Indonesian Man Faces Five Years For Atheist Facebook Post

An anonymous reader writes "31-year-old Alexander Aan faces a maximum prison sentence of five years for posting 'God does not exist' on Facebook. The civil servant was attacked and beaten by an angry mob of dozens who entered his government office at the Dharmasraya Development Planning Board on Wednesday. The Indonesian man was taken into protective police custody Friday since he was afraid of further physical assault."

Comments

He deserves it

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what you get for using Facebook. I hope it's not too late for all the other Facebook users to learn.

Re:He deserves it

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what you get with religious rule.

Re:He deserves it

[FreeCoder]

This is true for most of USA too. While you probably won't get jailed for saying such, there are just as ridiculous laws and customs based on Christianity, especially compared to other more saner countries. Especially about gay marriage and abortion.

Re:He deserves it

[Joce640k]

While you probably won't get jailed for saying such...

...you can still get the Christian mob to lynch you, eg. Jessica Ahlquist

Re:He deserves it

[ColdWetDog]

This is what you get for living in a primitive third-world country.

It happened in Indonesia, not the United States.

Re:He deserves it

[SuricouRaven]

Actually, not quite true. Many state constitutions do specifically require that only Christians can hold public office (And some define Christian in such a way as to exclude denominations unpopular at the time of writing), but there was a supreme court case years ago which ruled that these aspects of the constitutions are incompatible with the first amendment to the US constitution - and the US constitution overrules state constitutions.

Re:He deserves it

[MrHanky]

Sure, with the minor difference that your imaginary atheist lynch mob does not in fact exist.

Re:He deserves it

[frn123]

Whether or not you see gay marriage a positive thing -
there are lots of fine atheist countries whose population is
against gay marriage.

For US citizen it might look like gay marriage is religious issue - i assure you that it is not the case.

Re:He deserves it

[Chrisq]

If they were obeying their law, why didn't the police let them lynch the guy? Or was the lynching actually illegal, and your statement had no basis in reality?

It is legal in Sharia law, which is only half imposed in Indonesia so far. It is in Iran though.

Re:He deserves it

[betterunixthanunix]

When did Richard Dawkins start beating people up? Did you ever hear of Dawkins throwing Molotov cocktails into someone's home? How about threatening to kill someone? No? None of that?

You can be critical of others without getting violent. Dawkins is critical of religion, sure, but publishing a book is not even close to beating someone up over a comment on Facebook.

Re:He deserves it

[Cruciform]

When Ahlquist won Facebook and Twitter filled up with direct threats against her life and physical well being.
When the Cranston Florists started a Facebook page to take a stand against the "atheist hate" directed at them for refusing to make deliveries to her, the content of the threads I looked at contained no threats of any kind. Lots of criticism, but not even that many insults.

It's night and day in behavior.

Sure, there are assholes on both sides. But the Christians appear to have the lion's share this time.

Re:He deserves it

[ceoyoyo]

Most of the laws of the old testament, including the ones you give as examples, pre-exist their supposed divine revelation in the old testament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Re:He deserves it

[todrules]

And the Old Testament also tells you that slavery is OK and even goes so far to tell you how to beat your slave. Damn those heathens for outlawing slavery!!! The Bible says it's OK!

Re:He deserves it

[BlueParrot]

Hitler was not atheist in the slightest, he made many references to Jesus in his speeches. He also got to power in part thanks to support from right wing social conservatives and Christian fundies. In his speech to justify giving him emergency powers he calledon the neeed to protect germany from socialism and atheism.

You are right about Stalin being an atheist, but it wasn't atheism that motivated his actions. He just generally "eliminated" anybody who had power he could not control. The church was just one of many examples.

Re:He deserves it

[BlueParrot]

I don't actually know of any atheist country except maybe some communist dictatorships.

Most countries with a high number of atheists ( such as Sweden ) are best described as secular. The difference between a secular government and an atheist one, is that the secular one doesn't comment on whether there is a god or not. Secular governments are built on the principle that it is not for the state to promote religious beliefs ( or lack thereof ).

Re:He deserves it

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, and some values are better than others. Notably, those values which result in the murder of people who are guilty only of speaking their mind, are the kind of values that should be treated with deserved contempt.

Re:He deserves it

[slasho81]

This is what you get for using Facebook.

Five years is a harsh punishment. I hope twitter users get a shorter sentence.

