Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

Originally posted by derangedinsanity
Can I just point out that a large portion of this thread had been christian bashing, christians believe christ was the son of god, the Jews believe in god as well, as do the muslims, they call him allah, remember? its all the same guy! I think this guy had the right to refuse to drive this bus if he was a devout follower of god, but where did the christian thing come into play??

[edit on 16-1-2009 by derangedinsanity]

It came into play from all the hypocrites who Christian bash on a daily basis. This is life and society. This is why there will NEVER be peace and harmony. People (all people of every race and religion) are selfish and want everything their way. People are truly undeserving and this planet needs to be taken back by what ever force people belive exist.

Christian Bashing 101. The reason they bash Christians is because they don't feel as if one will come running through their door strapped with a bomb unlike other immoral third world religions. You're all going to hell

This whole thing is ridiculous.

The least tolerant person in this situation is the bus driver.
Aren't christians supposed to be tolerant?

Though I am agnostic I've got many christian friends and I even go to church with them on occasion.

If one is secure in their faith or lack thereof there is no need for such histrionics.

Just someone looking for attention for himself and his cause imho.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
I would like to see where a 'bus driver' should sign on the dotted line that since one drives their bus, they must be a part of such absurd propaganda.

Why is it propaganda?
If this is propaganda why isn't religious advertising/preaching/proselytizing/door to door active recruitment/TV evangelism etc..
also deemed the same?

It seems to me some religious folk want to 'have it both ways' and
have utter contempt for the concept that 'tolerance is a two way street'.



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

If one is secure in their faith or lack thereof there is no need for such histrionics.

Thats a great sentence


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Atheism has become its own form of control it seems....its own religion but without God.

"Self-Control"....that's a GOOD thing!

And don't you mean the right to NOT have to follow a religion and the freedom to discuss it without automatic oppression from those who do?

No its not self-control. They want to control others too. They control by spouting there belief and using the man made mistakes religions have done for control and turning that around for its own agenda and control.

I believe completely in self-control I am a Pagan and walk my own path thank you very much my belief has been hunted down by religion more than any other. We got burned at the stake! I think atheists want to control others by trying to make them have doubt about there own path and that is not self-control that is trying to control others.

Why else would someone pay for an advertisement that places a doubt about God? My father was an atheist I know what makes them tick, its from having religion shoved up there arses and now it looks like they think turn about is fair play.

I consider myself to be mostly christian, with some other beliefs thrown in the mix, but thats besides the point.

From a christian perspective, I have no problem with this advertisement. Who cares what other people think? Your beliefs are your own, and if something written on the side of a bus offends you, then you have larger problems going on.

So this guy quits his job because he doesnt like whats written on the side of the bus? Come on... So I guess if he was a vegetarian and there was a McDonalds ad for a Big Mac he would probably quit then as well.

I am thoughtful of ALL religions, and believe each one has a equal oppertunity to express their beliefs. For this guy to quit his job over something like this, is only showing that he has no tolerance to any other beliefs other then what he thinks is the end-all-be-all.

Like people have said before, its not his job to pass judgement on the ad. Its his job to drive the bus. And now, since he quit under his own accord, he also should not be privy to unemployment benefits. He had a job, he forfieted it, he knew what he was doing.

The kingdom of heaven is in YOU - not on a side of the bus. And I use heaven loosely, as a term that all religions can relate to. We try so hard to be so politcally correct these days its pathetic.

"One nation, under God.. wait, no, thats offensive.. probably God... wait, no, that offends someone too.. Oh the hell with it - One nation. Indivisible. With predjudice and hatred for all."

Hi karl,

I do see it as propaganda from BOTH sides of the tale, not just one. As Im learning, it was the religious group that began it with their propaganda and then the atheist just followed suit for their own taking. The company that runs these buses should be ashamed of themselves. Both advertisements were personal views and should not of been displayed in a public way. The bus driver got the short end of the stick.

I wouldnt expect someone who didnt believe in a God to drive a bus promoting Gods existence, just as so the same with the man who does believe and would not like to be a part of something going against his own grain. Thats all...I dont think a belief should be displayed in a manner like that, on either side of the belief.

LV

Some say, if your secure in your faith, then you shouldnt have a problem with driving the bus either way.

Well Im assuming the man didnt throw away a job because he wasnt pretty damn sure about his faith.

This actually shows how sure footed he must feel about his faith.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo

This actually shows how sure footed he must feel about his faith.

Not really.

