Not very christian of them

Kivaro

Oh the irony.

The gist of the story is that an atheist group is being charged tens of thousands of dollars extra for insurance on their "god-free" ads on public buses, just in case of an attack on the buses by angry christians.

So apparently if it was the other way around i.e. "god" ads on the buses, the company must be assuming then that atheists would not attach the buses.

I'm delighted to see the case going to court as I live here in the bible belt and actively involved in promoting free thinking.

Here is the link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/10/us-atheist-ads-idUSTRE7594E720110610

And a snippet of the article for those who cannot access it:

A coalition of atheists is accusing Little Rock's city bus line of violating their rights to free speech in a fight to place ads on public buses praising a God-free lifestyle.

The Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason alleged in a lawsuit that the Central Arkansas Transit Authority and its advertising agency are discriminating against the group because they're being required to pay tens of thousands of dollars to put $5,000 worth of ads on 18 buses.

The ads would read: "Are you good without God? Millions are."

Other groups, including churches, have not been required to pay the fee, which amounts to $36,000 in insurance in case of an attack on the buses by angry Christians, according to the lawsuit.

MrPudding

Kivaro wrote: »

Oh the irony.

The gist of the story is that an atheist group is being charged tens of thousands of dollars extra for insurance on their "god-free" ads on public buses, just in case of an attack on the buses by angry christians.

So apparently if it was the other way around i.e. "god" ads on the buses, the company must be assuming then that atheists would not attach the buses.

I'm delighted to see the case going to court as I live here in the bible belt and actively involved in promoting free thinking.

Here is the link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/10/us-atheist-ads-idUSTRE7594E720110610

And a snippet of the article for those who cannot access it:

Classic. Life is full of examples of christians not being very christian. Nice when one makes it to court.

MrP

The Mad Hatter

Of course, what's really amusing about this is that in order to win the court case, the company will have to admit that Christians are more willing to attack free speech than atheists.

liah

Does anyone remember the billboard fiasco? Atheists put up a billboard, Christians got them to take it down and then promptly put a Christian billboard where the atheist one was?

If so, does anyone know how the Christians managed to get it taken down and replaced? Who they appealed to etc. And did the atheists do anything in return?

I just remember seeing the pictures of the billboards but can't remember if anything actually went down as a result..

antiskeptic

Kivaro wrote: »

Oh the irony.

The gist of the story is that an atheist group is being charged tens of thousands of dollars extra for insurance on their "god-free" ads on public buses, just in case of an attack on the buses by angry christians.

So apparently if it was the other way around i.e. "god" ads on the buses, the company must be assuming then that atheists would not attach the buses.

I'm delighted to see the case going to court as I live here in the bible belt and actively involved in promoting free thinking.

Here is the link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/10/us-atheist-ads-idUSTRE7594E720110610

And a snippet of the article for those who cannot access it:

There's a category error here.

Atheists are defined as merely lacking a belief in God and have no need to be offended by anything a Christian might say about God on the side of a bus. People who (definitionally) don't give a monkeys about a topic can hardly be applauded for not forming an insurance risk.

However, if you want to define atheism as a belief system that is anti-theist (but would still not countenance vandalism) then you'd have a point. But your fellow atheists might not be pleased with your giving up such hard fought for ground.

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's a category error here.

Atheists are defined as merely lacking a belief in God and have no need to be offended by anything a Christian might say about God on the side of a bus. People who (definitionally) don't give a monkeys about a topic can hardly be applauded for not forming an insurance risk.

However, if you want to define atheism as a belief system that is anti-theist (but would still not countenance vandalism) then you'd have a point. But your fellow atheists might not be pleased with your giving up such hard fought for ground.

You almost, but not quite have a point. Leaving aside that atheists potentially don't care, though I am sure some do, and that christians do care, though I am sure some don't, this is not a question about being offended, it is a question about being able to behave in a lawful manner.

This story is not a comment on who gets offended easier, or if if one group get offended and the other doesn't, it is a question about how two different groups react to something that might offend. One lawfully and the other apparently not.

MrP

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

You almost, but not quite have a point. Leaving aside that atheists potentially don't care, though I am sure some do, and that christians do care, though I am sure some don't, this is not a question about being offended, it is a question about being able to behave in a lawful manner.

This story is not a comment on who gets offended easier, or if if one group get offended and the other doesn't, it is a question about how two different groups react to something that might offend. One lawfully and the other apparently not.

MrP

If one group isn't going to be offended because it isn't a grouping in the first place, then you're comparing apples with pears.

If you could gather a group of atheists together who care in the same way these bible-belters sound like they do then you'd have a chance at a comparison. And a chance that the atheists would be ripping up the Christian notices.

In this case you've some who care to the extent of illegal activity (bible-belters) and some who don't (the atheists who presumably don't vandalise Christian adverts on buses)

Count Duckula

What a massive waste of time.

What do they think will happen? Some devout Christian in Alabama will see a sign on the bus and think "you know what, that thing I've dedicated my whole life to is absolute tosh."

The Mad Hatter

Count Duckula wrote: »

What a massive waste of time.

