Constitutional concept kicks in, Fort Worth scraps ALL religious ads on busses.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Constitutional concept kicks in, Fort Worth scraps ALL religious ads on busses.

People often falsely  accuse atheists of wanting to force religion out of existence via force of government.

The Fort Worth transit authority decided to change it's bus add policies after the competing adds of churches and atheist groups run out at the end of the year. They will no longer accept any religious adds due to the controversy they say it creates and distracts from the employees doing their jobs.

The founders concept of neutrality was much like giving a child a choice. "You can do your homework now, or you can do it later, but you will do it"

Much in the same vein "You let it all in, or you keep it all out, but you will not exclude or include based on favoritism of one label over another"

The truth is that the transit probably would have, if it could have, allowed church adds but not atheist adds, but feared a lawsuit if they didn't allow them. And when the shit hit the fan when the atheist add went up, the transit company took the "If I cant have you no one can", which is where theists end up once they realize they have to either share or abstain.

It is a very important anti-monopoly concept that the founders were very wise in implementing and as much as they want to point the fingers at us evil kitten barbecuing atheists, they fail to understand that this concept of neutrality protects them as well.

What if this same transit company only allowed Catholic adds, but not Baptist adds. What if this company allowed Jewish adds, but not Christian adds? What if this company was in Utah and only allowed LDS adds but not Catholic adds?

No atheist I know thought this would last, but it did force government to take the Constitutional position by giving the company a choice, "let it all in, or keep it all out" and the policy makers of the company, most likely Christian, weren't doing it because of a controversy, but because they didn't want to share the same venue with atheists.

You have to treat them like children with toys, you either share it, or have it taken away.

But either way believers will not get away with monopolizing ANY government funded venue and then deny that same venue to others. If they don't want others doing it, then they shouldn't be doing it themselves.

The founders concept worked in this case and what gets me is that most Christians don't even know how much the founders were wise and how much it protects them as well.

The concept of Neutrality is not  a ban, but showing no favoritism. Once they put up their church adds they cannot complain when others use that same venue, otherwise don't bitch.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3702
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The truth is

Brian37 wrote:

The truth is that the transit probably would have, if it could have, allowed church adds but not atheist adds, but feared a lawsuit if they didn't allow them. 


 

   

        Your statement most likely captures the  essence of their ( Transit Authority ) reason for the total ban.  Favoritism is harder to get away with in the public arena.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You have to

Brian37 wrote:
You have to treat them like children with toys, you either share it, or have it taken away.

With the added exception that sharing toys sucks - especially for single children like me. This doesn't.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)