…and this is a 
You know the bus signs in Iowas that read, "Don't believe in God? You are not alone"? One bus driver refused to do her job because "the message is against her Christian faith," and was then suspended.
Somebody tell me what precisely in that message is against anyone's faith? It simply asks whether one believes in a god (I know that is not forbidden, because Christians have asked me that), and then says that there are others with the same beliefs, which is simply a description of reality. Oh, I get it — reality is in conflict with Christianity. I can believe that.
Anyway, I think the punishment was entirely appropriate. Maybe it could have been more severe, and she should have been fired — I want my bus drivers to have some brains, after all.
Comments
Posted by: Traveler | August 19, 2009 7:17 PM
I wonder if that driver also refuses to pick up non Christian passengers?
Posted by: Slaughter | August 19, 2009 7:18 PM
How could she drive anyway with one hand over her heart and the other doing that Christian wave thingy -- while her eyes are closed?
Posted by: Primewonk | August 19, 2009 7:20 PM
PZ - you forgot to mention that there is poll on the linked website asking if her suspension was justified. Currently it's 34% justified, 63% not justified, and 3% don't know. I think we know what needs to be done.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 19, 2009 7:21 PM
When the bus ad campaign was first unveiled, I thought it was rather silly. The proposed ads (both this one and the "there's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy life") were so tame and unchallenging that I didn't much see the point.
But the ridiculous -- and occasionally illegal and discriminatory -- reactions to even these mild statements has changed my mind. Exposing this all-too-common knee-jerk bigotry and hypocrisy is very useful.
Posted by: Xena | August 19, 2009 7:22 PM
Yep, it includes a poll that needs some fixin'.
Posted by: Michael Dickens | August 19, 2009 7:23 PM
This sort of attitude is just absurd. I can sort of understand it: the bus driver feels like her way of life is in jeopardy. She's just not very accepting of other ways of life.
Posted by: Sastra | August 19, 2009 7:25 PM
The part that's against her religion is treating belief in God as an option. The possibility that atheism might be mainstreamed, and one day considered no more reprehensible to society at large than being a Buddhist, Muslim, or Christian, goes against her conviction that God is a universally acknowledged fact, and that those who refuse to admit this fact are either defective, or perverse.
Brave freedom fighter, struggling for her right to suppress honest dissent.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 19, 2009 7:26 PM
"Oh, I get it — reality is in conflict with Christianity. I can believe that"
She probably thinks her bus runs on pure, unsullied faith rather than fossil fuel petrochemicals that so inconsiderately take rather longer to form than the Young Earth Creationist 6,000 year age limit on Earth.
There goes that bigoted bastard reality again, pissing on the creationist parade. I mean what did the fundies ever do to it? I swear, you just can't reason with some Universes.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | August 19, 2009 7:28 PM
I say she should have been sacked in any case.
Having a transit driver who firmly believes in miraculous interventions in emergency situations is a clear danger to the public.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
August 19, 2009 7:30 PM
Time to move that poll!
Posted by: cyan | August 19, 2009 7:30 PM
Already, the poll results are a wee bit better than 9 minutes ago: 35% agreeing the suspension was justified, 62% thinking it unjustified.
Posted by: Primewonk | August 19, 2009 7:32 PM
What if she pulled up to a bus-stop and refused to let on a woman wearing a Burka? Or a man wearing a yarmulke? I'm guessing she's a fundy, so what if at the bus-stop there were a couple nuns and a priest? Could she refuse to let them on claiming they violated her belief?
Posted by: wright | August 19, 2009 7:32 PM
Her faith is so fragile she can't drive a bus with a low-key atheist slogan? How does she make it from home to work, let alone drive a full shift, while seeing all the other public advertising so filled with anti-Christian sentiments?
Does she wear real as well as conceptual blinders, so her feeble world-view isn't unduly challenged? Grow a thicker skin, lady.
Posted by: Grendels Dad | August 19, 2009 7:33 PM
What’s next? Will someone who is allergic to shellfish refuse to drive the bus with the Red Lobster add on it?
Get over yourself and do your job you demented dick-sneeze.
Posted by: kamaka | August 19, 2009 7:34 PM
From the comments on the article:
Well, except over bus ads.
Posted by: Primewonk | August 19, 2009 7:36 PM
@13-"Does she wear real as well as conceptual blinders, so her feeble world-view isn't unduly challenged"
Don't joke about the bus drivers wearing blinders. Apparently the DART drivers have had a problem hitting pedestrians the past couple months. Well, to be honest, hitting them isn't the problem - not hitting them is the problem.
Posted by: Tony | August 19, 2009 7:37 PM
Poll has already shifted by 3%! Gogogo!
Posted by: rationalrant.blogspot.com
|
August 19, 2009 7:37 PM
Personally I think she should be fired outright. What is it with Christians, anyway, that they think they're entitled to special privileges right and left?
Posted by: kamaka | August 19, 2009 7:37 PM
html fail
he has control
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 7:43 PM
Suspension is probably appropriate; to not do so would establish a precedent where other drivers could likewise refuse to drive a bus bearing advertisements that offend their faith (or lack of it, in atheists' case!).
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 19, 2009 7:43 PM
Oy. What an idiot.
Using that 'logic', Christians everywhere should be refusing to do anything at all until the names of days are changed, since every single one - Monday through Sunday - is 'against Christian faith' as it refers to a deity (or a celestial body sometimes worshipped as a deity) other than God or any of his various alter-egos.
Posted by: Eye of Horus
|
August 19, 2009 7:47 PM
I think a similar thing occurred with the London bus posters, but I can't remember if the driver was sacked or not. Does make you wonder she was doing it just for the publicity, since I doubt she would have walked off for a Muslim/Hindu etc. sign. (although the cynical part of me wonders if she just thought she get herself an easy day off work?)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 19, 2009 7:47 PM
Is her faith that fragile that having a sign on a bus acknowledging that there are atheists in Iowa threatens it? That woman has more problems than a mere job-related disciplinary action.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 19, 2009 7:47 PM
What the hell.... Where's her St. Christopher medal!
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 7:48 PM
PZ, I suggest it would be a good idea to put an update on the post indicating the presence of a poll, to inform those who do not read the comments.
Posted by: beelzebunny | August 19, 2009 7:49 PM
I say good riddance. Go home and pray for reinstatement, and stay there until god makes the streets safe for christians again.
Sidenote: is it just me, or are the ads on this site being overtaken by fundies...all five links were anti-evolution, pro-ID...pretty annoying. Should I just pray for them to go away?
Posted by: Loc | August 19, 2009 7:52 PM
I'm curious to know how it offends her while she is performing her duty as a bus driver. Sure, her brain may hurt getting on and off the bus.
Unless of course, there are ads inside...
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 7:53 PM
Eye of Horus @22,
My cynical part prefers the 5-minutes of fame interpretation. ;)
PS quite right about the London incident.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 19, 2009 7:54 PM
Totally off topic, but the Lutheran church is having some kind of convention or meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota this weekend. This afternoon a tornado damaged the Central Lutheran Church in downtown Minneapolis.
One wonders how long before someone on Christian radio will say this is God's punishment because the ELCA is considering rules to permit the ordination of gay and lesbian ministers.
It also damaged the Electric Fetus which sells that godless rock music.
Praise to Jebus.
Posted by: Cephus | August 19, 2009 7:54 PM
If the driver doesn't want to drive the bus, the driver can go get another job. She's not being employed to rate the ads on the side of the bus, she's being employed to drive. The same goes for the pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions on the basis of their "faith". If you want that, get an education, become a doctor, then you're welcome not to write prescriptions for anything you don't want, but until that's your job, either do what you're being paid to do or shut the hell up.
Posted by: Colin Upson | August 19, 2009 7:55 PM
Come on people lets get that poll a moving!
Posted by: Jason A.
|
August 19, 2009 7:55 PM
#15:
Does this make any sense whatsoever?
Posted by: DethB4DCaf
|
August 19, 2009 7:58 PM
Current statistics for the poll:
Do you agree with DART's decision to suspend a driver who refused to drive a bus with an ad for an atheist group?
Choice Votes Percentage of 2433 Votes
Yes, suspension justified 982 40%
No, not justified 1380 57%
Don't know 71 3%
Posted by: Adam | August 19, 2009 7:58 PM
Agreed, if these things said "There is no God. If Jesus existed, he was gay. Christian = Mental Retardation. Cthulhu/Cheney 2012" I could maybe see her point... maybe.
The real plus to the fundagelical whack job response is that even more free thinkers will see the ads in newspapers and tv news talking about the outrage than would have on just the buses.
Posted by: KevinC | August 19, 2009 8:01 PM
Arrrrrgh! According to the video on the upper right of the website, the bus company pulled the atheist ads because they received "too many complaints." What part of "this is not Iran" do these fundies not understand? All those ads did was announce the mere existence of an atheist group! It's not like they said something uber-scaaaaaaryyy like "There's probably no God."
I can't wait to see how the whackaloons will start reacting when atheists start putting up ads with pictures of Darwin, saying something like "You're an ape. Deal with it."
Posted by: Beaker | August 19, 2009 8:05 PM
Comprehension isn't her strong suit is it? 'If you do not believe in God there are other people like you' is hardly 'stop believing in God you ignorant fool'.
Feckin eejits.