What do they think will happen? Some devout Christian in Alabama will see a sign on the bus and think "you know what, that thing I've dedicated my whole life to is absolute tosh."

I think the general aim is to get atheists "out of the closet", as it were, rather than trying to convert people.

strobe

Count Duckula wrote: »

What a massive waste of time.

What do they think will happen? Some devout Christian in Alabama will see a sign on the bus and think "you know what, that thing I've dedicated my whole life to is absolute tosh."

Yeah, like Hatter says I think they are aimed more at atheists that feel they still have to go to church or carry on a pretense of religious belief because they are in a minority. Or possibly at people 'on the fence' who are essentially atheist but are uncomfortable with that and are like with some gay people are trying to convince themselves they are something they're not. Or maybe secondarily at religious people, not to try and convert them but to force them to question the belief that godless people are fundamentally bad people.

Basically anything but "I bet the Pope will see this, realise he is wrong, and shut up shop.".

Stercus Accidit

This forum did it for me, that is to say it normalised and put into context atheism for me. I grew up surrounded by vehement a la cartists and was always on the outside, at least that's how I felt. Having had this forum to read, interact and enjoy with other atheists I was able to feel more comfortable in my own beliefs (lack thereof!).
A poster like the one described in this thread would reach out to people in a heavily christian society who would feel marginalised or isolated otherwise. Having another atheist or atheists who are unashamed of their rejection of religion could help others stand up and be counted.
These days I feel more weird when I am around an outwardly religious person as I have come to assume atheism on the part of many people I meet. If I spend time with rational educated people I pretty much default to assuming atheism on their part or at the very least massive ambiguity on the subject. That's a big change from my younger years.
As such I feel that these posters are valid and worthwhile, atheism needs to be normalised, much like homosexuality had to be 'promoted' for a while to really get people comfortable with the idea and if they are gay themselves. Atheism is still discriminated against in law in many US states, whether or not it is possible to enforce those laws these days is questionable, but 'good = god' is the default state of mind for many places in the US today.

pH

antiskeptic wrote: »

If one group isn't going to be offended because it isn't a grouping in the first place, then you're comparing apples with pears.

If you could gather a group of atheists together who care in the same way these bible-belters sound like they do then you'd have a chance at a comparison. And a chance that the atheists would be ripping up the Christian notices.

In this case you've some who care to the extent of illegal activity (bible-belters) and some who don't (the atheists who presumably don't vandalise Christian adverts on buses)

I think that The Union of Belligerent Atheists or The League of the Militant Godless would have had a go.

Laisurg

Very few christians actually act like you would expect a christian to act, a guy i know has a very christian family, they all hate gays and think they're evil, the kids set things on fire a lot too.

Zillah

antiskeptic wrote: »

People who (definitionally) don't give a monkeys about a topic can hardly be applauded for not forming an insurance risk. However, if you want to define atheism as a belief system that is anti-theist

The definition of atheism does not contain any comment on anti-theism. An atheist could be tranquil and lackadaisical, or could be violently anti-religious. Just as a Christian could be entirely live-and-let-live about non-believers, or they could be ludicrously reactionary and intolerant.

The extra insurance fee in this case clearly shows that they think atheists are much less likely to be violently anti-religious than Christian are to be ludicrously reactionary and intolerant.

Which is hilarious.

smokingman

I think the title of the thread is misleading. I read the story and thought "how VERY christian of them". Any by this, I mean how very intolerant, hateful, anti-intellect, moronic, persecution complex yielding and weak.

antiskeptic

Zillah wrote: »

The definition of atheism does not contain any comment on anti-theism.

One of the first points I made. There is no reason to consider atheists an organised grouping in order that they have a unified view (passive or aggressive) on the subject of Christian advertising on buses.

There is no more reason to think they should constitute a particular risk and so comparing them with an unified grouping is to compare apples and pears.

The extra insurance fee in this case clearly shows that they think atheists are much less likely to be violently anti-religious than Christian are to be ludicrously reactionary and intolerant.

For the reason given above. The same could be said of any non-unified grouping of people when compared to this particular brand of Christianity. Per definition, unified groupings will hold monolithic views and non-unified groupings won't. For better or worse.

Zillah

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no reason to consider atheists an organised grouping in order that they have a unified view

This is where your entire point falls down. There is no reason to consider Christians to be a unified group in any sense beyond "Believes in God" or "Follows Jesus". There is no reason to assume a Christian response to an atheistic bus slogan will be any more unified than the reaction of atheists to religious manifestations.

In either case, some groups will protest (Atheist Ireland protesting the Angelus, for example, or Christians picketing a gay rights parade), plenty of individuals could not care less. The important element here is that the advertisers apparently think that the Christian group response is likely to be violent, whereas they have no such concerns about the atheist groups.

Zillah

Also, on this point:

Zillah wrote: »

The definition of atheism does not contain any comment on anti-theism.

antiskeptic wrote: »

One of the first points I made.

No, what you did was present a false dichotomy; asserting that atheists, by definition, must either be anti-theist or explicitly not care. The actual case is that an atheist can be either.

