'No God' campaign draws complaint

Many years ago I had a temporary job as a school science technician. It turned out that the school had an arrangement with a local pharmaceutical research laboratory: out of public-spiritedness, the lab donated freshly (and specially) killed rats for dissection lessons. It would be an occasional duty to call the lab, request them to kill however many rats we wanted, go and collect the rats, and set up and clear away the dissection equipment (and corpses).

Now, I am certainly not opposed to all animal experimentation (and I detest rats!), but I do not believe that the (highly questionable) benefit to schoolchildren of performing their own, individual dissection is sufficient justification for killing a mammal. I had a moral objection to being party to it, and informed my head of department. Absolutely no problem at all. My colleague didn't share my moral objections, and was perfectly happy to do all this part of the work herself. My boss assured me that I would not be asked to take any part in the ordering, preparation and clearing up (though I had only asked to be excused from ordering the killings and fetching the corpses).

I suppose you and thaiboxerken would claim that I could, and should, have been summarily dismissed. If so, you are certainly wrong in your first belief (and, I would argue, in your second).


I don't see this as comparable for several reasons

Firstly, you say it was an occasional duty, presumably it was not stated in your job description in the same way that drivng a bus would be for, oh I don't know, a bus driver? We can debate how great an accomidation was made for you and I will agree that this point isn't black and white.

Secondly, your degree of participation would have been greater and the outcome certain, by ordering the rats you would have caused their deaths in a concrete way. Had you included clearing up afterwards it would have included handling them and if you were not warned that this might be part of the job then I would understand your desire to not participate.

Thirdly, after discussing it with your Head of Department you apparently didn't feel the need to absent yourself for the rest of the day.

Finally, you didn't (presumably) go to the media and tell them how shocked and horrified you were that the school and pharmiceutical company were doing this.

HR issues are rarely clear cut and it is always a good thing when employers try to be flexible. For what it's worth I actually think the bus company handled the issue correctly so long as the other bus drivers and passengers don't suffer distruption or inconvenience as a result of his preference and that if his preference cannot be accomidated he will do his job.

However I think that making the comments he has in the media goes beyond what is reasonable, he, as an employee of the company is making negative comments about one of the companies customers in the national media. In my company that would be a sacking offence.

Oh, and also, I like rats, have three of the little buggers! Can't say I'd have wanted to do that particular job much either...:)
 
The Godvert War has started!

Christian groups are launching their own advertisements to run across the side of London buses following an atheist campaign.
Now the Christian Party, the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church have paid for their own pro-God adverts that will run on 175 buses across central and east London and the West End for two weeks from Monday.
The advert for the Christian Party includes the slogan: “There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life.”

The Trinitarian Bible Society's advert uses a line from Psalm 53 that reads: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” It will appear on 100 buses.
The ASA ruled that the Humanist Association's campaign did not break any advertising rules, concluding that the adverts were an “expression of the advertiser's opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation”. As a result it was ruled that it was unlikely to mislead or to cause widespread offence.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23635082-details/God+moves+in+mysterious+ways+%28like+along+your+local+bus+route%29/article.do
 
The Trinitarian Bible Society's advert uses a line from Psalm 53 that reads: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” It will appear on 100 buses.
Always thought that that's a good approach - call anyone who disagrees a fool. Bound to make them sympathetic to your arguments. ;)
 
The advert for the Christian Party includes the slogan: “There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life

where's the "probably" bit?

obviously the next set of ads' might read "There definitely is no god" perhaps?
 
A bit of extra publicity, the atheist bus slogan was the subject of a question on University Challenge, which Jeremy Paxman appeared to relish.
 
Will the God Lovers be using their own money for these ads or church money on which they pay no tax? If so, this seems a little unfair. ;)
 
Been spotting a few of the reactionary Christian adverts on the buses recently. Looks like London buses are being a religious (or lack thereof) battleground!

Except the latest advert states that there is "definitely" a god. Given that the original Ad said there was "Probably no god" on the basis that it fulfills advertising regulations (you can't make a claim that you can't prove to be true) then surely making such a bold claim breaks regulations?

This is the outcome of a complaint about the reactionary Christian advert to the Advertising standards authority:

http://alanbrookland.com/2009/03/02...er-god-exists-at-least-in-advertising-claims/
 
Been spotting a few of the reactionary Christian adverts on the buses recently. Looks like London buses are being a religious (or lack thereof) battleground!

Except the latest advert states that there is "definitely" a god. Given that the original Ad said there was "Probably no god" on the basis that it fulfills advertising regulations (you can't make a claim that you can't prove to be true) then surely making such a bold claim breaks regulations?

This is the outcome of a complaint about the reactionary Christian advert to the Advertising standards authority:

http://alanbrookland.com/2009/03/02...er-god-exists-at-least-in-advertising-claims/

ISTR that the ASA required that the word "probably" be added to the Atheist Ad before it was allowed on the London buses.

No double standard here. No siree. :i:
 
ISTR that the ASA required that the word "probably" be added to the Atheist Ad before it was allowed on the London buses.

No double standard here. No siree. :i:


Re-reading the original article that initiated all of this.... I get the impression that "probably" was a precautionary measure against legal action, and not a specific request from the ASA, certainly not officially anyway.
 
Oooh! Oooh! Atheist busses all over!

http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter100.html#3

Montreal
o0qjcz.jpg


Barcelona:
qq6249.jpg



And from New Orleans, an ad that has it all over the "probably" campaign.

Check out the comments:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/02/04/advertising-atheism-in-new-orleans/

2wnd2qv.jpg
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom