With the advent of the internet, particularly Web 2.0, sociologists have been called to take up the challenges and the promises of the web. In the face of this, sociologists are caught up in debates and practices concerned with how to ethically approach and develop appropriate methods/methodologies for the field. While these are important endeavours, more robust debate needs to take place on the unintended consequences of the promises of the internet, as well as the power relations that are at play in what we term the 'digital social'. Employing the metaphor of the Archimedean screw and Archimedean point, this article argues that the space we now find ourselves in is unprecedented; it is one which simultaneously demands the empowerment of research and yet results in the stripping away of its foundation. The Archimedean effect demonstrates that the promises of the internet have not been fulfilled resulting in the evolution and de-evolution of the digital social framed by the reinforcement of existing power relations. Yet, rather than viewing this as a time of crisis, we should see it as a defining moment for our discipline, one where the demands of public sociology need to be adopted broadly.

In the last ten years there has been increasing focus on the plight of nonreligious and atheist peoples being persecuted in various countries. Some of this focus has come from cases brought to the attention of atheist/humanist organisations such as Atheist Alliance International (AAI), the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) and local groups. Cases are being reported by the non-religious themselves, from within countries where their views are not acceptable, potentially ending in imprisonment or death. For example, cases have been reported within Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia. There have been general concerns over the status of non-religious and atheist refugees due to the wording of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The UN has recently (2016) confirmed the inclusion of non-religious and atheist refugees under the 'religion' criteria, and some countries, such as the UK, Australia and Canada, have accepted refugees based on persecution due to atheism. However, atheism as a criteria is not clearly accepted by all countries of asylum. This article will look at atheist asylum cases, the need for asylum and the structural difficulties faced by atheist/non-religious asylum seekers.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract