Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

Originally posted by machinegun_go_go
Liquid Mirage,

I do acknowledge his viewpoint. I just think it's wrong for him to not work because of the slogan.

It's wrong.

And thanks for the personal attack about my IQ. Much appreciated.

What is an artichoke, anyway?

:-)

No.
It is not wrong.
It is the freedom of choice to do what one feels is right.
Do you think you have the right to force somebody to drive around a rolling billboard that goes against their beliefs?

Seems to me that you really have no concept of what wrong is.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Nirgal

 

"I guess this means an atheist can refuse to drive the myriad buses that advertise various London churches. "

No.

They admit they don't have a soul and so are in no danger of eternal hellfire and torture where your guts are ripped out by satan and you are boiled in the Lake of fire etc.... for all eternity.

Ah. Since you put it that way, it sounds quite nice. All eternity you say? I finally see what us heathens are missing.

Originally posted by machinegun_go_go

This is outrageous. The man should should be fired or suspended. It is his job to drive the bus - not pass judgement on the advertisements it carries.

I can imagine what would happen if I turned up to work one day and refused to do my job based on what someone thought or said or wore!

Christians - literally - get away with murder just because of their religion.

Sickens me that nothing appears to has happened to this man.

Why can some people not even acknowledge alternate viewpoints?

Why on earth should his employers even consider going out of their way to pander to his notions of offending his imaginary friend?



Peace,

MGGG

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 16-1-2009 by machinegun_go_go]

Whatever dude, this guy is lucky this got publicized in the media though, so he can easily get away with it, also this happened in the uk? If this happened in the usa, the guy would've been fired on the spot (unless it was media publicized). You are quick to judge, but athiests would probably react the same way if the bus ad said 'athiests are sub-human'. It goes both ways.

reply to post by Razimus


To be honest, if I was a sub driver and someone posted an atheists are sub human ad I'd still drive it.

Besides the ad on the bus is not offensive about anyone.

Just stating a fact.

MGGG

Besides the ad on the bus is not offensive about anyone.

Just stating a fact.

You're making an assumption and yet you have no evidence to back it up. Therefore it's not a fact.

reply to post by Razimus


Who cares what it says on the outside of the bus? Oh, feeble minded humans too scared of the real world to be without daddy watching their every move.

Just remember kiddies:-


Tolerance does not equal acceptance.

My dad works for first group Bus Company in north England. My father has done worst things to be sacked than not willing to drive a bus just because it has "no god" on it.
He has drove in to a bridge with the whole of the double Decker top coming of just because he presumed he was driving a single Decker. Crazy I know, however they let him off.
What you have to remember is, there is strong unions backing drivers and they’re very good at protecting jobs whatever the case maybe.
So, the very thought of saying "he should be sacked" is clearly imaginary because that would never happen. I do feel that this particular driver should just get on with his job instead of thinking about the no god issue. As long as he believes in god it don’t matter what his doing as a job that indicates anti god. There is many religions working for that company it only happens to be this one person out of a 100 thousand workers complaining.

Sorry for my grammar.

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by southern_Guardian

 

A private busline is neither church nor state. It is a business and a business usually caters to the majority.

Incorrect in that sense. The private busline does a service to the rest of the population for a price, it is not the businesses responsibility to cater to the personal beliefs of the individual. Just because the majority of the population is christian doesnt mean you have to be a christian as well. Its simple as that.

When you live in a country of freedom of speech and belief, that means you live by your own values, your own beliefs. If a christian does not like an ad on the bus, he or she does not have to get onto that bus, simple as that. Their right to believe what they want to believe, it is in the businesses best interests as to whether they wish to cater to those religious values, but they dont have to. As for church and state, I used that in the sense that businesses should not have to be kept down by religion unless they choose so.

This comes down to an individuals choice of values and beliefs, not what the majority are. If you want to live in law by the majority in religious values, go to Iran.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by southern_Guardian]

This guys isnt being lazy or worthless. He may have hated his job and this was the final straw. How many of the people posting here have never left a job in their lives?
Granted, he didnt quit, but he was simply saying- im not driving that bus. Im pretty sure he knew he was risking the sack.

And what is all this anti christian rhetoric being spouted out? You guys dont like your christmas holdiays? or Holy-days at all for that fact? In the UK, Christianity (protestant at least) has steadily retreated under the progression of science and politics, accepting that it cannot force anyone to believe what they dont want to. What has it got for it? A load of unsympathetic bitching aethiests seeing it as a weak target.
Stop picking on what is one of the most modern and tolerent religions we have, and focus on the more extreme religious fundamentalists from far less tolerant religions.

