AG suspends registration of Atheists

[Nefertiti]

• Tweet

AG suspends registration of Atheists

Apr. 30, 2016, 12:00 pm
By NANCY AGUTU @nancyagutu

The Attorney General has suspended the registration of Atheist Society of Kenya following complaints by religious leaders.

A religious organisation had sought that the society be de-registered, saying Githu Muigai should resign for permitting it.

Muigai, in a statement on Saturday, ordered the Registrar of Societies to immediately ban the group.

"The suspension should be done until the propriety, legality and constitutionality of the registration is determined by the supreme court," he said.

But in response to the orders, Harrison Mumia of the Atheist Society of Kenya, said they had not been notified of the de-registration.

"There is a procedure the AG has to use to issue a formal communication to us. Until we get that, we are proceeding with our plans," Mumia told the Star.

Church leaders condemned the registration of the atheist society saying it was "abominable, and unconstitutional".

The vice chairperson of Kenya National Congress of Pentecostal Churches said Muigai has " touched nerves " of every person of faith by registering a society that denies existence of God.

Stephen Ndicho demanded that the society be de-registered failure to which they will go to court as well as mobilising Kenyans across the faiths to the streets until their demands are met.

The Atheist Society of Kenya was registered early this year and has following of over 5000 members.

The organisation embarked on a countrywide recruitment and is currently advocating for the scrapping off of religious studies from the syllabus.

http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2016/04/30/ag-suspends-registration-of-atheists_c1342377

[Omollo]

Consigliere has simply bowed down to cheap pressure and violated basic legal principles. There is nothing in the constitution that prescribes worship. The freedom of worship in the katiba is not limited to Christianity or Islam. Kenya is a secular state.

The Atheists will win hands down and subject Kenyans to unnecessary costs and expenses for a frivolous challenge and violation of other people's freedom to worship or NOT worship

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Consigliere has simply bowed down to cheap pressure and violated basic legal principles. There is nothing in the constitution that prescribes worship. The freedom of worship in the katiba is not limited to Christianity or Islam. Kenya is a secular state.

The Atheists will win hands down and subject Kenyans to unnecessary costs and expenses for a frivolous challenge and violation of other people's freedom to worship or NOT worship

Omollo,

You are right in principle.  They should be able to fully enjoy their freedom of association.  The mortician is out of his depth.

But two things will work against them. 

Kenya is a super-religious country where they take beliefs in gods/demons for granted.  To suggest you don't have any superstitious beliefs is more shocking than having sex with an animal.

They may be dealing with Mutungaru's court whose defining moment was their handling of the 2013 presidential election petition.

[Kadudu]

Of course Omollo is right.
Btw, kenya is on religious on paper and on Sunday morning. Otherwise Kenya is full of crooks from the very top to the bottom. It has nothing to do with religion.

Omollo,

You are right in principle.  They should be able to fully enjoy their freedom of association.  The mortician is out of his depth.

But two things will work against them. 

Kenya is a super-religious country where they take beliefs in gods/demons for granted.  To suggest you don't have any superstitious beliefs is more shocking than having sex with an animal.

They may be dealing with Mutungaru's court whose defining moment was their handling of the 2013 presidential election petition.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Of course Omollo is right.
Btw, kenya is on religious on paper and on Sunday morning. Otherwise Kenya is full of crooks from the very top to the bottom. It has nothing to do with religion.

Omollo,

You are right in principle.  They should be able to fully enjoy their freedom of association.  The mortician is out of his depth.

But two things will work against them. 

Kenya is a super-religious country where they take beliefs in gods/demons for granted.  To suggest you don't have any superstitious beliefs is more shocking than having sex with an animal.

They may be dealing with Mutungaru's court whose defining moment was their handling of the 2013 presidential election petition.

Those crooks are probably emboldened because they can seek for and be granted forgiveness by God.

The people also tend to tolerate the crooks and their abuse of the law, believing that they will go to hell when they die.

The rare ocassion when I agree with Johnstone Kamau.  Mzungu brought Bible and stole the land while the native imbibed prayer. 

