Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus
"A Christian bus driver has refused to drive a bus with an atheist slogan proclaiming "There's probably no God".
... The advertising campaign is backed by the British Humanist Association and prominent atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins.
Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said: "I have difficulty understanding why people with particular religious beliefs find the expression of a different sort of beliefs to be offensive.
"I can't understand why some people seem to have a different attitude when it comes to atheists."
I thought it would be pretty obvious why such a campaign would always be offensive. In a way I'm surprised it was allowed, because Britain does have hate speech legislation. It all depends on HOW you express your "different sort of beliefs" - and if it's just a BELIEF, ie. a normative rather than a positive statement (ie. one that can be proven true or false by reference to facts you can objectively measure), then you really shouldn't be surprised if those of a different belief group decide they aren't going to cooperate with you or be nice to you.What would happen if I decided I was going to pay for an ad campaign to run on buses that said: "Cina Balik Tongsan" (Chinese Go Home) - in the Malaysian or Singaporean context - or, taking a religious (NOT ethnic) example: "Jews / Muslims /Hindus / Buddhists / Have Got it All Wrong, It PROBABLY Ain't Kosher - Come to Church on Sunday", or, perhaps, "The Law is an Ass - **Don't** Follow Law"??
The only reason why this British Humanist Association statement, which I found quite silly, was made: "some people seem to have a different attitude when it comes to atheists" - is because the atheist concerned doesn't consider religion to be an important part of a person's character or life makeup. It's a typical, insensitive, one-angled, not well thought-through kind of attack on other belief systems.
It's not different, in my view, from wondering why slagging the law off would offend lawyers, or slagging Chinese off would offend people who are Chinese, or slagging Judaism off would offend Jews.
Maybe the ad is some kind of joke, or half-joke - in which case, and this wouldn't be new, one person's joke is simply another's insult.
For instance, I'll always remember the year Andrew Leci performed at the Bar Council's Annual Dinner. His act was FULL of lawyer jokes, and by the time the end of the show was reached nobody was laughing, even politely.
I also remember Al Gore's Reformasi speech - in KL, as an invited guest of the Malaysian government, at APEC - when he was still the vice president.
Maybe Al thought he wasn't offending anybody except corrupt power-abusing politicians, but a lot of ordinary Malaysians got mighty upset and I recall personally writing and circulating a long email post "gor-ing" Gore on this, back then. One prominent Malaysian intellectual even took out a full-page advertisement in the newspapers on his own account to condemn our "good friend" Al from America.
7 comments:
So do you agree that all the thousands of billboards that (in various ways) state that god does exist are also offensive to atheists?
You think that saying there is probably no god is offensive and that you think it should be banned under hate laws? Why don't you take the BHA to court, then?
To Brian Westley: of course yes, I say that billboards that say that God does exist are offensive to atheists. But here the driver who believes God does exist was basically being required to help propagate the message that God does Not. Viewers of billboards may be offended, but they aren't being asked to cooperate in the dissemination of the message. Atheist billboard contractors would, in my view, be acting perfectly reasonably to decline to put up a God Exists billboard.
To Zeno: I would, except that, among other things (such as, I don't feel so bad about it that I would bother spending the time and money) - I'm not British...
Come to think of it, hmmm, since I haven't actually checked the relevant legal provisions I'd want to qualify that last comment to say I'm not saying I'd have a chance of winning if I could and did sue. But what's not illegal isn't thereby not immoral, it's just not immoral enough in that particular society to be illegal.
LawMan, I appreciate your reply.
Can you tell me what exactly you think is offensive about saying "There is probably no god" and whether it is as offensive as placards saying 'Death to infidels' or 'God hates fags'?
Are you now saying you think the atheist bus advert was only immoral and not illegal?
Paul
Thanks for your comment.
I'm interested in trying to understand what does and what does not cause offence and why. As an atheist, do I find adverts proclaiming the only righteous way is through Jesus or that I'm going to hell unless I believe in him? I find them frequently trite and they occasionally insult my intelligence, but I don't find them offensive as such - certainly not in the same way religionists seem to find anything that even merely hints that religion might be mistaken.
That's what I don't understand: atheists are bombarded with religious adverts that tell us we're wrong, so what is it that is wrong with adverts that tell religionists that they (might) be wrong? It's been said before that surely Jesus/god can take it and doesn't need defending by mere mortals, but it seems some religionists can't leave it at that. I fully accept what you are saying about a 'personal god': that any 'attack (however mild) is taken personally. This is rarely what's intended. To me, these adverts attack religion, not religious people. Many atheists have the utmost respect for all people and would treat believers no differently - even if they thought their beliefs unsupported.
The advert certainly isn't illegal in the UK: it it were, so would most religious advertising. We don't quite have a level playing field in terms of religious rights - religions have a undeserved favoured and privileged position in the State and in society - but even then, this advert (I am confident) will survive all challenges. And that's how it should be in a land where free speech is upheld.
Post a Comment