Bloomington Transit has rejected the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign’s “You Can Be Good Without God” ad:
Bloomington was first on the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign’s list of places it hoped to run bus ads. However, the city has rejected our campaign’s slogan, ‘You Can Be Good Without God.’ This is deeply disappointing to our campaign’s members; we all love Bloomington and were very much hoping to run ads in our hometown along with many other cities.
Following their rejection of our ad’s slogan, Bloomington Transit referenced their ad policy, which currently states that they may reject any ad they feel is ‘too controversial.’
However, we are not giving up. Today the ACLU of Indiana, on behalf of the campaign, is filing a lawsuit against Bloomington Transit on First Amendment grounds. No campaign donations will be spent on the suit.
I’m a little divided here. I wish Bloomington Transit didn’t reject the ad, but on the other hand, don’t they have a right to reject whatever ads they want?
For instance, if I had a bus company, and a Christian ministry wanted to advertise “There is a God, So You Better Be Ready!” I’d probably reject it. And that would my right. I’d be seriously ticked if they proceed to sue me.
What do you think? Should Bloomington Transit be legally forced to accept a controversial ad?
I think they should have instead explored other options to get the message out. There is no denying that the ad would have been potentially controversial, so if the company maintains a policy to not use ads as such, they have it within their rights. I like the ad, but I think sueing the company is kindof a jerky way to go about getting a positive message out.
“There is no denying that the ad would have been potentially controversial…”
The problem is that if there was another ad trying to be run with the message “God loves you,” it wouldn’t be controversial. Both messages address God, but the one rejecting him is controversial.
Ultimately it’s up to the bus company to make the decision, since I assume they’re a private company. If they’d similarly reject a message that says “God loves you,” then more power to them. If not, then someone is definitely going to take issue with that, because their definition of “controversial” is obviously one-sided.
“The problem is that if there was another ad trying to be run with the message “God loves you,” it wouldn’t be controversial”
Totally agreed, that’s just the way things are right now, and it sucks. I think most atheists would see such a sign and roll their eyes or shrug it off. But the fundies would see the proposed sign from the OP and start waving bibles in protest. But, the great thing is that we don’t usually stoop to their level. (usually)
I think Bloomington Transit has a right to reject whatever ads they want; in which case, that’s too bad, but fine.
Is this even relevant to the First Amendment? The message does not promote one religion or all religions. Teehee.
Public, not private, nevermind.
If the ACLU is suing on First Amendment grounds, it means the company must be at least partially state-supported. State-run organizations are bound by the First Amendment, and are not allowed to discriminate based on viewpoint. I believe they can reject all religious ads completely, but if they don’t have a written policy rejecting all religious ads, they may be required to accept this ad also.
If they were actually a privately-run business, they’re allowed to discriminate in advertising however they want, and the ACLU couldn’t sue on First Amendment grounds.
To me it would depend on if other ads they have done in the past are similarly ‘contoversial’. At least this gains publicity.
Yes I wonder if they have run ads for churches, for example. If so, then they don’t have a leg to stand on.
I can see where the “Probably No God/Stop Worrying” slogan can be controversial. But a positive message like “You Can Be Good…”? What reasonable objection could anyone have to that? (I know, we’re not dealing with “reasonable” here).
I think in general companies should be able to reject controversial ads — provided it’s done neutrally w.r.t. viewpoint. Thus, if they reject YCBGWG, they should also reject anything along the lines of: “Believe in Jesus and he will make you a better person” (ie. a symmetrical statement on the other side).
I agree with Andrew C. If they’re supported by the government, then yes. Otherwise, if they’re a private company, then no, they shouldn’t be forced to display any ad, regardless of content.
Well, as the little snippet of article you posted says, it was the city that rejected the ad. Makes it sound like Bloomington Transit is a public system instead of a private company, meaning yes this is potentially a free speech/church and state issue.
Bus ads? Sounds like cheesy evangelism tactics to me… ;)
Yeeeessss…… who have we seen do this before????? Hmmmmmm……
They should be required to be consistent. If they want to keep the buses from turning into a circus like Washington’s state capitol last Christmas, then that is a legitimate goal even with public funds. Banning the atheist ads along with pro-religion ads, like “Jesus loves you” is the best way to accomplish this goal.
But no one has said anything suggesting they have a double standard. If they had allowed religious ads in the past, I figure we would have heard about it by now. So far, I don’t see how atheists have been wronged at all.
As others have stated it sounds like Bloomington Transit is run by the city, which means they’re government and not allowed to discriminate.
Of course if their policy is to allow no religion related advertising they’re probably fine but if churches can buy ads than atheists certainly should be able to.
Privately owned companies do not owe any fairness to objectionable content they don’t want to display or advertise. A government regulated company would. I have seen Christian ads in the subway stations and on the inside of buses here in Boston, I don’t know if atheism has caught on real well around here actually. Several different churches want you to join their programs or visit or consider them. I have never seen one for Judaism or Islam or other religions. The MBTA appears to be using (wasting?) state government money to stay in business, but I don’t know that that means they can’t reject ads like the one above.
I don’t know why people of faith think words they don’t agree with are going to hurt them. It just says you can be good without god. I find that wording a little weird actually. It’s like saying you can fall asleep without your teddy bear, as if god would still exist, he’s just in the closet now. Try it for a few days, and if you find you can’t be good without god, we’ll give him back to you. If there were a firm statement to the public that they already are good (or not) with no god, that would be atheistic. Atheist marketers attempting to straddle a sensitive line can be kind of sickeningly non-committal, and even then, the bus companies reject it for being too much, too controversial, while at least in my town, ads for Christianity do not seem to limit their degree of assertion.
Buses are transit companies using their medium of “large side of a bus” like a newspaper will often disclaim any agreement or support of their advertisers, but people might actually not want to board the bus cuz-of-wooooords. Ooooh. The thing is, they’re not scared of losing the business of atheists by posting Christian church ads (at least not the MBTA). I don’t know whether there are some atheists who would boycott a bus company over religious ads on the side of it, but I think it’s reasonable for me to take the public transportation as long as it’s not indicative of an attempt to bring me TO church, and I have no reason to believe they would change the route so drastically or that entering the bus baptized me somehow. I wonder had they posted the ad on the side of the bus if it would really affect their fare revenue. You know that’s what their concern is, not that the management itself definitively rejects the message.
“I’m a little divided here. I wish Bloomington Transit didn’t reject the ad, but on the other hand, don’t they have a right to reject whatever ads they want?”
It depends. Can I move to Bloomington and start up a Bus Company and run a competitive business? If I can’t because Bloomington Transit enjoys some protection from the state, then the state is infringing on free speech. If they don’t sell me ad space at the same competitive rates which everyone else can purchase they are abusing their state protected monopoly.
Bloomington Transit is owned by the City of Bloomington, IN. It is therefore in an anomalous position with regards to what appears to be religious statements in advertising. If we agree that there should be no crossover between church and state, then any religious advertising (even in the negative) should not be accepted by Bloomington Transit. It doesn’t infringe on free speech to ban all argumentative advertising. The city is under no obligation to cart around anybody’s religious statements. I would actually be more in favor of banning all religious advertising of any kind.