If Africans thought more about how mzungu would have received their pagan religions and now increasingly his own, they may not be as gullible.

[Nefertiti]

Legality...

[Former LSK chair] Charles Kanjama offered some thoughts on the constitutional preamble, something about we the people believing in the Almighty God as our creator, etc. That this may be  held against the atheists as it has been in the US...

[Nefertiti]

Concerning the fickle nature of mortals, Socrates called religion a noble lie for the pacifying reasons the Windy Assassin offers - forgiveness, hope, peace, etc. Would erosion of superstition be good or bad for Zamunda?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Legality...

[Former LSK chair] Charles Kanjama offered some thoughts on the constitutional preamble, something about we the people believing in the Almighty God as our creator, etc. That this may be  held against the atheists as it has been in the US...

Is he suggesting that it is unconstitutional to NOT harbor superstitious beliefs or to have beliefs in more than one god for that matter?  It sounds like a bandia legal opinion.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Concerning the fickle nature of mortals, Socrates called religion a noble lie for the pacifying reasons the Windy Assassin offers - forgiveness, hope, peace, etc. Would erosion of superstition be good or bad for Zamunda?

Karl Max also had some views on religion.  Opium of the masses or such. 

Me, I think the primate is wired to be religious.  I agree with the pacifying aspect.  Especially Buddhism.  Christianity too, to a certain extent. 

Homo sapiens, for the most part, tends to behave with more moderation when he believes it is the express desire of something mysterious.

That is to say nothing of the validity of the beliefs.

[Nefertiti]

Legality...

[Former LSK chair] Charles Kanjama offered some thoughts on the constitutional preamble, something about we the people believing in the Almighty God as our creator, etc. That this may be  held against the atheists as it has been in the US...

Is he suggesting that it is unconstitutional to NOT harbor superstitious beliefs or to have beliefs in more than one god for that matter?  It sounds like a bandia legal opinion.

Yes, if only to validate the Mortician he implied so. It is not illegal to not believe, but to require state recognition is.
It is the gay conundrum, do it in your bedroom but keep us out of it. Don't ask, don't tell...

Atheism is in constitutional limbo. I subscribe to this school of thought.

[Nefertiti]

Concerning the fickle nature of mortals, Socrates called religion a noble lie for the pacifying reasons the Windy Assassin offers - forgiveness, hope, peace, etc. Would erosion of superstition be good or bad for Zamunda?

Karl Max also had some views on religion.  Opium of the masses or such. 

Me, I think the primate is wired to be religious.  I agree with the pacifying aspect.  Especially Buddhism.  Christianity too, to a certain extent. 

Homo sapiens, for the most part, tends to behave with more moderation when he believes it is the express desire of something mysterious.

That is to say nothing of the validity of the beliefs.

I see. As a corollary I hold little sympathy for the atheists, much less than the gays, say. It is a choice I think. In any case they have an uphill task, without outright persecution I doubt even the EU/US would lend them a shoulder. Faith in nothing... should a "Godly" state or anyone recognize that? That is the question.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Legality...

[Former LSK chair] Charles Kanjama offered some thoughts on the constitutional preamble, something about we the people believing in the Almighty God as our creator, etc. That this may be  held against the atheists as it has been in the US...

Is he suggesting that it is unconstitutional to NOT harbor superstitious beliefs or to have beliefs in more than one god for that matter?  It sounds like a bandia legal opinion.

Yes, if only to validate the Mortician he implied so. It is not illegal to not believe, but to require state recognition is.
It is the gay conundrum, do it in your bedroom but keep us out of it. Don't ask, don't tell...

Atheism is in constitutional limbo. I subscribe to this school of thought.

I see it as a question of freedom of association rather than state recognition.  They want to associate and do things together as godless people.  And spread the message.

Should we read too much into a preamble when there are articles in the same constitution that suggest protection of rights such as belief in ten gods or cows and not an almighty god for instance?

Concerning the fickle nature of mortals, Socrates called religion a noble lie for the pacifying reasons the Windy Assassin offers - forgiveness, hope, peace, etc. Would erosion of superstition be good or bad for Zamunda?