Posted by: kamaka | August 19, 2009 8:12 PM
@ 32
As much sense as this:
Ummm, I thought "he" was omnipotent?
@ 35
"There is no soul. When you die, you're dead and gone. Make the adjustment. Go enjoy your life while you have one."
Posted by: cyan | August 19, 2009 8:14 PM
beelzebunny @ 26
Yes. These ads by the fundies which roll on scienceblogs annoy me, too, initially .... until I again internalize the fact that fundies are paying money to run them here - money that they otherwise would pay to run them at sites where people with less critical thinking skills might easily be manipulated by them. So the pain is worth the gain.
Posted by: David Wiener | August 19, 2009 8:17 PM
Quite the scientific poll. Just refresh, and your opinion is twice as important.
Posted by: Marcus B. | August 19, 2009 8:17 PM
I can't in any way understand how "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." could be against anyone's religion. It is simply a true statement.
Even if I had God almighty himself sitting on my shoulder this very instant I would know that it is true that a lot of other people don't believe in Him.
It's just a statement saying how things are - it doesn't say anything about Christianity or any other religion.
I don't understand.
Posted by: Primewonk | August 19, 2009 8:29 PM
47% to 51%
Posted by: Carlie | August 19, 2009 8:31 PM
My cynical part prefers the 5-minutes of fame interpretation.
My cynical part thinks that she's not smart enough to have even thought of that. :p
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 19, 2009 8:32 PM
This might actually be best for the lady involved. She could get a serious chaffing from sitting on that knot all day (and who knows whether her health insurance would cover it).
Posted by: Sastra | August 19, 2009 8:32 PM
Marcus B #40 wrote:
I wonder if part of the concern is that God will smite the good with the evil, if the good allow the evil to "deny" God in public? The Bible is filled with story after story of a place, or a people, being punished for collective sin, despite the fact that surely all individuals were not involved in the sinning.
Look at their rhetoric. If "we" don't acknowledge God in our schools, He will lift His protection from the entire United States of America, and allow terrorists to destroy it. God has sent a hurricane to punish "a city" for allowing a gay pride parade. They look at how God behaves in the Bible, and continue on the theme.
God is a lousy aim. There goes Iowa.
Of course, I noted in the interview that one man said something to the effect that he wouldn't let those atheist ads "take his faith away." Maybe the mere possibility of atheism is so seductive to them that they have to ban it, lest they succumb. Must be the bacon and lesbians.
Posted by: cyan | August 19, 2009 8:32 PM
Markus B.
You do not understand because her smokescreen is that the ad offends her religion. The real reason for her umbrage is that other people do not share her religious views and that they have the right to state their own or lack. She is shocked and offended that she has come across evidence that others do not share her belief.
Posted by: tubbolard | August 19, 2009 8:33 PM
"I want my bus drivers to have some brains, after all."
She does have brains, and used them. It doesn't matter that the bus company didn't find it offensive, but that she did. Look for a lawsuit against the bus company.
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 8:36 PM
tubbolard, you forgot one word: Look for a frivolous lawsuit against the bus company.
Posted by: kamaka | August 19, 2009 8:37 PM
My cynical part thinks that she's not smart enough to have even thought of that.
A chance to play the martyr/victim? She's reveling in it. Well, until she can't pay the bills...but god will provide.
Posted by: tubbolard | August 19, 2009 8:38 PM
no, frivolous is not a left out. She'll probly win.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 19, 2009 8:39 PM
@4
Good for you- you now understand far more about the point of the so-called "New Atheism" than the likes of Mooneybaum and Ruse ever will.
Posted by: p | August 19, 2009 8:41 PM
tubbolard @ 46 - "She does have brains, and used them. It doesn't matter that the bus company didn't find it offensive, but that she did. Look for a lawsuit against the bus company."
If she tries, it will never fly. The add campaign started a month ago. Big flap. Bus company took the adds off. Then decided that since they accepted tons of previous adds for tons of churches, they had to put these back up. This woman knew the adds were there for a month. She did not attempt to work things out with her supervisor or the company. She chose now, during the state fair with tons of extra riders to suddenly decide the add offended her.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
August 19, 2009 8:45 PM
I don't think she can sue for refusing to do her job, but she'll not suffer. I'm sure there are congregations all pitching into the plate for her as we speak. Just think of all the Jeebus points she has amassed!
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 19, 2009 8:49 PM
It's all about how weak these people are in their faith. Most of them have strong doubts about the existence of their god - how could they not? - but they'd prefer that this didn't keep on getting pointed out to them. It's much easier for them to lie to themselves and pretend they still believe that way.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | August 19, 2009 8:54 PM
"Wowbagger is a douche, therefore God exists". That's from Aquinas, right? Or was that C.S. Lewis?
Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 19, 2009 8:55 PM
Even more interesting, anyone who clicks on the "DUFFY Cartoon" has to watch a video advertisement for the Church of the Latter-day Saints before they can see the cartoon. The church is advertising a book on "Finding Happiness." That offends my religious sensibilities. I demand that the ad be removed or I won't click on any more links!
Posted by: ObSciGuy | August 19, 2009 8:57 PM
Love the sequence of "Previous Stories" on the bottom of the KCCI page (with this story added to the list):
* August 19, 2009: DART Bus Driver Suspended Over Atheist Ad
* August 18, 2009: DART Driver Refused Bus With Atheist Sign
* August 8, 2009: DART To Restore Atheist Ads To Buses
* August 7, 2009: DART Discuss Bus Ads With Atheist Group
* August 7, 2009: Atheists, DART Meet Over Bus Ads
* August 6, 2009: DART: Controversial Bus Ads Pulled
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 19, 2009 8:57 PM
Nah, that sounds like several banned, or soon to be banned, trolls. God doesn't exist, and Wowbagger is Wowful.Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 19, 2009 8:58 PM
It's an even lower quality of trolls than usual. WTF?
Posted by: Rorschach | August 19, 2009 9:01 PM
Intriguing how insecure christians are, that a simple message on a bus could upset them so much, and make them feel threatened.
There is the 5-min of fame thing, of course.
Posted by: Dawshoss | August 19, 2009 9:01 PM
Because she believes atheists should feel isolated and alone?
Posted by: JHS
|
August 19, 2009 9:02 PM
So...new career path for me. Move in across from one of the innumerable billboards featuring a cross or some various on the theme, "Jesus Is Lord," "REPENT," etc, and then refuse to do my job or so much as get off the couch. When something bad inevitably happens regarding my job, I'll pout and sue the pants off everyone within earshot for offending my reason. Clearly I'll be able to win millions, live off the interest, and watch all the "Price is Right" I want. Sweet.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 19, 2009 9:06 PM
Wowbagger is right.
Deep down in everyone — way deep down where the truth exists, underneath all the thinking and being preoccupied with images and rituals and subservience to authority — everyone knows that the God-gig is all play-pretend. That’s why fundies are so terrified of not thinking about Jesus all the time, of not being incessantly preoccupied with all the right thoughts. They know that if they do, it will all disappear and the real world will fall into the vacuum. They have been trained to be afraid of that.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 19, 2009 9:06 PM
Who the fuck is this wanker?
Making cowardly anonymous shit-flinging comments on the internet is rather sadly pathetic.
Posted by: kamaka | August 19, 2009 9:06 PM
Wowbagger...WTF? Out of the blue, you're a douche!
Struck a nerve, perhaps?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 19, 2009 9:11 PM
ema nymton:
How about you try responding to the point I raised, shit-for-brains - or is that beyond you?
Perhaps you should pray to your Jesus to give you some character or perhaps a spine so you'll manage something more substantial than a second-rate, piss-weak attempt at an insult.
Oh, and 2/10 for the handle. Did you think that one up yourself, genius, or did you have your mommie spell backwards for you?
Posted by: cyan | August 19, 2009 9:11 PM
New atheists: no one can bully anyone else with their beliefs or lack unless they are willing to endure the same back-at-cha. That's my unapologetic stance after years of accommodation and effort at reasoning with xtians, with no results of respect.
If she does bring a lawsuit against this public body, frivolous or not, the public has to pay for the expense of the judiciary process, win or lose.
Well, that is not good.
However, if she loses, that will discourage future crotch-uncomfortable goddists from going through the time & expense of similar selfish actions.
But what if she wins! OMSM!!! that's going to be a good thing, too, in the long run, because if she wins, then that opens the door to other conscientious-objectors of all faiths and lack of faith to bring similar lawsuits, causing more public monies to be spent by the particular public body, at which some point those responsible will have to make a policy that they cannot financially accept any ads advocating either religion or the lack of it. At that point: voila!: belief or lack becomes a personal matter, which everyone is still free to indulge in, instead of a public matter.
all because of those uppity new atheists supporting things like bus ads that declare to all that our views are different
Posted by: Joel Jacobson | August 19, 2009 9:13 PM
"I say she should have been sacked in any case."
If she were fired, there would be lots of bellowing about her being let go because of her faith. Be assured the bullies would claim that this was yet another example of the victimization of Christians.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 19, 2009 9:13 PM
The poll's now 52% justified, 48% unjustified, and 3% undecided.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 19, 2009 9:15 PM
Oooh, isn't it cute. The concern troll is concerned.
Posted by: Grendels Dad | August 19, 2009 9:18 PM
Now, now, ema. You were not stating a fact, since wowbagger is not in fact, literally a douche. You were stating your opinion that he was a metaphorical douche.
