Atheist Arrested in Indonesia.

[Brainache]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/atheist-attacked-faces-jail-time-facebook-god_n_1219778.html

After surviving an attack from an angry mob, an Indonesian atheist is facing jail time for posting the phrase "God doesn't exist" on his Facebook page.

The man, who is being identified only as Alexander, posted the message on the social networking site and was later reported to authorities by the Indonesian Council of Ulema, an Islamic religious authority, according to the Telegraph.

Alexander arrived for work at a government office Wednesday, where he was met and attacked by a mob of people upset by his beliefs.

He was arrested on Friday and charged with blasphemy against Islam, a crime punishable by up to five years in jail.


Any Indonesians here?

Or any Muslim who can explain why Allah needs the Council of Ulema to punish Atheists; is he too busy to do it himself?

[Sledge]

What an idiot.

[ANTPogo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/atheist-attacked-faces-jail-time-facebook-god_n_1219778.html



Any Indonesians here?

Or any Muslim who can explain why Allah needs the Council of Ulema to punish Atheists; is he too busy to do it himself?

Allah doesn't need the Council of Ulema to punish atheists; he needs the government of Indonesia itself to do it. This guy was merely turned over to the authorities by the Council; the government itself is the one who is prosecuting him, under Indonesia's laws against blasphemy of any of the six official religions in that country: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism.

[devnull]

I dont understand these laws at all.

So, blashemy of all 6 official religions is outlawed. Therefore, the same protection cant be afforded to atheism as it isnt a religion. However, buddhism has no deities (AFAIK) and I think the same is true for confucianism, so would make the claim that god doesnt exist, yet they are exempt?

Is the teaching of evolution considered blasphemous? What about when reality directly contradicts a religion? What about when a religion directly contradicts another?

What about when the catholics eat their deity - isnt that blashphemous to the protestants? Does nobody in the country eat cattle for fear of blaspheming against the hindus?

Or is all of this ok as long as you don't highlight the issue by quoting out of any of the various religious texts? If the texts are to be ignored, who then decides what is blasphemy?

These people are idiots. The positive side of all this is that the country will never become organised enough to pose any real threat.

[Brainache]

I dont understand these laws at all.

So, blashemy of all 6 official religions is outlawed. Therefore, the same protection cant be afforded to atheism as it isnt a religion. However, buddhism has no deities (AFAIK) and I think the same is true for confucianism, so would make the claim that god doesnt exist, yet they are exempt?

Is the teaching of evolution considered blasphemous? What about when reality directly contradicts a religion? What about when a religion directly contradicts another?

What about when the catholics eat their deity - isnt that blashphemous to the protestants? Does nobody in the country eat cattle for fear of blaspheming against the hindus?

Or is all of this ok as long as you don't highlight the issue by quoting out of any of the various religious texts? If the texts are to be ignored, who then decides what is blasphemy?

These people are idiots. The positive side of all this is that the country will never become organised enough to pose any real threat.

I also wonder if he would be in as much trouble if he professed an "Unoffical" Religion. Would a Satanist be arrested?

[ANTPogo]

I also wonder if he would be in as much trouble if he professed an "Unoffical" Religion. Would a Satanist be arrested?

Such a thing wouldn't be allowed. Under Indonesian law, you have to belong to one of the six official religions, and it gets listed on your government-issued ID card.

EDIT: I'm not actually sure how the laws would apply to a declared Buddhist saying there's no God or gods, though it's unfortunately not at all unusual for members of one religion, usually Muslim, to try and use the blasphemy laws as a club against members of even the other official religions. However, in this particular case, the man in question has "Islam" listed on his government ID card, and so when he says there's no God, no matter what he might actually mean it, will be taken as a denial of Allah, and therefore prosecuted as blasphemy accordingly.

[Brainache]

Such a thing wouldn't be allowed. Under Indonesian law, you have to belong to one of the six official religions, and it gets listed on your government-issued ID card.