I’m a little divided here. I wish Bloomington Transit didn’t reject the ad, but on the other hand, don’t they have a right to reject whatever ads they want?
For instance, if I had a bus company, and a Christian ministry wanted to advertise “There is a God, So You Better Be Ready!” I’d probably reject it. And that would my right. I’d be seriously ticked if they proceed to sue me
Maybe I just don’t have enough knowledge about the legality here, but it seems to me that this is a no-brainer: The bus company has the right to run whatever ads they want to run. Even if the “too controversial” excuse is thin, it’s still their right to use it, right?
As was highlighted above, only if they are a private company. If the bus company is run by the city, then they are restrained from using viewpoint (such as the specific religious content or messages) as a factor in a decision as to whether to accept or reject applications made for things or services generally available for sale (like advertising space).
Help me understand the legality on a potential objection to your argument:
“So they are required to post anti-religious ads but prohibited from posting religious ads?”
In other words, could someone make this case: The converse of the separation of church and state applies here. Just as the government cannot support or endorse or further the cause of any religious group, the government cannot support or endorse or further the cause of any anti-religious group.
I’m not a lawyer, and I’m asking honestly. Does that hold any water?
The city rejected on the grounds that the ad was too controversial according to the above article, not on the separation doctrine. They should be held accountable for that, especially if they have ever allowed religious ads. These campaigns started in England and have shown up in Canada and seem to be creating important exposure.
The key question: is this is a violation of separation if it is simply a space provided by the government but not dictated, religiously censured or limited by said government?
A parallel to this, I think, would be if a southern city in the late 1960′s refused to rent out public space, that they often rented out to various orgs, to the NAACP because it would be too controversial.
Do you think, though, that the discussion will eventually evolve into a First Amendment issue? Isn’t that how the ACLU will frame it according to the article? If so, I would think that religious folks will object to the atheist groups along the very same lines as the atheist groups object to the religious groups.
Didn’t we just have this same conversation about the license plates? I think the consensus was that the plates were inherently promoting religion, which was a violation of the separation. Isn’t this advertisement inherently anti-religious? And isn’t the but owned partially by the state?
So the question I would ask is this: shouldn’t the government be a-religious instead of pro-religious or anti-religious? In other words, just as the government is prohibited from being pro-religion, shouldn’t it also be prohibited from being anti-religion?
You’re right that because its government, they can’t be pro-religion or anti-religion. But if they have allowed even ONE religious ad to run in the past, then to meet the balance or fairness quota, they have to then allow all religious (or anti-relgious) ads to run.
Since you mentioned the license plates, in relation to this controversy… Those plates could be issued, IF they also offered plates for every religious or anti-religious group.
To remain unbiased and not promoting of a single religion, a govenment agency has to either allow ALL or NONE.
I agree, Johnny. The impression I got from the previous conversation is that “NONE” is the preferred option of the group. Which means this bus ad campaign would be out-of-bounds just as much as the license plates are. But, that’s not what I’m hearing from the group. Instead, the sense I’m getting could be summed as, “If they can do it, we can do it.” Again, that’s just my perception, but it does seem a bit inconsistent.
Yep, I agree. Most times, the ‘none’ would be preferred. But because so many churches push their propaganda, non-believers feel the need to get their viewpoint out too (and rightly so). Then when it comes to areas like this were the government is involved, you’re right, the consensus becomes “If they can do it, we can do it.”
I hear what you’re saying about wanting to have your voice heard, and I respect that.
What I’m having a difficult time understanding is why people here would object to a religious license plate (and rightly so, based on the 1st amendment) but most see no conflict with having atheistic ads on a state-owned bus. To me, that seems inconsistent.
In other words, “none” should mean “none,” right?
Atheism is not a religion.
…I realize that won’t fly very far, just tossing it out. :D
The difference is that the license plate was allowed. Religious advertisements on buses has been allowed. Yes, perhaps none of it should be, but if Christian stuff is ok, why not atheist stuff?
None should indeed mean none, but unless one of the commenters here is actually a high-level government operative, we’re not the ones being inconsistent.
I think it should be ‘none’ – government at any level should not be professing, supporting, or even passively representing religion or anti-religion. As you’ve said they should remain “a-religious.”
The problem is with the precedent set, if they have allowed one, they have to allow all. To discriminate against any after allowing one creates a backing or supporting of that one.
Atheism is not a religion.
I know that. And my point was that the statement could be construed as “anti-religious.” And I would argue that the government has just as little business promoting anti-religious sentiments as it does religious ones, thanks in large part to some of the conversations I had with you in a previous thread :)
None should indeed mean none, but unless one of the commenters here is actually a high-level government operative, we’re not the ones being inconsistent.
rodney, you and I argued at length about how strongly you oppose the government “aiding” and “endorsing” and “promoting” anything to do with religion. Yet, in this thread, you have not made one statement about how this issue directly intersects with the previous issue. I think it’s fair to argue that your lack of concern for this issue demonstrates inconsistency.
So, unless you were in government during the last thread and are no longer in government during this thread, you are being inconsistent. If you oppose something in one thread and don’t seem to care about it at all in another thread, that’s inconsistent by default. Furthermore, you do see how that might be perceived as being very self-serving, don’t you?
I oppose the government endorsing religion and anti-religion. I oppose the government endorsing religion but not anti-religion more.
So your concern for government inconsistency trumps your desire to see the First Amendment upheld? That’s one way of reading your most recent comment.
That would be accurate if we were talking about hypothetical things the government might do and not actual things the government has done in the immediate past.
It would be inconsistent for me to say “the government should not do X or Y” and “the government should do Y”. It is not inconsistent for me to say “the government should not do X or Y” and also “if the government does X, it must also do Y”. The “separation” cat has never been in the bag. You are arguing from both sides of your mouth.
It would be inconsistent for me to say “the government should not do X or Y” and “the government should do Y”.
rodney, you’re not being honest about what you’re saying. You vehemently argued that the government should not allow the Florida license plates (X), and you based your argument on the First Amendment.
In order to be consistent on this issue, you would also need to argue that the government should not allow this advertisement (Y), based on the First Amendment.
You are also ignoring how self-serving your argument is coming across. When the government endorses/promotes something you don’t like (print Jesus’ face on a license plate), you object based on the First Amendment. However, when the government endorses/promotes something you like, you remain silent and don’t object at all.
In the previous discussion about the plates, you came across as very passionate about defending the First Amendment, and I took that concern at face value. But here, when there is clearly a First Amendment issue at stake, you appear to be largely apathetic and uninterested. Now, you’re free to say that I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth. But to me, that seems like the very definition of inconsistency. You employ the First Amendment when it suits your argument, and you ignore it when it doesn’t.
Your appeal to not being a government official is a cop-out. If you really believed that, then why did you debate the license plate issue with me so intensely in the previous thread?