This being where you did that:

antiskeptic wrote: »

People who (definitionally) don't give a monkeys about a topic can hardly be applauded for not forming an insurance risk. However, if you want to define atheism as a belief system that is anti-theist then you'd have a point.

Its a bit like saying that you must decide if you will define "American" as being left or right wing. An American can be either, left/right is not a relevant factor in the definition.

Kivaro

Zillah wrote: »

The extra insurance fee in this case clearly shows that they think atheists are much less likely to be violently anti-religious than Christian are to be ludicrously reactionary and intolerant.

Which is hilarious.

Bingo.
Hence the irony.

It's an excellent lawsuit because it will (should) have some people scratching their heads wondering about the obvious contradiction of their belief system, which may lead to some introspective questions ....

I have this mental cartoon in my head that after church service today and the fire and brimstone sermon from the preacher, there will be throngs of the congregation with lighted torches and pitchforks seeking out to destroy these satan buses that dared to corrupt the flock (money-givers) by asking "Are you good without God?"

eoin5

Huh? Surely if you damage a bus for whatever reason you pay for it...

Why need insurance?

Edit: Unless they do organized 'hits' on the buses, is that what they're assuming?

MrPudding

eoin5 wrote: »

Huh? Surely if you damage a bus for whatever reason you pay for it...

Why need insurance?

Edit: Unless they do organized 'hits' on the buses, is that what they're assuming?

And if the person that does the damage can't pay? Repairs to a bus could very quickly amount to thousands of dollars, sums that many people might not be able to afford.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, getting the people who damage the buses to pay depends on catching them as well as them being able to pay.

MrP

eoin5

MrPudding wrote: »

And if the person that does the damage can't pay? Repairs to a bus could very quickly amount to thousands of dollars, sums that many people might not be able to afford.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, getting the people who damage the buses to pay depends on catching them as well as them being able to pay.

MrP

Ah, this is true. For some reason at first I just thought of some idiot breaking a window.

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

One of the first points I made. There is no reason to consider atheists an organised grouping in order that they have a unified view (passive or aggressive) on the subject of Christian advertising on buses. There is no more reason to think they should constitute a particular risk and so comparing them with an unified grouping is to compare apples and pears..

Here's where your logic falls down....
If a Christian add appears on a bus, the potential for a hostile reaction comes from anyone who is not a Christian. Not just atheists. In fact, it could be argued that the ambivalence of atheists rules them out. The main risk factor could after all be coming from competing religions.

But in the case where atheists were overcharged for their bus add, the risk factor is non atheists; in other words theists.

So the insurer has calculated that "theists", as a group, are more prone to this kind of vandalism than the general grouping comprised of the "non Christian" population.

Muslims are in both groups. But Christians are definitely in the vandals group, and atheists are in the free speech group.

eoin5 wrote: »

Huh? Surely if you damage a bus for whatever reason you pay for it...
Why need insurance?

If someone throws paint on a passing bus, the driver probably isn't going to stop. Why risk a confrontation, when the bus company is insured anyway.

Kivaro

A federal judge today ordered the Central Arkansas Transit Authority to allow an atheist group to advertise on the sides of city buses.

The Washington-based United Coalition of Reason filed a discrimination lawsuit in June after negotiations to place the ad on 18 city buses broke down.

Oh, I like that name: "United Coalition of Reason".

More here:
http://arkansasnews.com/2011/08/11/bus-authority-exec-worried-atheist-ad-would-incite/

Pompey Magnus

But $15,000 of the originally demanded $36,000 bond will have to be paid so the Transit Authority claim to be also happy with the outcome.

I wonder if there is now a double incentive for Christians to damage the buses. Firstly they get to deface atheist advertising and secondly the more damage they do, the higher the bond will be next time an atheist organisation plans on running a similar campaign.

Galvasean

Isn't there some sort of law against people attacking buses?

mikhail

Galvasean wrote: »

Isn't there some sort of law against people attacking buses?

Short of there being a police officer in the immediate vicinity to witness it, I expect it's tricky to catch the random scobe who throws a brick at a bus.

Unless you meant Christians can be expected not to commit crimes, in which case, HA!

kylith

The bond should be paid by various churches. Why should an athiest group be out of pocket because of the actions on religious people?

robindch

kylith wrote: »

Why should an athiest group be out of pocket because of the actions on religious people?

Since they're inflaming people's passions, the fault lies with them.

It's a bit like the burka.

Kivaro

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

But $15,000 of the originally demanded $36,000 bond will have to be paid so the Transit Authority claim to be also happy with the outcome.

I wonder if there is now a double incentive for Christians to damage the buses. Firstly they get to deface atheist advertising and secondly the more damage they do, the higher the bond will be next time an atheist organisation plans on running a similar campaign.

Understand. But the publicity about the ludicrous stance of the Transit Authority was priceless. The story made the TV news on a number of stations the other night, and they each reported the 'controversial' ad: "Are you good without God? Millions are."

I'm happy with the free advertisement.