If the guy doesnt want to advertise nails in coffin of his own beliefs, why should he?

P.s. i am not christian.

Originally posted by Razimus
You are quick to judge, but athiests would probably react the same way if the bus ad said 'athiests are sub-human'. It goes both ways.

Actually the equivalent would be "There probably is a God!"

But I forget myself, atheists are the new "'n-word'."

Silly me

Sounds to me like he had courage, faith, conviction and conscience. Still, "Probably no God" is just a statement of gross, dull, ignorance by whoever. Likely, it prompted more people to strengthen their belief than abandon it.

Originally posted by Nammu
I work for a large internet-based company. Recently we had advertising on the site for Huntingdon Life Sciences, who experiment on animals. I'm very much against animal testing.

Do i have the right to walk out and refuse to do my job because of this?

And to Enigma Publius, the poster above who said "I mean you have to remember: this man's RELIGION, his "Holy word of God" tells him that if he denies God on Earth, then he will be denied his God in Heaven."

Sorry, but how is this HIM denying God???? I would've thought maybe his faith was a bit stronger than that? If it's not, and he truely thinks him driving a bus with this slogan somehow means that HE no longer believes in God, then perhaps he should be changing (or dumping) religion all together?

The truth is, Christians have a right to put their message across. So therefore athiests also have a right to put their message across. I've been walking past churches all my life with slogans like 'Jesus dies for your sins', 'Only the church can save you' and my favourite 'What if Jesus was right?'. The other side of the story exists, so what's the problem with slogans showing the other side? I always though one that said 'What if Jesus was wrong?' would be pretty funny and get a few people riled up.

As a hard-care free-market person, I don't look at it as "I have the right to walk off my job and not get fired...". However, this guy probably has a GOVERNMENT job. Therefore, the people theoretically (though not really) decide the workplace policy.

But either way, what is the appropriate policy? Apply the golden rule. If YOU were so offended by something you felt a moral compulsion to refrain from going to work because of the work-place's policy to support that thing, would YOU want to be able to simply walk off the job while you tried to resolve the issue with your employer? I think the answer is yes.

Also, if you were an employer, would it be more profitable to allow someone who has years of experience and does a great job to allow someone to take a leave of absence while you hash out the issue? Or would it be more profitable to spend $2,000 training a new employee because they walked off for a day or so?

Not only from the golden rule perspective should we want the person who walked off the job for moral reasons to be allowed back, but from a profit perspective it would obviously be better to allow him back as well.

The whole concept is similar how a company is doing something ethically questionable if its labor force goes on strike and it chooses to fire them all and replace them with workers who will take less pay without the complaints.

Man refuses to work in store that sells condoms because he's catholic. Man refuses to drive NASCAR car that has a military sponsor because he's a pacisfist. Man refuses to work in steak house because he's a vegetarian. Man refuses to work in movie theater because some times gay or lesbian couples go to the movies and he's a homophobe. Sound ridiculous? The same crap this guy is doing.

Wow! As an American, it's astounding that there can actually BE public transportation with an anti-religious message. This nation, or in the world as we know it, is equal (or close enough) to Iran in terms of the influence of (the PARTICULARLY dirty-stinking) monotheism in government-politics. Mind-blowing!

reply to post by Lightworth


Yes, but this is Britain where we not so keen on bothering God. Church attendences are way down, with only about 5% of people actually going to Church.

reply to post by GamerGal


"Man refuses to work in store that sells condoms because he's catholic"

Good thing we have courts for this sort of thing.

*He might actually win his case if the store started selling condoms after he was already an employee.

reply to post by Exuberant1


No he wouldn't. If a store sells some thing that is what they sell. What's next a Mormon working at a liquor store suing because they sell alcohol?

for all you unbelievably ridiculous people who scoff at this guy for standing up for his beliefs......

.....that would be the same as a bus that was advertising Child Molestation.

You would still drive the bus then wouldn't you, ......you robotic drones.

This guy is a hero for standing up to The Man.

I've had many jobs in my life and if there was ever somebody I couldn't get along with or get tired of it or didn't believe in it, I ALWAYS left there and found something else .....

I can't believe in this day and age and especially on this board that some people are against this man. Wow

Originally posted by dominicus
for all you unbelievably ridiculous people who scoff at this guy for standing up for his beliefs......

.....that would be the same as a bus that was advertising Child Molestation.

You would still drive the bus then wouldn't you, ......you robotic drones.

What is unbelievably rediculous is the notion of an advert being allowed to promote child molestation.

Your analogy is extremely flawed, thus so is the rest of your post.