Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Des Moines, Iowa transit authority reversed its initial decision and allowed an atheist group to purchase ad space on city buses with the entirely innocuous statement "Don't believe in God? You are not alone" on them. Now one of the bus drivers is refusing to drive a bus with that sign on them, saying it conflicts with her Christian faith.
On Monday, the Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority suspended bus operator Angela Shiel after she refused to drive a bus with an Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers ad on its side. Shiel, 41, said the ad's message, "Don't believe in God? You are not alone," went against her Christian faith...Shiel, a DART bus driver for four years, now could be fired because of her refusal to drive the bus.
DART policy states that drivers cannot choose which buses they drive, DART General Manager Brad Miller said.
No, what it conflicts with is her stupidity and her inability to read. It conflicts with her faith to even acknowledge the existence of people who don't believe in God? This part makes me laugh:
Stone likened the situation to a government employee claiming a religious right to refuse to work with someone of a different faith."When you work for the government, part of your job is to respect the rights of your fellow citizens, and you cannot use your religious beliefs to evade that responsibility," he said.
Shiel's husband said DART officials knew about his wife's convictions when they hired her.
"This has been her faith since the very first day on the job," Glenn Shiel said. He said that making her drive the bus would be telling her to be "two-faced for the fact that she wants an income."
"To me, it's kind of wrong to deny a person of their job because they have a belief," he said.
If that belief is utterly irrational and makes them unwilling to do their job, that strikes me as their problem. I'm generally okay with making reasonable accommodation for religious belief, but such accommodations clearly have their limits. Employers don't have to accommodate every crazy and irrational belief someone has merely because that belief falls under the label of religion.
Politics
Comments
I would say most, if not all, folk who actually use or see the bus would realise that any advert or poster on the bus is not an expression of the views of the driver, so this 'argument' is utterly baseless in every way.
Posted by: Zmidponk | August 24, 2009 9:37 AM
Is it legal to fire someone for pure stupidity? Even if she does change her mind and go back to work some one this dumb should not be in charge of a couple of tons of mobile metalwork!
Posted by: Ramel | August 24, 2009 9:54 AM
I may not agree with the religious views of Angela Shiel, but I will defend to my dying breath her right to get herself fired because she does not respect the religious views of other people.
Posted by: gingerbaker | August 24, 2009 9:57 AM
Awww - let's all pitch in and buy Angela Shiel a badge that says:
"The billboards on this bus don't reflect the prejudices of the driver."
There, problem solved!
For my next trick, I'll disprove the existence of god by a feat of shear logic... ;) DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | August 24, 2009 10:07 AM
Good line, Ginger. I'm going to plagiarize it.
So do you think they would support an atheist driver who refused to drive a bus with a religious ad on it?Posted by: James Hanley | August 24, 2009 10:12 AM
The billboard isn't a point of view or a statement of faith. It's a statement of fact: "There are atheists in the world."
What she is saying is that her faith does not allow her to consider the existence of facts.
Posted by: Pete Guither | August 24, 2009 10:15 AM
I think we can stop now, Ginger has already won this thread.
Posted by: Ramel | August 24, 2009 10:22 AM
@ 6 - "What she is saying is that her faith does not allow her to consider the existence of facts.
I think her argument is she doesn't want to participate in the promotion of atheism. It's not an irrational position, perhaps wrong, I'm not sure.
As a strict separationist, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Given I want 'In God we Trust' removed, and "under God" from the Pledge and "so help me God" from all oaths, I'm still considering her point. Of course I don't think the busses should be able to promote a particular church or religious viewpoint either (I'm assuming the busses and their operation is owned and controlled by the gov't).
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2009 10:27 AM
Will Ms. Shiel and her friends support a Muslim bus driver who refuses to drive a bus with ads for booze or pork products?
Posted by: CJColucci | August 24, 2009 10:35 AM
Michael,
Could she refuse to transport atheists to a free-thinkers meeting? After all, that would be promoting atheism far more than would driving a bus carrying a simple sign stating that atheists exist.
The likely response is that, no, she couldn't because that would be discrimination. But then we are making an argument against a religious exemption in a case where her religious beliefs are even more deeply affected. That being so, I don't see any reason to give her an exemption in a case where her religious beliefs are only tangentially affected.
