moral position X, but “God, therefore X” is logically valid-but-not-sound if “God” is falsely assumed). What I draw my affirmative values from is best described as Humanism, and there is noting inherent in Humanism that requires one to be a pacifist or non-interventionist.

          • FreedomFighter

             In other words, your “atheism” is useless in this situation.

            That said, I don’t trust people who sign up to kill for the present American Government.

            • Ryan Jean

              To the question of executing people for their beliefs/conscience? Correct, my atheism has no bearing. Some people, who prefer to ascribe more than just the minimum atheism statement of (non)belief may certainly disagree, but as I’ve repeatedly said, I prefer to use the term Humanism as the most accurate statement to describe my views and values beyond just my lack of belief.

              The first key take-away is that there are other reasons to care about the posed issue which do not hinge on whether there is or is not a god of any kind.

              The second key take-away is that I did not “sign up to kill” for anyone, and your naivete on that is a pretty glaring error in your approach. I signed up to defend a particular constitutional government, independent of its transient leadership, and with the full capacity and intent to draw the line at support for actions that are clearly inappropriate and inexcusable. For someone claiming the name “FreedomFighter,” I don’t exactly see you volunteering exactly how you believe yourself to qualify…

            • Coyotenose

               In other words, you’re desperately flailing for something to hold against someone because he’s an atheist, even if it isn’t in any way related.

              That’s called “bigotry”, Jingoist. Enjoy.

        • Coyotenose

           Pacifism and Atheism aren’t the same thing. They aren’t even related. Not that anyone would expect you to grasp that, given the rampant stupidity and bigotry of the other posts on your Activity list.

    • Coyotenose

       Whine more, liar.

  • Salford3lad

    Afghanistan has an elected president, Hamid Karzai, who of course only pays lip service to democracy, why are our troops still there?!! No better than the Taliban.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=6851880 Nick Best

    There’s a lot more areas that should be yellow, some of which you’ve blogged about before: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/01/where-atheists-cant-hold-office/

    • ortcutt

      I’m not sure how many times people are going to have to point out that this is not correct.  The Supreme Court ruled in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) that all of these provisions are unconstitutional.  So, atheists don’t have reduced rights in those states.

      • BrianPuccio

        Maybe then there’s needs to be some differentiation to make it clear. “Atheists have reduced rights under the law”  makes no reference at all to whether or not those laws are considered constitutional and can easily be interpreted as “this county has a law or laws that reduce or curtail the rights of atheists” in which case yes, the United States and many other countries should be yellow.

        Instead, how about “this country has laws that reduce or curtail the rights of atheists, but does not currently attempt to enforce them” and “this country has laws that reduce or curtail the rights of atheists and does currently attempt to enforce them”.

        “Does not current attempt” could be defined as no attempts within the past year.

        • ortcutt

          These provisions are bits of text, but they aren’t laws.  That’s why there are tools like Shepard’s in order to determine whether something is law or not.

          You can say that there are provisions in state constitutions and statutes that would discriminate against atheists if they were the law, but that’s the most you can say.

  • observer

     A god who demands others to be killed for not believing in itself-or its rival gods-is a weak god. It’s even worse considering it leaves, at best, circumstantial evidence of its existence, and all that’s left is faith. Which by definition means belief in something without evidence.

    • Pseudonym

      You know this isn’t actually about gods. This is actually about dictators who demand others be killed for committing thought crimes. And that particular phenomenon is older than writing.

  • Elricthemad

    It’s a good thing the United States doesn’t give any monetary or military aid to any of these countries that so blatantly oppose what we allegedly hold up as basic freedoms of religion, speech and thought. Oh, wait. We give them BILLIONS. Sigh.

    • Robert Freid

      I actually agree with that. America is not new at funding dictatorships. President Carter sent aid to the Sandinistia regime under President Carter, no better than the funding of the dictaorial Somoza family under previous presidents. Reagan originally funded the Saddam Hussein regime (to which he was regarded as an ally originally).  I find it fustrating that taxpayer dollars go to funding the People’s Republic of China’s horrible One-Child (forced abotion) Policy instead of exploring better ways of controlling population. The U.S. sent aid to North Korea in the 1990′s in exchange they would not pose a treat in the world, yet they still do pose a treat… 

    • Robert Freid

      Oops. I accidently put “Under Carter” twice.