Most here, including me, will disagree with your opinion.
We will do much worse when you try to pass off your maggoty little personal opinions as facts, you myopic intellectual maladroit.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 19, 2009 9:20 PM
"ema nymton" is also known as "tubbolard".
This is your only warning: I've deleted a couple of posts, but if you continue to play games with sockpuppets, you will be banned.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 19, 2009 9:22 PM
A woman working! Why the hell isn't she barefoot and pregnant in her kitchen like the bible tells her to?!
Posted by: Outofstateatheist | August 19, 2009 9:23 PM
Sastra: "God is a lousy aim. There goes Iowa."
Nah, we should be warning Nebraska, Illinois, Missouri and Minnesota (and South Dakota should prepare for the worst, too).
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 19, 2009 9:25 PM
I suspect what she really means is that atheists offend her. Just their very existence offend her. She can't really say that directly, so she does so indirectly.
Or things were very busy, and she wanted a couple of days off.
Someone fetch her a fainting couch, stat!
Posted by: kamaka | August 19, 2009 9:25 PM
For sure that would happen.
But to fire her for insubordination, it would be easy to can her and win the lawsuit. "I am recording this conversation, would you like to have a lawyer or other representative present?"
Posted by: amphiox | August 19, 2009 9:28 PM
Sadly, many theists, maybe most, seem to equate god with goodness, and instinctively associate atheism, not believing in god, with not believing in goodness. This is also why they seem to have so much trouble comprehending arguments like "being good for goodness sake" - to them it's nonsensical, there is no goodness outside of god, and for many moderate theists who do not ascribe to the idiotic holy book literalism of the fundies, who would never go caught dead following the bible's archaic proscriptions on morality, god has no definite meaning except as a vague equivalence to goodness.
I think this piece of cognitive dissonance lies at the root of most of the anti-atheist bigotry that's out there, and why they view even the mildest expressions of atheism as some terrible threat to all they hold near and dear.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 19, 2009 9:33 PM
Yes, suspension justified 1763 53%
No, not justified 1456 44%
Don't know 79 2%
It is assumed, by the religious, based on absolute authority and a complete lack of evidence, that to even question whether there is a God is evil and offensive, showing arrogance in the questioner and, moreover, evidence of a desire to be free of all responsibility. I shouldn't really say it is assumed, because this Big Lie is taught to them, but just as fear of outsiders can always reliably motivate anger, so can questioning this or the absolute authority which proclaims it must be true.
To suggest to them that they would still act responsibly and have compassion even if there weren't a supernatural being commanding it is to make them very very afraid of the real world. You know, the thing they adopted religion to hide from?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 19, 2009 9:36 PM
RamblinDude, #62, wrote:
Exactly. They fear it because they feel it in themselves.
And it's supported by the existence of ex-Christian atheists, who are evidence that a person can go from belief to non-belief. Testimony from such people indicates that it may well be the very act of thinking about the possiblity that it's all a bunch of antique superstitious hooey which is the first step on the road to shedding the feculent burden of faith.
If the only atheists were those (like me) who were lucky enough to be raised sans indoctrination, they probably wouldn't care so much. But by having those signs up they're afraid their flock will starting thinking about not being a Christian, and may just keep on thinking until all traces of faith dry up, crumble and are blown away.
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 9:36 PM
amphiox,
Well put, though I would expand that to saying "they justify their religion by equating god with goodness".
Posted by: David Horton | August 19, 2009 9:39 PM
PZ you, and your readers, may appreciate this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-horton/not-enough-reality_b_263550.html in relation both to this item and the atheist conference.
Posted by: Owen | August 19, 2009 9:40 PM
@ Joel #67.
You're right, we don't need to give the Christians any more reasons to wear their martyr badges. If fired that bus driver would think she's entitled to 72 virgins in heaven.
Posted by: E.V. | August 19, 2009 9:41 PM
blockquote>warning heard. do not threaten again.
I don't think you're in any position do dictate.
Posted by: AVSN | August 19, 2009 9:43 PM
Too much. No one realizes that the bus driver has just as much right to her opinion as all you here who bash her. Sad.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 19, 2009 9:44 PM
Which is indicative of just how disconnected from reality they are. It means they've never considered the vast amount of evidence that belief in their god ≠ goodness - both in terms of the godless who do good and the god-burdened who do bad - and the fact that their bible is a laundry list of their allegedly kind and loving god's flat-out evil (as opposed to just bad) deeds.
I could understand Christians if they admitted they bowed to their vile monster-god out of fear; however, their insistence that - despite all the evidence to the contrary - he loves and cares for us, is just baffling.
Posted by: kamaka | August 19, 2009 9:47 PM
God is a lousy aim. There goes Iowa.
Hey, god aimed pretty good at the lutherans in Minneapolis... sent a tornado! Serves 'em right for takin' a vote on permitting sexually active gay people to be clergy.
Why would any gay person want to be a cleric for these homophobic kooks?
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | August 19, 2009 9:47 PM
Tubbolard chimes in:
"I want my bus drivers to have some brains, after all."
She does have brains, and used them. It doesn't matter that the bus company didn't find it offensive, but that she did. Look for a lawsuit against the bus company."
So how do you feel about Muslim Cab drivers who refuse to take seeing-eye dogs cuz they find Dogs offensive? Or refuse to take somebody with a beer, cuz they find alcohol offensive?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 19, 2009 9:48 PM
AVSN, the bus driver may have her opinion. But, if her union contract doesn't have a clause about ads considered offensive the drivers, her continued employment is in real question. All the union can do is make sure protocol is followed. Her conscience is irrelevant.
Posted by: Dale | August 19, 2009 9:48 PM
Off topic, but have a look at this, and count up the number of clichés invoked...
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/scrowder/2009/08/18/lonewolf-diaries-brad-pitt-leading-the-anti-christian-charge/
Posted by: charley | August 19, 2009 9:50 PM
Fundies are all about evangelizing, "letting your light shine", "putting God first", not being a "stumbling block" to others, etc. so of course driving any atheist billboard around, no matter how tame, is against her faith. She may not be smart, but she saw her duty and did it.
Like the anti-birth control pharmacist and all others whose faith constrains them from performing their expected duties, she should pay the price for her beliefs like a good little martyr and quit.
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 9:52 PM
AVSN,
Upon what do you base that opinion?
I suspect everyone here grants her the right to her opinion — it's just that many of us consider that opinion pathetic, and the action she took therefrom inappropriate.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 19, 2009 9:53 PM
AVSN wrote:
Which you'd be correct in noting if she all she had done is expressed her opinion on the issue in some way. Refusing to do a job ≠ expressing an opinion - it's acting on that opinion.
Posted by: ckitching | August 19, 2009 9:56 PM
The ads could simply say "Clouds are fluffy" and include the atheist organization site and URL to their site and there would be indignant Christians complaining that the sign is against their religion. The message isn't what is offending them. It's our existence and the fact that the sign is reminding them of that is what is offending them.
Posted by: AVSN | August 19, 2009 9:56 PM
Stuart-haveing a beer on a bus (drinking it that is) is illegal or at least against the rules. Also, many places, alcohol, including beer, is placed in a paper bag seperate from other purchases. Most drivers would know if a passenger had beer unless they were nosy enuff to ask.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 19, 2009 9:58 PM
Absolutely! She certainly is entitled to her opinion. I'm certainly not going to stop her from her opinion.
She didn't get suspended for her opinion. She got suspended for refusing to work. The fact she says she refused to work because of her opinion is of little consequence, except to us here, who find it oddly entertaining and somewhat repulsive.
She made her choices. Now she can live with the consequences of those choices.
Posted by: cyan | August 19, 2009 10:02 PM
AVSN,
From what posts do you infer that someone thinks that the driver has no right to have her own opinion?
What people object to is that she be paid taxpayer money for NOT doing her job because of an opinion she holds.
I do not care what opinion the people who earn our money have, as long as they fulfill the needed responsibilities of their job. When taking the job, they implicitly agreed to do it, regardless of their own personal opinions.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 19, 2009 10:09 PM
She can have her opinion. She can express her opinion by refusing to work on a bus with an ad she finds offensive. Her employer can suspend her for refusing to work. We can laugh at her for having a stupid opinion. So what's your point?
Posted by: Tony | August 19, 2009 10:12 PM
Woohoo! Poll is close to inverted from pre-post count.
Yes, suspension justified 2057 57%
No, not justified 1498 41%
Don't know 82 2%
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | August 19, 2009 10:13 PM
AVSN chimes in :
"Too much. No one realizes that the bus driver has just as much right to her opinion as all you here who bash her. Sad."
Nobody is claiming that she doesn't have a right to her opinion. It could my opinion that my boss is a dick (he's not, but anyway). But I still have to show up for work to get paid.
She's entitled to her opinion. However, she's not entitled to be paid if she doesn't work. If you find aspects of your job offensive, start looking for another job.
Posted by: Ellie
|
August 19, 2009 10:18 PM
@26 & 38
Google adds are automatically targeted based on the content of the website. What these adds really show is what proportion of advertising targeted to the keyword "evolution" is fundie in nature. Rich considering the amount of fuss over a few very uncontentious bus adds.
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | August 19, 2009 10:19 PM
AVSN
"Stuart-haveing a beer on a bus (drinking it that is) is illegal or at least against the rules. Also, many places, alcohol, including beer, is placed in a paper bag seperate from other purchases. Most drivers would know if a passenger had beer unless they were nosy enuff to ask."
