Saudi Arabia Welcomes You to the Seventh Century!


In Saudi Arabia, a Muslim society, where "As-salamu alaykum" or "Peace be upon you" flows so easily from their lips, in a crackdown against so-called 'political dissidents' and by decree of King Abdullah they have made it illegal to be an atheist by declaring all atheists terrorists.

What does this mean in the land where "Peace be upon you" flows so easily from their lips?

It means anyone who is caught advocating atheism, and presumably anything resembling atheistic thought such as secularism, separation of religion and politics, or even godless science will be declared a terrorist and will receive up to 20 years mandatory jail time, according to the Royal Decree 44 issued by King Abdullah.

In the land where "Peace be upon you" flows so easily from Muslim lips, the greatest threat to what you believe is what other people don't believe. 

In the land where "Peace be upon you" flows so easily from Muslim lips, it seems that if you truly wanted peace, you'd have to actually mean what you say, and ignore insular minded, self-serving, ignorant kings.

But who would dare challenge a person willing to toss you into jail to spend the rest of your life simply for what you believe--or more specifically, what you don't believe?

In Saudi Arabia, where they say things like "As-salamu alaykum" or "Peace be upon you" we know now that it is only said as a cruel joke.

 To learn more on this shocking display of insular minded reasoning by Saudi Arabia, follow the link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more