Why Should We Force Our Religious Views on Others?

A Christian bus driver in the UK refuses to drive a bus with an atheist slogan.

The advertisement "There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” runs on 200 buses in London and 600 vehicles in England, Scotland and Wales in an advertising campaign. The atheist Professor Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Association officially back this anti-God campaign.

Bus driver Ron Heather, from Southampton, Hampshire, UK walked out of his shift on Saturday in protest. His employer, the bus company, First Bus said in a statement: 

"As an organisation we don't endorse any of the products or sentiments advertised on our buses. The content of this advert has been approved by the Advertising Standards Agency and therefore it is capable of being posted on static sites or anywhere else."

Photo source:

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, expressed: 

"I have difficulty understanding why people with particular religious beliefs find the expression of a different sort of beliefs to be offensive. "I can't understand why some people seem to have a different attitude when it comes to atheists."

Do States Define the Religions of its Citizens?

Is this ad inherently different from the message of organised religions? A building, a church, a temple, or a mosque is also a loud proclamation of the faith of believers. Buildings and religious congregations satisfy the needs of members, but without attacking other people faiths. Stating your viewpoint and professing your faith need not undermine or attack anyone else’s faith.

Photo source:

Most countries of the world are tolerant of different religions or religious views of inhabitants. States have however, often taken extreme positions of intolerance. For example, on February 27, 380 AD, the Byzantine emperor declared, "Catholic Christianity" the only legitimate imperial religion, ending state support for the traditional Roman religion and tolerance for others. 



Track Record of the Catholic Inquisition

The Catholic inquisition is seen as a very bloody and gruesome affair. 

30 external historians working together with Vatican authorities, however found that more women accused of witchcraft died in the Protestant countries than under the inquisition.

Photo source:

Outside Europe, the inquisition was a different story. The Goa inquisition, between 1560 and 1812, was designed to punish relapsed New Christians (Jews and Muslims). From the scant records not destroyed in 1812, it seems to have brought to trial 16 200 out of which 64 were burned and 57 executed.

The Inquisition Symposium, established in 2000 by the Pope, found that the Inquisition burned 59 women in Spain, 36 in Italy, and four in Portugal. At the same time in Europe, civil justice brought to trial 100,000 women and burned 50,000 of them. About 26,000 were condemned as witches in Germany.

Photo source:

Theocratic States in the World Today

Though in Norway, Finland and Sweden the Lutheran Church and the state are joined, currently only Islamic states are theocratic. Saudi Arabia requires all Saudi nationals to be Muslims. The state recognizes individuals’ rights of non-Muslims to worship in private. Israel is also a Jewish theocracy, with a population 76.1% Jewish, 16.2% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.6% Druze, with the remaining 3.9% of other religions. But, Israel allows freedom of religion by law even to Israeli citizens.

Photo source:
The first modern Islamic state, Pakistan was founded on 14^th August 1947. According to Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code you get the death penalty if you 

"by words . . . or visible representation . . . or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defile the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad." 

You can be sent to ten years in jail for outraging the religious feelings of any group. As of mid-2002, only the testimony of a single Muslim is sufficient to prosecute a non-Muslim on blasphemy charges.

Religion of Ruler Defined by Law

There are only few countries where the religion of the ruler is defined by law. 

• Saudi Arabia requires all Saudi nationals to be Muslims. As a ruler of Saudi Arabia has to be a Saudi national, the ruler has to be a Muslim. 
• The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran with its Shi’a Islam of the Jaafari (Usuli) school of thought also has no choice about religion.

Photo source:

• The Emperor of Japan is currently the only ruler with the title of Emperor. In 1946, with pressure from US General MacArthur, he renounced his claim to being divine in human form (akitsumikami), but he did not renounce being a Aahitogami (a Kami or spirit being born in human form) or a descendant of Amaterasu (Sun Goddess in Shinto religion). 