Re:He deserves it

[caitsith01]

1. In contrast to religious fundamentalists, none of those individuals set out with the primary goal of forcefully imposing atheism on the whole of society (as opposed to a broader socio-political agenda which may have included eliminating religion or reducing its power). The Russian Revolution was about economic subjugation and World War One. The French Revolution was about economic subjugation. Etc. etc. for all of your examples. Just because a particular revolution, war or movement includes as an incident an attempt to limit or destroy the power of organised religion does not make that event inherently "atheist" in nature.

2. You are a liar, or at best twisting the truth to suit your anti-atheist agenda. For instance:

Mussolini - 'Mussolini publicly reconciled with the Pope Pius XI in 1932, but "took care to exclude from the newspapers any photography of himself kneeling or showing deference to the Pope." He wanted to persuade Catholics that "[f]ascism was Catholic and he himself a believer who spent some of each day in prayer..." The Pope began referring to Mussolini as "a man sent by Providence." Despite Mussolini's efforts to appear pious, by order of his party, pronouns referring to him "had to be capitalized like those referring to God..."'

Napoleon - 'As an adult, Napoleon was described as a "deist with involuntary respect and fondness for Catholicism." He never believed in a living God; Napoleon's deity was an absent and distant God, but he pragmatically considered organised religions as key elements of social order, and especially Catholicism, whose, according to him, "splendorous ceremonies and sublime moral better act over the imagination of the people than other religions".'

Hitler - 'After his move to Germany, Hitler did not leave his church. Historian Richard Steigmann-Gall concludes that he "can be classified as Catholic", but that "nominal church membership is a very unreliable gauge of actual piety in this context."' His interest in the occult is also widely documented.

As I found all of that in Wikipedia in about 10 seconds, I can only assume that you are deliberately being misleading.

Re:He deserves it

[Arterion]

Atheism is not a religion, not even when you use "quotes". Atheism is relying empirical evidence rather than superstition. Atheism asks "why?" and doesn't accept "because god says" as an answer. It's hard to accept "we don't fully know yet", but it's a much better answer than "god". Once you write down "god" as an answer for something, you stop looking at the problem, or worse, it becomes taboo to look at the problem. That's a very bad place to be, because, god or not, I don't see anyone solving any human problems except for other humans.

Re:He deserves it

[shutdown -p now]

You are right about Stalin being an atheist, but it wasn't atheism that motivated his actions. He just generally "eliminated" anybody who had power he could not control. The church was just one of many examples.

It should also be noted that Russian communists were so violently anti-religious to a great extent because Russian Orthodox Church was, quite literally (ever since Peter the Great), a department of the state. It actively worked both as official propaganda device of the monarchy - with "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality" the official ideology of the Empire until its end - and also as part of its civil administration, dealing with marriages, schools etc. At the final years of Empire, many prominent members of the Church were also the ones promoting extremist views on the right side of the spectrum - extreme nationalism, absolute monarchy, pogroms against Jews etc. So most revolutionaries, who were already wary of religion from their doctrine, had plenty specific reasons to hate ROC in particular as an organization and as part of the oppressive state that they fought. And from there by extension they came to hate all organized religion. Then, when purges came, they swept in not only the top Church hierarchy, but also priests and even mere believers just as well.

This is terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one thing persecuting people for their religion but persecuting atheists is going too far.

Re:This is terrible

[Egg Sniper]

It's one thing persecuting people for their religion but persecuting atheists is going too far.

A small minority of 'different' people in your community often makes people uncomfortable when part of the culture is professing just how right and good it is to agree and identify with the majority. When that minority attempts to become vocal they are by definition wrong and therefore it is justifiable to punish them. If all you have to prove that you're living your life correctly is the assertion by yourself and those around you that it is so any argument against what you believe is dangerous. Certainly authority figures (from politicians to parents) won't allow dissenting opinions to spread, like some horrible disease.

People aren't persecuted for their religion. They are persecuted because their religion (or ethnicity or social status or etc.) is different from the majority of those around them. Group-think and ignorance will attack what it doesn't understand or can't control in whatever form it takes.

One could argue that, historically, atheism is the most persecuted belief system still in practice. It would explain the relatively small proportion of the population that atheism makes up, as well as why that small proportion is spread throughout the world with no great central region to call home.