Look, you convinced me in the previous thread that the license plate was a violation. Now, the tables are turned. There’s an ad you like which appears to violate the same stuff that we debated earlier, and you don’t seem to mind one bit. I don’t understand that.
It is not inconsistent for me to say “the government should not do X or Y” and also “if the government does X, it must also do Y”.
What part of that do you not understand?
“the government should not do X or Y”…
Um…
The difference is that the license plate was allowed. Religious advertisements on buses has been allowed. Yes, perhaps none of it should be, but if Christian stuff is ok, why not atheist stuff?
Best I can tell, you’re okay with the bus ads. Am I wrong about that?
It is not inconsistent for me to say “the government should not do X or Y” and also “if the government does X, it must also do Y”.
What part of that do you not understand?
The part I don’t understand: why you aren’t as vocal about this violation of the First Amendment as you were about the license plates.
And I’m ignoring X and Y in favor of concrete example, because they work better for me than abstractions.
I didn’t see the license plate discussion yet, but I can gather that the license plates were offered as an option, whereas an advertiser buys space if they want it. I don’t know if an agency was involved in the promotion of the license plate, such as someone can get the local sports team for a license plate, but not the sports team in another state where they hypothetically grew up. The state would have to create a number of religious templates such that any person could select their religion from that option or choose one with Mickey Mouse instead if they wanted. Mickey Mouse isn’t a religion, though, so they don’t have to offer Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny.
The transit company is not creating and offering the religious ads, they are merely accepting or denying them on some basis from the agent that pays for the space. If they are allowing a Christian ad, they are not aggressively denying a Jewish ad if the local temple didn’t buy an ad. But when the temple supplies their graphic to the transit company with a check in the amount, the state-run bus company has to be fair. If no atheists buy ads, the bus company is not denying their rights … yet.
I don’t have to mention god in my ad if I’m advertising my car dealership, but that’s not an atheist ad. If the transit company makes an across-the-board policy on no religious propaganda, and I post a prayer to god or some symbols in my car dealership ad, they may tell me to make one without any god in there. If the name of my car dealership is Jesus Christ Jeeps and Hondas, the bus company may have to display my ad, because that’s not preaching, it’s subversive, but it’s also the name of my dealership. I want your riders to check out my Jeeps and Hondas and make no mistake about it, because there’s lots of dealerships on the auto-mile.
None means none, but denying Jesus Christ Jeeps and Hondas from advertising their privately owned non-church retail establishment with a very religious name may bring the state-run transit co. to court for the same reasons that an atheism ad should be allowed if other religious organizations are allowed to advertise.
Ok, I seem to have failed to rephrase it in a comprehensible way. Trying again:
The license plates’ approval is frustrating because of the First Amendment. The bus ad’s rejection is frustrating because of the license plates’ approval.
To endorse religion on one hand, and then reject anti-religion on the other hand because you’re not supposed to endorse religion, is weak. That’s all. I certainly would not argue that the Indiana government must endorse anti-religion. The double-standard is just weak.
If someone were to argue that the bus ad’s rejection is frustrating because of the First Amendment, I certainly would be vocal. But no one is saying that. That’s not what the conversation is about. That is why those are two different arguments.
Yes. No. Sort of. I have mixed feelings: I really like the campaign, but I think it probably should stick to privately-owned buses. Going for public buses muddies the case against In God We Trust on coins, et cetera.
… “inherently anti-religious”? Really? If it said “there’s no god, you lose” or something like that, I’d agree, but it doesn’t even imply that god(s) doesn’t exist. Seriously people, is it THAT bad that people can be good without belief in the supernatural? Maybe the intent might have been to spread awareness that atheists aren’t necessarily psychotic childkillers as some believers think, but the ad itself doesn’t really say anything “inherently anti-religious” anymore than saying “the sky is blue” does.
Mreh, religious people are way too thin-skinned.
Siberia,
First, I’ve never claimed that atheists can’t be good. In fact, I’ve affirmed the exact opposite on the blog several times. Of course, atheists can be good.
My point about the add and license plate is simply this: people here strongly opposed the religious license plate, because they viewed it as the state promoting religion. In other words, the license plate was inherently religious, and there was no other logical way to spin it. Eventually, I agreed with them.
I’m simply asking why that logic would not apply to this scenario. It has nothing to do with the thickness of my skin. The problem is that this bus is (at least partially) owned by the state, and the state should be a-religious. Regardless of intent (and FWIW, I would agree with you. I suspect the intent is simply to say that atheists are just as capable of being good as any other person is), the ad does have a clear anti-religious tone to it.
It seems to me that you’re understanding the statement to mean something like: “It is possible to be a good person without believing in God.” I don’t disagree with that statement, and I agree with you that this is probably an accurate interpretation of the original intention. If that’s the case, then there aren’t necessarily any anti-religious tones to it. It’s just a statement of fact.
However, it is also possible to interpret the statement quite differently. For example, it could mean something like, “You (that person on the corner reading this sign, you as an individual) can be good, and you don’t need God to help you be good. You can do it on your own.” If it is read that way, and I would argue that it will be read that way by a lot of people, then it clearly carries some evangelistic overtones, and thus, it is promoting atheism. And if it’s promoting atheism, it’s inherently anti-religious — which is why I would argue that the state shouldn’t be endorsing it.
Those license plates were printed by the Florida state government. This ad was rejected by the Indiana state government. That is inconsistent.
Erm, not Indiana state government, Bloomington local government.
Those license plates were printed by the Florida state government. This ad was rejected by the Indiana state government. That is inconsistent.
I agree. But I still don’t understand why you aren’t praising Bloomington for making the right decision, even if it’s inconsistent with the Florida decision.
Erm, not Indiana state government, Bloomington local government.
It doesn’t matter, does it? If it does, then it’s again due to my ignorance, and I’ve misunderstood your point.
ISTM that license plates have the status of an official document issued by the government (I have more thoughts about vanity plates, but I don’t want to get sidetracked). Bus ads do not, so I don’t think the comparison is valid — a bus ad does not in itself convey “endorsement” of the message on it (like, does the city really want you to eat at McDonald’s, just because the bus you saw had their ad? And if the next bus carries a Harvey’s ad, does that mean they changed their mind?).
However, arbitrary acceptance and refusal of ads from various sources may constitute favoritism, which is a subtler (but equally important) form of endorsement. Again: if the transit company only accepted ads from McDonald’s, but gave Harvey’s the bum’s rush every time they tried to buy space, the latter might very well have grounds to sue for unfair treatment (hint: check if someone high up at City Hall owns a lot of local McD outlets…)
Whether busses should have to accept religious-opinion ads, on either side at all is a valid question — but if they do, everyone has to have access to it. Advertising seems to be a field into which free speech laws do intrude, though obviously the details will vary among jurisdictions. IIUC, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that at least some advertising media (I’m ignorant on the details) cannot simply reject all such ads. This was one reason why in Ottawa, the city’s solicitor informed Council that, should they continue to refuse to carry the TPNG ads, they would likely lose a Charter case.
