Media Release

26 November 2008

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc Bus Slogan Rejected!

‘APN Outdoors’ the company responsible for Public Metropolitan Transport Advertising says no to Atheism.

The bus slogan campaign proposed by the AFA with the thought provoking sentiment, “Atheism – Celebrate reason! ” has been refused for display by ‘APN Outdoors’. Various other phrases also deemed unacceptable.

Following the lead of Humanist’s in London and Washington in the USA, with their intended bus signs, an International program by Humanists and Atheists was to commence on the 20th January 09 using buses to express the secular viewpoint.

Richard Dawkins in supporting the London bus signs has stated that such a campaign “Will make people think”.

President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, David Nicholls said: “I am flabbergasted. This is extremely disappointing and a severe blow to freedom of expression in Australia. We are witnessing the result of seemingly paranoid executives interfering with pertinent social comment. This action has thwarted the right to state peacefully and openly a legitimate and timely message without violence.

Australia is going to look provincial and narrow in outlook to the rest of the world because of this decision. The planet is moving to a more enlightened era but apparently, public transport advertising agents in Australia have missed the bus. Isn’t that ironic”

ABC Radio National – The Religion Report – Interview with David Nicholls about this Media Release.
(http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/default.htm

Media Contact:
David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc
Private Mail Bag 6
MAITLAND SA 5573

Phone: (08) 8835 2269
Website: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au
E-Mail: info@atheistfoundation.org.au

Interesting interview David.

Well it would appear we are not as secular in Australia as we would like to think particularly in view of the American Humanists' success with their slogan.

Well you can always try airline magazines, newspapers and internet sites. Perhaps the atheists could build their own billboards and erect them on properties with the permission of the owners?

Dear David,

You must not give up.

This unoffensive slogan certainly imbinges
on freedom of expression - and I wonder if
it is legal? Aren't transport companies
accountable to certain laws? Why can they
advertise certain things and not others?

Anyway, what about selling T-shirts with
clever catchy sayings, or if buses have
refused, what about approaching taxi-cab
owners? Large City Billboards?
Adds in Movie Theatres?
Billboards along main highways?
Sky-writing?

The list goes on...

Whatever you do, don't give up!
This is so wrong.

The bus slogan campaign proposed by the AFA with the thought provoking sentiment, “Atheism – Celebrate reason! ” has been refused for display by ‘APN Outdoors’. Various other phrases also deemed unacceptable.

no kidding gee your stupid
how can that be offensive

can you validate that ALL athiests are thinking?

#can you perhaps see more clearly if instead of believers
we talk about sexes[or races] ,or physical injury.

look your getting publicity now
much more than a buss could get

now you think those thinking dis believers reasoned this might happen?

ya think?

how could any one resent being called igno-rant[UN-reason-able]

cretanly [was meant to be certainly;
but hey i got an excuse for my
ignorance
,believing in god
made ME unreasonable [DUH]

not those who are so dumb they think giving up god makes them smarter

its a shame you wernt allowed your insulting others and linking unbelief to reason

if you got the higher reason reason out what happens to any un reasonable athiest who hasnt even read a book [let alone the book]

are we talking about the wheel chair dorkins or the flat fish dorkins?

the non wheel chair one is called dickkk dorkins for good reason
he isnt a scientist [the other one is]dont be confusing the two

David,
What we have here is political and economic road blocks (vested interests).
I am sure that a majority of Ausies wouldn't see that as 'offensive' but the vocal 'talkback radio set' would imagine all manner of demons being unleashed.
Suggestion, contact Dawkins' publishers and do the following joint bus campaign A picture of Dawkins' Book and title... The God Delusion underneath the words "think about it" or "what's your view?" (the latter isn't instructing just asking a question)something like that. The argument then has blured the line between freedom of speech and restrictive trade practices. One that goes on buses then the precident is set. for what ever comes next.ie your original slogan.
Heaps of $$$$$$ please :-)

One small point you seem to be confusing the terms Secularism and Atheism please don't. By definition Secularists allow for alternative opinions and Atheists (Dawkins) don't. ie I have no problemswith man's need for 'delusions' (we inhabit a 'stone age body', emotions and instincts consequently some people can't exist in the atheist's world)

If you don't want such outcomes.. then support me, and other Christians to get RID OF the "Racial and Religious Vilification Act"...

Because dear David... the Atheist Foundation has just become another VICTIM of it!

Now.. at last.. people might see just how perverted and twisted such ethno/Religoiu/Fascist laws are!

THE SLOGAN. "Atheism: Celebrate Reason"

THE PROBLEM. The obvious implication of such a slogan is that 'Believers in God are not reasonable'

THUS... people will take offense at this, and take the Atheist Foundation, the Bus company, and the Ad company to the equal opportunity court for religious vilification.