Re:This is terrible

[walshy007]

It would explain the relatively small proportion of the population that atheism makes up, as well as why that small proportion is spread throughout the world with no great central region to call home.

I'd say australia is doing fairly well with the atheist business, the census five years ago indicated that approx 30% of australians don't believe in god. And of those that are religious australia has among the lowest church attendance rates in the world, even the believers rate it fairly low on their priorities placing family, work, leisure time and even politics ahead of it.

Nothing like a beating to make a believer.

[roman_mir]

31-year-old Alexander Aan faces a maximum prison sentence of five years for posting âoeGod does not existâ on Facebook. The civil servant was attacked and beaten by an angry mob of dozens who entered his government office at the Dharmasraya Development Planning Board on Wednesday. The Indonesian man was taken into protective police custody Friday since he was afraid of further physical assault.

The posting was made on a Facebook Page titled Ateis Minang (Minang Atheist), which Aan created. At the time of writing, it had over 1,700 Likes. Aanâ(TM)s posting has been removed, but supporters on the Page are urging police to release him.

I wonder if they were trying to make a believer out of him or just needed to re-assure themselves that they are right and he is wrong. Theirs must be a merciful god, a god of great compassion.

Atheism is a violation of Indonesian law under the founding principles of the country. Indonesia, the worldâ(TM)s most populous Muslim nation, recognises the right to practice six religions in total: Islam, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhism and Confucianism. Atheism is, however, illegal. According to Indonesian criminal law, anyone who tries to stop others believing in a faith could face up to five years in jail for blasphemy.

- further proving that governments are inherently evil.

Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer.

[vlm]

Indonesia ... recognises the right to practice six religions ... Buddhism ... Atheism is, however, illegal.

Isn't this kind of contradictory?

Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer.

[roman_mir]

What do you mean? Like the messages in the bibles are somehow self-consistent? The old and the new testaments? What are abominations? The entire creation mythology? Noah's arc? Miracles? Bizarre ideas on what is salvation and why it's needed? Is salvation really about Jesus or is it about moral codes? Is it about doing something or just believing in something?

How about the entire idea of confessions and getting forgiveness from church workers for pretty much any transgression, including murder? Mass murder?

Virgin birth. Resurrection. Incarnation. ONE god or three? Believing in things that don't have any actual proof of any kind, believing in things that are shown false by science, justifying continuation of believing even when proven false.

Faith does not require logic and it does not require consistency, it certainly does not require understanding falsifiability or requiring it.

Faith in fact requires complete abandonment of principles by which we make discoveries and by which we change our circumstance, and that's what faith is SUPPOSED to be, because if it was possible to PROVE a god, it wouldn't require faith.

And if god requires faith without any proof, and if somehow proof can be obtained, then isn't the purpose of having faith defeated then? And doesn't it mean in religion that in fact proof can never exist (and in science we know it cannot exist, because goalposts can never be reached, and proving a negative is not exactly what we can do).

Anyway, I am not trying to convince anybody in anything in terms of believing or not believing here, that's not the purpose of the story though it's easy to degenerate this story into that kind of a discussion.

I suggest you don't do that, stay on topic, and the topic is: government is evil and government mixing up with religion is even more evil and individual will be crashed by government that takes away power of choices from individual.

Of-course in all societies there are orthodox believers, and some of them in this story came to beat up this poor shmuck, who actually worked for the government apparently, but didn't understand the law there.

Re:Nothing like a beating to make a believer.

[SuricouRaven]

Because many religious groups believe in a collective morality - when a person is immoral in the view of their religion, it is nothing less than an attack on all of society. Even if the offender's actions harm no-one but themselves, it is still the duty of the believers to ensure such offensive acts are not committed. Otherwise they will be guilty themselves for not fighting against the evil, and thus giving implicit endorsement.

It's a big part of why American churches are so dedicated to fighting homosexuality. In their view, if two men have sex together then the whole of American society is tainted by the presence of such sinners. This cannot be tolerated. In Indonesia, the same reasoning results in an angry mob believing it is their duty to ensure their society is not tainted in the eyes of their own God by the presence of blasphemers.

His defense strategy should be ...

[tomhudson]

"The devil made me do it!"

Yet another 3rd world reaction

[G3ckoG33k]

Yet another 3rd world reaction to the eternal pornographic issue - my deity is larger than yours.

Re:Yet another 3rd world reaction

[RyanFenton]

Yet another 3rd world reaction to the eternal pornographic issue - my deity is larger than yours.

