Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states the right to freedom of belief, the problem is that we are as non- believers in any, we are not covered by this state.
Why they just did not provide for the announcement the freedom of non-belief? From my view that the ignored for such point in the announcement of such a right has left a loophole for the enemies of non believers to pursue them and crush them, and possibly executions, the idea could seems silly, but the depth and details in this case needed while dealing with violent people or violate countries to shut the door in there faces as violent groups and countries that hates the atheist and non-belivers.
So do we need as non-beliver for a such announcement?
I am sure the answer is yes, but why?
When you are as non-beliver find that you don't have the for live or to organise any kind of community or groups, also you fon't have the right to be part of political institutions because you are non- beliver to to put your hand on any holy book to repeat the swear of the political position. When you don't have the right to sue the others since you can't promise the court that you will be honest in your case
Actually as non-beliver you don't have any constitutional rights because all constitutions doesn't indicated any states to cover the non-belivers. Ever those was indicated such states are not protect you most times for example the European low protect the Jews even from violence ideas.
But there is no such thing to protect non-belivers.
So if Jews have a very detailed state in the low
That means also non-belivers needs that stats too since the threats that surrounds non-belivers is most dangerous from any other threat for others.
Do you think that we deserve a protection since we find a new country put the atheism on the terrorists list ?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I too have been troubled in the past with the whole swearing on the Holy Bible thing. but have learned it to mean I swear to tell the truth and the bible is just there to keep people who might feel its significance more in line as to them it would be an even greater crime to lie after swearing on the bible they would not.
As far as freedom of belief goes, I think of it this way you have the right to believe of or not believe whatever you want to. Of course people belonging to large groups have more support from such organizations and as nonbelievers we lack the numbers they do to help us stand for our rights but mainly to blame for this would be our lack of organization. It's much harder to be against the grain than it is to go with it. But any person belonging to any organization be it religious political or otherwise will find it harder to deal with threats while living in any place where there are fewer people who relate to them.
Also keep in mind religious, political or otherwise organizations are often put on terrorist list because of the actions of few. Usually not the religion as a whole is put on the list but usually a particular group, faction or denomination. Even so some groups are unfairly watched because of what amounts to simply suspicions or loose connections.
Just out of curiosity though, what new country put atheism on the terrorist list?
Sure , when European union put someone on a list that means this specific person is the one who's intended, but when middle east countries put the atheism it self on the list
That means a realy serious issue , since the punishment in this case is death.
Can you imagine that, charge the etheists in terror!
And can you imagine the global silence?
To me profiling in general is wrong, but to the people dealing with "terror" it's much to much risk to not pay attention and much to much work to not focus their attention. If an atheist commits an act of terror and then known acquaintances are looked into this makes sense, if they find he or she was involved in a radical group that advocates acts of terror or funds extremist activities then its understandable to watch that group and any sympathizers.
I think it horrible to just flat out call atheist terrorist but for almost every view or opinion that's been around a while there are likely to be a small number of people, compared to the whole, who harbor extreme views. As I was getting at above though it comes down to the number of people who are willing to stand up for what's not and what is acceptable treatment from any governing body. However, in Europe and elsewhere entire groups of people are put on watch list.As an example: I was once being watched for something my In-law did after some time it was decided I guess I had nothing to do with his activities. I am sure unless you are entirely new to learning about the atheist mindset that you have likely come across a fe Atheist with rather extreme view.
One of the main reasons I don't like being labeled is labels tend to carry a lot of stigma some may be true but rarely if ever for everyone in a group though the stigma that tends to stick is usually the false or negatively slanted views coming from people who are outside the labeled group.
Zaphod,
That country is Saudi Arabia
I'll be back later to complete reading your comments.
B.W.
Thanks for answering my question I will look into it later.
Thanks for answering my question I will look into it later.
Hmm, I wasn't aware of this.
You cannot have freedom of belief without a person stating "I don't believe in this specific god." We are already covered under this international law and charter. But you only have the rights that you can make society enforce.
What if the society refused?
When society gets to far out of control, its up to its members to step up to the plate and set it on the right path. Sometimes this can be more than uncomfortable and very hard to pull off. While some people are attached to the various amenities any given society may afford or provide them with, for many it can be hard to find something worth loosing it all for.
When a large enough group of society reaches the point of intolerance actions start to take form. Basically, this happens when enough people have suffered at the hand of any given society enough to say they are willing to risk it all or at the very least be inconvenienced to make things their perceived version of right. Usually this takes place in small steps and at regular interval often to late for initial small and rather at first peaceful steps taken like assembly phone banking picket lines ect. It is important that this process is carried through because through it, over time a peaceful solution may be found and violence as should be avoided may be possible to entirely avert. As time wears on though the time between intervals tends to get longer and the risk taken tend to escalate as people feel more desperate or often have less and less to loose Its usually a good Idea not to be the one who turns to violence first but to always have a plan for just in case violence does break out. A well thought out plan with well laid out and desirable outcomes.
Oh thanks , I find your comments always helpful
Even in other subjects
Thanks