If you don't like it... PROTEST AGAINST THE LAW which enables this kind of supression to occur!

SUGGESTED SLOGANS
-"Atheism: something to think about"
-"Atheism: ?"

No David..your 'celebrate reason' is NOT a positive slogan.
It vilifies Believers in God... suggesting they are not reasonable.

ECONOMIC there is also the strong possibility that with 68% of Australians claiming Christianity as their faith....the bus companies might be consider this :)

Polycarp wrote:

No David..your 'celebrate reason' is NOT a positive slogan.
It vilifies Believers in God... suggesting they are not reasonable.

Dear Polycarp:

Christianity regards faith as a virtue. This opposes reason. You want to have it both ways. Believers in God have put faith above reason. The slogan is not vilification any more than my calling the Holocaust applied Christianity made possible by the centuries of hate promoted by Christianity is vilification.

Unfortunately you seem to regard an inconvenient truth as vilification.

However, I do appreciate your regard for the environment.

There you go, Mr Nicholls.

>>If you don't want such outcomes.. then support me, and other Christians to get RID OF the "Racial and Religious Vilification Act".<<

Now you have Boaz fighting in your corner.

His approach is matched by Greg Clark of the Macquarie Institute of Christian Studies who followed you in your abc interview. Greg supported your campaign on the basis that it prompted religious thoughts in the public - "if you can stop and contemplate God for a moment as a bus whizzes past, your day's all the better for it."

Does this not suggest that maybe - just maybe - the entire campaign has not been thought through very carefully?

I know you get horribly sulky when anyone suggests this to you...

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant<<

But might it not be worth it, if you were to take time out to don the waistcoat of humility, wrap around your neck the cravat of objectivity, and take a good look at yourself in the mirror of real life?

Forlorn hope, I know.

David,

I would have thought the action unconstitutional. Why don't you request an ajudidacion from the Commonwealth Attorney General's Department?

Under separation of Church and State, it seems strange, that the State is acting in loco parentis for Religion.

I assume there was no offensive wording or imagery.

Very shicking news, with implications, beyond the religiosity debate.

- Oly.

Poly,

If the State can intervene against Bus adventising, that action, is not far removed from the State stopping Churches placing verses from the Bible on outside, Billboards, which many do.

Both Atheists and Religionists have the right to free speech in a democracy.

- Ol

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the kind words and other comment. The claim that 68% percentage of Australians is Christian is spurious. This should be obvious even to those whose reasoning ability is somewhat hampered by pre-ordained beliefs. If one were advocating a proposition under the banner of some moral high ground, then one would be irresponsible to use patently incorrect information.

Using figures obtained from a leading question in the census and disregarding that many people fill that question out robotically with religion of baptism when that may not hold true presently, and taking into account that 20% (4 million) of that figure is from children under the age of 14 who are not mentally equipped to even understand the question beyond parental influence, does not reflect good ethical behaviour.

Yes, the company in question may be lulled into thinking the 68% figure is correct, but Christianity ought to get its act together and stop using, what is tantamount to lying, false figures that unwarrantedly enhance their actual numerical numbers.

David

david f,

"Christianity regards faith as a virtue. This opposes reason."

Are you saying that vilification for the purpose of anti-discrimination legislation allows a defence of establishing that there is some evidence which could have led to you having an honest belief? In other words if you attributed stupidity to a group and could establish a lower average IQ for the group you'd be fine or if you said that a religion promotes violence and supported it with a literal interpretation of their religious book you'd be fine?

Also, can you also please explain your comment further. Why does regarding faith as a virtue oppose reason? Does this include reasonable faith? If not then is it reasonable to exclude reasonable faith in such an assertion? What if your belief (or belief system if applicable) lacks a fundamental requirement that you to consider your faith a virtue but you take the initiative and demonstrate that you consider it a virtue? Would you comment apply?

David,

Does the Foundation have the resources to lease a Bus or buy an old bus paint a message on its and drive around the capital cities?

Why find out the advertising company for World Youth Day and approach them. If you are turned, see a lawyer.

O.

Dear mjpb,

Reasonable faith is an oxymoron, If something can be shown to be true or established by reason there is no need for faith. Kant had faith in God. Yet he logically showed that all proofs for the existence of God were flawed. There is also no valid evidence for the existence of God. One believes in God through faith. Kant had that faith, but he did not claim that reason supported his faith. Faith and reason are contradictory. I am an atheist because I know of no valid reason or evidence to accept the existence of God. Show me a valid reason or evidence to accept the existence of God, and I will accept the existence of God. However, I will still not have faith.