It was neither an appeal nor a cop-out, I’m not sure how you read it that way. Government officials make government decisions. We’re talking about the consistency of government decisions. People who are not government officials cannot make inconsistent government decisions.
Before getting all surly, you might first seek clarification. You accused a misunderstanding of dishonesty.
Rephrase: you are presenting two arguments as if they were one.
You are acting as though I disagree with “the government should not do Y”, or that I am apathetic or uninterested in the First Amendment grounds for that statement, and using that as an argument against “if the government does X, it must also do Y”. For one thing, that’s not true. For another, I don’t think that’s a legal move. Insistence on consistency in the execution of a law does not preclude opposition to the law itself.
Loose analogy: I am against the government’s involvement in marriage. I don’t think the government should recognise marriages at all, it is unfair for two people to be “more than equal”, we are all supposed to be equal individuals. However, I support equal mariage rights for all; I think it is unfair to deny privileges to citizens based on their sexual orientation. My opposition to government marriage is about the future. My opposition to government marriage inequality is about the past and present.
It is hard to come up with a solid practical analogy because religion is already a special case.
The license plates are personally frustrating because they were allowed. The bus ad is personally frustrating because it was not allowed. At some point in the future, perhaps in five seconds, the government should not endorse or oppose religion. At some point in the past, perhaps right this instant, the government does in fact endorse religion, and it’s duplicitous for them (or anyone) to justify rejecting an anti-religious ad because the government’s not supposed to endorse religion.
Eamon:
ISTM that license plates have the status of an official document issued by the government (I have more thoughts about vanity plates, but I don’t want to get sidetracked). Bus ads do not, so I don’t think the comparison is valid — a bus ad does not in itself convey “endorsement” of the message on it (like, does the city really want you to eat at McDonald’s, just because the bus you saw had their ad? And if the next bus carries a Harvey’s ad, does that mean they changed their mind?).,/i>
I think that’s very debatable. We had the endorse vs. aid vs. promote debate in the last thread. I think we eventually all agreed that at the very least, Florida was promoting some type of religious idea or concept (although I did argue that the only group receiving any direct “aid” was the government, as they stand to make some money from them, and no one is going to convert to Christianity because of a license plate). I think you’re right insofar as the ad does not constitute an official endorsement. However, the ad would definitely promote an atheistic message, which could very easily be interpreted to be an anti-religious message. My point here is simply that the government (at any level, local, state, federal) shouldn’t be in the business of promoting anything with respect to religion, including something that would discourage religion.
The irony here is that Florida got it wrong with respect to the Jesus plate, and Bloomington seems to be getting it right with respect to the atheistic message. That, of course, isn’t equitable and isn’t fair.
rodney, I am reading this:
The difference is that the license plate was allowed. Religious advertisements on buses has been allowed. Yes, perhaps none of it should be, but if Christian stuff is ok, why not atheist stuff?
to mean that you don’t have any objection to the bus ad on First Amendment grounds and think it should be allowed. If I am wrong in how I am reading that comment, then I’ve misunderstood our entire discussion.
It was neither an appeal nor a cop-out, I’m not sure how you read it that way. Government officials make government decisions. We’re talking about the consistency of government decisions. People who are not government officials cannot make inconsistent government decisions.
Before getting all surly, you might first seek clarification. You accused a misunderstanding of dishonesty.
I’m not accusing you of being dishonest. I understand cop-out to mean dodging the issue. I read your comment to mean something like, “Well, we’re not the ones making the decisions, so what difference does it make what we think?” If that’s what you think with respect to this issue, then why did you get so upset the last time we talked about this? That’s what I meant by cop-out.
The license plates are personally frustrating because they were allowed. The bus ad is personally frustrating because it was not allowed. At some point in the future, perhaps in five seconds, the government should not endorse or oppose religion. At some point in the past, perhaps right this instant, the government does in fact endorse religion, and it’s duplicitous for them (or anyone) to justify rejecting an anti-religious ad because the government’s not supposed to endorse religion.
This is how I’m reading you:
You oppose:
1) the license plate
2) the bus ad
both on the grounds of the first amendment.
However, you are frustrated by the inconsistency of the government.
Is that about right?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to reply in two places, please see above.
That’s not what I meant.
o.O
Yes.
There is a difference between the Florida license plate case and this one. In Florida, the state provided iconic, religious emblems for certain religions and not for others or for unbelievers. This was a clear violation of the 1947 Supreme Court ruling and clearly prejudicial. In Bloomington, the city provided empty space (presumably) available to all groups and individuals equally.
If we are to restrict religious groups from the use of this public space then by extension we must restrict religious groups from use of any public space such as library conference rooms, auditoriums, informational pin up kiosks, even the capital steps (for speeches) or the public roads (for marches). And why since, being available to all groups, there is no governmental prejudice involved? Nor is there any government agent expressing official or non-official religion.
A second problem exists here. What about groups with mixed motivations, some religious and some secular. If a prayer is said at the beginning of a private use of an auditorium should the Separation Police step in and close down the meeting? Where do you draw the line? Think about the civil rights movement in the 60′s South. The participation of black churches, Reverends and Christian language was pervasive.
brgulker,
I know you have not said that. I did not wish to imply you thought that way.
Personally, I would have no problem with the licenses if they were available for every sect plus atheism. For a state to do otherwise would imply favoring one religion over the other; why can I get a Christian license plate and not a Buddhist one? Either accept all or accept none. A private company can pick and choose, but government is for everyone, correct?
(in fact, that’s an issue I have with my own country. Why do public organs have chapels? They shouldn’t, even if the majority of people are Catholic or identify as Catholic. But that’s another matter entirely.)
Likewise, I would have no problem with religious ads if I could post “anti-religious” ads as well, or ban them all equally. That’s alright.
I can’t really argue the legality and precedent of things because I’m not American.
But what I am contesting is why the message is thought as controversial (not legal or illegal, that’s not my point) and anti-religious at all. I suppose it’s only controversial because the majority of people are religious and would take offense of any implication that their god isn’t necessary for a person to be good – or even themselves. I don’t see how your interpretation is anti-religious. I don’t see how saying that you can be good without a god implies that you shouldn’t believe in a god – I still see it as a mere statement: you don’t need God, or belief in God, to be a good person. You may need God for other things – comfort, relief, afterlife, what have you – but you don’t need to have belief in god to be a good person.
I don’t know, maybe it’s because I’ve seen so many people who believe they’re good only due to their belief in god… as if they didn’t have belief they’d instantly turn into sociopaths. Maybe, being as irreligious as can be, I don’t see the big deal.
I’m pretty much with the consensus here: private companies should have the final say in what can or can’t be displayed as an advertisement. I would never allow fundamentalist advertising on anything of mine, and I believe that’s a right I should have. If someone wants the reverse to be true, hey, that should be their call.
The issue is obviously what the word “controversial” really means and is what they’re taking them to court about.
I think above all else, they’re taking them to court because of the PR. It doesn’t reflect well on the bus company if they’re going to discriminate against atheist, agnostics, and secularists.