Reminds me of one of my favorite Carl Sagan quotes:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

Even the religions with science in the name ("Christian Science" and "Scientology") are profoundly against freedom of inquiry, except where it is used to glorify their mythology. This story kind of backs up the whole "our god is a little god, we must coddle it" approach.

Ryan Fenton

Re:The future is already here

[Anonymous Coward]

"If God existed, he would teach you compassion." Seriously, play to win.

Hitchen vindicated.

[Galactic Dominator]

Christopher Hitchens title for his polemic piece on religion hardly have been phrased even better, although I'll give it a shot here.

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything(Including Facebook).

Re:The real problem here

[MightyMartian]

The problem is that Islamic civilization was not always as you describe, nor is it even now. At one time, many Islamic societies were far more advanced and open than their Western European counterparts. What you're saying makes about as much sense as condemning Christianity based on what you find wrong in Catholicism.

Religious Freedom

[MarkvW]

For many people, religious freedom means the freedom to try to force your religion upon another person.

OMG! REALLY!

[denzacar]

Welcome to Sharia Law made official.

(and at the rate things are going viz. immigration, welcome to Europe c. 2112).

100 years from now Europe may be officially under Sharia Law?
Now that's a cause for alarm and quick and resolute action if I ever saw one.
We have only 100 years to come up with a solution - and these days 100 years ain't what it used to be.

Just pick a religion from their list . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

FTFA:

Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, recognises the right to practice six religions in total: Islam, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhism and Confucianism. Atheism is, however, illegal.

I'd go with Confucianism. If nobody can understand what he said, nobody can understand if you are practicing it or not.

If you live amongst a horde of unpredictable religious fanatics, it's best to keep your mouth shut.

My God told me so.

If God existed, he could fight his own battles.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will never comprehend the "if you don't believe, I'll beat the shit out of you" mentality.

Re:abortion is legitimate question

[walshy007]

I don't know anyone who is "pro abortion", but plenty who are "pro choice".

Pro life and pro choice are just market speak, the real issue is for or against the ability of women to legally have abortions. People who use pro life and pro choice are attempting to change the framing in order to get people on their side.

imho, people should be blunt about a topic, speaking as eloquently as possible about their real point without trying to dodge things. This is not a dig at you, but at oh so many idealists that refuse to do so.

God, what is it good for?

[JavaBear]

God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
God is something that I despise
For it means destruction of innocent lives
For it means tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
When their Gods go out to fight to take their lives

God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

God
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
God
Friend only to the undertaker
God is the enemy of all mankind
The thought of God blows my mind
Handed down from generation to generation
Induction destruction
Who wants to die

God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

God has shattered many young men's dreams
Made them disabled bitter and mean
Life is too precious to be fighting Gods each day
God can't give life it can only take it away

God
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
God
Friend only to the undertaker
Peace love and understanding
There must be some place for these things today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But what?, there's gotta be a better way
That's better than
God

God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

not sure if god exists or not

[FudRucker]

but he sure has a shitty fan club

Atheism isn't a belief system

[Anonymous Coward]

Atheism isn't a belief system, but the rejection or lack of one.

"Atheism is a belief system" is a definition born of an American cultural background. Since theism is the majority position (86%), the distinction between strong disbelief in make-believe beings Vs. mere indifference in same, is given exaggerated importance.

Re:Atheism isn't a belief system

[betterunixthanunix]

How does a belief that there is no God not count as a belief system?

Well, first of all, atheism is not "a belief that there is no God," it is a lack of belief in any gods at all (for some reason, Christians insist that there is only one deity anyone could believe in). Someone who had never heard of any deities in their entire life would be an atheist: people must be taught to follow religions or believe in gods.

That being said, atheism is not a system at all. I am an atheist, but I still practice my religion -- I simply do not believe that deities exist, because there is no evidence to support that notion. Yet I still keep traditions, moral beliefs, and philosophies that emerged from my religion -- that is the "system." I am not alone in this -- it is more common in my religion than people would like to admit, and I suspect that it happens in other religions as well.

Re:Atheism isn't a belief system

[Phernost]

Exactly, just how Atheists and Catholics share the same belief system.

Atheists and Catholics both believe unicorns don't exist.
Agnostics don't know if unicorns exist.

Therefore everyone is crazy, because obviously unicorns exist.