Or more simply put, this case is about offense, not religious freedom.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 24, 2009 10:39 AM
James - good point, I concede my ambivalence.
How do you feel about these busses displaying this particular message (which I'm having trouble categorizing) or a blatantly religious message?
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2009 10:46 AM
I'll grant that the "There's Probably No God" message is (mildly) provocative -- but merely saying that atheists exist raises hackles? Talk about thin-skinned!
Does this idiot also intepret her bus-driving as an endorsement of whatever hamburger, soft drink, cosmetic brand, clothing store, car dealership, etc, ad nauseum, happens to be advertized on the side of her bus that day?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 24, 2009 11:00 AM
Don't these signs fall into the general category of billboards? The transit system sells space for cash. I don't object to the atheists sign nor would I object to a sign like: "God exists. Come to church XYZ at 10am this Sunday and we'll discuss it!" Obnoxious but I'd still get on the bus. The medium is NOT the message.
I've sat on hundreds of Metro subway cars and read ads from all sorts of organizations. Not one of them meant anything to me and made no lasting (or even momentary) impression on me. Except the transit map of course!
Posted by: MikeMa | August 24, 2009 11:06 AM
Re: Michael Heath's point about this potentially being construed as government endorsement of the message:
I'm pretty much in agreement with MikeMa, it's pretty clear that these ads are from an outside group and has nothing to do with the transit authority's position. The only way it would be analogous with something like the having having "In God we trust" on money would be if the government was allowing outside organizations to put messages on currency.
And it's even more absurd for this driver to act as if the message on the bus she's driving reflects anything about her.
Posted by: mcmillan | August 24, 2009 11:22 AM
... but the sign doesn't say "Atheists exist." It merely says that there are people who don't believe in God. But by placing it in the context of the United States, "God" (i.e., spelling the word with a leading capital letter) means the Christian God. Therefore, this could also include Wiccans, Zoroastrians, Hindus, etc. One could even argue that the sign could include Jews and Muslims (since the single deity isn't necessarily referred to as "God".)
Posted by: Umlud | August 24, 2009 11:23 AM
Here's how to get her fired ...
When she goes back to work, find what bus she's driving.
Ride that bus regularly. Eveytime you get on the bus, as you pay your fare, tell her you are an atheist and thank her for enabling you to travel to your daily atheist meetings.
Be polite so she has no reason to kick you off, maybe wear a nice big "I'm an Atheist, You're not alone" badge.
... And wait for her to snap
Posted by: Ken | August 24, 2009 11:33 AM
This is really bizarre. Not the way the city is handling it, which makes perfect sense, but the comments from the husband. He seems totally lost.
Someone should sit him down and explain: she's not being fired because she's a Christian, she's being fired because she's refusing to do her job.
Posted by: JStein | August 24, 2009 11:35 AM
To the people arguing the literal, logical, precise meaning of the sign; I'd argue that's lost in the translation. We need to also be cognizant that besides that literal point, it's also an ad promoting atheists banding together. It's this latter point that will be found objectionable.
Re the point no one ties the message on the buss to the government: I disagree, I think some do and that's the objection. We are all confronted with churhces who have signboards on their curbs with a message; we're not used to having the promotion athiesm thrown in our face when we're out and about. Having it done on government owned property is provocative because it's relatively rare.
In a world where religious messages are squired around on government owned property, of course I'd like to see anti-religious messages get equal time since I'm anti-religious, I want religions to die of natural causes. But I'm of the mind-set the government shouldn't get involved in that policy argument at all, it should instead ignore it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2009 11:37 AM
Could a Hindu refuse to drive a bus with a McDonald's ad in it? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 24, 2009 11:45 AM
I disagree. It's an ad promoting atheists not feeling bad about being different from everyone else around them.
Posted by: xebecs | August 24, 2009 12:26 PM
Michael,
The problem with your argument is that the advertisements are paid for by outside organizations in a mostly open forum. A religious organization would be just as able to put a sign up, a charity group, a restaurant, athletics store, etc.