    • Robert Freid

      Dahmn it. I put “treat” instead of “threat.” I knew I should not of stayed up all night last night… 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-GA-Murray/618787034 Patrick G.A. Murray

    What? You mean to tell me in all seven, Islam is the state religion? No way! They author of this study must be some kind of white, conservative, islamophobe!

    • Pseudonym

      The irony is that in exactly these countries, you’re far more likely to be killed  for being the wrong kind of Muslim. You’re actually safer if you’re an atheist than if you’re, say, Ahmadi.

      • Coyotenose

         That has more to do with unfavored sects living in concentrated groups and thus being more visible and outspoken than are atheists.

  • Michaelbrice

    Visiting Mauritania, the country where slavery was ‘abolished’ in 1981 (not a typo), and where up to 600,000 people still live in slavery is not on my bucket list.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania

  • Sharon Hypatiia

    From the linked article:
    A Saudi man, “Hamza Kashgari tweeted in commemoration of the Prophet Mohammed’s
    birthday that, while he found the Islamic holy man inspirational, he did
    not believe in his divinity. ” He was arrested for blasphemy, which carries a sentence of death.
    I thought Mohammed was revered as the chosen prophet of Allah.  Wouldn’t considering him to be divine be the blasphemy?

  • Herizal Alwi

    “It’s useless to be religious if not humane,” “rather than religious but better inhuman evil, though not religious”. That logic furious haters of religion and humanism bearer. The logic is that humanists but rather as an atheist. And it turns out “fetish” or aji-aji the ultimate secular-liberal and even atheists to attack religion is the pretext humanism.

    Historically, it has been a change in the orientation of Western society from the theocentric (God as the center) being anthropocentric (human as the center). The change was considered so revolutionary that accompany the journey of modern Western culture to postmodern. Their argument is so easily accepted. With God’s doctrine empiricism considered real, humans are so real and tangible. Defending God, concerned with God, honor God or sanctify God is futile and pointless. The evidence for “God does not need to be defended because it is all-powerful.” As defending God but actually opens the way for Blasphemy.

    Evidence anthropocentrism orientation is represented by Nietzsche’s doctrine of the Lord’s death. From there blasphemy, God and truth be valid. But the seeds were sown in 1948 Nietzsche became ripe fruit in the form of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This is a humanitarian stadarisasi formal and agreed many countries supporting humanism. Hence human rights truly dominant religions are no longer given a room.

    Since the preparation of this Declaration does not involve religion so many things that made it universal. Evidently many religions are not satisfied. In July 1993 at the New York launch event held Project on Religion and Human Rights. This event is a religious reaction against the UDHR and an initiative to revise it. Not only was the 50 th anniversary of the Universal Declaration and the 50th anniversary of the Faculty of Religious Studies McGill University, Montreal, Canada’s efforts to revise the UDHR was repeated. The revision resulted in a document called the Universal Deklaration of Human Rights by the World Religions. After that successive revisions merivsi event continued in various places, such as California, New York, Durban, Barcelona, ​​Paris and The Last in Genting Highland, Malaysia in November 2002. Surprisingly, the event was witnessed by the UNESCO. Resmilah already evidence dispute between the humanist and religious.

    Independently of response religions among Muslims Islamic countries such as Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc., were also aware of the dominance of humanism in the UDHR. They regard the Universal Declaration failed to include consideration of the cultural and religious context of the countries of non-Western. Iran’s envoy to the UN Country in 1981, Said Rajaie-Khorassani even stated that “Universal Declaration is the result of a secular understanding of the Jewish tradition that can not be ditrapkan pastimes into Islam”.

    Three years earlier than the events in New York, Muslims issued a counter declaration called Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). Declaration held by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on August 5, 1990 was attended by 45 foreign ministers of the OIC Countries. The point is to give an overview of human rights according to Islam is the only source of Islamic law.

    If the logic of secular, liberal and atheist above is true, then the contents Cairo Declaration that God alone should only purify and trampled humanity. But it was not liberal atheist and secular logic is wrong. Even the Cairo declaration is not exclusive to Muslims. In one article menyatatkan “Discrimination based on race, color, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations is prohibited”. Even the protection of the human soul is the Islamic duty. So in war, they were not involved in the war such as the elderly, women and children, the wounded and the sick and the prisoners of war, the right to be fed, shelter and security and health care.

