Not a single case of anti-atheist discrimination in 2007, according to US Commission?

Great Debates
1

I wonder if I am reading this right. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom released its 2007 report yesterday, May 2.

The USCIRF was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to monitor the status of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief abroad, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related international instruments, and to give independent policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and the Congress.

I was curious to see how many cases of anti-atheist discrimination they had documented. I downloaded the PDF version of their 2007 report and searched it using “atheist” “atheism” and similar words.

I found only three or four references. A couple are in the appendix, and simply document the fact that UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), agrees that theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess
any religion or belief are protected rights.

Another reference is to Osama bin Laden accusing Shia Muslims of atheism. Finally, there is a reference to the official atheism of the Castro regime.

Am I missing something, or can I assume that this United States Commission mirabile dictu, did not find a single case of anti-atheist discrimination, in law or in practice, to report on? Anywhere in the world, including Saudi Arabia, for example?

I admit I have not read the entire report and I stand to be corrected.

2

I neglected to edit out a mistake in my above post. The title should not mention 2007, because the recent report says that it covers “the period from May 2006 – April 2007.” It IS their 2007 report, but I guess I should not have said “in 2007” in the title.

3

It is an annual report documenting particular areas of concern for religious freedom.

The concerns of atheists in the world are important, but they pale in comparison to the discrimination faced by people of any faith in North Korea or China, people who are not Wahabbi Muslims in Saudi Arabia, and people in Burma who don’t respect the particular form of Buddhism favored by the ruling junta.

The commission has numerous other reports accessible on its website, many of which deal with various aspects of religious freedom in the world, including that that seems to interest you most. Yet they have identified these issues and several others as being of particular concern in their annual report, and I can’t say I fault them for prioritizing matters in this way.

4

There aren’t that many self-declared atheists in the world, and those that exist tend to live in more or less enlightened countries where religious discrimination is less accepted. So its not really all that suprising.

5

I will agree that the actual number of “self-declared” atheists is open to interpretation and difficult to define. But there are likely 800 million to a billion atheists or agnostics in the world, even if they pass under other definitions.

This site implies that "The world population of non religious** ranges anywhere from 850 million to 1.1 billion making up 15 to 26.8%. The two ** refer to the fact that “** the ambiguous term non religious as used above includes those identified as atheist, agnostic, secular, nonbeliever and non-religious as defined by those responsible for the polls and statistics.”

In my opinion, the constant bad-mouthing and negativity directed towards atheism/agnosticism in most societies leads to a great many “disguised” atheists and agnostics.

It is a bit like all the women in our society who in making justified demands for gender equality preface their remarks with "I’m no feminist, but. . . . " Whenever I hear a woman say this, I begin asking them what they think on a series of gender-equality issues. Then I usually say, “Guess what, sweetie, you’re a feminist!”

The reason they refuse to self-identify as feminists is that they have been given a negative stereotype of fanatical, obnoxious, man-hating, ball-busting, nose-hair braiding, sweaty, masculine creatures with unshaven legs who are “probably dykes”.

I suspect a lot of virtual atheists and agnostics refuse to self-identify as such because of similar negative stereotypes.

For example, note the HUGE difference between the US figures for atheists, agnostics and “non-religious/secular” Americans in these self-identification figures for 2001:

Nonreligious/Secular 13.2% 27,539,000
Atheist 0.4% 902,000
Agnostic 0.5% 991,000

I cannot believe there are not several million “godless” Americans hiding in that 27 million!

In other cases, it is simply that a census or a survey has no time to deal with fine shades of meaning. You are a Baptist or Catholic or not. But the “non-religious” are almost by definition free-thinkers who resist labels and are difficult to classify.

For example, my own country, Canada, has a census category called “no religion” that groups all atheists, agnostics, and everyone else, including people who in my opinion are agnostics or atheists but will not admit it in so many words. The “no-religion” category has grown by 48% since the last census, and now represents over 16% of the Canadian population.

People who no longer practice any religion they were raised in, and are part of no organized church but who say they believe in the “power of love in the world” or some such generality will often reject being labeled agnostics or atheists, and the census has no time or capacity to dig deeper to see what they really are.

Given that there must at least be several hundred million atheists and agnostics in the world, it is still surprising that this report deals with NOT A SINGLE CASE.

Of course, this IS a Commission of the government of a country where they see nothing wrong in declaring that God exists on several billion currency notes. A country where “Condi” Rice often leads the Cabinet in prayer. A government that favours giving public money to religions’ “faith based” charities.

It would probably not be politically wise to show too much concern for atheists.

6

Whose problems are more pressing, those of atheists in America or those of Christians in North Korea?

7

God only knows.

8

N Korean Xtians, certainly, but I think the OP is more concerned with “does the problem of anti-athiest discrimination exit” then “who’s got it worse”.

That was sort of my point with the “self-declared” statement. Athiests in countries where religious discrimination is widespread probably tent to claim to be members of the dominant religion and thus, don’t experience any anti-atheism discrimination.

For what its worse, I’ve been a US self-declared athiest since age 13 and never experienced or witnessed any such discrimination.

9

Christians in North Korea certainly have pressing problems. And atheists in America are not being burned at the stake. Although Rixchard Nixon could state with impunity in the 1960 debates that a man with “no religion” should not be president of the US. And I suspect that George Bush could probably get away with a similar statement today without too much flak.

But while the persecution of North Korean Christians having their bibles ripped from their hands by thug-like guards is something the present administration can safely condemn, have you thought about the disguised terrorization and persecution of atheists?