As has been pointed out, a Muslim wouldn't be able to object because Chili's has an ad about their BBQ pork ribs, or a Hindu refusing because of a McDonald's ad. The employees of a government agency don't get to determine what messages are allowed in an open forum. If that were the case then all we would see would be religious messages advertising Christian beliefs.
What makes it worse it that her argument fails because of likely hypocrisy, she wouldn't object if there were an advertisement about a Church she agreed with, she might object to one about Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist beliefs, I honestly don't know, but given her current objection I'm willing to wager that she would. As an employee of the city she doesn't get to express her beliefs if those beliefs end up discriminating against others. She doesn't have to like the advertisements any more than an atheist employee doesn't have to like the religious advertisements, but she doesn't get to tell the city that they have to provide her with a different bus, remove the ad, etc.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 24, 2009 12:41 PM
dogmeatib - I think we need to careful about distinguishing the establishment aspects of an issue from the religious freedom aspects. That's not always easy to do. Your arguments regarding objections to non-religious ads for religious freedom arguments are ones I don't refute. I give no quarter to a Jewish person objecting to driving a bus advertising pork BBQ.
I'm looking strictly at the ads, not the driver. And again, being a strict separationist, I don't want to see any religious ads on government property. I'm not sure the ad in question even is and haven't commented on that except my wonderment.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2009 12:51 PM
Posted by: FastLane | August 24, 2009 1:44 PM
Perhaps Ed could clarify for us (or maybe just me, as maybe everyone else already understands) whether it's legally possible for the buses to refuse this particular ad if the system allows ads at all.
Personally I'd rather not have the buses that move through our neighborhood have ads about religion, or the lack of it, at all. I'm uncomfortable with mixing religion with government. In an open forum, like a holiday display on government property, various religion/non-religion views can be represented at once. But on the bus, there's only the one view. Even if various religious groups buy ads, the people in one neighborhood aren't likely to get a balanced view of them all.
Ads for stores and specific places/services/events (like one for the county park, or for an upcoming July Fourth fireworks display) seem not quite as bad, though I'd really rather the city buses didn't have ads at all.
On a local road, there was a little building with a sign out front saying "Holiness Church." A little further down the road was another building with a sign out front saying "True Holiness Church." I don't look forward to something of the same dueling views on the sides of passing buses. Yet ads from various religious groups will surely follow; and as the competition heats up, they're likely to become less and less subtle.
However, if permitting all this is a necessity if ads are used at all, then I suppose it must be endured, as the bus systems need money.
Posted by: JuliaL | August 24, 2009 2:36 PM
My non-lawyer understanding is that it's all or nothing, at least in the sense that you have to treat all religious type advertising equally, or ban it all equally.
This is based on my reading of many court cases over the years and the history of CSS issues in the US.
Posted by: FastLane | August 24, 2009 2:46 PM
Advertising has generally been dealt with under "Common Carrier" rules, which means that the service is available generally to any legal user. As long as your ad is legal and not in any way offensive, they have to run it if you pay your money, religious or no. If private billboard companies are generally required to be content-neutral, I don't see how a government agency can start discriminating.
Michael Heath: I don't understand your objections. The government is doing nothing whatsoever to favor either religion or non-religion in this sort of circumstance. Would you seriously argue that I couldn't wear a religious-themed t-shirt on public property? Or that a government agency could not display artwork in which religious themes were represented? Could I rent public property to host a religious event?
I am an accommodationist, to be sure, but your position seems to be anti-religious for no particular reason other than you don't like religion. And I suppose I can agree as long as we're talking about the Moonies or Scientologists or the crypto-Muslim-fascist-atheists. But there's no need to make the Baby Jesus cry. Again.
Posted by: kehrsam | August 24, 2009 3:29 PM
kehsram asked me:[1] The government is doing nothing whatsoever to favor either religion or non-religion in this sort of circumstance. [2]Would you seriously argue that I couldn't wear a religious-themed t-shirt on public property? [3]Or that a government agency could not display artwork in which religious themes were represented? [4]Could I rent public property to host a religious event?[numbers mine]
1) Depends on how you look at it. From a mere abstract perspective if the gov't entity accommodates everyone they favor no one. But from a practical perspective, there's far more leveraging of government power to promote a particular religious idea or sect than ideas or groups that are against religion or promoting no religion at all. Majorities rule in spite of individual protections.