EDIT: I'm not actually sure how the laws would apply to a declared Buddhist saying there's no God or gods, though it's unfortunately not at all unusual for members of one religion, usually Muslim, to try and use the blasphemy laws as a club against members of even the other official religions. However, in this particular case, the man in question has "Islam" listed on his government ID card, and so when he says there's no God, no matter what he might actually mean it, will be taken as a denial of Allah, and therefore prosecuted as blasphemy accordingly.

OK. Thanks.

I heard a report on the radio about this case. It said that the guy has told authorities that he was wrong and he has converted back to Islam. I don't blame him, why be a martyr for Atheism?

But it does raise a question: Do the Authorities have to just accept his word that he now believes in God, or does he have to pass some kind of test?

If so, what kind of test could they use? Knowledge of holy texts is no guarantee of belief (just look at all the Atheist bible scholars around this place), so how could a Court decide such a question?

[Foster Zygote]

God doesn't exist!

[crimresearch]

OK. Thanks.

I heard a report on the radio about this case. It said that the guy has told authorities that he was wrong and he has converted back to Islam. I don't blame him, why be a martyr for Atheism?

But it does raise a question: Do the Authorities have to just accept his word that he now believes in God, or does he have to pass some kind of test?

If so, what kind of test could they use? Knowledge of holy texts is no guarantee of belief (just look at all the Atheist bible scholars around this place), so how could a Court decide such a question?
Maybe they could borrow/modify some of the old Christian tests of faith. (But I suspect they already have their own).

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/atheist-attacked-faces-jail-time-facebook-god_n_1219778.html



Any Indonesians here?

Or any Muslim who can explain why Allah needs the Council of Ulema to punish Atheists; is he too busy to do it himself?

Looks like Allah delegated that one.

Foster, you are probably in the clear so long as you don't head for Indonesia any time soon, and piss off those in the local population who get all hot and bothered over such things.

[Craig4]

What an idiot.

It's either brave or stupid given the vast body of evidence indicating that there's a sizable minority of Muslims who cannot be trusted to act rationally.

[crimresearch]

Looks like Allah delegated that one.

Foster, you are probably in the clear so long as you don't head for Indonesia any time soon, and piss off those in the local population who get all hot and bothered over such things.
I don't know, the inlay on that banjo is clearly spelling out a particularly dirty limerick with Mohammed as the butt of the joke.

[Wolfman]

ANTpogo explained it quite well. All Indonesian citizens must be registered as belonging to one of those six religions. Criticism of a religion other than the one listed on your ID will generally face less severe consequences than criticism or denial of the religion you are registered as. Likewise, since Islam predominates, criticism or denial of Islam will generally be more serious than similar attitudes towards other religions.

This guy did both. If he did it out of naivety, not thinking about or realizing what the result would be, I feel really sorry for him. If he did it intentionally, then the dude's got balls of steel...but he's gonna' have a rough ride ahead of him.

As a side note, changing religions in Indonesia is also very complicated; and converting to a religion other than one of the six official ones pretty much impossible. In addition, if you are registered as a Muslim, then you are also subject to Muslim law, which includes a provision that for a Muslim to convert to another religion is illegal (other religions don't have similar proscriptions), and an act of blasphemy in and of itself.

[Pardalis]

What an idiot.

Blaming the victim are we?

[steve s]

or does he have to pass some kind of test?

If so, what kind of test could they use?


Put on a bomb vest and blow himself up in a crowded market?:duck:

Steve S

[mikeyx]

God doesn't exist!

Blasphemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Multivac]

Blasphemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe, but it's still the truth. God does not exist.

[Humes fork]

Such a thing wouldn't be allowed. Under Indonesian law, you have to belong to one of the six official religions, and it gets listed on your government-issued ID card.

What a stupid law.

[McHrozni]

As a side note, changing religions in Indonesia is also very complicated; and converting to a religion other than one of the six official ones pretty much impossible. In addition, if you are registered as a Muslim, then you are also subject to Muslim law, which includes a provision that for a Muslim to convert to another religion is illegal (other religions don't have similar proscriptions), and an act of blasphemy in and of itself.

It must indeed suck to be them.

McHrozni

[DC]

they must have a very weak belief in Indonesia when they have to arrest people that think otherwise.