The fact is, they have been that nosy, and yes they have refused to give rides to people with seeing eye dogs. And yes they have been disciplined.
Nice deflection; now deal with the point of my post.
The issue wasn't her "opinion", the issue is her refusing to do her job.
Posted by: Caine | August 19, 2009 10:19 PM
AVSN @ 83:
Sure, she has a right to her opinion; no one here has said different. Her opinion, however, is not the same as refusing to work due to offense taken. People do not have the right to not be offended. It's sad you don't comprehend the difference.
Posted by: Patrick Craig | August 19, 2009 10:20 PM
This will be one of the few times I will be in full agreement that there was an over-reaction on the part of the driver. The assertion "Don't believe in God? You're not alone" has no teeth, it's just a positive statement of fact and support for the nonbeliever.
I'd have been more prone to move to the driver's side, though, had it been the lame "There probably is no God..." sign that was being objected to. That sign was a work of anti-genius. [Super Eye Roll]
Posted by: cyan | August 19, 2009 10:22 PM
AVSN,
Imagine a world in which an employee would be paid for their work in every instance in which they did not do the work: that even though they did not provide what was necessary and that for which they were hired, because they said that they did not do what was needed because their opinion was different, they still would be paid the same as those who actually did the required and necessary work.
Not a world many would like to live in, because it would be non-functional and detrimental to our well-being.
AVSN: not thinking things through very well
Posted by: charley | August 19, 2009 10:27 PM
This is true of some, but far from all. Suicide bombers are sincere about their faith, and so are most Christians. The fact that ex-Christian atheists talk about the transition from belief to non-belief (not hypocrisy to honesty) supports this.
I'd like to think Christians hate these bus ads because they're insecure about their faith, but I think most of them object because they actually believe the ads will keep people from being "saved". I think it's important to understand how fundamentally deluded these people are.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 19, 2009 10:30 PM
AVSN: Avoid Very Sensible Notions.
AVSN: A Very Stupid Nick
AVSN: Awesome Vacuousness Starts Now
This is kinda fun.
Posted by: Heidi | August 19, 2009 10:33 PM
Yes, suspension justified 2108 57%
No, not justified 1508 41%
Don't know 82 2%
Agreed. I don't see how anyone can get through Genesis and still think god is the good guy.
Posted by: kamaka | August 19, 2009 10:41 PM
I don't see how anyone can get through Genesis and still think god is the good guy.
The same way someone who thinks the father who beat them is a good guy.
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 10:45 PM
Kamaka, I've heard that very claim many a time, as well as the 'justification': It did me no harm.
Posted by: Dr. P | August 19, 2009 10:46 PM
@93, Evasion, thy name is AVSN.
Posted by: Ted H. | August 19, 2009 10:48 PM
I am so sick of religion being a free pass for bigotry. If she refused to drive the bus because of an ad that had a black person,(for example)she would have been fired on the spot and there would have been very little outcry. Because it was a religious complaint she only gets suspended and there are all sorts of people coming to her defense.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 19, 2009 10:51 PM
Well, I don't know about 'most Christians', but it's not like there's any real way of finding out. It'd be easier if there were a way of determining 'genuine' faith from non-genuine -but we can't so there's no real way of measuring sincerity.
That aside, I don't think you can look at the 'faith' of suicide bombers the same way you look at the faith of regular believers (of any religion) - from what I've read/seen there's a whole different kind of psychological conditioning going on there; it's far more like the intense programming you see in cults. So there's a lot more to it than the strength of the person's belief.
Which is fortunate. If everyone who believed strongly chose to be a suicide bomber there'd be a lot more of them.
Posted by: Kagato
|
August 19, 2009 10:59 PM
I don't know why I do it to myself.
I... I read all the comments on the article again.
And now -- I grieve for the future of the human race.
Side note: if you need to log in, and TypePad is not available as an option, just click the sign-in button on the default option. It'll fail of course, but then TypePad shows up on the end of the list. (At least, that's what happens for me.)
Posted by: palochka | August 19, 2009 11:11 PM
kamaka @ #32
To paraphrase Homer Simpson: god is powerful, but is also very insecure.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 19, 2009 11:11 PM
Cue accusations of sexism in the title in 3, 2, 1...
Huh. 112 posts and nothing yet?
Posted by: kamaka | August 19, 2009 11:29 PM
Morales @ 108
It did me no harm.
Yah, file this in "The Department of Denying Denial Department."
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2009 11:33 PM
Sidenote: is it just me, or are the ads on this site being overtaken by fundies...all five links were anti-evolution, pro-ID...pretty annoying. Should I just pray for them to go away?
ads, what ads?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865
I enabled adblock for sciblogs right around the time about a year or so ago when they went with uncontrolled ad banner rotations, one of which actually locked up my 'puter.
If they won't bear the responsibility of ad banner control, I won't bear the responsibility of even allowing the ads to appear.
Seed Media is just being lazy; they definitely garner enough click throughs to have a say in what banners get pushed here.
Posted by: Taffysteve | August 19, 2009 11:41 PM
This nutjob should at least learn to compartmentalise the god crap. If the driver cannot find sufficient space for such a compartment then I would suggest nailing a colostomy bag to the back of the head.
Posted by: Dan W | August 20, 2009 12:14 AM
Apparently the knowledge that atheists exist is somehow "offensive" to idiots like this bus driver woman. I personally think she should be fired for not doing the job she was supposed to do. Not sure how the existence of atheists in Iowa is "against her Christian faith" either.
Posted by: Jen | August 20, 2009 12:14 AM
You know, I agree the bus company has the right to suspend an employee for not doing her job, but on the flip side I can empathize with the driver. I know I'd feel uncomfortable being asked to drive around, say, an ad promoting Christianity.
Posted by: speedweasel | August 20, 2009 12:16 AM
@Kagato
"I don't know why I do it to myself.
I... I read all the comments on the article again.
And now -- I grieve for the future of the human race."
Its painful isnt it? Kind of like reading the comments on YouTube videos, something to avoid.
http://xkcd.com/202/
Posted by: Conor H. | August 20, 2009 12:17 AM
I saw this on local news and I new there was going to be a shitstorm on the comments and among a certain super conservative demographic. However, I was pleasantly surprised to see so many positive comments on the story. There's hope for Iowa!
Posted by: karol | August 20, 2009 12:33 AM
P.Z. Myers,
If this same woman moved to Toronto, Canada, took a job as a bus driver with TTC, drove a bus up and down Church Street right thru the middle of gay village everyday, and came to work one day, and saw a sign on a side of her bus that said: "If you think that all homosexuals should be stoned to death, you are not alone." and she would refuse to drive that bus and she would get suspended from her job, would you than still think that she is a brain-dead religious zealot?
Inquisitive minds want to know as you seem to mix up personal safety concerns with religious believes.
Posted by: heliobates | August 20, 2009 12:38 AM
Aqualung my friend,
Don't you start away uneasy.
You poor old sod.
You see, it's only me.
Downtown Mission still won't take you back, Karol? There's always the 519.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2009 12:45 AM
"If you think that all homosexuals should be stoned to death, you are not alone." and she would refuse to drive that bus and she would get suspended from her job, would you than still think that she is a brain-dead religious zealot?
one, that analogy has nothing to do with religion, so why would someone associate it with your brain-dead religion int he first place?
two, no, we only think YOU'RE a brain-dead religious zealot for posting such an inane analogy.
oh, wait, am I mixing up your "safety concerns" with your religious "believes"?
I'm sure you'll tell me now you're actually an atheist.
Posted by: heliobates | August 20, 2009 12:50 AM
What he is is bugfuck crazy.
He has one note and he hits it stridently and loudly. Even on the Globe and Mail site, FFS.
Another internet bag lady.
Posted by: Dan W | August 20, 2009 12:50 AM
Wow, Karol, way to make a bad analogy. If an ad says that sort of thing about homosexuals, it seems it wouldn't be endorsing a religious belief. But then, you're clearly a troll, and I wouldn't be surprised if you respond to this post by avoiding thinking about how idiotic your attempt at an argument was.
Posted by: kamaka | August 20, 2009 12:55 AM
Inquisitive minds want to know as you seem to mix up personal safety concerns with religious believes.
Flaming confused stupid with this one.
Posted by: TheVirginian | August 20, 2009 1:15 AM
The poll was about 63 percent in favor of yes shortly after midnight CDT. It has moved in the right direction. She certainly deserves some punishment, and likely is a hypocrite as well as a bigot and idiot.
I suspect she's one of those "I will show off my Christianity" types who feels compelled occasionally to say or do something very publicly to prove to everyone that she is a real believer. Probably harasses coworkers occasionally with comments that show that she rejects "sinful things." Reads a Bible on her lunch break. Calls the U.S. a Christian nation and publicly laments how Christmas is under attack. Calls Halloween pagan and evil. Etc.
Also, this could stem from the traditional Christian belief that engaging in activity that insults the Christian god could result in divine vengeance. She might really believe she'll get cancer or hit by lightning or something.
As for her punishment, I would hope DART goes by its regular procedures. If they previously fired drivers for refusing to drive a bus for some illegitimate reason, then she should be fired, for consistency. If they only fire drivers with bad records and she has a good record, then she should suffer the appropriate punishment - suspension for a few days, perhaps.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 20, 2009 1:23 AM
"Because she believes atheists should feel isolated and alone?"