I love the atheist billboards (which are on private property) because they're finally kick-starting a debate beyond forums like this. I think Christianists, while not realizing it yet, will eventually begin to discern what it's like when government uses it powers to effectively promote something to do with religious that opposes their's, they'll possibly begin to understand what's it like to have their religious freedom rights under assault when in fact they're not.
So I'm happy to see the ahtiests speak out and gain more access like religionists enjoy to government access; but at some point this is going to get ugly way before there's any symmetry in volume. Even a few examples are getting them all hot and bothered. I think at that point the practical way out of this debate is for government to do what it should have done in the first place, have nothing to do with religion.
[2] Assuming you're a private citizen I have no issue with it and can't imagine why you'd think I would. My comments are directed at the government.
[3] I think the current precedents on that are fine in terms of its referring to art, or legacy, but again, not to blatant promotion. Religion is a part of our history and current events I think we vastly under-teach - using academic or scientific standards for discerning understanding which will occur when pigs fly. I also think it's smart policy we wean our government away from having anything to do with the promotion of religion. We need to better educate people that they have more powerful and unprecedented private resources to promote their religious world view, we should keep the government out of it.
[4] I'd prefer not as a policy issue. From a constitutional and abstract perspective they currently have equal access. In the real world however, it's my observation that their equal access is far more preferential than access any groups deemed anti-religious could get in much of red state America (like where I live in N. Michigan).
For example, we have an annual Christian rock concert in our town that's held on county property. No one else can get access like they have in terms of the level and length of noise. I like the fact they have this event since it brings tens of thousands of consumers to our small town for a three day event. However the leniency they're shown is not granted to secular events.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2009 4:48 PM
I'm sure Ms. Shiel would be happy with an ad along the lines of:
"Don't believe in God? You will scream forever in infinite agony in the lake of fire."
In fact, the original atheist bus campaign was in response to exactly such an ad on a London bus.
Posted by: Ray | August 24, 2009 4:50 PM
If this woman gets her job back the best thing to do would be for a bunch of people to wear blatant atheist T-shirts with slogans and signs and get on the bus and dare her to drive them along the route in obvious violation of her delusions. The rest of the passengers would be very irate if she walked off the bus. Have this happen a few times and see what happens.
Posted by: CybrgnX | August 24, 2009 4:52 PM
Michael,
I agree with your basic argument that these open forums aren't as open as they should be. I can also agree that, quite possibly, the best way to deal with those circumstances would be to close the forums to all, no mangers/Christmas Trees, Festivus polls, etc., no billboards, take the government out of the equation. Unfortunately I don't foresee that happening with the billboards. It functions, much like the concert that you mentioned, as a source of revenue for the town and the agency that utilizes them. That being the case, then we need to make certain that the forums are as open as is physically possible. Given the venue though, I don't see there being much chance of creating a "point of view" bus where all of the religious ads (or a-religious ads) are all plastered all over a single bus. I don't think these organizations would bother to advertise then. While that might be a benefit in and of itself, I don't think it is the optimum response to this.
As for the woman in this case, I seriously doubt she is making anything remotely resembling the principled argument you are making. She doesn't like the point of view being expressed, plain and simple. She would be fine with it if it were an advertisement from her church, mosque, temple, etc., but because the very idea upsets her, she isn't willing to have it on the bus. While you would object, potentially, to any religious or a-religious advertisement, she is only objecting to those she doesn't agree with. That's why, IMO, you give her far too much credit. I think hers is a gut reaction with little or no thought, as weak and unprincipled an argument as you can get.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 24, 2009 5:38 PM
dogmeatib @30 - I never argued the woman driver's case @ 8 (didn't know what to think) and @ 11 I conceded she had no case given James Hanley's points @ 10.