Karl Max also had some views on religion.  Opium of the masses or such. 

Me, I think the primate is wired to be religious.  I agree with the pacifying aspect.  Especially Buddhism.  Christianity too, to a certain extent. 

Homo sapiens, for the most part, tends to behave with more moderation when he believes it is the express desire of something mysterious.

That is to say nothing of the validity of the beliefs.

I see. As a corollary I hold little sympathy for the atheists, much less than the gays, say. It is a choice I think. In any case they have an uphill task, without outright persecution I doubt even the EU/US would lend them a shoulder. Faith in nothing... should a "Godly" state or anyone recognize that? That is the question.

I don't know about the EU, but in the US you are free to register many things including atheist societies. I think there is even a tax exempt type of thing.  I highly suspect it's the same in the EU.

[Nefertiti]

I see it as a question of freedom of association rather than state recognition.  They want to associate and do things together as godless people.  And spread the message.

Should we read too much into a preamble when there are articles in the same constitution that suggest protection of rights such as belief in ten gods or cows and not an almighty god for instance?

I do wish we were more "advanced" but unfortunately yes. The reason LGBT won registration was that the constitution is silent on the matter but upholds freedom of association. So the anti-gay penal code was ruled inferior. This "God" preamble is a fundamental declaration meant for that exact purpose by the pious. A neighboring clause asserts that all power vests in the people. Tough to argue with their intent.

The thing with jurisprudence is the influence of sociopolitical dynamics. As in what do the people (represented by the elected) think? This is the practice I see even in the SCOTUS e.g. Obamacare, etc. Recall how contentious the Kadhi courts were in 2010... in US I doubt an openly devil-worshipping society would survive the Right Wing states. Atheism is just how far the great secular US has advanced.

I don't know about the EU, but in the US you are free to register many things including atheist societies. I think there is even a tax exempt type of thing.  I highly suspect it's the same in the EU.

By the US/EU I meant to say that the gays got much support but still hit a snug where it matters -- the streets. The local attitudes are eons behind that equality realm, pushing it was actually inviting trouble e.g. the threats to toughen the sodomy act. With time am sure the atheists will gain acceptance. For now insisting on banning religious courses in schools is shooting themselves in the foot.

What I really see coming is a cosmetic victory that provokes a substantive reaction in banning atheist activity.

[Omollo]

I am following this debate from sidelines. Very interesting... So is it about God? What id you believe in multiple gods and reject the idea of one Creator? Could you then be disqualified?

The AG has registered many organizations that expressly reject the existence of God as the Christians, Muslims and Jews know it. What do Atheists have in common with these groups that the AG has registered? Both reject or refuse to acknowledge "God". Some of these groups  say (Buddhists) however believe in wide range of multiple (and independent) gods. Still their rejection of the one Supreme Being puts them at par with Atheists. Treating the Atheists deferentially would raise the question of discrimination in law and it would not stand.

I do not for a moment believe The Bill of Rights is subordinate to the Preamble. The BoR is superior in its specificity on issues such as Association, Religious Freedom. A common sense interpretation of a right involves the power, authority and ability to exercise that right as well as abstain from so doing. Freedom of speech does not mean one speaks continuously (not that some don't try). It also protects one's silence.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

What I really see coming is a cosmetic victory that provokes a substantive reaction in banning atheist activity.

How would they enforce a ban atheist activity?  Would that involve GoK hiring some sort of religious police?  There are Buddhists who do not believe in deities.  Would they go after them?

I am following this debate from sidelines. Very interesting... So is it about God? What id you believe in multiple gods and reject the idea of one Creator? Could you then be disqualified?

The AG has registered many organizations that expressly reject the existence of God as the Christians, Muslims and Jews know it. What do Atheists have in common with these groups that the AG has registered? Both reject or refuse to acknowledge "God". Some of these groups  say (Buddhists) however believe in wide range of multiple (and independent) gods. Still their rejection of the one Supreme Being puts them at par with Atheists. Treating the Atheists deferentially would raise the question of discrimination in law and it would not stand.

