Really, really, really inoffensive "Atheists." bus ad rejected

[muriel_volestrangler]

Last edited Wed Feb 29, 2012, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

On 1/30/12, I proposed an idea inspired by Richard Wade writing for the Friendly Atheist blog and atheist activist Carl Silverman to run a really, really, really inoffensive bus advertisement. Many atheist advertisement campaigns have been considered 'offensive' by religious individuals and some atheists, including myself, have wondered what exactly offended. Was is the mere fact that atheists making their presence known offensive to religious people? Perhaps the word "atheist" offends people? To 'test' this and to advertise the NEPA Freethought Society -- a local community group of non-theists in Northeastern PA -- and American Atheists, I contacted the County of Lackawanna Transit System (COLTS) with serious intentions to run the bus ad you can see above.

After announcing my idea, various persons have stepped forward to donate money to make these ads a reality, but I had told persons that it would be best to wait for the bus company -- which receives county, state, and federal funding -- to confirm whether they would run the ads. I was told that the board of directors for COLTS needed to meet and decide whether they would run the ad...and after a long wait of 15 days, COLTS refused the ad although this meeting certainly wasn't public if it even happened at all because meetings are held on the third Tuesday of each month.

Jim Smith, the advertising contact at COLTS, said that the reason for refusal -- appealing to the very questionable and vague advertising policy of COLTS -- was that COLTS does not accept ads which could be deemed controversial or otherwise spark public debate.

Funny, that is. COLTS runs "God Bless America" on their scrolling tickers which are supposed to relay route information and has also run an ad saying "Consider adoption...it works!" Interestingly enough, the "Consider adoption...it works!" ad has been REMOVED from COLTS' website (you can, though, see a picture of it below); the ad was previously in the gallery of sample ads, but it is no longer there. An ad for "Old Forge News" -- an overtly political site containing links to Holocaust denialist websites and white supremacist information -- had also appeared on COLTS' buses.

http://www.justinvacula.com/2012/02/really-really-really-inoffensive.html

So it would seem the very acknowledgement of the existence of atheists is 'controversial' to the bus company?

On edit: there may be confusion between "Old Forge News" and "Old Forge Times". The former is an apparently harmless news website for the Old Forge area; the latter is the far right cesspool. Vacula's front page says "Times"; the individual blog thread says 'News'. The American Atheists' letter to COLTS says "Times". Until it's clear which of the two was advertised on the buses, that part of the 'double standard' accusation should be 'unproven', IMO. The 'God Bless America' and 'Consider adoption...it works!' banners/ads are definite, though.

The ad was indeed for the racist website - the photo of it is on COLTS' own website: http://coltsbus.com/PricingFrontAd3Pop.html

[dmallind]

1. All very simple when you consider the oft-proven case that atheists are despised like no other

Muslims, Jews, gays, blacks, Mormons etc all have their detractors, but when it comes to outright loathing and spite directed at us, we atheists have the top spot wrapped up.

They should submit the same ad saying just "Muslims" and see what happens. It would be on buses as soon as the check cleared.

[catbyte]

2. We atheists throw their whole world view into question

BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA BOO!!!!!!!!



Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Leo, Sophie, Taz & Nigel, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"We ride inside--HISS!

[progressoid]

3. Wow, I bet they would really get upset if someone wanted to put a picture of a man dying a slow

painful death on a cross ... oh, never mind. Forcing your son to endure brutal capital punishment probably isn't offensive. - that's love.

[cbayer]

4. Would love to see the answer to the letter sent to COLTS

Too bad about the error about the website - makes them look like they didn't do their homework.

While I don't understand why any group of believers or non-believers want to put up signs and billboards, I certainly agree that they have the right to.

And, as you say, this could not be less offensive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Update - it was the racist website

See update to OP. The ad read 'THE OLD FORGE DAILY NEWS! oldforgetimes.blogspot.com', which may explain the use at one stage of 'Old Forge News'. Vacula's blog now used 'Times' both on the front page and the thread page.

The 'why' in this case seems to have been an attempt to see how unobjectionable an ad could still get objected to.

[Thats my opinion]

6. There is a difference between affirming a point of view,

no matter how out of the mainstream, and blasting someone else's belief. I would be offended if I saw an ad that mocked atheism. But an ad affirming atheism is on just fine.

[mr blur]

7. But...Why?

I don't mind being mocked and I'd be surprised if any other atheist on DU would, either. As an atheist I hold no precious beliefs that 'mustn't' be questioned. I simply accept the existence of one less god than you.

[Thats my opinion]

8. making an affirmative point about belief, or non-belief, is fair and helpful.

Ridiculing or mocking someone's belief or non belief may be legal, but it is not helpful. But then when people do that--like the Phelps family-- it just says something about the mocker, not about what is mocked..

[skepticscott]

10. So when someone calls creationists

a "bunch of dumbasses", is that helpful? What does it say about the person making that statement, in your opinion?

[cleanhippie]

11. Hmmmm...

[skepticscott]

12. Funny how certain people here

continue to dodge this issue, all the while pontificating about having respect for other people's beliefs.

Tell us again why anything you say should be taken seriously?

[2ndAmForComputers]

9. Come on, try to argue this is not anti-atheist bigotry.

I'm waiting.