    CDHRI also give rights to men and women the right to marry without regard to race, color or nationality, but still consider religion. In addition she was also given the same respect and honor as human beings, the right to run the job, civil rights, financial independence, and the right to retain the name and kekeluargaannya, although not alike in all respects.

    In the 10th chapter states that Islam is the perfect religion. Doing any form of coercion against people or exploiting poverty or ignorance to convert someone from one religion to another religion or atheism is prohibited. There are many other articles that defended the man, but not necessarily debasing religion let alone God.

    Read for example, article 22, which reads: a) Every person has the right to express his opinion freely in a way that will not conflict with the principles of Shariah. b) Every person has the right to defend the right, and preach the good, and warn of things wrong and unjust in accordance with the norms of Islamic law. c) Information is a vital necessity to society. He should not be exploited or misused so tarnish the sanctity and respect for the Prophet, degrading moral values ​​and ethics, or break, damage or harm society or weaken faith. d) Trigger hatred that comes from national or religious doctrine or do anything that might provoke racial discrimination of any kind is prohibited.

    Of section 22 above prove that gives the place of religion does not mean degrading human. Because Sharia is the source of all the treatment of humans, there are serious benefits in Shariah that have been designed by God through revelation. But not all of which are considered of benefit to mankind can be justified Shari’a. Prostitution, homosexuality, lesbianism, interfaith marriage for religious haters are beneficiaries, but not justified Shari’a. So the logic of the religious right someone actually he more humane, but the humanist someone even more atheists. Insana Innal layatgha an ra’ahustaghna.

  • http://www.facebook.com/JAMichail Joshua Michail

     Those of us who have the liberty to speak out on behalf of others, ought to do so. It is, in fact, a high moral imperative that we do stick up for those who can’t stick up for themselves.

  • redriver

    Isn’t Laos a communist state? Why on earth would atheists have reduced rights under law there?

  • Faker

    So little understanding of Islamic law here. Christians, like Jews are “people of the book” and are free to practice their religion as long as they accept 2nd. class citizenship (and sometimes pay tribute). As an atheist I claim Christianity as my religion, to avoid problems when in the middle east. Atheists have no more rights than a farm animal under strict Sharia. I will be there again in a couple of weeks, wearing a cross and playing a part.
    I love the Islamic world and it’s history. But the idea of forcing people to believe in baseless fairy tales is barbaric, and shows how religion has stagnated a once great empire.

    • Vamps Cheeko


      And
      had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed – all of them
      entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that
      they become believers?”
      And say, “The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve.”

      this is what islam call for but people twist the message to suit their own desire

    • Vamps Cheeko

      as for the tribute it’s payed not because you are a jew or christian or atheist but because they don’t fight in the military, if you don’t defend the state you have to pay money got it

  • whatever

    YEAH! I love those countries now XDDD

    Id love other countries did the same to those atheist scumbags.

    I respect other people opinions, but since those fags are always attacking the people that dont share their beliefs on some way or another, why would I RESPECT THEIRS? BITCH PLEASE! they are just like many other scumbags like -insert music genre here- fanboys, rich morons, children lovers, animal abusers, gay pro women morons (or feminist whores in case they are lesbian braindead idiots), GOVERMENT, skeptic idiots, anti gaming pedo morons, stupid useless women (not all of them are), plain stupid people and more and more intolerant and evil bastards that ruin the world with their miserable existense and are just here to cause grief and suffering to innocents, emotionally or physically.

    BTW if i believe in god doesnt mean i love religion, i am what i am and no god or retard scientist will tell me what to believe, like, follow, do or nothing else; much less the goverment, i despise it; and those ignorant pedophile anti gaming fags too.

    • whatever

      And oh yeah, you think im a psycho or a criminal of some sort? I couldnt care less XD

      To me, they are just innocent people that was shoved away and mocked by people or even abused emotionally or physically, and now all they want is make them get what they deserve, so yeah i am one of them then XDDD

      • This guy

        I dont think you are a psycho just really stupid.

  • Travis Halleck

    To be fair, the countries you showed here would also punish you if you go against the grain with a different religion. Christians are persucuted in Indonesia. So being anti Islamic is more accurate than just atheist.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X