Update on the Atheist in the Maldives

Surely some realize he’s saying all that because he’s afraid of being killed. They should kill him anyway, either way, he gets his “reward”. While they’re at it, if they all kill each other they can get off this rock they hate so much.

I have full sympathy. AHA did not turn atheist in a society hostile to atheism, as I understand it she was already in the Netherlands.

I don’t want this to sound diminishing about AHA bravery or plight, but I do not think we can demand people to stick their heads out unconditionally.

For example jewish families hid throughout WWII in basements and attics. They could have been “brave” and come out too, but who are we to demand that kind of risk and sacrifice of others. No the blame has to go to the culture as a whole that does not give the individual not even enough safety that AHA and Rushdie could affort because they could get support.

There was also an article in the HuffPo attacking Molly Norris for backtracking.

I find both rather horrifying. The first principle has to be wanting people to be safe. And if bravery shows promise and a culture that is supportive enough, let them be brave.

But to be brave just to be killed or be in harms way is only something we should ask of people if we really are willing to do the same.

It is easy for us, anonymous on the web to pass judgment. I think we should think hard first before we pass it on people who bargain with their well-being.

great! we all know that he is a atheist, nut unlike those crazy muslisms we know that theres no virgins after death so i would have done the same

You do realize that there are Officially Atheistic States where an open profession of Christianity can lead to severe reprecussions?

Usually states in which religious expression is repressed (if not punished) are totalitarian states, where religious expression is put down because the government wants the citizenry to have loyalty only to the state-sponsored dogma (and usually the Dear Leader is to be worshiped as the “godhead,” e.g., Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Hitler). Totalitarian states often replace one dogma (religion) with another (National Socialism, Stalinism, Italian Fascism, etc.). In these cases, the cause of the religious repression, I would submit, is totalitarian dogma, not atheism. Atheism is ONE choice (the choice not to believe in a God or Gods). Simply making this choice, in and of itself, wouldn’t necessarily inspire one to repress others. That happens when you add in a dogma.

This cuts the other way, too. Simply choosing to believe in a deity never inspired anyone to commit misdeeds. But add in the dogma of religion, and presto! Now people stone their daughters and engage in genital mutilation—all the while thinking it is moral to do so.

This is a defeat for Islam, not Nazim. He took a risk and managed to get the theocrats to humiliate themselves. A religion that has to protect itself from any challenge by threat of death is weak, hollow, and bereft of substance or credibility. Every time a doubter is publicly intimidated into professing belief, the reality that the “true faith” is nothing more than a mobster’s power structure is embarrassingly revealed. Only a naive child would think that Nazim sincerely believes now. If their god is so great and powerful, why does it need goons and thugs to do its dirty work? Is it helpless or afraid? These barbarians despise any man who won’t fight for himself, but they can’t see the contradiction with their cowardly god.

I’m glad that Nazim gave in and lied to save his own life. He who fights and runs away will live to fight another day.

Personally, I think the best possible outcome would be for others in the Maldives to take Nazim’s example and run with it; publicly out yourself, give it a short while, backtrack with a ‘nah, just kidding’. Even better, wait a few weeks or months, do exactly the same thing again. Very quickly, calling yourself atheist would become unnewsworthy, let alone a matter for public debate over death sentences. And the leaders calling the Maldives a muslim country would be met with global sarcastic eyebrows.

Well, we can hope…

I find both rather horrifying. The first principle has to be wanting people to be safe. And if bravery shows promise and a culture that is supportive enough, let them be brave.

Yes, the first principle has to be to abandon your principles for safety. And people should be brave only when it’s safe to be brave, when there’s no risk to it.

@ U Dubium, 🙂

I want no martyrs. If Giordano Bruno would never have been killed, this would be a better world. Theo van Gogh is no martyr, he is a crime victim.

There is no “honor” in being killed, but of course also no shame.

I would consider the culture and the killers. This is where the change has to happen.

I do not need or want matyrs, but if people are victimized, we are reminded just how bad things are and that we are indeed responsible for the world around us.

I’m under no illusion that I can change what is going on in the Maldives right now. But I can support the values of people supporting and protecting their lives in an inhumane society. I will not have it that they are made into cowards by folks who sit on sofas in perfect safety typing away at their laptops and risk nothing but self-inflicted repetitive strain injury.

@Moxiequiz: My comment wasn’t about Nazim or critical of Nazim at all, I’m sympathetic to Nazim. It was about Hitch’s ill-thought-out comment, which wasn’t solely about Nazim.

No the blame has to go to the culture as a whole that does not give the individual not even enough safety that AHA and Rushdie could affort because they could get support.

There was also an article in the HuffPo attacking Molly Norris for backtracking.

I find both rather horrifying. The first principle has to be wanting people to be safe. And if bravery shows promise and a culture that is supportive enough, let them be brave.

A Seattle cartoonist doesn’t live in a culture that is supportive enough? Really?

It’s incredibly frustrating to see the judgmental attitudes here coming from people who (I would hazard to assume) are speaking from a relatively safe and secure position themselves.

I understand, and I agree with you. I don’t see anyone in this comment thread criticizing Nazim, he was facing a particularly difficult situation, and I think we’re all in agreement that his change of mind is perfectly understandable.

What I find frustrating is the flip side of that coin, that somehow to celebrate the bravery of Ayaan Hirsi Ali is to “demand people to stick their heads out unconditionally”. Or that the situation of a Seattle cartoonist is anywhere near the situation of a man like Nazim. It’s particularly galling given the irony of why Molly Norris came up with “Draw Mohammed Day”: it was in response to Comedy Central’s tiptoeing around the delicate sensibilities of thugs and goons.

Well, I am frustrated by people less brave than others accusing people more brave of cowardess.

If Citizen Z wants to be a hero, move out and be one. Don’t snipe others, you have no right to tell others to take risks you do not take.

Molly Norris has received minimal support. She is an independent artist, yet she has received numerous death threats.

I have more sympathy for people going after viacom. They can afford body guards. AHA can afford body guards. Molly Norris? Well if you want to volunteer as body guard, I would have some respect for your argument.

But if all you do is call others out as cowards from the safety of your anonymous internet persona, you get no respect from me.

If he gets to Britain, declares “HAH, I AM an atheist, suckers!” then I won’t care if he lied at the time.

I may celebrate the bravery of someone who faces death for his beliefs, but I do not turn around and assail someone who avoids death by lying. I consider lying to be a far lesser thing than death.