Unless a person is raised an atheist, they must become an apostate from their “birth” religion in order to become one, obviously. But, hundreds of millions of Muslims live in countries where apostasy is punishable by death. These are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Mauritania. In Pakistan blasphemy is also punishable by death. Hundreds of millions more live in Muslim countries where apostasy is punishable by torture, imprisonment, or other forms of persecution.

Now look at the list of the top 50 countries with large atheist/agnostic/non-believer populations. Do you see any Muslim countries on that list?

Is it possible that not a single Muslim in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Mauritania wishes to reject Islam but refrained from doing so for fear of the death penalty?

How much criticism is there of countries that murder or persecute Muslims who reject Islam, in the report of the US Commission? Is it because Saudi Arabia is a US ally?

10

I agree, but I would also point out that even in countries where religion is very weak, MANY, actual atheists simply refuse to wear the label because it is so negatively portrayed.

For example, in Estonia in 2004, 49% of people surveyed said they did not believe in God. At the same time, only 11% of people in the country identified themselves as atheists! And you will note from this site that Estonia is among the top 10 largest percentages of non-believers.

Now, while I cannot claim to be very familiar with the situation on the ground in Estonia, I find it hard to believe that in a country where 49% of people say they do not believe in God, anyone would be afraid of persecution for saying they are atheists. Once again, I think it is the exact equivalent of the women who start their sentences with "I’m no feminist, but. . . . . " and then go on to expound a perfectly feminist point of view.

So we have situations like many Muslim countries where it could cost you your life to decalre you are an atheist, but also countries like the USA and Estonia where atheists face no real danger of persecution but are still reticent to accept the label. That is why the US has over 27 million “no religion/secular” but less than 2 million declared atheists and agnostics.

11

As I said in an earlier post, the US has 27 million “no religion/secular” but fewer than 2 million declared atheists and agnostics.

How many atheists/agnostics are “hiding” in the 27 million is hard to tell. But let us, for the sake of argument, say that only one per cent of Americans do not believe in God (an absurdly low estimate, but I am floating it for the sake of argument).

There should be, in theory, at least three or four avowed atheists in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Indeed, given that Senators and Congressmen tend to be from the more educated classes, and given that atheism is much higher among educated people, one might in the delerium of godless optimism think there could be nine or ten!!! :eek:

I stand to be corrected, but are there ANY avowed atheists in the H of R or the Senate? Have there ever been?

No discrimination against atheists in America.

12

Did you even read the report you are referring to?

If you did, you would learn that religious freedom in Saudi Arabia was of such concern that the Commission was designating the country a Country of Particular Concern, a level of scrutiny also applied to North Korea and China.

The problems faced by Muslim apostates were noted, and recommendations for dealing with Saudi Arabia’s severe problems with religious toleration were spelled out.

13

We don’t have proportional representation here, you know. Extrapolating the number of atheists there ought to be among a small group of elected officials is a flawed exercise.

14

If I am wrong about the report failing to condemn Saudi Arabia, I apologize. But if you have read the report, could you tell me how many Islamic countries that persecute apostates are singled out. Is Pakistan, for example? And are we talking apostasy (e.g. becoming Christian) or atheism? My point is simply to wonder how many atheists living in fear in Muslim countries.

It is still a fact that persecution of atheism is often not regarded as religious persecution. It does not change the fact that freedom FROM religion is not regarded as being as important as “freedom to worship”.

15

My eyes are not what they used to be, so perhaps you could indicate to me where I said that you have proportional representation.

You have not understood my question. I am not extrapolating that there HAS to be five or 10 atheists in Congress. But if American atheists are NOT subject to discrimination, and if there is at least 1% of Americans (more likely 8-10% of Americans) who do not believe in God; and given that American legislators tend to come from the more educated startum of American society where, according to many polls and surveys, atheism is far more likely than among Americans in general:

Can you show me any examples of an elected legislator (I will even accept State Governors and State Assemblymen and Senators) in the last 40 years who have publicly declared they do not believe in God?

If you can show me a few examples I will humbly withdraw my point. We are NOT talking about proportional representation. But I am offering you a pool of potentially thousands of elected officials in the last 40 years. Surely a few have been atheists and unafraid to say it?

As I said, Mr. Moto, I stand to be corrected. Maybe some governor of a state proudly proclaimed he was an atheist and was re-elected, or elected.

16

So yes, Pakistan was mentioned extensively. This is just one section. My guess is we are trying to get reforms from both Vietnam and Pakistan, since we have relatively good relations with both, by holding off on including them on the State Department list while having our government note their bad behavior via independent commission.

Not a bad tactic as it goes. I hope it shows results in the end.

17

You haven’t read the whole report, and yet you started a GD thread about it? That was really smart, **Valteron]/b]. I’m impressed.

By the way, a few weeks ago a representative from CA said that he was a secular humanist. I seem to recall reading about a Reconstruction-era senator from TX being atheist as well.

18

Rep. Pete Stark of California is an atheist.

Several members of Congress belong to Unitarian churches, or list their religion as unaffiliated.

19

I stand corrected. I realize that the most common forms of persecution in these countries are of Muslim apostates who change to another religion, not those who declare themselves atheists. I still wonder how many Muslims are bending over in a mosque while they know very well there is no Allah.

Perhaps some day I will see the web site of a Pakistani Atheist Association run directly in Pakistan, by free, unharassed, former Muslim, atheists.

20

Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA). (Surprised by the affiliation or location? Me neither.)

As for the rest of your post, just saying that since 1% (or 10%) of Americans are atheist doesn’t automatically imply that there should be a proportional representation of atheists in public office. With the exception of a few urban concentrations, the atheist population is spread all over the country - not enough to necessarily get anyone elected. Otherwise, it’s like saying that since almost 1/3 of Americans are Catholic, we should have seen more than one Catholic president by now.