Complaint from an Indian atheist
A new study claims that the druids who built Stonehenge knew Pythagoras’ Theorem, 2000 years before the Greek philosopher was born. Pythagoras is widely acknowledged as the man who formally stated that, in a right-angled triangle, the square on the hypotenuse (the longest side, opposite the right-angle) would have the same area as the sum of the squares of the other two sides. For example, in a right-angled triangle with side lengths of 3, 4 and 5 metres, the area of hypotenusesquare (25 square metres) would equal the area of the other two squares combined (9 sq m plus 16 sq m, respectively).
Many things follow from this result. For example, the theorem leads to the concept of irrational numbers. A rightangled triangle with two sides of length 1 m each, can be constructed physically. But the third side has a length equal to the square root of 2 metres and it cannot be easily represented. The story goes, the Greeks, who loved whole numbers, drowned some poor idiot who pointed out this inconvenient fact.
The Stonehengers undoubtedly knew this basic relationship. So did the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Incas, the Chinese and the Easter Islanders. Any illiterate farming community that farmed appropriately-shaped pieces of land back in the Neolithic Age would have found the relationship independently. Formally stating it, however, leads to realms of algebra and higher mathematics.
It is believed that the Stonehengers used to hold public orgies, or make human sacrifices, or do something or another that was wildly exciting at Stonehenge every June 21st, or rather on summer solstice since those old-timers didn't use the modern calendar. That's the longest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere. Most cultures smart enough to figure it out, mark the day in some fashion or another. The delightfully decadent Glastonbury Festival is held around this time, though the Brits frown on public orgies at the standing stones.
Globally, the solstice is celebrated by atheists as well, as Atheist Solidarity Day. "Atheist" in this context may be defined as the non-religious, or non-faithful. They adhere to no religion at all, in contrast to those who believe in sundry agnostic or atheistic faiths such as Theravada Buddhists. There are at least 400 million people around the world who fit that definition of non-religious atheist.
It is surprisingly hard to define a belief by the absence of a belief. As the old analogy goes, this is like stating one's hobby is "not collecting stamps". Think of it this way: If you believe in any religious faith, you are implicitly rejecting every other faith that contradicts your belief. Well, the non-faithful person is somebody who has gone one step further and explicitly rejected all faiths.
Atheistic celebrations tend to be noncelebratory by their very nature. Atheists generally observe Solidarity Day by doing the things they do every other day. They do not rush out onto the street and block it, nor do they play raucous music, or chant unmusically at all hours.
So I did the things I normally do. About the only departure from the humdrum was my attempt to post the statutory annual greetings on the Facebook groups where atheists gather. That's when I discovered that the popular Indian Atheists page has been blocked by "local authorities". It can be accessed by a virtual private network (VPN), of course, but that's neither here nor there.
The government never gives reasons for online blocks. But presumably, somebody in that chain of officials, who decides upon such things, was offended by the existence of Indians claiming to be atheists. Also presumably, the Home Secretary signed off on a request to block that page.
The rights of citizens to profess and practice sundry religions is guaranteed by the Constitution. That of atheists to not profess a religion is not. Or at least, it's superseded by the rights of religious persons to be offended by the public existence of a group that doesn't profess any religion. If in all conscience, somebody cannot honestly profess any religion whatsoever, surely that person has a right to profess his or her lack of belief? This is apparently not the case in secular India.