Fire his Ass

[Flannel Boy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7832647.stm

A Christian bus driver has refused to drive a bus with an atheist slogan proclaiming "There's probably no God".

Ron Heather, from Southampton, Hampshire, responded with "shock" and "horror" at the message and walked out of his shift on Saturday in protest.

First Bus said it would do everything in its power to ensure Mr Heather does not have to drive the buses.

Buses across Britain started displaying atheist messages in an advertising campaign launched earlier this month.

Mr Heather told BBC Radio Solent: "I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face, my first reaction was shock horror.

"I felt that I could not drive that bus, I told my managers and they said they haven't got another one and I thought I better go home, so I did.

"I think it was the starkness of this advert which implied there was no God."

[Madrun Badrun]

"I think it was the starkness of this advert which implied there was no God."

really?  you sure it wasn't the part about enjoying life, bus driver.

[Eel O'Brian]

i bet you'd shit a dozen bricks if it were an atheist refusing to drive a bus with a religious ad and they fired him

[Flannel Boy]

i bet you'd shit a dozen bricks if it were an atheist refusing to drive a bus with a religious ad and they fired him

And how have you reached this conclusion?

Should vegetarian bus-drivers be accommodated when buses contain advertisements for Burger King? Should Hasidic Jew bus drivers be a accommodated when buses contain advertisements for Durex condoms?

oh come on, I see nothing wrong with him refusing to drive that bus in protest.

His protest might mean something if his job was actually on the line.

[Eel O'Brian]

i have reached this conclusion based on the personality you display here

[Flannel Boy]

i have reached this conclusion based on the personality you display here

Right. You have nothing. Carry on.

[Eel O'Brian]

should a reverse situation arise i guess we should be expecting a similar thread from you, then

[Bloodwake]

More importantly, the guy didn't want everyone at his church "praying for him" (aka giving him endless shit about how he's a heathen)

[Flannel Boy]

should a reverse situation arise i guess we should be expecting a similar thread from you, then

You should expect me to hold a similar position: that bus drivers shouldn't have a say on which advertisements the buses they drive carry. These ads are in response to similar theistic ads, and I don't recall any atheist bus drivers refusing the drive the buses in protest. Obviously, religious ads are the norm and atheists expect to see them. Theists, on the other hand, are horrified at mild ads that say there probably isn't a god.

[drew]

bus am jinxed total

he made a good call

[Flannel Boy]

If the vegetarian was a PETA activist, and the Jew's bus was saying something like "Hitler was right" then they'd the same thing.

Comparing a pro Nazi ad to a mild atheist ad . . . Really?  

The PETA activist is a better comparison. My thoughts are that if he feels strongly about it, he should quit.

For example I bet any religious Muslim would do the same thing, it's just very offensive to some people. By complying and agreeing to drive that bus, some would feel as they're submitting to the message.

 Such an inference, normally, would be unjustifiable. A bus driver shouldn't pick and choose what ads go on the bus he drives. A normal passenger would realize that the driver has nothing to do with what ads are placed.

[Madrun Badrun]

you know I wouldn't be surprised if there was money behind his decision.

there probably isn't a god.

That's because if (in my case) I believe that, I would not be considered a member of my religion. The rules are clear and tough.

But it has nothing to do with what one believes because it's just advertising, it's just presenting the option that you can either accept or deny.  There is nothing saying that just because you are presented with an idea that you have to accept it, or that riding or driving the bus means you accept it.  So if this has no effect on his belief there is no ground for him to not drive the bus. 

[Van Cruncheon]

in his mind, he is assisting in the spread of beliefs he considers blasphemous and dangerous. of course, he's an irrational buffoon, but the world is full of irrational buffoons. this is a pretty harmless piece of buffoonery compared to, say, GAZA.

in this case, the bus company was fine with him not driving the bus, so no harm, no foul. it's the media that's sensationalized the story.

[Brehvolution]

I bought a shirt back in the early 90's with this graphic on the left breast area.


I only got to wear it once since my mom "lost" it in the laundry.  
I didn't think it was offensive.

[Eel O'Brian]

this is pretty benign compared to my friend's wife, who refuses to have anything relating to Halloween in the house, and whom he had to talk into letting their kid have a "santa" christmas

[Flannel Boy]

No matter how much you think it's ridiculous and incomparable, to a Muslim that's like the biggest sin of all. I mean if he believed that, he becomes an apostate (since it's a deal breaker), and if he's an apostate his faces the death penalty. In other words it's a pretty big deal to them.