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I think this whole bus issue has been good publicity. Sure, too many people will have knee-jerk reactions against anything smacking of evil communist atheism, but any more tolerant sort will think that the atheist group has the right to have their ads up, and will maybe realize that for the theocrats who try to get these ads taken down, it's not about how supposedly mean and strident famous atheists are, and it's not about what we say AT ALL. It's about the very fact that we exist, and dare to say so.
That's what they can't stand. Having the no-gods option on the table is unacceptable to them. Realize that just having a rough stretch in life and the hateful behavior of some Christian groups is all it takes to get some people to have a "crisis of faith", and realize just how fragile faith really is. It's not like they have actual physical evidence, they just have old myths and old stories and sweet talk and arguments from consequences. The fact that atheists exist is proof that those bromides don't always work. And that scares them.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 20, 2009 1:47 AM
"If you think that all homosexuals should be stoned to death, you are not alone"
That would be a death threat and cannot be allowed. The ad doesn't attack religion. It only wants to let other atheist know that other who agree with them exists. The bus driver is unreasonable because she somehow feels that driving a bus acknowledging the existance of atheist threatens her religious beliefs when no such thing is implied. I've taken buses with numerous church adds and never felt that, by doing so, it would threaten my own beliefs.
Posted by: Allytude
|
August 20, 2009 1:50 AM
What I do not understand is why the people applauding the lady feel bad she had to undergo suffering for her faith. Or indeed why people feel sorry about being persecuted. If their god is as real as they like to believe he is, then they will be rewarded for their martyrdom. SO they should be grateful for the persecution that their faith leads them to. Indeed they should wnat a more inequitable life on earth, so that they reap more reward in heaven. Unfortunately the religious want the best of both worlds- being coddled for their faith here on earth and eternal happy life afterwards- where is the justice there?
Where is that poll?
Posted by: AndrewBassler | August 20, 2009 1:52 AM
@ 88
Arrgh that whole fucking site is where brain cells go to die.
It's another thing that annoys me about Bill Maher is that he routinely has Andrew Brietbart on his show. Although the last time Brietbart was on his show he admitted to being a moron. His argument goes like this Hollywood is liberal and liberals are evil and wrong. This is true because some liberal once called him a Nazi at a party.
Posted by: Psychodigger | August 20, 2009 2:11 AM
Did anyone read the comments underneath? There's a typical regilious loon ranting incoherently, caps lock and all:
I FIND IT TO BE VERY DIFFICULT THAT WE CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT A SIGN THAT SAYS DON'T MAKE ME COME DOWN THERE GOD AND IT GETS REMOVED AND NEVER SPOKEN OF AGAIN BUT WHEN A SIGN THAT WE CHRISTIANS DON'T LIKE COMPLAIN AND NOW WE ARE THE BAD GUYS. I BELIEVE THERE IS A LAW CREATED TO PROTECT US AS WELL.IT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT NOT BE DESCRIMINATED ON OUR RACE, ORGIN, AND RELIGION. I BELEIVE SHE IS ENTITLED TO SAY THAT IS A THREAT TO HER WORKING ENVIROMENT IF IT OFFENDS HER RELIGION THEN SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DO IT. IS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO ASSIGN HER TO A DIFFERENT ROUTE. YOU CAN BET I WILL NO LONG SUPPPLY THE DART INDUSTRY WITH ANY OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY. IF THIS KIND OF STUFF CAN HAPPEN THEN WHEN DO WE PLAN ON PUTTING PRAY BACK IN OUR SCHOOLS AND A SIGN PROFESSING OUR LOVE FOR OUR SAVIOR. I KNOW I WILL BE IN ETERNALLY HEAVEN ARE YOU. CAN YOU GO TO BED AT NIGHT AND BE OKAY WITH THE DECISION THAT YOU HAVE MADE. SHE NEEDS TO BE REINSTATED AND IT NEEDS TO BE DONE PROMPTLY. TY AND GOD BLESS EVERYONE. I PRAY I WILL SEE YOU ALL IN HEAVEN AS WELL...
What is that person trying to say?
Posted by: flippertie | August 20, 2009 3:07 AM
@RamblinDude
That shook me and gave me a real 'blip in the matrix' moment of looking at myself from a fundie's point of view.
It's the *exact* parallel of the rants you find on religionist sites describing atheists, how "deep down ... where the truth really exists ... atheists know that god exists ... thats why they're so shrill/terrified/angry/defensive"
And every time I read a version of that I get pissed off at the arrogance of the writer for presuming to understand what goes on in my mind, and their blindness at being unable to comprehend that I really, truly, do not worry about their imaginary friend.
In the past i'd probably have agreed with you - that surely at some level they have to know they're wrong. Now I'm just worried at a deeper level. :/
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
August 20, 2009 3:14 AM
@Allytude, it is to the left of the image of the bus ad in the article linked to in PZ's post.
I.e. the line Vote: DART Driver's Suspension
Note that the vote is a popup so if you have popups blocked you will need to allow them at least temporarily.
Posted by: John Morales | August 20, 2009 3:15 AM
Psychodigger @133, at the risk of answering a rhetorical question, I think that person (in their tortured and ungrammatical posting) thinks they are addressing the Des Moines Regional Transit Authority, is claiming double-standards for tolerance of Christians and secularists, contends that the driver's behaviour was justified, is stating they will boycott the bus service because of this action, is urging a rescission of the disciplinary action, and closes with an expression of piety.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 20, 2009 3:21 AM
Karol.
BUZZ
Wrong!
Try again, dumbass!
Comparing the declaration of one's atheism to declaring that a section of the population should be murdered is not the same. Unless you think the belief in god is equivalent to the desire to murder.
Posted by: Jerad | August 20, 2009 3:28 AM
All of this outrage presumes the reader of the ad answers yes to the "Don't believe in god?" question.
Posted by: latsot
|
August 20, 2009 3:29 AM
I seem to remember that the London bus driver who complained about the signs was sent home for the day then moved to another route that didn't carry the signs. I guess his boss just wanted a quiet life.
Posted by: Fil
|
August 20, 2009 3:47 AM
Man, I really don't want to post on this thread. But we are about to get the Atheist buses here in Tasmania and I just know some dumb fuck is going to kick up a stink here too.
Look, she's within her rights to say she's upset by the ads (mild as they are). I'm not going to go ape on her about that. Jesus, just put her on another bus already. Some people simply can't handle threats to their world views very well. Blame the system, our own evolution or whatever, but picking on someone you don't know because she is upset is maybe a bit rat-packish.
Then again she could be a manipulative bitch who knows exactly what she is up to, along with her co-religionists.
I...don't...know.
Meh. Whatever, if it happens here, I'm going to use a bus for the first time in ages and cause a stink by wearing all sorts of provocative godless clothing (and make sure I ring then papers and the TV stations first).
Stick it right up the Christian Taliban.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 20, 2009 3:51 AM
I suppose that, if this guy is against junk food, he refuses to drive his bus whenever McDonald's advertise?
Posted by: flippertie | August 20, 2009 3:51 AM
Re Karol #122
Having re-read Karol's splurge I think it may be trying to suggest that the driver wasn't refusing to drive because she's a weak-faithed religious bigot.
Instead he's raising the possibility that she refused to drive because she has a legitimate concern that driving around a sign acknowledging the existence of atheists might lead to her being attacked by other weak-faithed religious bigots.
He seems to have missed the bit where she refused because "the message is against her Christian faith,".
Nice try. Appeal denied. Fail.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2009 4:00 AM
It's the *exact* parallel of the rants you find on religionist sites describing atheists, how "deep down ... where the truth really exists ... atheists know that god exists ... thats why they're so shrill/terrified/angry/defensive"
worry no more.
all you've noticed is the obvious:
this is projection of their own fears outwards. It's a common defense mechanism, and almost universal amongst creationists.
The take home message should be that indeed, religiosity in these people is merely a symptom of an underlying psychological malady.
It's possible that the way they were raised has a lot to do with it, but it could have been any cultish social structure meme, not just religion itself, that caused the extreme levels of dissonance these people now deal with.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2009 4:05 AM
and closes with an expression of piety.
well, I think this:
I PRAY I WILL SEE YOU ALL IN HEAVEN AS WELL...
translated, is one of those "you are all going to hell, but I will pray for you anyway" messages.
secondary translation:
aka the xian curse.
proper response:
thankyou, fuckyou very much too!
Posted by: flippertie | August 20, 2009 5:06 AM
@Ichthyic #143
I'm aware of the creationist tendencies to project their fears. What gave me pause was seeing RamblinDude use the same 'argument' against the creationists.
When the creationists claim that atheists 'must really at some deep level believe in god' I get angry at their arrogance and small minded inability to accept the reality of a world view that's so different from their own.
Yet when RamblinDude claimed that creationists 'must really at some deep level know god doesn't exist' I just agreed with him and moved to the next comment.
It was only little while later that I had a WTF moment and realised I'd just seen confirmation bias at work in my own mind.
His argument is just as specious as the creationists' - even if he is standing on the rationalist side of the fence.
And that got me into a little black moment of existential despair at the futility of these posts and threads and blogs and our inability to change anyone's mind and what's the point of it all and I think I'll go and drown my pet squid.......