Faith is not the opposite of illogical thought or lack of reason, etc. Faith is the opposite of unbelief, or no faith. Much of our life operates upon faith but not upon the lack of reasons, or lack of logic. We operate upon more instinctive thought than thought out reasons.

Faith is resultant from thought out reasons to believe.

Philo wrote:

"Faith is not the opposite of illogical thought or lack of reason, etc. Faith is the opposite of unbelief, or no faith. Much of our life operates upon faith but not upon the lack of reasons, or lack of logic. We operate upon more instinctive thought than thought out reasons.

Faith is resultant from thought out reasons to believe."

Dear Philo,

I think you have defined reasonable expectation rather than faith. I have a reasonable expectation that I will see the sun tomorrow as I usually get up and see the sun. However, faith in God is something else. I know of no thought out reason to believe in God. For a believer in God somehow it seems right that there be a God. That is different from a thought out reason.

Philo,

You have an interesting point. We have faith in travelling an elevator. But we know said faith is not absolute. Religious faith would seem absolute. Infallibility of faith is a big step to take. Reasoning is qualified and in the case of Science tentative. I realise you hold Science to have a separate epistemology than belief, yet can a human infallibly believe in god?

I think religionists and atheists both have a right to free speech. I would have objection to the display of a cross on a bus.

Wow, what an error. Sorry.

I would have NO objection to a cross on a bus.

Ya I heard this on RN this morning.
Christianity and capitalism go hand in hand of course for anyone that was born five mins ago, the fear of the wrath of 'God lovers' upon the bus company, "in the mind" of the people accepting or rejecting the contract. I can imagine the migrane as they tried to weigh up the wrath with the greed and decide to go or no.
Christianity is a fear based cult of course as are all gangs.
Cheers

Reasonable Faith is not an oxymoron.... all of us have 'faith' in the skills of engineers who calculate load bearing ability of a bridge :)

Most of us have 'faith' that Captain Cook began the settlement Australia, but we only have our existence and the history books to back that up.

OLY.. Churches..being private property..can display signs of their choice... offensive or not. (within the law)

David F you touch on the very POINT which gives_me_the irrates about the RRT.. it is not the reality of vilification but the PERRRCEPTION of it that the law outlaws.

i.e.. If I (or some other person, be they witch or Muslim) FEEL vilified by even legitimate or reasonable/truthful/accurate statements/publications/broadcasts made in good faith then... they can (and sometimes do) make a complaint.

This is assessed for validity by the EOC and if you don't like what they say you can immediately apply for it to be heard at VCAT.
They then decide on the basis of the evidence if the thing complained about was in fact "reasonable and in good faith".

I've been down this path already. (who knows.. more of the 'holocaust is applied Christianity' stuff and I might go down it again :)

The best thing is for it to be RIPPED UP and burned and expurgated from Victorian consolidated legislation.

If time allows, I fully intend to make a case for the hate speech in the Quran and Hadith and will try to have those documents banned from sale. If the law allows it....why not? I don't like the existence of supposed holy books which curse me because of my faith and call for my (and your Jewish) destruction.

You might not see that as a threat..but boy oh boy.. I sure do.

They don't have metal detectors at the entrance of Beth Weisman Synagogue in Caulfield for no reason.

DAVID NICHOLS.. your sign would probably be the best gift to the church for decades :) hope you get it up.. yes..buy a bus thats a good idea.

I'm thinking of one myself "Believe in Jesus, get 'rich' quick" :)

Dear Polycarp,

The Holocaust remains applied Christianity. The years of hate promoted by Christianity is fact. The massacres of non-Christians and Christians of a different brand by Christians, Inquisition, wars of the Reformation and general intolerance practiced by Christianity is fact. Christianity has a horrible record. I understand you don't like it to be pointed out. By thy fruits shall you know them. That's how I know Christianity. The nasty Sura 9 is only words which pale in comparison with the reality of Christianity.

I have made a submission against antivilification legislation and will send it to you if you are interested.

While atheism is the result of denial I think the ads should be allowed. Any thinking person who is slightly interested in truth and facts could see what a poor self deluded lot that atheist are.

Oh thanks Runner,
wrote(While atheism is the result of denial I think the ads should be allowed. Any thinking person who is slightly interested in truth and facts could see what a poor self deluded lot that atheist are.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 4:56:37 PM)
Gave me a belly laugh you did.
I'm gonna love this topic ha... Cheers

Polycarp,

When you learn the basics of written interaction, i.e. when you respond to points against a position you hold, then I will address future comment. Just a hint for you in case you are mystified. 68%

I can hardly wait for your response!