But I'm willing to agree to disagree and hope that it doesn't disturb my footing.

Originally posted by derangedinsanity
Can I just point out that a large portion of this thread had been christian bashing, christians believe christ was the son of god, the Jews believe in god as well, as do the muslims, they call him allah, remember? its all the same guy! I think this guy had the right to refuse to drive this bus if he was a devout follower of god, but where did the christian thing come into play??

[edit on 16-1-2009 by derangedinsanity]

Not exactly the deity Allah is actually not the same deity portrayed in the Bible even though the Quran claims they are the same entity. Most Muslims (should be all if they actually read both texts) believe the depiction of their deity in the Bible is not completely true. Furthermore most Muslims believe Allah is the proper name of their deity and find any other name for their deity offensive.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by Leto]

Well, well, well.

As a truck driver licensed with a Class A CDL in the US and 8 years of OTR experience complete with a clean MVR and no preventable accidents during that time, I have something to say on this. As a proud Christian, I have something to say on this.

When I drive a commercial vehicle, under Federal law I am in control of the vehicle and solely responsible for it. In the eyes of the motoring public, I AM the truck. If I have a wreck, no one blames my company; they blame ME. As such, I reserve the right to refuse to drive any vehicle that is either unsafe (in MY sole opinion, as dictated by Federal law) or offensive.

There are counties in Virginia where displaying words that are considered 'vulgar' on a vehicle is punishable by a fine. Guess who would pay that fine? Here's a hint: it's NOT the company who owns the truck. Therefore I would refuse to drive a truck into Virginia which contained words on it that might reasonably be considered vulgar. That is not only my right, it is my LEGAL OBLIGATION as a professional driver.

Now if I have the right (and legal duty) to refuse to drive a vehicle which may be in violation of such a law, it only stands to reason that I, as a free citizen, have the right to refuse to drive a vehicle with wording I consider offensive. This is especially true when one takes into account the fact that I am never under any legal obligation to drive anything for anybody; the decision to do so is mine.

As a Christian, I am glad this thread was posted. I now have a better idea of who the true hypocrites are at ATS. While I was aware of most, this thread has really brought out the inner intolerance of those who have replied, and that of the OP.

"We must show tolerance... unless it is us who have to be tolerant of things we despise."

"We don't hate Christians... unless they refuse to do or act or think like we want them to."

"How dare these Christians show intolerance... they should do as they are told... by us!"

Yeah, real tolerant folks around these parts...

NOT

TheRedneck

I complained last month to the Advertising standards authority (first time moaner) about the film "Zac and Miri make a porno" that was splashed across loads of London buses.
It just didnt seem right to have the words "MAKE A PORNO" on public transport and I respect the guy for taking a stand about the "No God" buses.
Keep that stuff personal,why advertise it.It's obviously going to offend people.Its a bus not an art gallery.I think they should just be red with no adverts!
Society is getting rather sleazy and shocking these days and things like this doesn't help imo.
In most newsagents now they sell Amyll nitrate,bongs,grinders,scales,sex tourist guides at the counter.
Porn is everywhere and more degrading than ever,kids are stabbing and shooting each other,teens sing about being a "slave for you",etc.......
Where is common decency,morals and respect?
Bloody hell,im ranting.I sound like my Dad! anyway,
I think the No God bus is bad and the driver is good.

As an atheist the guy is can choose to provide his labor to companies, organizations, or groups he believes in and he has the right at any time to remove his labor unless he's under contract. I think of this in this context...

As an atheist if I had a job that asked me to wear clothing proclaiming "Huzzah for Jesus" or "I have an erection for the lord". I'd not want to do it which is my right. However, the company has the right to replace me and put someone else in my place who's comfortable with their business practices.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
No its not self-control. They want to control others too.

Personally I rarely have to consider "religion" other than when confronted with it from a believer.

Defending my right not to believe in religion isn't control. It's opinion. Am I allowed to have one?

I believe in ME first and foremost. If someone doesn't like that...not my problem. I don't "spout" about it as you so kindly put it.

I am only atheistic when confronted with religion. Who engages in attempting to "Control"....not me!

Atheism is part-time for me, there is nothing to discuss 99.9% of the time, therefore it's not an issue that rules my life.

A christian on the other hand has a duty to convince non-believers 24/7.

Why else would someone pay for an advertisement that places a doubt about God?

Why would someone pay for an advertisement that places a doubt about other possibilities? Ignorant isn't it?