[Humes fork]

they must have a very weak belief in Indonesia when they have to arrest people that think otherwise.

Muhammad cannot have had strong beliefs in his claims, as he ordered execution of apostates from Islam.

[Beerina]

What an idiot.

Why? God doesn't exist. How can the truth be illegal?


Unless...unless it threatens those in power.

[ANTPogo]

Muhammad cannot have had strong beliefs in his claims, as he ordered execution of apostates from Islam.

We have no idea what Muhammad believed and did. All we know is what Muslims think he believed and did, and they don't always agree on what that was. Not even about the issue of apostasy.

[Cainkane1]

That guys braver than I am; either that or very stupid or suicidal.

[Sledge]

Blaming the victim are we?

Blaming the criminal.

[Arcade22]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, dumbass.

[Safe-Keeper]

Blaming the victim are we? Blaming the criminal. Yeah, the world would be a better place without disrupting people like this. Who needs free speech/religion anyhow.
Like that idiot Rosa Park. Stop disrupting, already.

[Sledge]

I'm sure that posting on Facebook is the best way to change the world. And I'm sure we all remember how Rosa Parks immediately backed down when faced with the legal consequences of her actions. The two cases are pretty much identical.

[Toontown]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCTYxIsLThA

Doctor, my eyes have seen the years
And the slow parade of fears without crying
Now I want to understand
I have done all that I could
To see the evil and the good without hiding
You must help me if you can

Doctor my eyes
Tell me what is wrong
Was I unwise to leave them open for so long

I have wandered through this world
And as each moment has unfurled
I've been waiting to awaken from these dreams
People go just where they will
I never noticed them until I got this feeling
That it's later than it seems

Doctor my eyes
Tell me what you see
I hear their cries, just say if it's too late for me

Doctor my eyes
I cannot see the sky
Is this the price for having learned how not to cry...

[Pardalis]

Blaming the criminal.

The guy is a criminal because he spoke his mind?

I'm sure that posting on Facebook is the best way to change the world.

And giving consent to totalitarianism on message boards will?

The two cases are pretty much identical.

So according to you, Rosa Parks was an idiot and a criminal?

[TheGoldcountry]

So according to you, Rosa Parks was an idiot and a criminal?

What? I think your sarcasm meter needs a new dilliwog.

[marplots]

But it does raise a question: Do the Authorities have to just accept his word that he now believes in God, or does he have to pass some kind of test?

If so, what kind of test could they use? Knowledge of holy texts is no guarantee of belief (just look at all the Atheist bible scholars around this place), so how could a Court decide such a question?

They have a really good test. You kill him and see if he goes to paradise.

[Pardalis]

What? I think your sarcasm meter needs a new dilliwog.

It's not sarcasm, it's exactly what he said.

[Arcade22]

The guy is a criminal because he spoke his mind?

Yes, the same thing that is criminalized in much of wonderful Europe, renowned for all its fabled FREEDOMS.

[Mister Agenda]

It's not sarcasm, it's exactly what he said.

And we all know people only mean exactly what they say. That's why there's no such thing as sarcasm.

[TheGoldcountry]

It's not sarcasm, it's exactly what he said.

No, I don't believe that he thinks this guy is just like Rosa Parks. He was being just a wee bit facetious.

Have you ever seen a Sledge post before?

[CynicalSkeptic]

The guy is a criminal because he spoke his mind?
In this case, yes.

[Pardalis]

In this case, yes.

Do you think freedom of speech is a universal right or just good for the West?

[Silly Green Monkey]

No right is universal. They're all given by humans, why should all humans be like you?

[Pardalis]

No right is universal. They're all given by humans, why should all humans be like you?

Is this sarcasm, or simply idiocy?

[hgc]

Is this sarcasm, or simply idiocy?

Actually, he's got a good point there (except for the last bit, which I don't even understand).

Rights is as rights does. If you're exercising a right, then that's good evidence that you have that right. Absent that, it's just theoretical or wishful.

If you meant to say that rights such as free speech ought to be universal, then I wholeheartedly agree.