The 44^th US president Barack Obama can convert to Islam, Hare Krishna, Bahái, or any other faith. But, one other very liberal Western democracy has a religious straightjacket for its ruler. The constitutional law prevents the monarch of UK from being a Catholic. As the head of the Anglican Church and as the “Defender of Faith”, the monarch cannot but be an Anglican Protestant officially. This could be a toughie for Prince Charles (with his holistic views and penchant for alternative 'treatments') when his time comes.

Photo source

Further References:

• Peter Wetzler, Hirohito and War, University of Hawai'i press, 1998, p.3
  
• Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
  
• Encyclopædia Iranica. Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
  
• Levack, Brian P. The witch hunt in early modern Europe, Third Edition. London and New York: Longman, 2006.
• Monter, William: Witch trials in Continental Europe, (in:) Witchcraft and magic in Europe, ed. Bengst Ankarloo & Stuart Clark, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia 2002, pp 12. 
• Salomon, H. P. and Sassoon, I. S. D., in Saraiva, Antonio Jose. The Marrano Factory. The Portuguese Inquisition and Its New Christians, 1536-1765 (Brill, 2001), pp. 345-7.

How is Citizenship for Babies Born on Airplanes Decided?

How is the citizenship of babies born mid-flight decided? 

Is it according to: 

• the parents' citizenship
• the territory/airspace over which the birth takes place in mid-air
• the nationality of the airline or where it is registered
• the destination of the flight
• the port of departure of the flight

Last week a Swedish pregnant woman, flying by Finnair from Bangkok to Helsinki gave birth to a baby over Kazakhstan.

Photo Credit: Aneta Blaszczyk


This has happened before on other airlines, but was a first for the Finnish airline. There were even two doctors and two nurses on board, among the passengers. She was in good hands and everything went really well for the mother and the baby.

Does the baby get Swedish citizenship, according to the mother, Kazakhstani citizenship because she arrived over Kazakhstani airspace, Thai citizenship according to the port of departure, Finnish citizenship according to the destination and because the airline was Finnish (mostly state owned airline)?

Photo source:

Two Methods of Deciding Citizenship of Babies

There are basically two systems of deciding citizenship: jus solis or according to birthplace and jus sanguine, according to ethnicity, race, i.e., according to blood factors. Some countries also apply either principle but in a muted manner to suit political and social exigencies. 

India, for instance applies the mixed principle of jus sanguine and jus solis, but adjusts it to mean that children born on Indian soil on or after 3^rd December, 2004 is considered citizen of India by birth if both the parents are citizens of India or one of the parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of the child's birth.

Photo source:

Countries with low birth rates who plan to increase their population bases usually apply the principle of jus solis to integrate everyone who was born in their territory. Sweden, like Finland thus applies the principles of jus solis. But many countries like the USA, Canada, Germany and Ireland have a practice of mixing jus sanguinis and jus soli. The United States grants citizenship to babies born in their airspace, even if the mother happens to be a Mexican citizen as in this case.

What would happen if the baby were born over international territory, above the seas? Would she then be a stateless person or a world citizen?

Photo source:

Airlines are rather strict about requiring medical certificates for pregnant mothers beyond their 28th week of pregnancy. These are more relaxed for short domestic flights and even for flights within the Nordic countries. These mid-air childbirths are not happening in the hundreds every day. So, authorities deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Further, there is an international agreement called the UNHCR 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Finland ratified this agreement on 7^th August 2008 and Sweden in 1969. Kazakhstan has not signed this agreement, so the baby cannot be given Kazakhstani citizenship.

Considering the above, Kazakhstani citizenship is out of the question, unless the parents apply for it and the Kazakhstani government snatches a great PR opportunity and grants it. 

Photo source:

Finnish citizenship is also possible, especially if the parents are permanently resident in Finland. What is left is the most logical and natural alternative – the baby is a Swedish citizen.

Photo source:

Let us warmly welcome her to the world and wish her a good and happy life with lots of flying miles and frequent flyer rewards (whatever her citizenship turns out to be).