David

Oliver,

We have a very competent Committee weighing up all the options but I do thank you for the bus suggestion. Poor old Reg Varney died last week, so I was wondering if you were up for a conductor’s job ‘on the Atheist Buses’. :))

David

" don't like the existence of supposed holy books which curse me because of my faith and call for my (and your Jewish) destruction"

Leaving out the Jewish bit I've got such a book beside my desk. I've owned it for years. I used to own a number of copies based on different translations. It says some rather nasty things about me and depending on whose intepretation you believe it proposes that my fate will be to spend an eternity of suffering because I don't change faith. It describes a god who hates people before they are burn, who condems those he does not call, who decieves and hardens hearts to make a point. In many ways a nasty book. It looks forward to a time when much of the world will be destroyed by the god it describes and his followers.

It also has some good things to say and is useful at times for putting the attitudes, actions and beliefs of some of it's more fervent proponents into context.

If David wants to challenge my right to own or even read that book I'll defend my right to do so. If David wishes to try to use the law to stop my legal right to replace it with a newer copy in the future I'll oppose him.

I often don't like what the book says and really don't like what others choose to do with those contents. I reject it's threats against myself, I reject it's claims about myself and I reject those who would try to destroy it's existance.

R0bert

People who want to inflict their faith on others are usually insecure about their own belief system and try to convince themsleves by convicting others.

Back on topic, I think advertising should only be limited to signs on respective buildings or place of unions for these groups. I think bus advertising, bumper stickers and all of these forms should be illegal.

Peace,

Dear David N.... the 68% is from the census. Note I said those who CLAIM Christianity...this says nothing about their individual lives and behavior. But it DOES say something about how a bus or advertizing company might perceive the impact of a negative or potentially vilifiying/insulting slogan :) get it now?

David F.. yes I'll be happy to see your submission...you know the email.
But such submissions have more impact when they are Multi-partisan..
Unfortunately, those behind this vile Act of parliament were Jewish and Muslim more than any other. So it would be great for someone of Jewish background to be on record against it.

Please note..the only reason I make these 'threats' is to wake people up to the vileness of the legislation and to get them on board to get RID of it. I show how the law can be used against those who it was intended to protect.. thus showing it to be a silly law.

ROBERT.. I refer you to the above 2 paragraphs to understand why I would do what I said.

FH... there are 2 forms of insecurity. That which arises out of lack of confidence in one's own faith, and..that which arises due to the political/economic/social/demographical events one is surrounded by.
It is not my faith that I'm insecure about.. that only leaves one other right ? :)

Polycarp,

You can drop the “get it now?” If you are going to use deceptive figures then at least be honest about the intended deception. It is a common form of falsity proffered by religious persons to flaunt the grossly inflated figure of 68% Christian make-up of the population. You added to this lie because you thought you could get away with it. The result of such propagandising could indeed have the bus advertising companies believing it to be true. You have done nothing to qualify the statement and your excuse is lame.

David

Polycarp,

"FH... there are 2 forms of insecurity. That which arises out of lack of confidence in one's own faith, and..that which arises due to the political/economic/social/demographical events one is surrounded by.
It is not my faith that I'm insecure about.. that only leaves one other right ? :)"

Thats the language that people who throw mud on others use to justify their actions.

Thanks for proving my point.

Peace,

It seems we are going to talk about religion even when the subject is not believing in it.
The actions in banning this are just one in sight into the hold religion has on us.
What if there is no God?
I say clearly there is not.
We let a non existent dream of man tell us what is right and wrong?
That is the very heart of religion, every one of them, why do they insist on intervening in our every day lives?
One Under God , enough, you constantly call people fools.
Take a look at your self.
I am concerned not that people believe in a God, it is their right but to impose on me the rules to live by of a fantasy is not on.

Hmmm now both DAvid Nichols and FH need a bit of a chide here.

DAVID N first.

David.. all you showed was how bigotry over-rides any sense of reasonable discourse. You made quite a colorful post with some emotive language "LIE" etc.. against my absolutely accurate statement "68% of Australians CLAIM to be Christian" I said that in connection with the possibility that ECONOMICS might be a reason Ad/Bus companies are reluctant to say things which might alienate that segment of the population. I hardly think the thought of 68% of your cash flow is nothing to worry about. Not that all those claiming the faith will suddenly boycott busses, but it might be perceived that way by bean counters.

Even Pericles would defend me on this I feel.