I do think people were/are making too fine a literal point and thereby missing the forest from the trees in terms of the perspective of those viewing the ad, i.e., most that object to its message wouldn't be able to read it and understand it literally like we can, they'd instead perceive it in a more global sense, as a pro-atheist ad. Which I'm happy is getting some looks. Those that would read literally I'm sure find it comforting. I think it's a great ad given it works at a couple of levels - smart marketing.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2009 5:52 PM
DART is a public sector employer; its employees enjoy enrollment into IPERS, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System. So this discussion can be dealt under "Common Carrier" rules as noted by kersham. In addition, DART receives federal funding for new buses and equipment. This funding typically has EOE-type wording (or whatever it is called).
AFAIK, Ms. Shiel has not run over any pedestrians this past week...the new buses just purchased are rumored to be equipped with cow-catchers, just in case.
happy Iowan living just southeast of Des Moines - Who TV has had a shark feeding frenzy with this story - I loved their smackdown of the DART PR person the day the ads came off the buses - jim
Posted by: JimNorth | August 24, 2009 7:05 PM
"Don't believe in God? You are not alone."
That message has no intention of telling you to believe , or not, ANYTHING. Nothing.
It says "you are not alone", which seems pretty clear to me, and doesn't affect what I may, or may not, believe.
What if it said, "Don't believe Obama was born in America? You are not alone."
THAT wouldn't change how I view that sign. I'd weep for those who agree, but it wouldn't change anything.
There's no religious message in it anywhere, it's just a statement of fact.
Posted by: Lettuce | August 24, 2009 7:07 PM
Lettuce: I agree, but you should never underestimate the power of facts against a faith which is not rooted in facts.
Posted by: jws | August 24, 2009 7:27 PM
In response to Mr. Heath @ 24:
The bus ads in question are an example of a limited forum. The government has taken steps to voluntarily and affirmatively make available for private speech and expression the space on the outside of its buses. In a limited forum, the government can regulate speakers and subjects, but regulations must be both reasonable and viewpoint neutral. That is, if the government decides to allow private speech on a particular subject (say, religion) then it is constitutionally obliged to permit competing viewpoints (e.g., theism versus atheism). The government is free, of course, to limit the subjects at any time it wishes, and it can also close the limited forum, returning it to its prior status as a non-public forum.
I'm guessing that the city has permitted all kinds of religious ads on the outside of its buses. These ads referencing atheism were allowed intitially, then removed in response to public complaints. That removal was a clearcut First Amendment violation, one that was remedied when (again, I'm guessing) someone in the City Attorney's office nixed the removal.
Posted by: Dan | August 24, 2009 7:29 PM
Lettuce "There's no religious message in it anywhere, it's just a statement of fact."
Ah, but the Bible says that they really do. It's all right there in Romans1, man.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 24, 2009 7:38 PM
Dan @ 35 - I'm aware of all that, that's the abstract portion of this issue.
The practical reality is that such access provides a forum used far more by religious groups than anti-religious groups. I also argued the more these anti-religious groups leverage this form of access, the more outrage we'll experience, way before we ever get to a 50/50 share between the two. It's then my policy position, after the debates get ugly, that neither should get any access. Government needs to extract itself from marketing religion, it's a fairly simple proposition.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2009 7:41 PM
Okay, I didn't read the whole thread. I do notice several comments about the buses being government property. Are they, or is it a quasi public operation?
Our local mass transit is a quasi public corporation. Their revenues are bolstered by government money and their employees are union, afaia, but the management is not governmental.
Posted by: democommie | August 24, 2009 9:05 PM
Ramel, #2 said:
"Is it legal to fire someone for pure stupidity?"
Apparently not, given the very high number of morons not only employed, but put in charge.
Posted by: BaldApe | August 24, 2009 9:08 PM
Two things:
One: The first phrase could possibly be read as injunctive rather than descriptive-query, by someone who was not paying attention in school. I have to say, the so-called "Ten Commandments", while usually referred to as injunctive, to me were more descriptive of how to recognize a person who had achieved innate religiosity than a prescription of how to get there. She could be stuck in the injunctive mind-set.
Two: Atheism is not a religion. It is also not a not-religion. It is not even really an "ism" at all, since there is no such thing as an Atheist Credo, belief system, dogma, Bible, lifestyle prescriptions or proscriptions, congregation, or whatever. As somebody said on Bill Maher the other night, everybody is an Atheist with respect to all the religions of the world except their own. Atheist merely take the last step and drop their God count to 0 from 1.
