Remember earlier this month when I blogged about atheists in Britain who were promoting atheism through bus ads? Well, according to the Washington Post, Christian groups in the UK are fighting back with their own ads, and as usual, the organized religious leaders are fighting dirty without regard for ethics or fair play.
Thousands of people in Britain recently raised $200,000 to place an ad on 800 London buses that reads: “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Now, just as that campaign has ended, the Christian Party is putting up its response: “There definitely is a God.” The Russian Orthodox Church’s bus ad reads: “There is a God. BELIEVE. Don’t worry and enjoy your life.” And in the next few days, the Trinitarian Bible Society will be posting a line from Psalm 53:1: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
Now why does the atheist ad say “probably” while the first Christian ad say “definitely?” The answer is in the article from the first blog post, which says:
An interesting element of the bus slogan is the word “probably,” which would seem to be more suited to an Agnostic Bus Campaign than to an atheist one. Mr. Dawkins, for one, argued that the word should not be there at all.
But the element of doubt was necessary to meet British advertising guidelines, said Tim Bleakley, managing director for sales and marketing at CBS Outdoor in London, which handles advertising for the bus system.
For religious people, advertisements saying there is no God “would have been misleading,” Mr. Bleakley said.
“So as not to fall foul of the code, you have to acknowledge that there is a gray area,” he said.
Now exactly why is it “misleading” for atheists to assert that there is no god but okay for Bible Thumping Evangelicals to assert that there is one? Why is it illegal to assert that there isn’t a god but perfectly legal to assert that there is one? Why the asymmetry?
The answer, of course, is power–systemic, financial, political, and cultural. Evangelicals have their own political party, which solidifies systemic power. There are filthy rich Christian fundamentalists who run huge megachurches, which hold financial power. In the U.S., we have lobbying groups like Focus on the Family, which wields political power. The church has been around for millenia, which creates cultural power.
Fight the power. Freedom of religion, for humanists, is freedom from religion. Let’s get rid of our addiction to irrational belief, and let’s free society from this obviously Western cultural bias. This asymmetry is a form of prejudice that has no place in modern liberal society.
No related posts.
But here is an...
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
Religion tends to take unbiased judgement out of the picture. The same people who want their god incorporated into public school are enraged about allowing prayer rooms for those who are mandated by their religion to pray at certain times during the day. There is a long road ahead of modern civilization to truly embrace equality in religion – and that starts and ends with respecting each other’s choices in faith. That just may never happen, though… sadly.
Has anyone else ever tried to talk to a fundamentalist? It’s perhaps the hardest conversation possible. God this, God that. Unbiased judgment totally takes a back seat.
On the obverse side of the coin, you could argue that essentially, those who are against “religion”are supporting a belief system of their own – or another religion. (depending on your definition or religion)
As far as agnostic goes, isn’t it the belief that there could be a higher power, but looking for proof? In otherwords, priority on the lack of higher being.
And atheism, is the (religious) belief that there is no higher being.
In other words in linguistics, most people will always talk about the religion in a near black and white fashion. Meaning either for it, or against it, against it with a benefit of the doubt. Instead of For it, for it with the benefit of the doubt, or against it.
No shades of grey.
For many reason, it may be as to people trying to assert themselves as non-theistic, that the blur between what is “Atheist” and “Agnostic” exists. I know I’ve had to explain the difference to many people. I feel like it doesn’t make sense to claim the “Atheist” title as to say “non-religious” when it would – by definition – associate with many Religious itself. Which for a lot of people who want the title are trying to avoid.
It see it as different from the race talk (as I’m sure most do) because when I talk race, we talk from a spectrum that is not always included on the spectrum of race.
Oops, Typo
Last paragraph should read:
It see it as different from the race talk (as I’m sure most do) because when I talk race, we talk from a viewpoint that is not always included on the spectrum of race.
Jason,
So I define myself as an atheist according to Richard Dawkins’s definition. He basically said that on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being a total fundamentalist Christian and 10 being a total atheist, he’s a 9. The doubt is present because as a scientist, he can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.
However, the amount of doubt is so minuscule that it’s negligible. Therefore he calls himself an atheist.
I agree with his definition. I could call myself an agnostic, but that would create the impression of a higher level of doubt that isn’t quite there for me.