Dear FH.. what I stated was that there are 2 kinds of insecurity.
Given that a vile law has been used by your mob to vilify, denegrate and impoverish our mob (RRT ICV/CTF) my claim in entirely justified.
No one like the thought of being dragged into costly court actions by other people who simply lie and consipre against them. (as was proven without a shadow of a doubt in my mind by the fact that the EOC had a member who was ALSO on the ICV!)
It's simple.
1/ Has any Christian group taken legal action against the Islamic Council of Victoria? "no". (but I'm working on it)
2/ Has the Islamic council of Victoria taken action against a Christian group "yes".

Please keep in mind..there are many expressions of Islam in Australia OUTside of your own gentle and 'good mate' version. If ur in Melbourne this friday...come down to the MindBodySpirit festival at Jeffs Shed (Exhibition Buildings) between 3 and 5 and we can go together to the "Islam Stand" and you can hear with your own ears one of those 'other' versions. One which curses and condemns me and my faith in Allah's name.

Hmmmm. Interesting.

>>Even Pericles would defend me on this I feel<<

Even the most cursory glance at your original post tells us that you were merely reporting, with no translation, interpretation or embellishment, Boaz.

>>...with 68% of Australians claiming Christianity as their faith...<<

It is puzzling that Mr Nicholls should take such strident aim at the messenger in this instance, when the message is the real target.

(But Boaz, note that this applies only to your repetition of ABS statistics, and not to your interpretation of ancient scripture)

Mr Nicholls is understandably upset that his attempts to emulate initiatives from other - clearly better organized and savvy - associations, have come to naught. But he does his organization no favours by being grumpy.

It will also be interesting to see whether the $16,000 ever gets used for the purpose it was donated. Personally, I'd be asking for my money back.

However, you are back to your usual tricks, Boaz, when it comes to addressing your old mate Fellow_Human.

>>there are 2 forms of insecurity. That which arises out of lack of confidence in one's own faith, and..that which arises due to the political/economic/social/demographical events one is surrounded by. It is not my faith that I'm insecure about.. that only leaves one other right?<<

What F_H failed to point out to you was - probably because he is far too polite - is that there are many, many more "kinds of insecurity" than those you put forward.

This is a classic debating trick, but is both dishonest and insulting. You offer only two alternatives, encourage the denial of one, and engage in a beat-up of the second. A slightly disguised version of the "when did you stop beating your wife?" question.

>>Please keep in mind..there are many expressions of Islam in Australia OUTside of your own gentle and 'good mate' version<<

Has it not occurred to you, Boaz, that you consistently pick on only one of those "expressions"?

Have a hate-free day.

Porky: << ...all you showed was how bigotry over-rides any sense of reasonable discourse >>

Porky, old chap - that's what you do virtually every time you post a comment at OLO.

Polycarp,

Funny how conversation with overt religiosity can be so similar to shadow boxing. I guess it’s the dodging around the opponent and never actually connecting which makes it so similar.

Let’s revisit your original words (Sigh!) “…with 68% of Australians claiming Christianity as their faith”

At the very best this is ambiguous, at the very worst, deceptive.

Parents/guardians fill out the census form for their children and other members of the family. Someone else is “claiming” Christianity for them whether that is true or not or a result of parental influence. And of course, we must add the robotic stating religion of baptism whether that is the current stance or not.

Some Christians consider that others claiming to be Christians are not Christians at all because of Biblical interpretation. You could have meant that in your statement but as you did not qualify it, the reader does not know.

You have used the 68% as a given, as do politicians, religious leaders and those who have never analysed the figure. The importance of this error is not to be underestimated as huge sums of public expenditure depends on it and many political decisions are all swayed by its use. This figure on Forums/media supporting the Christian nation status of Australia is common.

I do not doubt the bus companies could be sucked in by the populist percentage. I am pointing out though, that you as one who considers that Christianity is the moral light of civilisation should know better than to use spurious figures, for whatever reason, without some kind of qualification.

You have added to the propagandising of this erroneous number as though it is correct. The reader, if not having thought about it, could very well take 68% Christian content to be right as it is bandied around ad nausea.

With only 10%? of people bothering to regularly attending a church as a sign of religious commitment, the use of such high percentages is not only way off, it is a display of desperation by those attempting to prop up rapidly declining religion in Australia.

David

Mr Nicholls,

I started a long post about Polycarp mere reporting etc but it is superfluous. When Pericles supports Polycarp on something you should realise that you are not on a winner. That is not something that happens every day. My previous sentence is an understatement.

Fellow Human,

"People who want to inflict their faith on others are usually insecure about their own belief system and try to convince themsleves by convincing others.'