How is driving a bus with a mild atheist ad the equivalent of apostasy. Because the ads on the bus do not necessarily reflect the views of the bus driver, how can it been seen as a conscious rejection of Islam? Would teaching a class that includes atheist thinkers also be apostasy? Would paying taxes to a government run by an atheist prime minister or president be apostasy? I think it's silly that one can commit apostasy through acquiescence.

in his mind, he is assisting in the spread of beliefs he considers blasphemous and dangerous. of course, he's an irrational buffoon, but the world is full of irrational buffoons. this is a pretty harmless piece of buffoonery compared to, say, GAZA.

in this case, the bus company was fine with him not driving the bus, so no harm, no foul. it's the media that's sensationalized the story.

While it's not a legal precedent, it gives strength to those who believe their religious beliefs should be catered to. See pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control.

[Flannel Boy]

Silly Malek I wasn't saying that if he drove the bus he'd be an apostate, I was referring to your "there probably isn't a god" comment and how some think it's a pretty big deal.

Some people's logic goes like this: Wearing a T-shirt that says "there's probably no god" means that I believe in it, and if I believe in it then I'm an apostate.

The part where people share different opinions of is the first one. Some lenient guys would say "nah get it over it, it's just a shirt" others will say "no! as long as I have the option I should not wear it. If I wear it then I might well believe it".

In that situation, it is the person himself who chooses to wear the T-shirt. If someone chooses to wear a T-shirt with a particular message, it's not unreasonable to think that the person agrees with the message. After all, he chose to wear it. There is no such expectation here: we should realize the driver doesn't choose the ads (although the bus company is basically now saying that a driver does).

In a pluralistic society, we should tolerate different religious points of view. And that simple toleration is not the equivalent of agreement. tolerating ads on a bus is not the same as agreeing with the ads.

edit: fuckin' typos

[Madrun Badrun]

but wearing a shirt implies that it was of your will to wear it.  Driving a bus doesn't mean the advertisement was his doing.  There isn't any connection there.   

edit:  damn you malek for saying what I wanted to say faster and better!  Jerk!  I'm not driving your bus anymore!

[Flannel Boy]

I agree wholeheartedly with your post Malek, I only gave the T-shirt example because it seems like the bus driver knew he had the option of not to drive it.

It bugs me that some media outlet thought this story was worth reporting, I mean there was no action. Now if his employers fought back a little it would've more been more entertaining.

The driver may have suspected no action would be taken against him, but he didn't know that for sure.

The bus company did do something; namely, they allowed a butthurt driver to dictate what bus he drives. The company will have to allow drivers to change buses whenever they get sand in their vaginas in the future.

[Madrun Badrun]

well the thing is the advertising department shouldn't have excepted this advertisement nor the first one at all.  So they were kind of asking for trouble. 

[Flannel Boy]

well the thing is the advertising department shouldn't have excepted this advertisement nor the first one at all.  So they were kind of asking for trouble. 

Really? 

[Madrun Badrun]

accepted!  IT SOUNDS THE SAME!   :'( :'( :'(

[Flannel Boy]

accepted!  IT SOUNDS THE SAME!   :'( :'( :'(

[recursivelyenumerable]

I think a decent employer should give its employees leeway to avoid doing things they find deeply offensive, if possible, and the fact is that whether you like it or not (I don't), lots of people have deep social and emotional attachments to religion.

this is different from pharmacists refusing to prescribe birth control etc., by the way, because it's not actually depriving bus riders of service.

[Flannel Boy]

I think a decent employer should give its employees leeway to avoid doing things they find deeply offensive, if possible, and the fact is that whether you like it or not (I don't), lots of people have deep social and emotional attachments to religion.

The policy is unworkable and undesirable for an employer that must place ads on its buses to get much needed revenue, revenue which might be in jeopardy if bus drivers are allowed to throw a hissy fit whenever they believe an objectionable ad has been placed on the side of their bus.

this is different from pharmacists refusing to prescribe birth control etc., by the way, because it's not actually depriving bus riders of service.

If enough bus drivers refuse to drive these buses, bus companies might be forced to refuse such ads in the future, depriving the British Humanist Association of a public form of advertising that has been available to religious groups for many years without any protest.

[Diunx]

That sounds like something very idiotic to do in this economic weather.

[drohne]

does this mean that bus drivers implicitly endorse everything advertised on their buses

next time i see a bus with an l4d ad should i flag it down and be like 'the demo sucked and i hate you'

[Eel O'Brian]

if you thought l4d sucked you should flag that bus down from the front end