When you write a letter-to-the-editor, it helps to know what you’re talking about.
Robin Smith, a resident of Bloomington, IN, is a Christian who doesn’t like the notion that an atheist bus ad may have been seen in her town. (Bloomington Transit rejected the ad which stated “You Can Be Good Without God.”)
I agree with Bloomington Transit’s decision to not display the message, “You Can Be Good Without God.” Even though I strongly disagree with the statement, I feel that advertising this one slogan only gives one point of view. If Bloomington Transit gives in to this message, then by all fairness, they should post messages with the opposing view such as “Jesus Saves.”
This has nothing to do with point of view. It’s an all or nothing issue. If ads about religion are allowed (including the atheist one), then they all must be allowed. It no ads about religion are allowed, fine. I get that. The problem arises when religious ads are allowed, but the atheist ad is not.
If the transit system accepted all ads, then Christians would have a right to that, too. And like the atheists, they’d have to pay for it. Just because you see one point of view doesn’t mean the other side must be shown automatically.
Another problem: Robin’s suggestion for the “opposing” point of view is “Jesus Saves” — as if that and atheism are the only two points on the spectrum. Obviously, there are plenty of other options.
I dare her to go to a meeting of the Secular Alliance at Indiana University and explain to all the members why they are not good people. I’m sure they’d love to hear what she has to say.
In addition, Indiana has license plates which read “In God We Trust.” By Robin’s logic, atheists should automatically be able to get license plates of their own. Hell, by her logic, we ought to see both sides of the issue on the same place. Maybe we can insert the word “DON’T” between “We” and “Trust.”
What a poorly written letter.