Would it change anything if it can be argued that atheism is not a belief system? Coincidentally when I heard the item on rn I wondered if Mr Nicholls & co are undermining the argument that atheisism does not have a belief system with their slogans. If the slogans accurately represent fundamental atheist beliefs and thus a belief system can be put forward not just the belief that God doesn't exist then it would seem to undermine the apologetics of his peers.

Poly-Boaz,

“Please keep in mind..There are many expressions of Islam in Australia OUTside of your own gentle and 'good mate' version”
I am sure there are minority groups like you mention everywhere and in all denominations. Only I don’t obsess with a handful of Hizb followers or other fundies like you do. I focus on the majority who want to live happy in peace. You don’t.
“come down to the MindBodySpirit festival at Jeffs Shed (Exhibition Buildings) between 3 and 5 and we can go together to the "Islam Stand" and you can hear with your own ears one of those 'other' versions”
Have to pass on these weird events. I am not shopping for anything spiritual thanks.
What's a mindbodyspirit festival anyway?

Mjpb,

“Would it change anything if it can be argued that atheism is not a belief system?”
In my belief there is one creator for all beings and their beliefs. So yes in my view Atheism is a belief system cause it dictates the way one lives his/her life.
Not sure if this answered your question.

Dear Pericles,

“What F_H failed to point out to … that there are many, many more "kinds of insecurity" than those you put forward”

What stopped me is after 3.5 years of interaction with Boaz on OLO, his comments remind me with the old greek proverb “on a deaf man’s door, you can knock forever”.
Deaf being metaphoric for Boaz behavior with no offence intended to deaf or hearing impaired posters.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

Atheism is no more a belief system than accepting that fairies do not exist is.

David

I am coming late to this discussion. Some interesting posts.

David’s earlier comments about the census are a reminder for lazy people like me to take the filling out of the damn census more seriously, and to question the wording of the Census questions, since their figures are used extensively to represent us. (Although I am lazy about and resistant to many of their questions as far as the question of religion is concerned I would never claim to belong to any faith.)

As far as the bus slogan is concerned I would be interested in knowing why APN refused to accept it. As it stands it does look ‘provincial and narrow’. Ironically, like the banning of books, APN’s decision to ban the slogan might be a fantastic, inexpensive publicity campaign.

Dear_FH.... "I hear you..I hear you" :) I just don't wanna_buy_the magazine... no "islamo_watchtower" stuff for me_mate.

You_say I focus_on_minorities? of course..THEY are the ones trying_to bomb us,(evidence-convicted Muslims)

Here is a little test :) will you DENOUNCE the actions of Mohammad in claiming "I have been commanded to fight those who do not believe in Allah" (9:29, hadith Muslim book 1 numbers 29,30,31, 32)

Will you unambiguously, without reservation '

1/ Read publically Surah 9:29
2/ Then DENOUNCE invasion or fighting or violence aimed at extending the rule of Islam.?

Will you read hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:

and CONDEMN Caliph Umar for invading the Persians, and using the Quran as his justification?

If you note carefully.. He said:

"I would like to consult you(Al Hormuzein) regarding these countries which I intend to invade."

Notice.. it is not 'one' country.. no specific action or attack against Muslims is mentioned.. nothing,- just "those countries I plan to INVADE"

Now..Let me pre-empt your response:

1/ This is Bukhari the MOST accepted Hadith.. authentic, and recognized by the vast majority of Muslims and Islamic universities world wide..including Al Azhar uni in Cairo.

2/ There is no evidence that the Persians or anyone else were 'invading' the Muslims.

Mohammad had sent letters of demand..to all major kings to "embrace Islam and you will be safe" which is a clear ultimatum/threat of war.

Many Arab tribes were already UNDER Persia's rule before Mohammad...when the Muslims became strong those Arabs rebelled against the Persions and the Muslims helped them... Sedition + Invasion, all justified by 9:29 in that hadith. (by Al Mughira)

Sorry old son.. there is no escaping the facts and no amount of wild generalizations "oh..it was a time of war" will change that.

If you want to argue this, do so from history and fact..not from a grab bag of broad generalization.

The MBS is an event where people from many faiths (Including yours) come to display their ideas.

You knock...and I hear.. I'm not deaf.. but when I counter argue..it is ye who is hard of hearing :)

Fascinating that Porkycrap utilises a discussion about atheism as a pulpit to preach his usual Islamophobic drivel.

Mind you, this bus slogan business has certainly prompted a national discussion about the pervasiveness of religionism in a supposedly secular society. In which case, the AFA has probably achieved much of its purpose without spending a cent so far.

I think if the general public is exposed to fundy outbursts such as Porky's above in response to the campaign, then I'm sure they would have the positive effect of subjecting reigious fundamentalists to the disdain and ridicule they deserve.