[Pardalis]

If you meant to say that rights such as free speech ought to be universal, then I wholeheartedly agree.

It is a fundamental right. It doesn't matter whether the country agrees or not.

Take rights for homosexuals for instance. According to Sledge, they're deviants and criminals because in that part of the world they are considered that way by law.

If the headline had said "homosexual arrested in Indonesia for committing gay sex", would he have said "what an idiot"?

It's one thing for these clowns to oppress minorities and viewpoints, but it's another for secularists to make excuses and apologizing for them.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Every single right any human enjoys is granted by others. Look at the word 'criminal' in your quote, what does it mean? It means someone who has broken a law. Who makes the laws? Same people who make the rights. So yes, if homosexual acts are illegal somewhere, a person engaging in those acts is a criminal *there*. Why should everyone in the world obey your ideology, when they've all got their own?

Essentially I'm saying who died and made you God.

[ANTPogo]

It is a fundamental right. It doesn't matter whether the country agrees or not.

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to him in prison.

[hgc]

It is a fundamental right. It doesn't matter whether the country agrees or not.

Perhaps then you can list the fundamental rights.

[Brainache]

Every single right any human enjoys is granted by others. Look at the word 'criminal' in your quote, what does it mean? It means someone who has broken a law. Who makes the laws? Same people who make the rights. So yes, if homosexual acts are illegal somewhere, a person engaging in those acts is a criminal *there*. Why should everyone in the world obey your ideology, when they've all got their own?

Essentially I'm saying who died and made you God.

Does breaching the UN's charter on Human Rights count as a crime?

I guess not.

Is penalising someone for not being religious in the Koran?
http://www.quran.or.kr/Islam/1_3a.htm

"And if your Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Would you then compel people until they become believers? It is not for any soul to believe except by the permission of Allah (Qur'an 10:99-100).


I guess not.

Why are the Indonesian Law-makers disobeying Allah?

[Silly Green Monkey]

They feel like it? They're the ones with authority over the country, the UN really.......doesn't.

[Pardalis]

Every single right any human enjoys is granted by others. Look at the word 'criminal' in your quote, what does it mean? It means someone who has broken a law. Who makes the laws? Same people who make the rights. So yes, if homosexual acts are illegal somewhere, a person engaging in those acts is a criminal *there*. Why should everyone in the world obey your ideology, when they've all got their own?

Essentially I'm saying who died and made you God.

You choose to look the other way when people are oppressed. Nice guy you are.

Strange upside down world in this thread. The oppressed are accused of being criminals, and the people who are defending them are accused of being bigots.

I guess this leaves the islamic thugs of Indonesia in the clear.

[Wolfman]

Yes, this man is a "criminal". He broke the law. Describing him as a "criminal" is not inaccurate, or unfair.

Nelson Mandela was also a criminal. So was Gandhi. So, for that matter, were all the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. All of them broke existing laws that were in effect in their countries.

That doesn't mean that he is wrong, or that he 'deserves it'. He should have the freedom to state his personal beliefs, without being branded a criminal for doing so.

[Minoosh]

Founders thought God's law trumped British law ... endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That could be metaphor, but metaphor is how a lot of people take religion.

ANTPogo can address this better than I but I thought the declaration "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" would give you a pass. I take it further and say the issue can only be between God and and the individual, because any legalistic ruling relies on the judgment of man and that means man is putting himself on the level of God. If a human says, "this man says he submits to God's will, but he is not a true Muslim because he didn't recite the creed," the one in judgment is ruling on whether the man submits in his heart, and only God can know that.

I don't see how you can ban blasphemy against six religions, since some are mutually exclusive. Stating the central tenet of Christianity would be blasphemy against Islam.

Maybe this is like European bans against Holocaust-denying. To incendiary, a kind of hate speech. I wonder if it's illegal to say "cut the tall tree" in Rwanda. That wouldn't surprise me.

I don't agree with laws banning the utterance of "God does not exist." But that flat statement also strikes me as odd due the difficulty of proving a negative. "There's no evidence that God exist," seems the more supportable assertion.