[mixed-metaphors-alert]
But I guess these folks suffer from the general Mediaeval Western inability to consider that the null set has real implications. It took the Arabs to show us that one. It's not Nature that abhors a vacuum, it's empty heads. Too bad they don't suck up the information around them.
[/mixed-metaphors-alert]
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | August 24, 2009 9:10 PM
I have to disagree with those arguing that having religious (and/or atheist) ads on busses constitutes some sort of entanglement or endorsement problem. We don't interpret commercial bus ads as meaning the city endorses that particular product or business -- they're just users who pay a fee to get their message displayed on that mobile space, for a time. So why should religious ads not be seen in the same way?
Now I personally would have no problem with the transit authority deciding to carry no ads whatever on religious issues (or political, or anything else controversial), on the grounds that someone is always going to get pissed off, and they don't feel like being caught in the middle. However, my understanding is that the courts in both the US and Canada have ruled that advertising space must be open to religious and political views as well as commercial messages, and that it must be equally available to all sides.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 25, 2009 12:28 AM
She says it's against her religion. Perhaps at some point she would like to explain why.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 25, 2009 4:25 AM
Rachel Maddow invented the "Amish bus driver rule" when talking about the "right of conscience" rule for medical personal. Basically, if your religion says you are not allowed to drive a us, fine, that's your right. But don't expect to be hired as a bus driver. Who thought that rule would be applied to actual bus drivers?!
Posted by: ospalh | August 25, 2009 6:47 AM
@40:
The word atheism is composed of three meaningul elements (morphemes): a - negation; the - 'god'; and ism - 'a belief system', more or less. The problem is that too many people seem to get the bracketing wrong. It's a[theism] not [athe]ism. That is, it's a negation applied to 'theism' -- a denial of godism -- rather than an ism whose substance is 'not god'.
Paul
Posted by: prn | August 25, 2009 6:49 AM
While I think most people in this thread understand that people who don't believe in intervening gods being labeled as athiests is as sensical as naming people who aren't ballerinas, 'aballerinas'. That valid, arguable description is irrelevant from a contextual perspective when considering the subject of this blog post.
Do you really think that it would be constitutional, and consistent with our founding ideals to leverage government's promotion of atheism while denying power to do the same for religion? It would not because it fails to consider the other conjoined aspect, the religious freedom clause, whose intent is to protect our individual right to 'freedom of conscience'. In fact this argument in such a context is actually harmful to both the accommodationist and separationist cause.
Having a government that stays out of religion, from a practical perspective, needs to include it's not giving additional quarter to defining atheist arguments either.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 25, 2009 8:46 AM
While most municipal transit systems are either wholly owned and run by the local government or are quasi-public entities, the advertisements they run are not. Due to the fact that mass transit is never self-sufficient, they need to bring in all the revenue they can and that means that they run adverts. The adverts are absolutely not a government endorsement of anything - they merely mean that someone paid the fees and the adverts were run. Any one of us, who had the money, could purchase ad space and as long as the ad wasn't obscene, it would be run.
Gray Gaffer -
While in general, atheism is not religion, for political and legal purposes it is and it is a very good thing that it is. There are a great many laws that protect us from religious persecution and discrimination. If legally speaking, atheism were not a religion, those laws would not apply to those of us who are atheists. Personally, I am more than happy to see atheism legally recognized as a religion, if it means that I can't be fired, not hired, denied housing, denied services, simply because I don't believe in the supernatural.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 25, 2009 8:46 AM
Michael,
Given your reply to my #30, I think we basically agree. Problem is, at least in this case, cities can bring in a good deal of much needed revenue through the advertisements. The would also have a difficult time closing or restricting the forum without facing legal challenge that would (almost certainly) soak up this revenue and potentially reverse the revenue stream.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 25, 2009 10:29 AM
Well, taking the T (subway) or bus to downtown Boston every day, it's pretty rare I don't see an ad for a church or religious organization. A few atheist ads would be a welcome change of pace for me.