Do you assume all non-believers are actively engaging in fear campaigns and heated verbal onslaughts? It's just not that important to some of us who merely exercise our opinions when the occasion arises and accept there are some out there who have limited views.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Well, well, well.

As a truck driver licensed with a Class A CDL in the US and 8 years of OTR experience complete with a clean MVR and no preventable accidents during that time, I have something to say on this. As a proud Christian, I have something to say on this.

When I drive a commercial vehicle, under Federal law I am in control of the vehicle and solely responsible for it. In the eyes of the motoring public, I AM the truck. If I have a wreck, no one blames my company; they blame ME. As such, I reserve the right to refuse to drive any vehicle that is either unsafe (in MY sole opinion, as dictated by Federal law) or offensive.

A quick google search found this:
'In most truck accident cases it becomes possible to sue the truck driver's trucking company. It also depends on the relationship between the truck driver and the trucking company. If the relationship is demonstrated, the company can be held legally liable for the truck driver's negligence under a legal theory known as respondent superior, which means that the agent is responsible for the principal.'

Here's where I got that quote: www.truckaccidentlegalcenter.com...

It even makes sense. If a drunk commercial truck driver drives over a brand new Bugatti Veyron, chances are the owner of that expensive car is going to be suing that company's pants off because you wouldn't be able to get much from the truck driver anyways.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by Leto]

reply to post by TheRedneck


And exactly WHICH words would you say are "vulgar":

The christian campaign:

"will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell … Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire prepared for the devil".

The atheist campaign:

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life",

How about "condemned, torment, hell, fire" and "devil"?

Your view on the meaning of "vulgar" is rather hypocrytical don't you think.

Care to explain?


added source:here

[edit on 16/1/2009 by nerbot]

reply to post by Leto

If a drunk commercial truck driver drives over a brand new Bugatti Veyron, chances are the owner of that expensive car is going to be suing that company's pants off because you wouldn't be able to get much from the truck driver anyways.

True, a company can be sued for damages. But in your example, the trucking company will continue to exist as a trucking company; the driver will be cited for DUI and will have his/her driving privileges revoked or suspended, as well as possibly being incarcerated for vehicular homicide.

Just because some attorney got a court to agree long long ago that since drivers don't make millions of dollars and companies do, they should be able to sue the companies for damages, it does not follow that the company accepts all or even the bulk of the risk. It also does not follow that because it is possible to sue the company in such cases (bear in mind that no lawsuit is necessary to make that driver a permanent resident of the unemployment line) that somehow the driver bears no responsibility and therefore has no choice in deciding what conditions are acceptable to operate the vehicle.

It also does not follow that a driver is somehow legally obligated to 'shut up and drive the bus' if he/she has a concern, even if that concern was personal. If you worked in a factory and your employer decided that all employees were to bow to Mecca and recite a prayer five times a day, how would you feel if someone said you should just 'shut up and do as you're told'?

Moot point. Expected though. People are very adept at passing judgment in areas they have absolutely no knowledge of. Care to try again?

TheRedneck

I'm confussed?!?!

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.

Mr Heather said he was shocked at the "starkness" of the advert
"I think it was the starkness of this advert which implied there was no God."

He did not just walk out, he would have gladly done his job had there been another bus that did not have the advert on it.

I can't believe people flaming a man for standing up for something he TRULY believes in (especially on ATS). Most people are sheep or to afraid to stand up for what goodness is left (possibly why society is where it is now) - and I mean this with regard to many situations, not just 'religion'. It's no different at schools now - kids do and say as they feel because teachers dont STAND UP and say "that's wrong" and discipline them (for fear of loosing their job, being sued etc. etc. etc.).

Well done that man for being a REAL person and not a FRAUD.

reply to post by nerbot

I did not state any of the words used in this case were vulgar; I used an example of a law that controlled what could and could not be posted on a vehicle and explained how legally a precedent for a driver refusing to drive due to wording on the vehicle was established.

Gee, you are better at missing a point than I originally thought before posting.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I did not state any of the words used in this case were vulgar; I used an example of a law that controlled what could and could not be posted on a vehicle and explained how legally a precedent for a driver refusing to drive due to wording on the vehicle was established.

I'm sorry for the confusion and didn't mean to offend. I never said you "stated" which words you thought were vulgar, that's why I asked.

I was trying to understand from your point of view (as a driver) what would be considered vulgar. Who decides? You as a driver, the law, the boss?

I was pointing out that it was the christian campaign that seemed vulgar in the first place.

Apologies again, I was seeking opinion, not conflict.