I also think that it’s ridiculous that religious organizations can put up messages like “TRUST IN JESUS OR BURN IN HELL” on billboards all over the goddamn state, yet a simple message like “You can be good without God” is “controversial”…. I mean, give me a fucking break.
I know it’s not the question you asked but my thought on this is that the best way to convince people “You can be good without God”, is for atheists to do good things while being open but not aggressive about their atheism. Is it “good” to provoke people with a sign such as this? Turnabout may be fair play, but people of faith are going to react just as negatively to this sign as atheists do to religious evangelizing. How about writing well-reasoned, moderate letters to the editor that actually explain why God isn’t necessary to being good, or organizing an “atheists clean up the park day” instead?
Now to the original question, I do not think a business should be forced to do something that could cause a loss of revenue, as I do think this could, unless some direct harm will otherwise result.
“You Can Be Good Without God” is provocation? Evangelizing?!
Atheists should sit down and shut up and maybe someone will notice how nice they’re being.
It is clearly meant to provoke.
How did you manage to interpret writing letters to the editor and organizing a park clean up as “sit down and shut up”?
No it’s not. I’m sure many people have never thought about the idea that you can be good without God. Getting them thinking is great. “Overton Window” kind of stuff. Two years ago I had never heard the accusation that the Bible is fiction.
I admit it was kind of a jump from what you said to what I said, but are you suggesting there can’t be both bus ads (etc) and letters to the editor (etc)? Just one or the other? And different people might not want to do different things?
Also I meant my exaggeration to be on the same order of what I perceived to be yours (that the message is a provocation). Interesting that something so mild is so controversial. Perhaps atheists need to get the word out more.
It is clearly meant to provoke.
How do you figure? To me it reads as a nonthreatening, nonconfrontational statement of an idea – you can be good without being religious. It doesn’t say that there is no god, simply that belief in its existence is not required for being good.
But thank you for your, um, concern.
So we should just GTF and STFU?
I’d agree to that if, and only if, people didn’t feel the need to “bless” me at random because I’m in a wheelchair, or try to convert me at every corner, or harass me to go to church, or… yeah, I’d agree to that if Christians et al. stopped trying to convert me without being asked to.
You’ve just supported my point: that this isn’t an effective means of communicating what atheists would like to get across to society at large…
Christian proselytization is extremely effective.
That doesn’t mean atheistic proselytization would be. It’s a lot harder to convince someone else of atheism than it is belief, I think. I mean, they’ve got “believe or else you’ll spend eternity in hell”. What have atheists got? “don’t believe, or else………????” On the flip side, with the current situation in the US, Christianity offers an automatic community. There are emotional and psychological appeals, along with a brain that (for most people) is wired to see causation and patterns even if they’re not there (ref. Dean Hamer). People pretty much have to arrive at atheism through their own logical thought process. You can try to dismantle bigotry and stereotypes about atheists being immoral, but a bus ad isn’t going to do that. Religious beliefs are too much based in emotion. This is explained by the following statement by John Stuart Mill, as quoted in Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America by Michael Nava & Robert Dawidoff.
“So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in feelings, it gains rather than loses stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded its adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, which the arguments do not reach; and while that feeling remains, it is always throwing up fresh entrenchments to repair any breach made in the old.”
Direct, personal experience with “good” atheists is about the only way to convince such people. But maybe consensus isn’t what the people running the bus ad are after?
You can be good without God.
Quite true. But then there’s freedom of speech. If religious people think it’s OK to spread ads and pamphlets and bless people they think needs blessing, why can’t we spread our own thoughts as well? Maybe a bus isn’t the most effective method, I grant you that, but shouldn’t we have the freedom to use them if we so desire? Religious people do it. Why can’t we?
Are religious people that thin-skinned, that weak in their faith that a bus’ rather mild words become controversial?
(Then again, they are in it because of the fear – “believe or go to hell” and what not.)
I say it’s only controversial because it goes counter the status quo that goodness = piety.
Fun fact: I’ve argued with more than one person that charities are not always religiously-inclined. There’s a lot of people out there who honestly think charity is only done by religious people and that any non-religious charity is an “exception”. Alas.
Overton Window
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
“is for atheists to do good things while being open but not aggressive about their atheism. Is it “good” to provoke people with a sign such as this?”
Yah, that worked out so well for Black people.
To the sound of shrill whistles:
We’re here,
We’re queer,
Get used to it!
I’m gay and I was uncomfortable when it first started but I’m also sure it helped move the Overton Window. There are times and places for many different strategies. And various personalities will find different ways to contribute.
When one of our own can compare a sign saying, ‘You can be good without God’ to aggression, it just shows how far we have to go. I am not trying to lash out at you Cheryl but I’m going to say what I think because there is so much at stake. The above expression, unless you were really not sure, is our version of Uncle Tomism.
Cheryl, if I misread and you are a person of faith then much of what I said in the above post is off target and I apologize. However, the sign = aggression remarks are still horribly prejudiced.
My views are somewhat odd and something about them would bother just about everyone, but I’d say I’m more accurately classifed an atheist than believer. I understand I’ve committed a major faux pas here, but I have to admit I still don’t understand why it’s prejudiced, since I think those awful bus ads and billboards promoting (really, demanding) belief are aggressive and provocative too. If you don’t mind, I’d like to hear a more detailed explanation. I would undertand being called passive, or even naive, but I haven’t figured out how it’s prejudiced.
What’s interesting (to me) is that I also think “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” is just about the most fabulous slogan ever, and I’ve been trying to figure out why I react so differently to that, than to YCBGWG on a bus. Maybe it’s the focus on “we” rather than “you”.
This question is related, somehow in my mind, to something I read in the Washington Post two weeks ago (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/05/AR2009050502928.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter):
I still think personal relationships and face-to-face communication are the only way to completely overcome stereotypes, but maybe things like this bus ad do help to get those conversations started.
However, I sincerely did not mean to offend anyone and I am sorry for that.
Thanks for a detailed and considerate response Cheryl.
If you took out the word ‘only’ and replaced it with ‘usually’ or ‘often best’, then we would be in agreement. There are many ways to effect social change. Why did Kennedy know homosexuals when Powell did not. Notice the time frame of their decisions. We can’t know for sure but in this specific case but we can definitely generalize that gay people were more willing to openly self identify in 2003 than in 1986 due at least in part because a number of gays were willing to forcefully demand a place at the public table. My opinion is that there is a place for in your face demonstrations as part of an overall ‘spectrum acceptance’ concerning social change.
Concerning the bus ad, what highlights for me is the social inequity that exists where a mostly innocuous bus ad applied for by atheists receives a starkly different assessment by city officials from what would be the assessment if the innocuous ad came from a traditional religious group. It is precisely these social lever points where group action picks up steam because it’s easy for everyone to see the underlying unfairness.
I am baffled by arguments that social change is best left to one on one dialogues. What change movement in our society has ever been successful that way?