Posted by: ShaunOTD | August 20, 2009 5:10 AM
latsot @#139
Yes, although our ad said 'there probably is no god', which is marginally more reasonable for a xian to be offended by than merely pointing out that atheists exist. If they're really, really sensitive and lacking in faith.
(In case it's not clear from the above, I have no sympathy at all).
Posted by: foolfodder | August 20, 2009 5:28 AM
I went to the Mormon site from the news article. I got to here: http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/ask-a-question/chat-live?src=FHDVD_Happiness_FindingHappiness_728x90_10049_40344
OMFSM I'm so tempted.
Posted by: John Morales | August 20, 2009 5:35 AM
flippertie,
That's very commendable. However, you might want to reconsider your conclusion:
The form of it is similar, but the basis is different (and in each case it's a speculative claim only).
Consider: it requires faith to believe in a god (both sides agree on this), but it doesn't require faith not to believe in a god (only one side agrees with this).
Posted by: foolfodder | August 20, 2009 5:43 AM
@flippertie
I have a similar reaction when I see things like that, but in this case it's being used to try to explain baffling behaviour, rather than to defend a point of view.
Posted by: Roameo
|
August 20, 2009 6:00 AM
Yeah, I'm always a bit undecided when it comes to stealing techniques from the evangalical crowd. I mean billboard advertising and arguments that assume the other side secretly agrees with you are the kind of thing I'd usually ignore offhand as the same old fundie bullshit.
On the other hand, these billboards definitely seem to be working.
Posted by: mas528 | August 20, 2009 6:18 AM
Fil@140
Very easy to say, isn't it?, but think about the scheduling.
Could you imagine if a dispatcher had to match a bus' advertizing to the preferences of the driver?
It would add several new departments oversee both dispatching, repair, advertising sales to make sure that
1) All driver's preferences are satisfied
2) to make sure that there are enough buses that don't conflict with operator's preferences which would no longer be the sole domain of the dispatchers but now also of
3) Marketing. a) Advertising sales would, by necessity be limited to keep enough buses available for each driver's preference.
b) it would also limt which routes an ad could be on
4) Breakdowns and repairs
5) sick days and turnover
4+5 are non-linear and so would necessitate having extra, unused buses of each type.
6) What happens when, even with all that prep, there still is not a bus available for a particular driver?
Does the bus just not get dispatched? 'Attention commuters. There will be no QM1 service today. Sorry. Maybe you can get to work tomorrow.'
Posted by: Moggie | August 20, 2009 6:48 AM
I think the driver's reaction to the suspension is an important part of the story. In the version I read first (Des Moines Register), she wasn't available for comment, but her husband was whining about how unfair it is that she should be punished for not doing her job: an attitude currently endorsed by 33% of the respondents in that poll. That's have-your-cake-and-eat-it Christianity for you: I should be able to do what I like, and never face negative consequences for my actions. It's the philosophy of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum.
Posted by: Rick R | August 20, 2009 6:55 AM
"That's have-your-cake-and-eat-it Christianity for you: I should be able to do what I like, and never face negative consequences for my actions. It's the philosophy of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum."
5 will get you 20 she's also a 'publican.
Y'know, the party of personal responsibility.
Posted by: Andyman | August 20, 2009 7:19 AM
Help I've been proverbially stabbed.
I read in my local newspaper and was dismayed to read a letter stating that apparently rising crime rates and badly behaving are a result of evolution and no xtianity in schools. What's happened to personal responsibility as a parent to teach your kids right from wrong.
Posted by: alextangent | August 20, 2009 7:39 AM
Nothing new here; it happened in the UK at the start of the year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7832647.stm
Posted by: Jeff
|
August 20, 2009 7:49 AM
It's the philosophy of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum.
That's the cognitive level at which they're operating.
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 20, 2009 8:19 AM
"Crazy bus driver"
I think it's fair to say all Christians are crazy. A person has to be nuts to believe what Christians believe. For example the resurrection of Jeebus is the most disgusting idiotic religious myth ever invented, but even moderate Christians believe it.
I noticed the poll (see #3) has been fixed, but it wouldn't hurt to fix it some more.
I doubt an atheist bus driver would refuse to drive a bus with a Christian death cult ad, so yes, this Christian idiot should be fired.
Posted by: XD | August 20, 2009 8:23 AM
#58
A new intake of 'PhD' students from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary?
Posted by: Rickety Cricket | August 20, 2009 8:31 AM
Did anyone notice the comment in support of the bus signs on the video?
"If these churches can put up signs representing their religion, then other organizations should have the 'allowability' to have...not churches."
Great.
Posted by: MattB | August 20, 2009 8:45 AM
Before you all go pollcrashing, isn’t there another dimension to the issue? Call me a communist if you will, but I’d rather that workers had some sort of rights and control over their lives and were treated as autonomous human beings. The bosses of a company shouldn’t have a right to fire their workers every time they raise a grievance – even if that grievance isn’t, by their (or our) lights, rational.
Posted by: toth | August 20, 2009 8:53 AM
Yeah, I can't understand what anyone could find offensive in that ad. I mean, I could see it if the ad said "Don't believe in God? Good, that means you don't pretend to be a vampiric cannibal every Sunday" but this is about as innocuous as an ad can get.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 20, 2009 8:55 AM
This is not a case of simply raising a grievance, but of an employee refusing to do her job. The reason given for failing to do so is very pertinent and in this instance the reason is totally inadequate.
Posted by: toth | August 20, 2009 9:01 AM
@158: "A new intake of 'PhD' students from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary?"
Or perhaps Harvard University?
Posted by: toth | August 20, 2009 9:03 AM
@160: "Before you all go pollcrashing, isn’t there another dimension to the issue? Call me a communist if you will, but I’d rather that workers had some sort of rights and control over their lives and were treated as autonomous human beings. The bosses of a company shouldn’t have a right to fire their workers every time they raise a grievance – even if that grievance isn’t, by their (or our) lights, rational."
You think people should be allowed to refuse to do their jobs?
Posted by: speedwell | August 20, 2009 9:22 AM
Hm, I imagined myself as a Christian again and in the same position. How could the request have gone?
Speedwell: Boss, can I talk to you for a minute? You've assigned me the bus with the atheist sign, and I have to tell you that as a Christian I'm very uncomfortable with that. It makes the company look like it's against religion, and since I am a representative of the company, it makes me look like I share those views. What if one of the riders assumes I'm anti-Christian, because of the sign, and tries to harass me for it? I just don't feel good about this. Could you please assign me a different bus?
Manager: Well, I understand how you feel, but the ads are just ads that we sell, not messages from the company. We've sold ads for many other churches, organizations, and businesses--even for beer and cigarettes--and I don't recall you complaining about most of those. Now, we have a schedule to keep, and there's a convention in town, and you're going to be late if you don't go on and get to work.
Speedwell: Well, OK, I guess I can just tell people that I don't agree with the sign.
Manager: I think it would be better if you didn't mention it at all. If you think you're being harassed because of it, call me before you confront the rider. Have a good day.
Speedwell: OK.
I'm having trouble understanding how a halfway reasonable person could make such a big deal out of all this. Probably that's my Achilles heel... I keep expecting people to be halfway reasonable....
Posted by: speedwell | August 20, 2009 9:26 AM
fekuckteh HTML...
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 20, 2009 9:39 AM
The bosses of a company shouldn’t have a right to fire their workers every time they raise a grievance – even if that grievance isn’t, by their (or our) lights, rational.
I think there's a big difference between a grievance and a refusal to do the job a person is paid to do. Also, it would not be fair to the other bus drivers to change schedules just to accommodate a childish idiot.
Posted by: Conor H. | August 20, 2009 9:42 AM
Is Karol honestly trying to say that Des Moines, Iowa is such a rough, fanatically Christian place that it is physically dangerous to drive a public bus with an Atheist slogan on the side of it?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 20, 2009 9:46 AM
In some circumstances, yes.
If, for example, the woman thought the bus was unsafe then she should be allowed to refuse to drive it, and not be penalised for failing to do so. Of course a bus having an atheist advert on the side is not a good reason for refusing to drive the bus.
Posted by: Moggie | August 20, 2009 9:47 AM
#165:
You know... she probably would get some passengers ranting to her about her godless bus. But that pretty much goes with the job: you're interacting with the public all day, and some of them are crazy, while others want to take out their grievances (fares, schedules, routes etc) on you, because you're the representative of the company immediately to hand. As a frequent bus passenger, having witnessed many rants (both sane and insane), I can say that drivers need to be either thick-skinned or very diplomatic. If she really can't cope with the occasional complaint on this subject, I doubt she can cut it as a driver.
Posted by: Tassie Devil | August 20, 2009 9:48 AM
I can't wait till they start running these ads in Tasmania.
I'm spoilin', just spoilin'...
Posted by: speedwell | August 20, 2009 9:57 AM
Moggie, I totally agree with you. I think the closest analogy I can think of is maybe if the bus had a Presidential election campaign ad on it, and the driver was for the opposing candidate. A driver could probably expect to have it made the topic of conversation for the day, and even expect to have to deal with unreasonable people who wanted to make it a bone of contention.
Posted by: raven | August 20, 2009 10:35 AM
The unreasonableness of the xian fundie bigot is obvious.
What if an atheist bus driver refused to drive a bus with an ad for a church?