Posted by: Dan L. | August 25, 2009 2:56 PM
@44: I always thought the a- prefix meant 'without' rather than 'denial of'. For example, amoral is not denying morals, it is without morals. I cannot deny that God exists, for to do so requires that the word 'God' has a meaning for me which implies at least the possibility of some thing having existence. Since I am without any theist beliefs, this makes no sense to me. I lean more towards John C. Lilly's meaning for 'god' as that belief system which dictates my actions, whether learnt from outside or personally arrived at.
@46: While I think about the political ramifications, since 'Atheism' does not denote any particular set of beliefs held in common by all Atheists, and since the dictionary definitions of 'Religion' all require a common set of beliefs for an -ist or -ism to qualify as a Religion, I maintain Atheism is not a religion in any sense of the word.
OK, the politics. The Constitutional guarantee is that I can comport myself as I wish without having any Religion or Religious view imposed upon me against my will. Therefore any complaint I have about my treatment need not refer to my personal religiosity or lack there-of, rather I need only point to the coercion. It therefore does not require that Atheism be treated as a religion for the purposes of my personal protection and rights to be without religion.
Also, the Constitutional guarantees only refer to my treatment at the hands of my elected government (or their deputies). We have special non-discrimination laws covering our treatment at the hands of other individuals or organizations. And those laws can be as easily repealed as they were passed in the first place. There is no Constitutional guarantee that I can not be fired from a non-government job for my religious beliefs or lack there-of. Only Acts of Congress.
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | August 25, 2009 5:51 PM
I am not sure exactly what you are going on about, in regards to the constitution, Gray Gaffer - it is entirely irrelevant. You are totally correct that the constitution doesn't provide any guarantees about how non-government entities may treat you. You are also correct that acts of congress can make some determinations about how the private sector deals with people. And the day that congress decides to add atheism to the list of protected classes, I will be happy to see atheism not considered a religion, for legal purposes. But while religion is a protected class, atheism is not, in it's own right. So for now, I will take heart at the notion that the courts recognize atheism as a religion and therefore protected class under the law.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 25, 2009 7:15 PM
@DuWayne: Notion or Reality? I was not aware that the legal system had chosen to treat something as a religion that is patently not a religion.
However, I was pointing out that whether or not this is the case is what is irrelevant, unless some person seeks protection from an Atheist coercive attempt. We are protected regardless to the same extent as any Christian, Muslim, etc., by the fact that it is the coercer's belief-driven actions that are the issue, not the victim's.
So I cannot be treated differently than would a Christian be not because I am an Atheist but because such selective treatment is motivated by religious beliefs (or beliefs about religion) on the part of the other party. They therefore can not claim as defense that it is OK because I am not a member of a recognized religion.
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | August 25, 2009 8:26 PM
Gray Gaffer -
That is simply not true - not in the least. What protects you, is the law that says one cannot be discriminated against, for their religious beliefs. And that is exactly why atheism has been recognized by the courts as a religion. Please don't ask me to cite relevant case law, because I am not a lawyer and wouldn't even know where to look. But through the course of reading the blogs, including some legal ones, I have learned that much. (I will email a couple of people who are lawyers, to see if it can be drummed up)
Discrimination laws are all about the specific protected classes. That is why it is still legal in a lot of places, to discriminate against my gay friends. Without the courts recognizing that atheism is a religion, there would be nothing to prevent someone deciding not to hire you, rent to you or sell you a house, based on your lack of religious belief. Those who lack religious belief are not a protected class - atheists are.
Please keep in mind that I am not saying that I think this is right. Nor do I believe that atheism is a religion - believe me, I am an atheist because I am done with dogmatic fucking bullshit. I am merely pointing out what the law is and what the courts have determined in the face of the law.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 25, 2009 8:57 PM
@DuWayne: I see the difference. Constitutionally, I'm right and my religion or lack makes no difference, but in civil courts the discrimination laws are based on it. OK.
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | August 26, 2009 8:27 PM
Everyone, the bus driver has not been fired, but suspended--which means being sent home and not earning pay for the day. It's a very mild, yet pointed consequence that logically follows from refusing to drive her assigned bus.
P.S. Someone please turn off the italics.
Posted by: Monado | August 28, 2009 1:24 PM