Re:Atheism isn't a belief system

[Kittenman]

How does a belief that there is no God not count as a belief system?

Well, first of all, atheism is not "a belief that there is no God," it is a lack of belief in any gods at all (for some reason, Christians insist that there is only one deity anyone could believe in).

Quote: Atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby. Unquote.

The difference between us and them

[betterunixthanunix]

The difference between that young lady's story and what happened in Indonesia is this: people were just talking, online, about how much they hate her. When she is being beaten up, or people are shooting at her, or Molotov cocktails are being thrown, then maybe the comparison will make sense.

In America, you can voice your dissent, you can call people garbage, and you can do so for any reason -- even if you are calling them garbage for putting an end to a blatant constitutional infraction. The constitution protects the rights of atheists and religious people of all varieties equally, and that includes the right to be rude, insulting, and to hate the very constitution that provides you with those protections.

Re:abortion is legitimate question

[Twanfox]

Remember that "pro-choice" means pro-choice for the woman, whereas pro-life means pro-choice for the human which will develop if the embryo not destroyed. There's nothing inherently correct about believing that a woman must or must not look after a fertilised embyro inside her, just as there's nothing inherently correct or incorrect about believing parents must look after their 8 year old kid.

The problem with the above logic is this.. even in this day and age, life from conception to birth is still has a really high morbidity rate. That is, women miscarry all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion, and often times aren't even recorded. Sometimes the body determines that the embryo is not viable. Sometimes the embryo has a flaw which kills it early in the process. Sometimes it's late in the process. Sometimes random chance puts a perfectly viable embryo into a situation where it just grabbed onto the wrong spot (ectopic pregnancies), putting itself and the mother at risk. Post-birth, the morbidity rate drops significantly as the child's physiology isn't so dependent on a delicate balance between mother and child.

This is a problem that has no good solution. That there is a ton of controversy around it only reflects that fact. I'm pretty sure that even most pro-choice folks would carry the opinion that abortions should not be a replacement for responsible behavior, and that we'd all like to see them performed as little as possible. Mandating that they cannot be done for any reason whatsoever places those prospective mothers into servitude at the whim of a potential child which may not even make it to term, which may kill the mother, or which may inflict years of torment on an unfortunate victim of rape. The idea of banning abortions completely, or the current tactic of defining a fertilized egg as a legal person, is a problem for women because this natural process is about as high risk a venture as is ever carried out. Flexibility is a must when there is this much risk involved, if you value human life at all.

For my mind, though, I just can't stand the hypocrisy of (generally) the same folks crying for less government interference in their lives, while going on how you should live by their morals (injecting government into someone else's life). Can't have it both ways.

He is wrong!

[PPH]

This man has not yet been touched by His Noodly Appendage. Once he has, he will know The Truth.

Re:abortion is legitimate question

[walshy007]

In a similar fashion, science shows precisely when abortion is no longer ethical, and it is when the baby develops a substantial part of its central nervous system.

Science may show the mental capacity of the fetus and it's ability to feel etc however by no means does this show when it is no longer ethical.

Ethics deal with morals, morals are generally based off values/goals, both of those can be arbitrary. Sure certain morals can convey a survival benefit etc, but survival itself could be considered a goal. Morals are a human construct, not an inherent aspect of the universe like things such as gravity etc.

And so the instant rebuttle to 'x is ethical' is generally, to whose ethics?

Article 6

[KingAlanI]

Amendment 1 yes, but I was thinking of Article 6: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Also from Article 6: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..., any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Re:Article 6

[tysonedwards]

However, religious tests are required for the popularity contest that is reaching a public office.

Re:abortion is legitimate question

[makomk]

I think you're getting confused. Pretty much all the pro-choice groups and individuals are pro-contraception - in fact the biggest boogeyman of the anti-abortion movement in the US, Planned Parenthood, actually puts most of its resources towards providing contraception. It's the anti-abortion groups that tend to be against contraception, and in favour of telling kids in school that it doesn't exist and making it harder to obtain in general.

Re:abortion is legitimate question

[narcc]

Are they pro-life with respect to the organisms that cause the plague?

You don't have to go that far. Just ask them if they support the death penalty.

You'll be amazed at how many "pro lifers" think that killing people a few years after they're born is fantastic.

Re:abortion is legitimate question

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Republican party platform: Life begins at conception and ends at birth.