They would be lucky to get fired. In times past before the governments stepped in, they would be at some risk of burning at the stake, stoning to death, or being hung.
For a lot of fundies, religious tolerance and multiculturalism are evil concepts. They don't want tolerance, they want to rule and discriminate.
Posted by: raven | August 20, 2009 10:41 AM
The areligious aren't rare in the USA anymore, thanks to the fundies.
The nunbers run around 20% of the population and growing rapidly. This is 60 million people. That would make them one of the three top denominations with the fundies and the leader, the RCC.
The fundies are all pretty dumb but the leaders know they are rapidly losing adherents. 7 of 10 kids leave the churches at adulthood. One day they are going to wake up and find out that no one cares about their cultural dead end anymore.
Posted by: robinsrule | August 20, 2009 10:54 AM
Atheists present a threat because they don't acknowledge an imaginary alpha male who is seen as the primal lawgiver. I suspect the bus driver would not be offended by passengers of other religions, since they also believe in an imaginary control structure.
Posted by: Beige | August 20, 2009 10:54 AM
Well, that's one more reason to avoid public transport and use my genetically engineered landsquid as a means of transport.
Posted by: heliobates | August 20, 2009 11:16 AM
But having atheist-friendly advertising on a bus is like not painting lambs blood on the lintel. The Rapture is imminent.
How's God gonna recognize his own if she's flashing the wrong gang signs?
Posted by: stogoe | August 20, 2009 11:20 AM
There was a guy with a picket sign out this morning as I walked through the bus plaza. "I believe in God and I love him! It all seemed so desperate.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | August 20, 2009 11:36 AM
@ 160:
Well, California is an at-will state, so people can get fired for any reason, technically.
Posted by: whitebird | August 20, 2009 11:57 AM
Poll's at 67% for suspending.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 20, 2009 11:59 AM
Flippertie #134 and #145:
In the past i'd probably have agreed with you - that surely at some level they have to know they're wrong. Now I'm just worried at a deeper level. :/
And...
It was only little while later that I had a WTF moment and realised I'd just seen confirmation bias at work in my own mind.
Good. I don’t want people simply to agree with me. I want them to see this for themselves. And I think you should be worried.
For me, it’s obvious that religious belief is all contained within the arena of thought. If a memory-erasing ray were to pass over the earth today, and wipe all scientific and religious knowledge from our memories (and destroy all external physical documentation and other evidence) the laws of nature wouldn’t change. We would still have the capacity to rediscover the properties of the world and figure out how to make airplanes and microscopes. All the gods we currently worship, on the other hand, would disappear forever. They are constructed solely out of our thoughts, and they exist only within our minds.
I think, deep down, everyone knows this, but we are trained to spend our entire lives blurring the line between imagination and reality. We are trained to be preoccupied with, and cling to, traditions of thought — images, rituals, ideologies of all kinds, not just religious — and to give them greater weight than they deserve. We create elaborate structures of thought and then live our lives confined within them. If we are to be rational (and survive as a species), however, we’re going to have to work much, much harder at discerning the difference between the real world and play-pretend.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 20, 2009 12:05 PM
True from our perspective, but it's clear that the bus driver and others like her feel the exact opposite: they (and we) are all going to face the consequences of action the great hereafter, thus she had no choice but to refuse to drive the bus, or be boiled in fire by her loving god forevermore. See the link Dale posted in #88.
Allytude wrote in #131:
I'm going to hazard a guess that it's because they're Protestants and thus land squarely on the faith side of the faith vs. works issue. (It's also why so many of them are fucking assholes, too, though many of the Catholics who've posted here have shown themselves to be no better.) You see, it's only if you think God grants salvation based on works (ie he lets noble heathens into heaven) that you feel your spot in the afterlife is forever precarious and you're always worrying whether this charitable donation or that time you helped a little ol' lady cross the street outweighs the lascivious thoughts you had about Lisa Turtle on Saved by the Bell. For pure works-ists, being persecuted for your beliefs is a huge score, a massive gold star in God's little black exercise book. It's those who believe that God grants salvation to those who keep Jesus in their heart and loaded revolver in their glove compartment who feel they're entitled to a life free from non-Christians both on Earth and in heaven.
Nonetheless, it is baffling that so many of the religious posting here complain about being insulted and called names. I mean, you'd think at least one of 'em would have come across somebody who can read Matthew 5:11-12* to them, wherein they're actually told to rejoice in being called fucktards for Jesus.
*For the Christians reading this, Matthew 5:11-12 are lines from the Sermon on the Mount, a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus when he began to preach: 11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
Heliobates wrote:
So true. The motherfucker's either blind as a bad or is absolutely terrible with names and faces. I have no idea how any thinking human can reconcile Passover and prayer. If god can't tell one of his Chosen People™ from a Ra-worshipping Egyptian without visual and olfactory cues, how the hell is he supposed to know if the Strom Thurmond Middle School Titans are more deserving to win than the William Rehnquist Junior High Spartans?
Posted by: Lynne | August 20, 2009 12:14 PM
RamblinDude @ 181,
Can I put your last two paragraphs on a messenger bag? ;)
In other words, well said!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 20, 2009 12:16 PM
*Sigh* The Rev BDC's in my head. "Blind as a bad" should be read as "blind as a star-nosed mole", as "blind as a bad" makes no sense whatsoever and replacing 'bad' with a similar three-letter word naming an animal would be just wrong.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 20, 2009 12:17 PM
Lynne:
But of course!
Posted by: King of Typos | August 20, 2009 12:19 PM
success!
Posted by: memyselfi | August 20, 2009 12:29 PM
Yep, and had this been an atheist who got suspended or fired for not wanting to drive a bus emblazoned with "JESUS IS LORD!!!", you all undoubtedly would be complaining about it to no end.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2009 12:32 PM
nope.
Ok next?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 20, 2009 12:36 PM
Wrong, godbot breath. Anybody who won't do their job in such a situation should be reprimanded/fired. Most riders understand that ads are not the driver/bus company espousing anything, but are there for revenue. The driver's job is to drive the route. We understand that. Why don't you?Posted by: beige | August 20, 2009 12:37 PM
@187 - Not really, most of us would have laughed equally at how ridiculously petty that kind of reaction is.
Maybe possibly I would be able to empathise if it were an advert on the bus saying "Your bus driver is an atheist, stab them when you board the bus" but short of that, it's nothing to really get worked up about.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 20, 2009 12:46 PM
memyselfi@187
1) No; that would be grounds for firing.
2) That wouldn't happen because nowhere in the Western world is anyone other than Christians able to develop such a sense of entitlement as to expect message that go against their views not appear.
3) It's not an analogous message anyway; all this said was that non-believers exist. The analogous message would be "Think Jesus is Lord? You are not alone" but that wouldn't ever be needed because of the same Christian hegemony that causes 2.
4) No. Also.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 20, 2009 12:53 PM
Well, I might be annoyed since "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." is obviously true (there are at least two atheists in the world), whereas "Jesus is Lord" is debatable (if you doubt this, see the entire fucking history of theology), but no more annoyed than if I were to drive a bus with ads that read, "I lost 45 lbs. in 12 days and you can too!"
Anyway, why are you assholes always trying to harp on us about hypocrisy? How come you're always bitching that you should be able to act just as everyone else does, regardless of their religion? Aren't you the ones who believe your belief in God makes you better?
Way to live your beliefs, Fuckbag*.
*See Matthew 5:11-12 and rejoice. You're welcome, Fuckbag.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
August 20, 2009 1:17 PM
memyselfi projecting...
Wrong moron, we'd say that your hypothetical atheist needs to get a thicker skin. Of course being an atheist in a society filled people that see being religious as the only acceptable mode of thought, tends to give most atheists pretty think skins already. Which is why your hypothetical situation isn't what is being discussed.
Others have already pointed out your hypothetical's lack of equivalency to the actual situation
Just because you want to think of yourself as being persecuted just because there are people in your society that think you're wrong (Gasp! Shock! Horror! Swoon!) doesn't meant that you are actually being persecuted.
The bus driver and you (memyselfi) need to grow up. The world is changing, and little by little it's (slowly) outgrowing the need for that particular brand of superstition. Get used to it.
Posted by: Texas Reader | August 20, 2009 1:19 PM
Wanna bet she doesn't refuse to drive it when Hooters ads or other objectification ads are on it?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 20, 2009 1:50 PM
karol, demonstrating that religon leads to insanity @ #122:
So, karol, you are incapable of understanding the difference between questioning the existence of your imaginary friend and advocating mass murder. A sane person would be able to grasp that a sign merely noting the clear and undisputable fact that atheists exist is a lot different than a sign calling for the brutal killing of millions of people. But then, it's obvious you AREN'T a sane person. Your religious delusions have destroyed your mind.
You also apparently think that your fellow cultists would murder a person merely because they drove a bus with an ad on it noting that there exist people who don't believe in the invisible tyrant in the sky. What does this say about christians? The term "death cult" is pretty appropriate here.
And of course in trying to pretend there is a personal safety issue here, you completely ignore that the driver's own stated reason for refusing to drive the bus was that she objected to the ad on religious grounds. She mentioned no personal safety issue. You're making shit up. As your cult does often. Isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 20, 2009 1:53 PM
Stogoe [#178],
That so makes me want to make a sign that says "I, too, have an imaginary friend!" so I can demonstrate along with religious demonstrators. It should fit all occasions.