I'm in Brisbane at the moment, and I've made a point of observing what advertising is currently allowed on buses - most of it's pretty banal and sales-oriented rather than informative or ideological. Certainly the innocuous slogans suggested by the AFA would make more interesting reading.

Oh and Porky - the AFA campaign was rejected in Adelaide. The legislation you blustered on about applies only to Victoria, I believe. I agree that it's stupid law, but in this case you're barking up the wrong tree, as usual.

If the bus campaign cant go ahead, I would suggest using the money to print bumper stickers that say the same thing, or a variety of similar messages and giving them away....this would achieve the same objective but on many many cars it would surely be a far better outcome.

Good luck David whatever you choose, you've got my vote.

These atheists should ask themselves why they care what others believe?

These atheists come across as parasites feeding on this great Christian nation. No society has ever needed atheists. Great leaps forward in arts, science, and technology all happened when societies were 90% Christian.

Just because they all seem to suffer from chronic depression, doesn't mean they have to attempt to destroy our hope, happiness, and certainty.

David N

Have been rather tardy in responding to this terrible news, as I wanted to listen to the Religion Report first.

Australia? Secular? Democratic? Apparently not.

All the more REASON to continue to create more public awareness of atheism.

For myself, that means a few car stickers.

For the AFA, what next? Happy to offer my support.

Thanks for the offer, Fractelle. Right now, we will just ride the wave and see what eventuates. There are a few plans in the pipeline up for grabs. Maybe the advertisers will see they have made a rash commercial judgment and change their minds. There would be no hard feeling on our part if they did.

Of course, if an ideologically driven government body initiated this decision then recanting is most unlikely. It would then be a clear demonstration of the fragility of our democratic system. Power used in this arbitrary manner by those we elect or the bureaucracy under them is something about which we should all be concerned.

David

David

Was listening on the radio to you driving back from the country.
It may not be as you planned but this has got you more publicity than the stickers themselves!

Pardon my ignorance of your organisation but what else are you involved in.
IE
Aged Care- Caner Foundation Blind Deaf Kids etc

Is our organisation effected in other areas because of this attitude
.
Have you been denied any grants from Government to work in any of the areas above?
I think its peoples own business what they do and don`t believe in TBO.

Providing they are people doing good things based on common sense with good morals towards others nobody should be singled out in this manner.

After all if we have stopped kids playing God Save the Queen and the Lords prayer that I grew up with because it may offend some.

Your people claiming you don`t follow any God is not so earth shattering you ought to be singled out.

I suppose you have looked commercial discrimination and trade practises act laws?

DAvid N.... you mention 'connecting' rather than shadow boxing... well let's try to actually connect here.

You appear to still think I'm claiming that 68% of Australians are Christian... I never said that.. I said:

1/ 68% of Australians CLAIM..... some kind of Christian affiliation.

2/ That GIVEN this statistic (right wrong or both) that bean counters and public relations people in Ad and Bus companies might be a bit hesitant to put something out there which might offend them.

Do you get it now?

CJ... the only point I make re the law is same as the above. Though it applies to Vic, as you well know, it can be applied also to others :) who can be dragged kicking, screaming and whining to this state for 'legal attention'.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,

You are oh so very correct in the ‘rejection’ generating more publicity than the actual slogans would have. We are run off our feet.

The AFA is a philosophical/educational organisation. We are not a religion. It would be the same as me asking what “Aged Care- Caner Foundation Blind Deaf Kids etc” is your organisation involved with or asking the same of a pony club or science organisation etc. We however, do donate to various charities when we have spare cash.

The AFA does not receive any government grants.

Under the present Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Act, freedom 'from' religion is not covered and therefore we do not have a legal leg to stand upon. Interestingly enough, there is a review of this act and the AFA has sent a submission on this and other points, but nowhere in the affiliated documentation does it mention freedom 'from' religion. Australia is falling behind other advanced democracies in this area.

David

Polycarp,

I am not going over it again.

Hi David,
Yes, great to see that you're getting so much publicity.

I came across this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3521024/35000-of-taxpayers-cash-given-to-atheist-bus-group.html

OK it's the telegraph and the title is somewhat misleading, but it seems that in Britain the equality watchdog ain't myopic.

"£35,000 of taxpayers' cash given to 'atheist bus' group.

An atheist group planning to put adverts on London buses declaring that "there's probably no God" has been given £35,000 in taxpayers' money.

The British Humanist Association, which is running a campaign get rid of faith schools and wants to end the Church of England's position as the established religion, was given the grant by the Government's equality watchdog and is using it to stage a series of debates about the place of religion in public life."