[Wolfman]

I don't see how you can ban blasphemy against six religions, since some are mutually exclusive. Stating the central tenet of Christianity would be blasphemy against Islam. My understanding is that blasphemy laws apply primarily to people who are registered as belonging to that religion. So a registered Muslim who declares Islam to be false is guilty of blasphemy, but a Christian who does the same thing is not. It is the act of blaspheming your own religion (or the one you are officially registered as) is the primary crime.

[Minoosh]

I wonder if it's possible to blapheme (shoot I was hoping that was a word) commit blasphemy against Buddhism - I'd have to be a Buddhist.

[Aepervius]

It's either brave or stupid given the vast body of evidence indicating that there's a sizable minority of Muslims who cannot be trusted to act rationally.

Given a roughly random population of a group, ANY group will have a minority which can't be trusted to act rationally. Muslim aren't different than others, what is different is that part of their culture did not move on with women liberation for example, but they are not alone some christian group deplore this too, and many other freedom we gained in the 20th century.

FYI even in some western country, part of australia, denmark, germany (some guy was even prosecuted in 2006 apparently says wiki) for example, there are blasphemy laws.
Whether "gods do not exists" should not be counted as blasphemy is a question of perspective, it certainly could be counted as "being irreverant to god" which is one of the definition of blasphemy I read on, but I think you need to do much more than that in western country to be coutned as blasphemy.

Well anyway : TL;DR mob = bad ; blasphemy law = stupid no matter the country.

[Aepervius]

Why? God doesn't exist. How can the truth be illegal?


Unless...unless it threatens those in power.

Nitpick, a truth could be see as factual. But "god does not exists" is not factual, it is an opinion due to lack of evidence either way.

[Aepervius]

Yeah, the world would be a better place without disrupting people like this. Who needs free speech/religion anyhow.
Like that idiot Rosa Park. Stop disrupting, already.

No, he got a point. If you don't like the consequence , DO NOT do civil disobedience. That is that simple. Maybe that was the intention of that guy, BTW.

[Aepervius]

Do you think freedom of speech is a universal right or just good for the West?

There is no such a thing as an universal right.

There are right which are fought for, and won, but can be lsot if not properly defended again and again. There are no right which are inherent no matter we wish. If there are no governement infrastructure, executive and legislative, and the citizen to support those right, they would not exists.

[Beerina]

I wonder if it's possible to blapheme (shoot I was hoping that was a word) commit blasphemy against Buddhism - I'd have to be a Buddhist.

It's a word. You can't be a blaspheme-er without blaspheme.

[Beerina]

Nitpick, a truth could be see as factual. But "god does not exists" is not factual, it is an opinion due to lack of evidence either way.

God doesn't exist, and that is factual. He has been pushed into a corner philosophically until there's nothing left than the bizarre properties that he is infinitely capable of hiding from us, and desires to do so.

That is indistinguishable, mathematically, from not existing. QED. In mathematics, those two sets would merge into one under that transformation.

[Craig4]

Given a roughly random population of a group, ANY group will have a minority which can't be trusted to act rationally. Muslim aren't different than others, what is different is that part of their culture did not move on with women liberation for example, but they are not alone some christian group deplore this too, and many other freedom we gained in the 20th century.

FYI even in some western country, part of australia, denmark, germany (some guy was even prosecuted in 2006 apparently says wiki) for example, there are blasphemy laws.
Whether "gods do not exists" should not be counted as blasphemy is a question of perspective, it certainly could be counted as "being irreverant to god" which is one of the definition of blasphemy I read on, but I think you need to do much more than that in western country to be coutned as blasphemy.

Well anyway : TL;DR mob = bad ; blasphemy law = stupid no matter the country.

No, that's just a cop out. Islam has a problem. There is a tendency in Islam to make the rest of the world responsible for their weird ass ********** up beliefs. If someone burns the Bible (which I presume happens from time to time) you don't see mobs of Christians storming compounds. When the whack job in Florida burnt a Bible we saw mobs of Muslims storming a UN compound killing people. In the present day we don't see this many people who adhere to other superstitions acting this way en mass.

[Arcade22]

Do you think freedom of speech is a universal right or just good for the West?

