Bus Boycott Because of Atheist Advertisement

[mav2097]

While watching the news last night there was a story about a sign being posted on 4 local buses. The sign says this:
"Millions of American are GOOD WITHOUT GOD"

The whole story can be found here:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2010/12/02/bus- ... thout-god/

As a nonbeliever, I have no qualms with this but some christian leaders in the area have decided to boycott the buses until the signs are removed. They have compared it to the Birmingham, AL boycott during the 60's(?).

My question is to christians:
Is it right for christian leaders to boycott these busses because of the advertisement? If so, why?

[cholland]

My question is to christians:
Is it right for christian leaders to boycott these busses because of the advertisement? If so, why?

You probably will not get too many Christians chiming in. They aught to be ashamed of their brethren's behavior. I would be.

The president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary chimed in:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/01/03/ ... t-atheism/

[mav2097]

My question is to christians:
Is it right for christian leaders to boycott these busses because of the advertisement? If so, why?

You probably will not get too many Christians chiming in. They aught to be ashamed of their brethren's behavior. I would be.

The president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary chimed in:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/01/03/ ... t-atheism/

This only confirms my suspicions that these people are ignorant. Not all christians but this particular group.

However, I do not understant this particular quote:
"These bus ads represent just how weak the atheists’ arguments really are."

If someone could explain this I would greatly appreciate it.

[McCulloch]

However, I do not understand this particular quote:
"These bus ads represent just how weak the atheists’ arguments really are."

If someone could explain this I would greatly appreciate it.

I can only speculate, but it appears as if these particular Christians completely mistake the purpose of the ads. They think that the ads are an apology for atheism, recruitment intended to win people for our cause. The intended purpose of the ads is to confirm to those who are, in fact, atheists that they are not alone and to those who are not atheists, that atheists can be good people, we are not all evil servants of Satan who will torture your children and kill kittens.

Religious liberty is a friend of the Gospel, and constraints on religious speech serve the cause of the secularists.

Here I partially agree with Albert Mohler. However, religious liberty is a cornerstone of secularism too. Secularism is the idea that public institutions should be blind to religions, neither promoting them nor suppressing them. What's next, banning the ads for the annual Salvation Army Christmas campaign? After all, the Sally Ann is a Christian denomination.

[scarlet_ladder]

I would say that this wasn't a missionary-based exercise on the part of atheists. It's more spreading awareness that atheists are out there, and we're not all big scary monsters. In fact, some might say, we can be 'good without god' (wonder where I got that one from...) Far from being tarred with the same brush as church signs, which seem to be for recruitment purposes, it is a simple fact. It sort of reminds me of Stonewall's 'some people are gay - get over it' campaign. It's just stating a fact that some people are moral, law abiding citizens, without believing in a god.

[Choir Loft]

While watching the news last night there was a story about a sign being posted on 4 local buses. The sign says this:
"Millions of American are GOOD WITHOUT GOD"

The whole story can be found here:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2010/12/02/bus- ... thout-god/

As a nonbeliever, I have no qualms with this but some christian leaders in the area have decided to boycott the buses until the signs are removed. They have compared it to the Birmingham, AL boycott during the 60's(?).

My question is to christians:
Is it right for christian leaders to boycott these busses because of the advertisement? If so, why?

I voted 'yes' to the boycott question. Here's why.

According to the straw vote results the majority of respondants voted no because they feel that the advertiser has a right to public statement.

That door swings both ways.

If the advertiser has a right to publish something offensive, then the one offended has a corresponding right to respond to it. A boycott is also a public statement.

Unless of course the issue isn't public rights at all, but some sort of hateful grudge. If a case could be made for that to be true, then the advertiser could be held liable for a hate crime. That would make things a little dicey wouldn't it?

[David 2.0]

I would go with yes because I am not a Christian.(Which was missing?)

Boycott what you want.

[Goat]

I don't see the problem with the boycott. I don't see it as realistic, because the reason people take a bus is because normally, they don't have any other form of transportation.

What should they do? Take a cab?? Buy a car and drive it? Walk? Annoy their neighbors that do have jobs?

Fort Worth is really spread out a lot. A lot of people can't get from one place to another without the bus.

Bet all those pastors calling for the boycott have their own cars.

[Choir Loft]

I don't see the problem with the boycott. I don't see it as realistic, because the reason people take a bus is because normally, they don't have any other form of transportation.

What should they do? Take a cab?? Buy a car and drive it? Walk? Annoy their neighbors that do have jobs?

Fort Worth is really spread out a lot. A lot of people can't get from one place to another without the bus.

Bet all those pastors calling for the boycott have their own cars.

Two points.

First, not being a resident of Ft. Worth I didn't know of the population reliance on the public transportation system.

Second, you're probably dead on with the remark about pastors all having cars. What would be a more appropriate response?

Probably a judicial restraining order since the public trans system is promoting offensive material......rather than a boycott that would inflict hardship upon many.

Looks like the pastors didn't think that one through.

No legal action will likely be produced since all the funding being sought by churches is used to support their bloated budgets. No room for real social action.

Bottom line is that I'm shocked to learn the pastors had the backbone to call for ANY sort of political/social action in the first place. Most of the time they're rather gutless and silent regarding that sort of thing.

[Autodidact]

Two points.

First, not being a resident of Ft. Worth I didn't know of the population reliance on the public transportation system.

Second, you're probably dead on with the remark about pastors all having cars. What would be a more appropriate response?

Probably a judicial restraining order since the public trans system is promoting offensive material......rather than a boycott that would inflict hardship upon many.

Absolutely. It's not as though we live in a democracy that protects the right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Where do those atheists think we are?

[Goat]

Probably a judicial restraining order since the public trans system is promoting offensive material......rather than a boycott that would inflict hardship upon many.

Looks like the pastors didn't think that one through.

.

Tell me, what is 'offensive about' the statement '"Millions of American are GOOD WITHOUT GOD"

Is it insulting people that are believers in God? Is it telling people they must give up their belief in God?

It is just making the statement that there are people who are moral and upright citizens without believing in God. How is that offensive?