I wonder if there is even one atheist/skeptic/humanist on this board that agrees with your assessment that the ad demands belief or is awful, aggressive and demanding. How is that ad statement much different from ‘Gays are people too’, ‘Equality for women is a family value’ or ‘We shall overcome’? I think these modifiers you use are very strange. It looks to me like Uncle Tom.
On average, every Sunday morning there are thousands of preachers in America who are pounding into the heads of Christians that you cannot be good without God.
I think that personal relationships are the best means of gaining societal acceptance of atheism for the same reason that acceptance of homosexuality is highest among people who personally know somone who is gay (according to a poll cited in the book I quoted above). If people like Judge Powell never even knew that they knew gay people, it’s at least partly because the gay people they knew didn’t publicly identify themselves as being gay. I’m not blaming them! Coming out had – and unfortunately sometimes still has – dire consequences.
However I also see what you’re saying about the necessity of public, group action to pave the way for individuals to make their personal views public, so that they aren’t so vulnerable to those repercussions. I’ve, so far, given a lot more thought to ideals/principles/theories than to the actual implementation or practice of them and clearly have more to learn there. I’m by nature a collaborator rather than confronter – but I’m seeing that it’s good there are both. I do appreciate your feedback.
Maybe what someone should do is write a TV show that’s like a “Will and Grace” for atheists.
I’m gay and was a teenager in the 60′s when the word gay wasn’t yet associated with homosexuality. There were basically no out homosexuals at all. Homophobia was pervasive. The beginning of the gay movement is usually attributed to the Stonewall Riots (1969). The queer patrons of the Stonewall Bar in NY got fed up with constant police shake downs, harassment and arrests and rioted in the streets. Not very friendly of them.
The ability for folks to know, like and feel comfortable around “that nice gay couple down the street” has only come about because of the incredibly courageous actions of in your face gays starting in the late 60′s who took their lives into their hands to shift the Overton Window.
Now, it doesn’t appear that secularism or atheism is going to experience anywhere near the brutal hatred experienced by blacks or gays. But the underlying principles for shifting public consciousness don’t really change. It helps to have lots of people with lots of different strategies working away in lots of different places.
For me the key is that secularism/skepticism grows (without violating anyone’s rights). Let’s each use our strengths to encourage an open, rational society.
Pushovers get pushed over. Standing up for ourselves may be seen as offensive by some, but those people are actually offended by our mere existence. Existing and being public about it just offends them that little bit extra.
“Maybe what someone should do is write a TV show that’s like a “Will and Grace” for atheists.”
How would that go? “I love waking up on Sunday with nowhere to go,” and “We’re not having a Christmas Special, it’s just another regular episode”?
As a resident of Bloomington, I can confirm that Bloomington transit is publicly run, not a private company. I have never seen religious ads on the bus, so I don’t think this is a case of discriminatory practice, however the Bloomington community does tend to be conservative.
Incidentally, I didn’t know about this until I clicked on your blog today. The local paper hasn’t run a story on it yet.
Thanks.
If anything, I’m surprised at the idea that “You can be good without god” is considered controversial.
That’s too bad. Here in Toronto we have ads with the exact same slogan and they make me smile every time I see them.
Must be nice to live in a place where religion hasn’t taken over ads for public transportation. Wow.. its really ridiculous when you say it back to yourself. So much fuss over ads and who might be offended by them when it really shouldn’t matter (living in the ‘land of the free’ and all). We’re a silly culture sometimes, aren’t we?
Also… controversy attracts attention so as an advertisement, I’d say it’d be doing a pretty good job. Especially when I really CAN be good without god.
I don’t think turning around and suing is the best way to demonstrate it’s not a contraversial issue.
Civil liberty is controversial?
It is a controversial issue. And it is such because so many people are offended by an insipid public statement by non-believers.
Rumor has it that South Bend, IN did not reject the ad campaign.
Yeah, I’m pretty much with Cheryl, and zayzayem. Part of the “Being Good” is not turning into a freakish mirror-image of James Dobson or Fred Phelps, railing on at every opportunity about your persecution and protesting/suing/raising a stink every time society rejects your viewpoint. Comparisons to the Civil Rights Struggle of African Americans are pretty far out there, guys. Comparisons to Gay rights are a little closer, but still….
My Least Favorite Atheists all too often closely resemble My Least Favorite Christians.
I’m not sure which side I am on. My initial reaction was like yours. On the one hand, I think in cases of religious fairness, they ought to have been able to buy advertising space IF it’s true that religions are allowed to advertise in the same medium, and IF the government is involved. If the government is involved AND they restrict all religious advertising, then the bus company is right. It is the principle of the matter, after all.
On the other hand, what does the ad say about atheists? Go team atheism? I’ve rarely been hassled about my atheism in the real world because it is basically a non-issue. I shop, I do my job, I am able to rent a place to live without mentioning it at all. It’s not a topic of conversation at parties, I live a normal secular life without giving the non-existence of god much, if any, thought, and I think that’s as it should be. The few times I’d been asked directly, what religion are you, were in the casual sense, meeting a new co-worker who took me to lunch once, and I think some guy I dated. Keep in mind I’ve never lived in the bible belt, and I was raised atheist, and I’ve never kept it a secret, but the look on people’s faces! What must people think of me, this atheist. Like I’m going to grab babies out of shopping carts and eat them. But they can say they are Catholic (they both were), and I’m not supposed to imagine the terrible attributes of their religious beliefs are the make-up of their personality and potential behaviors.
I mentioned above, I think the sign is real tame, and it’s obviously meant to be. If you’re going to say something, say it, but I’ve never really thought atheism was something it was necessary to advertise since it’s not something you join. I can’t say this affects the Overton Window (thanks for the term for the social phenomenon). The existence of religion doesn’t really bother me so much, some of their intolerant behaviors -things that affect policy or hurt people- have got to go, but I’m not after its elimination. I don’t care if anyone else concludes there’s no god and joins my “team”. It is the intolerance of atheism that does need adjustment, so I think this ad fails. I can be good without god. You can do whatever you want as long as laws aren’t passed that favor your religious agendas for religious reasons. Does this ad and the ensuing lawsuit help atheists? We want people to know we’re not crazy savage people (I can’t even imagine what it’s like to confess atheism in more religious parts of the country than I’ve lived), so what does this event communicate about atheists to the public?
On the whole, I think putting religious freedom with regard to atheism to the test is a good idea, although if the only freedom we actually lack is the inability to advertise, I don’t see the point, as described above. Protecting the equality through the legal system is the normal civil response as opposed to vandalism, for example. I don’t know if being able to say “I’m an atheist” to someone you don’t know very well and expect mostly neutral reactions is going to happen as a result. Giving people information they don’t have or can’t find or don’t choose to seek in order to become atheist like me is not how I “be” an atheist. I don’t clean up parks in a group, I don’t join groups. That’s a church model, and I don’t go to church. I’m an atheist.
Blacks used to be discriminated against by law. Gays and lesbians are still discriminated against by law. How are atheists discriminated against by law?
I only ask because you said there’s an analogous relationship between the gay rights movement and the topic at hand.