Posted by: bcoppola | August 20, 2009 1:59 PM
I really am shocked - yes, shocked! - at the lack of empathy shown here toward that poor oppressed public servant.
I myself know what she's going through. After all, the many beer-centric posts here (most notably in the Burgess Shale anniversary thread) offend my beverage sensibilities* mightily. So insulted and oppressed am I by the lager, ale, and porter bigots** here that I have often considered leaving in a snit and taking my insightful comments elsewhere.
And yet...the bad puns (Burgess Shale thread again) and inspired snark keep...pulling...me...BACK!!
---
*Wine, cider (when I can find it), the occasional neat bourbon.
**And don't get me started on the whole cephalopod thing. What kind of mammals are you, anyway!?!
Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 20, 2009 2:04 PM
I would say, based on demographics, that dozens if not hundreds of atheist bus-drivers quietly drive buses carrying pro-religion signs to bus shelters carrying pro-religion signs every day.
I second what Zetetic wrote.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 20, 2009 2:28 PM
Yep, and had this been an atheist who got suspended or fired for not wanting to drive a bus emblazoned with "JESUS IS LORD!!!", you all undoubtedly would be complaining about it to no end. - memyselfi
Well, why don't you point us to an instance of that (or anything sufficiently similar) happening, so your claim can be tested?
What's that you say? No such thing ever happens, so you can't, so it's unfair to ask the question? Ah. I see.
Posted by: noodles | August 20, 2009 2:33 PM
Already happened in Minneapolis and elsewhere:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/10/31/muslim-cabbies-want-to-discriminate-against-customers.htm
Posted by: raven | August 20, 2009 2:34 PM
Naw. Xian centric ads are so uniquitous, the driver probably wouldn't notice or care.
There are some at the top of this blog right now thanks to google ads and their clueless algorithms.
A few have complained, most just ignore them
Posted by: Phil | August 20, 2009 3:22 PM
Suspension is too weak, fire her.
Posted by: McMurphy | August 20, 2009 3:40 PM
[quote]Yep, and had this been an atheist who got suspended or fired for not wanting to drive a bus emblazoned with "JESUS IS LORD!!!", you all undoubtedly would be complaining about it to no end.[/quote]
You do know that the initial atheist bus campaign started because of the massive preponderance of adverts for the alpha course on London buses?
Posted by: Sarah | August 20, 2009 4:34 PM
UPDATE: One protestor with the sign that says "I believe in god and I love him!" Has been spotted walking around downtown Des Moines. It was posted here this afternoon: http://www.kcci.com/news/20479039/detail.html
Now I'll have to tune in to the 5 pm news and see if he's on there. ^_^
Posted by: Samantha | August 20, 2009 4:48 PM
And some of us screen-cap them to giggle at later!
Honestly, I WOULD be irritated if "an atheist got suspended or fired for not wanting to drive a bus emblazoned with "JESUS IS LORD!!!"" but not if he REFUSED to drive the bus. That's the big difference and what a lot of those who are ever so appalled aren't getting. Having an issue with an ad and even discussing that issue with your boss is one thing, and although we may think her issue is silly, I don't think there's any of us who would take away her right to have it and express it. However, refusing to do your job out of moral indignation IS more than reason enough for being fired, never mind just suspended, however wrong or right that moral stance may seem (or even actually be)
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 20, 2009 5:01 PM
Suspension is too weak, fire her. - Phil
That's what the churches used to say about witches and "heretics", when they had the power - but they meant - hanging is too merciful, burn her alive!
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 20, 2009 5:45 PM
I'd like to make one simple observation:
It appears that due to these bus-side ads even xtian strongholds such as Des Moines, IA are being exposed to atheists and reality-based thinking which, just a few short years ago, was literally unthinkable in that setting.
I tumultuously applaud all the Iowa Atheists and Free Thinkers! You people are huge rockers!
Additionally, I urge others here to follow their example...and similar examples in London, UK and elsewhere. Yes, it appears that through continued action, we can expose and overcome these raucous memes and restore some sanity to our world.
If you can't get something started in your area, then maybe contribe what you can to the people who have it truly going on:
http://www.iowaatheists.org/drupal/
Posted by: Kate from Iowa | August 20, 2009 5:52 PM
Protestors down on Walnut, atheist ads I'll never see out here on Ingersoll...ah, some days I really miss transferring from bus to bus downtown.
Of course, then DART runs somebody else over as they're driving past one of Principal or Wells Fargo's buildings...
Whoever's in Des Moines, we should have a meetup and bus ride sometime! (Too bad we can't eat on the busses, I'd bring cake *but the cake is a lie!*)
Posted by: AVSN | August 20, 2009 6:43 PM
nigel at 105: unimpressed
P@ 109: not evading anything, I HAVE A LIFE, I was offline.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 20, 2009 7:10 PM
Winos are wimps. The Brown Dog forevah!
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | August 20, 2009 9:39 PM
Silly x-tians.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 20, 2009 9:59 PM
flippertie:
There’s another aspect to this that’s important. I don’t think it matters whether the arguments at the religionist sites parallel ours (mine) or not. What’s important is whether or not we are being truthful. Being truthful is our strength, and when I say that deep down everyone knows that the personification of god they worship doesn’t really exist, I’m not just throwing creationists arguments back at them. That really is the way I see it. Have you ever been in a near collision or some other moment of emergency? At that moment, when we’re taken by surprise, when there’s no time to think and reflexes take over and there is only reacting, we’re fully alive. Every sense is alert and adrenaline surges. It’s only later that we have the luxury of thinking about it and putting the event in some elaborate context created by thought. If we’re Christians, we imbue the event with Christian thinking, thanking Jesus for saving our lives. If we’re Muslims, we praise Allah, etc. It’s my assertion that we all know that this mental energy is extraneous, that what’s really going on in life has nothing to do with the images of the supernatural we hold close. It’s also my assertion that our brains have that awareness our entire lives, even when that awareness gets stomped on and smothered under a stack of bibles—which is exactly the intent of fundamentalism.
When I say religious fundamentalism trains people to be afraid of not being preoccupied with Jesus (or whatever), I’m not just making shit up. It’s a statement of fact. I’ve heard many sermons exhorting true believers to keep Jesus in their hearts at all times to prevent evil thoughts from entering. I’ve heard preachers condemn meditation exercises as dangerous, because a mind that is empty—and not preoccupied with Jesus—is fertile ground for the devil to come in a take over. I’ve heard preachers say that if you’re not thinking of Jesus at the moment of the rapture you’ll be left behind. The intent of much of religion, especially evangelical fundamentalism in this country, is not to follow the golden rule to make the world a better place, or even to do good works to get into heaven, but to convince people to be preoccupied with Jesus, to spend all their lives being subservient and happy about it—and to be afraid of not being preoccupied with God.
This is not a specious argument; it is a fact. We can’t stop pointing this out just because they turn around and say that we’re the ones who are afraid. If we need to evolve our arguments to compensate for the feedback noise then so be it, but the message, the facts, still need to be heard.
Posted by: flippertie | August 21, 2009 11:06 AM
@RamblinDude,
I wasn't really taking issue with your argument - more poking at myself for being in cruise mode with my critical faculties switched off.
FWIW - I think you're probably right in most cases. Any person who's given the idea of religion any clear thought at all has to have entertained some doubts sureley...
I'm from a Brit background where religion was a quiet sort of Christianity that people pretty much kept to themselves. Something like a slightly weird hobby - (imagine someone who obsessively collected used sweet wrappers without washing them). Nothing really wrong with it, but you wouldn't shout about it or people might start avoiding you....
I can still remember my astonishment when I met my first real honest-to-god 'merkin YEC evangelical : "you mean there really are people, intelligent functioning adult people, who take this stuff literally? You're joking right?"
I still have a hard time with that...
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
August 21, 2009 2:47 PM
I'm from a Brit background where religion was a quiet sort of Christianity that people pretty much kept to themselves.
I can only marvel. Here in the land of Guns and God, group psychosis is a major industry. We’ve almost imploded from it.
Posted by: Butterbean | August 21, 2009 3:04 PM
I'm a Brit too and I felt exactly the same way when I met a real live American creationist a few months ago. Incredulity. But we do have a few native ones over here - there's an organisation called Christian Voice, and they're not up to the standards of your very best nutters, but not that far off either. (I also bet a pound to a bucket of mud that they're being funded pretty well by American loons - just a hunch.)
wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Voice_(UK)
Posted by: from dm | August 21, 2009 5:00 PM
I live in Des Moines, and I ride the bus a lot. I know the driver in question. I don't want to see her fired, but I think she's wrong. I don't get offended when she (or other) bus drivers say things like "God Bless" or "have a blessed day" when I get off the bus. I accept it in the spirit she (or they) means it. One thing that does strike me as odd though is that she doesn't object to the profusion of ads from Prairie Meadows (the local racetrack/casino) on the busses. Many of the opponents of gambling in Iowa do so from a religious perspective. I really have to wonder what her church thinks of gambling and why its ok to drive around advertising gambling.
Posted by: Iowan Atheist | August 21, 2009 6:38 PM
DART bus drivers are pretty dumb on the by-and-by. I'm not sure if you've read the stories about DART before the atheist fallout, but DART buses have to honk at each corner now, because the drivers got into the habit of flattening pedestrians.