Hello Celivia,

Yes, I am aware of the article. It just goes to show the vast gap between Brittain and the Australian government and the psyche of our population. Such a grant is religion’s worst nightmare come true. They have had it so good for so long, that questioning the basis for their assumptions is seen as heresy of the worst kind. Religions fail to recognise that the value of democracy that protects them and everyone is in the fact that everything is open to criticism. I would add, everything should be open to criticism, especially notions held only on ‘faith’.

David

Dear David the Atheist,

I approve of your efforts and wish them success. You are aided by the fact that there is a word, atheist, to describe your position. However, I wish there was a word to express opposition to faith, itself. Critics of the Chinese government and its dogma of Marxism are sent to re-education centres to accept the official ideology. That is analogous to the Inquisition. Ideology is merely religion with a shorter shelf time. Unfaithful implies something other than rejection of unprovable propositions. Sceptic merely means a doubter.

David of unfaith, rejecter of unprovable propositions

Yeah, David N & David F,
the term “atheist” is not ideal, mainly because not believing in a god or supernatural beings is the default position.
Why should there be a word to describe a non-belief or lack of belief in some made-up being, or anything for which there is no evidence?
I suppose I use it (reluctantly) because there is no other convenient term to describe or label this position.
Someone gave the example –perhaps it was Sam Harris, that we don’t have a word to describe a lack of belief in other non-proven things, like astrology. People don’t talk about a-astrologists.

I have no problem with people who have faith if they feel that it helps them deal with life, or when they feel it makes them a better person. But beliefs definitely need to be kept private.
The problem starts when someone's religious beliefs impose on other people’s freedom or interferes in other people’s lives.
I also have a problem with faith schools that spread or reinforce a certain faith held by the parents of the pupils. They can teach ABOUT world religions, but not promote any.
Schools are supposed to pass on knowledge about technology and such, not fill children’s heads with religious nonsense.

Poly, I understand what you mean and do see your point.
On the ABS site, people are asked to fill in the forms correctly also in regard to the religious question.

”ABS recognises that people have a wide range of belief systems

If your belief system is "Jedi" then answer as such on the census form. But if you would normally answer Anglican or Jewish or Buddhist or something else to the question "what is your religion?" and for the census you answer "Jedi" then this may impact on social services provision if enough people do the same.”

Tee-hee, we can play with the thought about the social services required by the Jedi :)

"BUS SLOGAN REJECTED!"

Heh, excellent. Common sense takes a wicket. Finally.

I see David's organization valid, if only to have the general public, both believing and non-believing, more able to review their situations based on science and history. If one considers the hunge resources placed into the hans of those whom would promote the Christmas story, why would one deny a simple sign on on a bus?

It is important to Humanity's intellectual outlook to know whether vegetarian lions accompanied a person called Noah on the Ark after a Flood that Covered all the world's mountains by twenty feet, or, whether the Sun is at the centre of the Solar System (conceded by Christians in 1992), or, whether Jesus Christ was a medicant or a god or other entity, or, whether The Earth is 6,000 years old or five billion years old.

"People against Live Animal Export..."

I suggest, it is probably good that the place of monarchy and religion have diminished. No more shooting of an Archduke leading to fifty million deaths. No more cruasades and Inquisitions. Domocratic government by The People, is superior to a Monarch or a Theocracy, I suggest.

one under god,

So you would you object to the sign on a chariot circa the first century of the current era? The Roman pangi regarded Chrsitians as Atheists. So ou would have agreed that it one should not have proclaimed Christ, because it would have been an offense to pantheism?

In the Julian decades, it would not have been so much the problem that Christians did worship their god, they would not recognize other gods.

Also, in case of the Jews, the offense was that Romans "did" go to their Jewish Temple" The Romans eat meat from the bone, which made them "unclean".

It was reported a couple of years ago that the Tasmanian group Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania wanted to pay for ads on the Metro Tasmania government buses against live exports, and it was refused. Apparently Metro Tasmania took exception to the picture of the dead sheep it contained.

Nicky

Hi Nicky,
So much for free speech/expression.
If people see no evil and hear no evil, then sheep exporters are free to do evil.

Hi Celivia
I couldn't believe it either, when I was told about it. I understand it was the same billboard picture that Animals Australia was using at the time. Maybe it's the way it is in Tasmania!
Cheers
Nicky

Well said Celivia.

Here I was thinking that Australia had finally shrugged off extreme conservatism when we voted out Howard - still freedom of expression eludes us.

Yes, I understand that the group in Tasmania had a Voiceless grant for its live export campaign, so it was quite upsetting for them. W should all be joining he campaign for a Bill of Rights for Australia, since it is the only "enlightened" country not to have one.

Nicky