The underlying problem is not one of legality or civil rights but of social attitude. Things like this ad campaign and the resulting kerfuffle change the population’s thinking concerning the morality of secularism bit by bit. We’ll find out if there is a civil rights issue as more and more atheists come out of the closet.
Laws are a symptom, not the disease. The disease is discrimination. Atheists are by far the least likely to be elected to public office in the US, for example, based solely on that characteristic. If there were any possibility of enforcement (“thought police”) I don’t doubt that this country would have passed laws against atheism in the 1950s.
Laws are a symptom, not the disease.
Then in this case, there are no symptoms. So is there a disease? I don’t disagree that there is plenty of prejudice between religious people and atheists, don’t get me wrong, but I’m highly skeptical that there is systemic discrimination against them that is in any way comparable to discrimination against homosexuals and minority ethnic groups.
Not being elected to government office, for example, is hardly comparable to being denied voting privileges. Does it indicate prejudice? Yes, or at least it seems to. But it doesn’t seem to me that such an example demonstrates that there any civil rights are being withheld.
The underlying problem is not one of legality or civil rights but of social attitude.
So then there isn’t an analogy to be drawn between the civil rights of blacks and homosexuals and this particular issue, right?
A Lot of Things People Already Know:
Black people and women are visible. If you are inclined to have bigoted thoughts and make bigoted statements about them, you can see the attributes of race and sex while you are in the act of discriminating. To gain civil rights, formal demonstration was necessary. Because they are not now denied jobs or housing on the basis of race or sex (not legally anyway), they can demonstrate socially (informally) what they are and are capable of. Without opportunities to do so, ignorance is perpetuated because the objects of the ignorant beliefs remain in the limited roles society has allowed them. With access to equal opportunities, people can observe the objects of their bigotry and become less ignorant: At worst, legally unable to deny them access to the respective liberties white people and men enjoy, and at best, general acceptance and multicultural awareness.
Atheists enjoy the same religious freedoms as any other religion. It’s invisible, though. A job interviewer or a landlord is not allowed to ask, and he or she would have to ask in order to use the information to discriminate against you. I don’t think we’re denied all that much, and if anything, it’s whatever a religious agenda proposes to deny us or legitimize, such as teaching creationism as science, or using school time for organized prayer in public school systems, or persistent laws that may still keep the liquor stores closed on Sundays in some states.
However, it remains somewhat to extremely uncomfortable most places in the U.S. to say you are an atheist. Religious people can be taken by surprise, because we’re invisible unless we speak about it. At the very least, most people expect a theism of some sort, even it’s not one they share. Some religious people have definite ideas of what they think about atheism, and are unlikely to associate with people they fear, or argue relentlessly. Some people still do not accept Jews, and openly fear all Muslims now for the exceptionally violent acts of a few. Many more are tolerant, more tolerant of a theism in my experience than atheism. The only “right” we, atheists, are missing in this case, is the right to advertise or “preach” to others on the side of a bus. Socially outcast to some degree or higher, but we still enjoy rights.
I didn’t see anywhere that the transit company allowed religious ads of any other kind, so what is the issue and is it a major breach or a standard policy. As for treating society to the goodness of atheists and the relative harmlessness of atheism, in order to be visible, we have to go out of our way to exemplify this goodness, post a sign, commune, do good deeds. I am rolling my eyes. In this way, I wish religious bigots could just get over it, because that’s one more thing they just do wrong. Now I have to label myself and volunteer among a pack of atheists. Only the vocal big-deal atheists will expose themselves, and that will represent the rest of us who just don’t give that much of a hoot.
I didn’t get to gay people yet, but here it is. Homosexuality is also invisible. A bigot homophobe has a lot of issues here, including fears concerning their children, and how a man who likes to have sex with other men might be teaching their class with no supervision and telling the children things about how it’s ok to be gay. They would not have the same issue with a heterosexual male teacher. I can’t even figure out how gay marriage threatens straight marriage. If the teacher doesn’t say, expectations and regard default to hetero until later it comes about that he is gay, and a bigot will forget that he was an excellent teacher and worry what else may have gone on while his children were out of his eyesight and protection from “unknown.”
As far as I can figure out (and someone can correct me if I’ve got it wrong), it’s still legal to ask someone if they’re gay during a job interview or for housing, and still legal to deny gay people jobs and homes. I can’t find it in the words of the EEOC whether sexual preference is protected as sex. In most states, gay people can’t get married, which denies them legal rights with concern to their spouse-in-name or civil union, which touches on custodial rights, health insurance benefits, hospital rights of a spouse, and death beneficiary benefits upon the death of a spouse. Heterosexual cohabitants do not enjoy these benefits either, but they voluntarily opt out.
Atheists are denied none of these rights and benefits. We are invisible unless we speak, but we are still protected as a category of religion. We do not need to advertise, except for some element that would like to eliminate religious perpetration of wrong and malicious thinking. I’d like to get rid of wrong and malicious thinking to the extent it creates behavior that harms others or denies rights of other people – but isn’t that the same bogeyman as homophobe fears?
I do not need anyone to be skeptical and stop believing in god to get along fine where I live. Other areas of the country are perhaps more backward and intolerant, and likely to have an element of their own population that seeks to cause harm or infect laws with more god and the bible. I don’t know how to break that up, will the ads work? How did my area of the U.S. progress toward secularism more easily than other parts of the country where Christians are supposedly fearsome? How does one get the word out about atheism, stand up for or exemplify atheism, and gain social legitimacy in close-minded portions of the country? Is it ads on the side of a bus?
The only way atheists are like gay people in the sense of legitimizing our values to the ignorant is that, by being invisible, we have to put on the show, in unity, and those who do not feel these shows represent us well either have to put on our own show or accept that this is how the public is going to base their opinion of us, how they treat us, react to us, what rights will be granted, what voices will be acknowledged, etc. An ad on the side of the bus neither represents me or how I stand for what I stand for, but I don’t take that as an endorsement of the transit company, not a serious one anyway.
However, it remains somewhat to extremely uncomfortable most places in the U.S. to say you are an atheist. Religious people can be taken by surprise, because we’re invisible unless we speak about it. At the very least, most people expect a theism of some sort, even it’s not one they share. Some religious people have definite ideas of what they think about atheism, and are unlikely to associate with people they fear, or argue relentlessly. Some people still do not accept Jews, and openly fear all Muslims now for the exceptionally violent acts of a few. Many more are tolerant, more tolerant of a theism in my experience than atheism. The only “right” we, atheists, are missing in this case, is the right to advertise or “preach” to others on the side of a bus. Socially outcast to some degree or higher, but we still enjoy rights.
This is really interesting for me to read… I suppose I don’t really consider how an atheist is perceived by the society at large very often, and I can see how you would often be made to feel uncomfortable or perhaps even discriminated against.
The stories I grew up hearing about were of Christians in other parts of the world who were persecuted and sometimes even killed (as recently as last fall in India, actually) just for being Christians.
Both are examples of the increasing value of tolerance for us as a society. Thanks for sharing that.