Nice false dichotomy you made there.

[Pardalis]

Nice false dichotomy you made there.

I wasn't asking you.

[AvalonXQ]

My understanding is that blasphemy laws apply primarily to people who are registered as belonging to that religion. So a registered Muslim who declares Islam to be false is guilty of blasphemy, but a Christian who does the same thing is not. It is the act of blaspheming your own religion (or the one you are officially registered as) is the primary crime.

As I understand it, if you're raised in a Muslim household then you have a Muslim registration -- and there is no method of changing your registration, as de-converting is itself contrary to Sharia law.
So it's not like this person could have just gone in and checked a different box on a form somewhere and have been fine.

[Arcade22]

I wasn't asking you.

And? You were still using an incredibly childish false dichotomy. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b75f85d8a1d1.gif

[Wolfman]

As I understand it, if you're raised in a Muslim household then you have a Muslim registration -- and there is no method of changing your registration, as de-converting is itself contrary to Sharia law.
So it's not like this person could have just gone in and checked a different box on a form somewhere and have been fine.
I agree...I pretty much said the same thing in an earlier post.

[R.A.F.]

No, he got a point. If you don't like the consequence , DO NOT do civil disobedience.

Blah...

Instead of trying to change the world for the better, you want us all to "submit" to irrationality?


Are you a republican?...you sure sound like one.

[AvalonXQ]

Instead of trying to change the world for the better, you want us all to "submit" to irrationality?
That's not what that means. The expected consequence of civil disobedience is that you will be arrested/punished. You don't engage in civil disobedience expecting authority to just roll over and let you; that's not how it ever works.
You engage in civil disobedience, get arrested, and argue against the justice of your arrest. That was the whole point of civil disobedience in the first place -- to demonstrate injustice by making an example of yourself.

Are you a republican?...you sure sound like one.
It was the Democrats spearheading the suppression of Civil Rights -- something people like you pretend to forget.

[Silly Green Monkey]

And the Republicans snapped up the racist white vote and has kept it ever since. What's your point?

[Redtail]

I wasn't asking you.

Then perhaps you should have sent a pm instead of posting it for all to see & respond to if they chose.

[Kopji]

My advice for Muslims is that when you leave, don't go back to help the ones left behind.

[Pardalis]

And? You were still using an incredibly childish false dichotomy. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b75f85d8a1d1.gif

You don't think Indonesians deserve to have the same rights that we enjoy?

The "it's their way" defense is not good enough. Oppression is oppression.

[DC]

i think Indonesians should have the same rights we have in my country, but badly enoug that is not the case.
I don't think it is just to arest someone for expressing his disbelief in a god. When others are allowed to claim a god exists, then people should also be allowed to claim that there is no god.
i would not call him a criminal, while he actually is, because he broke a law, yes a dumb unjust law, but he broke it.

all we can hope now is that there will be international pressure big enough to free him or even change the law, im very pessimistic in both cases.

the position some have taken here is quite shocking, and just to show Pardalis wrong.... disgusting.

[Aepervius]

Blah...

Instead of trying to change the world for the better, you want us all to "submit" to irrationality?


Are you a republican?...you sure sound like one.

Where did I say submit ? Read again. I am saying that if you want to change thru civil disobedience, you WILL be smacked. That does not mean I recommend submitting to law one cosnider bad, that means only that THAT one particular of the way to fight the law, will means you will have to break it and risk punishment. There are other way to fight law. But once you choose civil disobedience, you cannot whine that you get punished.

[Aepervius]

That's not what that means. The expected consequence of civil disobedience is that you will be arrested/punished. You don't engage in civil disobedience expecting authority to just roll over and let you; that's not how it ever works.
You engage in civil disobedience, get arrested, and argue against the justice of your arrest. That was the whole point of civil disobedience in the first place -- to demonstrate injustice by making an example of yourself.


It was the Democrats spearheading the suppression of Civil Rights -- something people like you pretend to forget.

Exactly. AvalonXQ explained it much better. There are multiple example of civil disobedience with many liberation/anti segregation movement. Some of which spend decades in prison.