Good People,

The AFA bus slogan campaign has hit a problem.

Metro buses in Tasmania have refused any sign from us no matter how mild.

We may have to use an electronic billboard in Hobart. This is being investigated.

Australian mainland public transport is also being somewhat troublesome and the advertisers have refused the wording ‘- Atheism - because there is no credible evidence.’ How they arrived at that conclusion is not known as of yet.

I have sent an alternative message to be displayed for evaluation. ‘Atheism – Celebrate reason!’ I have run this one past a number of people and the response has been good. It is inoffensive, positive, short and therefore remember-able

The intention is to speak to the highest authority involved in the decision making (No, not a god) and draw to their attention the discriminatory nature of the verdict.

Meanwhile, other venues will be investigated for suitability.

London is running a bus slogan campaign, as is Washington in the USA. I believe other locations are also showing interest. Australia is demonstrating to the rest of the world, a parochial attitude not conducive to the ethos of freedom of expression.

David

Dear David,

One problem with this stream is the plethora of Davids. Which should be eliminated besides me. The preceding is ambiguous. My comment is intended for the David of the Atheist Foundation. I wrote a letter to the newspaper objecting to the characterisation of religion as good. In the letter I cited both good aspects and bad aspects of religion. That was a mistake as the letter was printed and the parts critical of religion were edited out.

David Nicholls: << How they arrived at that conclusion is not known as of yet. >>

Fascinating. Given the crap that I read on the side of many buses when I visit Australian cities, I'd be interested to hear about the reasons for the rejection of the very mild proposed AFA slogan. As for the Tasmanian rejection of any advertising from AFA, surely that contravenes Trade Practices laws of that state?

david f,

Editors have the traditional right to alter letters for reasons of being too long, grammatical errors etc. They have no right to alter the content against the intentions of the writer. That is plainly mischievous and in your case, the perpetuation of one point of view using your words as a vehicle. It is probably too late now, but such editing should be brought to the attention of the newspaper by another route.

Funny about the, ‘too many David’s on the Forum’. I’ve always wanted to change my Biblical name to one more universally acceptable. Then I always come down to the fact that it was a David who sorted Goliath out, wasn’t it? :)

David

David (Nicholls)

While I am not one arguing for an atheist movement as such it would seem discriminatory to refuse the slogan.

Did the Tasmanian Government use the Anti-discrimination Act (ADA) to deny the right to use your advert? Perhaps any slogan deemed to be anti-religious contravenes the ADA as "villification".

Could it be argued that the refusal itself is discriminatory? I am not sure as I am not a lawyer and I am sure you would be pursuing that angle.

The Atheist David wrote: I’ve always wanted to change my Biblical name to one more universally acceptable.

Dear David,

Having a biblical name does not indicate a belief in the Bible. It does recognise the Bible as part of our heritage. Greek Orthodox Christians give their children names such as Socrates, Aristotle and Helen. It does not indicate belief in the pagan pantheon but a recognition of their heritage. David is my middle name. It means 'beloved', and I prefer it to my more pedestrian first name of Anglo-Saxon origin.

The legends in the Bible, the wittiness of the proverbs and the sensuality of the Song of Solomon are literature as worthy as the Odyssey.