How about when a judge (representative of the state) orders a person to take AA (religiously based recovery program)? Failure to take that program can result in jail time, and quite often no alternative is provided for nonbelievers. This is an infringement on civil rights, I think we will agree on that.
I get the impression that you agree there is discrimination, but disagree on the severity of it. This is an important thing to consider: you agree it is wrong, but dispute only how far across the line it goes or when and where it crosses that line. Given that you accept it is across the line, I have to wonder just what point you are really trying to make. Also, your word choice of “at least it seems to” sound weaselish to me. What could possibly be difficult to accept about atheists having little chance of being elected to major public offices in the US… what would make you choose words like “at least it seems to” in this situation? It sounds like you want to appear to accept that discrimination on one hand and subtely reject it on the other.
WTF? First, which part of this little tempest are you responding to? That the ad itself is inappropriate, or the decision to sue over it is?
The ad itself is pretty mild; it merely makes an assertion which many people had naively assumed to be false. The suit is a reasonable response to what seems to be an arbitrary suppression of free speech — an important principle, whatever message is in question. But I absolutely fail to see how either of those in any way resembles Dobson or Phelps. Wake me up when the secular humanists start picketing military funerals with day-glo signs reading: “HE’S WORM FOOD: GET USED TO IT, BITCHES!” Until then, I’m not buying it.
Did anybody else read about the bus driver who works for Transport for London, who refused to drive a bus which had “There probably isn’t a God, so stop worrying about it and enjoy your life” on an advert down the side? He’s a Catholic and took issue with it – and Transport for London apologised to him over it! If it was up to me, I would have fired him on the spot on the grounds of religious intolerence and bigotry. Can you imagine if a driver refused to drive a bus with Bible, Q’ran or Tora verses on it? Instant sacking, no questions asked. We are atheists. We should not have to hide it and we should not be treated as inferior because we are intellectualy superior enough to see through the lies.
So if your company officially endorsed a religious message, you wouldn’t object at all?
The doctrine of the Trinity came from various groups staking claims to different philosophical and theological areas and then backing themselves into rhetorical corners while defending those areas, not a calculated marketing campaign on the part of The Church.
Maybe in some parts of the world, I suppose. I’m sure in a lot of Muslim countries that would be the case. But I have a hard time believing that would definitely happen in the western world. I suppose it’s possible in some parts of the US, but I doubt that it’s likely.
I don’t think that selling advertising space is an endorsement. There are plenty of busses in the UK with Christian slogans on their advertising boards, and I’ve yet to read of a driver refusing to drive one of them. Conversely, I would say that refusal to sell advertising space to a specific entity is a clear statement that you disagree with them, but that was Daniel’s point, not mine.
Custador, did you participate in the discussion about license plates recently? Initially, I argued along similar lines — namely, that the license plates were little more than ads that could make money for the gov’t. That didn’t fly, and rightly so, as others showed me how the argument was flawed.
I would ask how your argument is any different here. We’re talking about a state-owned entity here, remember. If they can’t “endorse” pro-religious ads, why should it be any more acceptable to ‘endorse’ anti-religious ads?
Actually I think Transport for London are a private company these days…
Then our conversation is moot, because a private company can accept or reject whatever it wants to.
However, the Bloomington transit is, from what I’ve gathered here, an agent of the state, which means it is bound to function by different rules.
It is neither more acceptable nor less.. in fact it is equally acceptable. Exactly equal. That is the point. Once a decision is made to allow any given religion the opportunity to advertise in a given venue they must allow all others or they are discriminating. This must apply to the smallest cult of snake blood drinkers and to the largest group of people who think cows are holy. In this case we have no solid information that I am aware of regarding past religious based advertising so there is too little to go on.
Custador’s example in the UK shows how some religions are allowed, and thus all the others must be. Bloomington has chosen to say no to atheists, so they must say no to all other religions. I don’t see an issue either way provided the treatment is equal.
The First Amendment says the US government is not supposed to promote one religion or all religions. The “you have to bring cupcakes for the whole class” thing doesn’t fly. No cakes.
It’s totally effed that in practice, the US government makes inconsistent exceptions, but (for example) the Florida government shouldn’t make plates for each and every religion, they should make no religious plates at all.
Although, Question-I-Thority made a good point above that selling explicitly religious license plates, and selling blank ad space that may or may not be used to implicitly endorse irreligion, are two very different cases.
“We should not have to hide it and we should not be treated as inferior because we are intellectualy superior enough to see through the lies.”
Since when have you been hiding it? Lol.
I haven’t – but then I don’t live in the US amid fear of prejudice about it.
If you never went through a phase where you felt the need to hide your secularism then that’s a good thing but not universal or perhaps even usual. Hopefully, in the future such will be true for all.
And hopefully the converse is true as well.
Certainly. There are many places in the world where one has to hide one’s religious beliefs. Hopefully, one day that will not be so.
I live in San Francisco, and there have been these weird Islamic bus ads lately. They have seriously bought out space on every other bus to say things like “Islam: You Deserve to Know.” Strange.
Anyway, I think we need to get some atheist ads up in here!
Now what might an Atheist bus ad (in SF of all places) look like? Hmm…
1) FSM save the Queen (Pelosi)
2) Vote No on Prop Ape…errh…8.
3) You have no REASON to hope (so smile dammit!)
4) No one here gets out alive (Jim Morrison’esque)
C’mon guys…this is good, get your imaginations going…what else?
Funny, I can’t do a search with google, live search and yahoo on “christian bus advertisement” where I am.
Can’t get any result also on “atheist bus advertisement”.
It seems that I get a blank page with “advertisement” on search engines. It is one word that seach engines can’t search.
Found the christian bus advertisement.
“There definitely is a God. So join The Christian Party and enjoy your life”. – for ungodly lying christians.
2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
For true christians, they should advertise:
“There definitely is a God. So join The Christian Party and suffer persecution”.
Why christians suffer to tell lies? Because they hate the truth of suffering and percecutions upon themselves. No wonder christians can’t heal the sick cast out demons and raise the dead. Their proof of their god is a banana.
Is the idea of atheists being moral “too controversial”? I disagree with the rejection as it shows bigotry in its decision.
I think it’s cowardice more than bigotry on the part of Bloomington Transit here. Presumably, it’s a corporation driven primarily by profit motive, so the only reason they would turn down the atheists’ money is because they thought they stood to lose more money by showing the ads. Which is understandable — it only takes a couple Christian nuts, a badly made website, and a desperate newspaper looking for a story to start a boycott.
I don’t think they should be forced to print the ads. But I think the IABC should take its money elsewhere.
I do believe that they don’t want to publish the ads because it might alienate their customer base. My point about bigotry is their publicly stated reason for rejecting the ad:
As I’ve said, there is nothing controversial about atheists having morals. Clearly, the bus company is playing on the bigotry of their christian customers by saying that the ad is “too controversial”. Had they stated that they rejected the ad for economic reasons, then I might be more agreeable to their decision.
I’ve made it to the end. Thanks for putting it together. Lots of things I didn’t know. BOOKMARKED!