I do not for a moment believe The Bill of Rights is subordinate to the Preamble. The BoR is superior in its specificity on issues such as Association, Religious Freedom. A common sense interpretation of a right involves the power, authority and ability to exercise that right as well as abstain from so doing. Freedom of speech does not mean one speaks continuously (not that some don't try). It also protects one's silence.

Interesting perspective on religious discrimination.  Now I understand freedom of religion to also include freedom from religion.  I am not sure what justification one would have to register a group that worships a bovine and refuse to register one that worships nothing/nature other than blatant discrimination.

I agree on the relevance or otherwise of the preamble.  The state cannot prescribe religion.  Chapter 2 of the constitution states There shall be no State religion.  I don't think that is nullified by the preamble.

[Omollo]

One thing I fail to get:

1. Will Atheists abandon their beliefs (or lack of them) just because they have no official organization?
2. Will atheism vanish from the face of the earth?

Get me right, I am a God fearing man. I just have a problem when people try to prescribe to others how they should practice their faith or lack of it. It is the same reason I support gay rights but oppose the forcing of churches to wed gays. One cannot tell others how to manifest their worship.

It looks to me people with limited or no faith are using this issue to validate their irreligion.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

One thing I fail to get:

1. Will Atheists abandon their beliefs (or lack of them) just because they have no official organization?
2. Will atheism vanish from the face of the earth?

Get me right, I am a God fearing man. I just have a problem when people try to prescribe to others how they should practice their faith or lack of it. It is the same reason I support gay rights but oppose the forcing of churches to wed gays. One cannot tell others how to manifest their worship.

It looks to me people with limited or no faith are using this issue to validate their irreligion.

Those were the same questions I had about the Kenyan atheists.  An atheist broadly speaking is someone who does not believe in deities.  Other than that, their agenda and other beliefs, religious or otherwise are, in principle, just as diverse as the normal population. 

In practice though, they tend to share common values such as empiricism.  But these are rights they can still enjoy by joining other relevant non-atheistic groups.  This is not an argument against their right to registration though. 

They should have a right to an organization dedicated to supporting their weaker members who might be at risk of falling back into theistic beliefs due to pressure from society at large.  They should have a right to even register different atheistic factions placing different emphasis on different values.

[Omollo]

Moi used to publicly state that "Kenya is a 'Christian' country and he got away with it.

Zambia under Chiluba went ahead and created a dejure Christian State of Zambia. Chiluba presented himself as a born again evangelical Christian, despite all the obvious and public sins. Apart from fanatical support among his core supporters and irrational support from Evangelical groups around the World, Zambians largely remained untouched. They continued to drink as heavily as Kenyans.

Moi like Chiluba had an audience far wider than his AIC. Faced with accusations of Human Rights violations and facing near ostracization, his move to burn ivory and invite evangelicals seemed to lend credence to his assertion (paid for through PR firms hired at great cost) that the likes of Koigi and other bearded dissidents were Godless communists bent on ruining a "Christian" country. There were people listening. Thatcher even paid him a personalized visit and condemned those communists.

Could there be another agenda? I am told in politics, you keep to the well trodden path and keep in mind what worked before - even for your opponents - will work again for you.

[MOON Ki]

Claims based on the fact that God is mentioned in the constitution are bizarre, to say the least.   Is there any part of the constitution that then goes on to state (or even imply) that those who do not believe in God shall not be entitled to benefits, rights, protections, etc. in said constitution or other law?   If there is not, then the matter can be settled in a simple and straightforward matter:

The registration of societies is regulated by certain laws that are not particularly hard to understand.    A decision on whether or not to register Godless people can (and should be made) solely on whether they comply with the relevant laws and regulations.     As the law currently stands and is understood, the groups that may be denied registration are those that pose a criminal danger to society.       For example, a Rapists-and-Murderers Society of Kenya may (and ought to) be denied registration on the basis of the unsavoury nature of its primary activities.     

Amicus Mortician knows the law, but he has a "job" to do: there is an election coming up, and the Jubilee government doesn't need the churches making unhelpful noises.