Here we go again...

philologos

swampgas wrote: »

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Often it is there quite intentionally. It would be very easy to put the bible in the glove box when it's not being read.

I don't see why he should have to. I personally couldn't care if it was a Qur'an or a Vedas. Indeed, I probably would have asked him about it still. You can just ignore it if you don't want to talk about it.

swampgas wrote: »

And just because you feel the bible is wonderful doesn't mean that other people would be comfortable discussing it.

I started the conversation. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. That's very simple. If you don't want to talk about it, just ignore it.

swampgas wrote: »

Most people when confronted with someone eager to discuss the bible are trapped by their own good manners and refuse to tell the bible-pusher they really not interested.

Nobody was pushing the Bible. I asked him about it. Please take note of the detail I've given you of what happened. Having a Bible out isn't pushing it.

swampgas wrote: »

I have no problem discussing god, religion and atheism in an appropriate forum - that's why I'm posting here, where people want to discuss these things. But when rubbing along with fellow strangers in public, it's easier for most people to avoid discussing contentious issues - I wouldn't want to discuss abortion or politics with every cabbie I met either.

Interesting, so it was inappropriate for me to have asked him even though he was perfectly eager to share this with me?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

How many times dude? Logic, reason and rationality! :rolleyes:

How many times dude? bad answer :pac:

Claiming that something is logical, or reasonable doesn't mean that it is.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Claiming that something is logical, or reasonable doesn't mean that it is.

Being rational is what makes it rational.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

How many times dude? bad answer :pac:

Claiming that something is logical, or reasonable doesn't mean that it is.

Of course, I'm not the arbiter of what is logical, but I do know how to follow it. Rationality as an art deeply interests me and claims need to stand up to it before I accept them.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Being rational is what makes it rational.

I agree with you. I just happen to think that atheism is irrational. It may be best to stick to the actual topic?

I know you think Christianity is irrational.
You know I think atheism is irrational.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I know you think Christianity is irrational.
You know I think atheism is irrational.

You're mixing up "irrational" with "counter-factual". Atheism and agnosticism are quite rational positions to adopt, but may or may not be counter-factual.

Christianity has evolved, particularly amongst the more recently-evolved variation(s) that you accept, to be factually undisprovable. And once certain axioms are taken as true, can appear superficially "rational" too.

philologos

You're entitled to think what you like of atheism. Personally I think it is fundamentally unreasonable at least right now in my life.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

You're entitled to think what you like of atheism. Personally I think it is fundamentally unreasonable at least right now in my life.

Fundamentaly unreasonable to say that theism fails to answer important questions, a little bit harsh no?

philologos

I'm much more interested in sticking by the topic for this one. If a more suitable thread arises and this comes up again I'll continue this. I think it is pretty pointless to bang on about how "irrational" the other is being when we know clearly already that this is the case on both sides of the Christianity - atheism debate.

Dades

If I saw a plain looking cross like this on the dashboard of some form of 'company vehicle' there no way in hell I'd conclude that company were endorsing any form of religion. It's clearly something the driver stuck in his cabin.



Maybe if his job involved health services or something with any vague relations to faith or religion it would be prudent to ask him to removed, but to tell an electrician he can't throw a cross up there is just overkill. Yeah, if all their drivers started hanging up beads and Korans and 8-armed-elephants then make a call on it - otherwise - unnecessary drama, imo.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

If I saw a plain looking cross like this on the dashboard of some form of 'company vehicle' there no way in hell I'd conclude that company were endorsing any form of religion. It's clearly something the driver stuck in his cabin.

Well, yes, but how would you feel if, say, some guy clamping your car had Sinn Fein stickers on his van?

Or is it better simply to agree just to leave contentious topics out of one's professional life?

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Well, yes, but how would you feel if, say, some guy clamping your car had Sinn Fein stickers on his van?

Unless he claimed to be clamping me for being a lapsed republican then I don't think I'd feel any different.
I'm still down €80 or whatever it is these days!

robindch wrote: »

Or is it better simply to agree just to leave contentious topics out of one's professional life?

It appears we differ on what constitutes both contentious and what constitutes being part of someone's professional life.

I cannot see how him being a happy-clapper makes any difference to the electrician service he is offering.
He's hardly going to hotwire my fusebox to burn my heathen house down.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I cannot see how him being a happy-clapper makes any difference to the electrician service he is offering.

Doesn't make much difference to the service, but it does make a difference to the way in which he's offering it.

In my work, I spend a fair amount of time in countries that are, let's say, less willing to tolerate atheists than Ireland is. I keep my views on religion (and politics, mostly) to myself and these are almost universally respected. I think it's a matter of simple professional courtesy for other professionals to do the same.

That said, I can't say I'm too worried about what this guy is doing, though I read somewhere that his employer will allow him to wear religious symbols on his clothes. Just not on his the company car which isn't his. Seems a reasonable compromise to me, though it doesn't surprise me that -- like the NHS nurse a couple of years back -- he appears to have decided to play the "persecuted-christian" card for all it's worth.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Doesn't make much difference to the service, but it does make a difference to the way in which he's offering it.

No really seeing that one. You're not flagging a mobile electrical service down like a cab, so I suspect his company's services are offered and organised over the phone or online, and actually carried out in a premises with a toolbox!

While the whole persecution thing had been 'Daily Mailed', I wonder what's the point in giving someone the stick they can use to beat themselves with?

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

If I saw a plain looking cross like this on the dashboard of some form of 'company vehicle' there no way in hell I'd conclude that company were endorsing any form of religion. It's clearly something the driver stuck in his cabin.



Maybe if his job involved health services or something with any vague relations to faith or religion it would be prudent to ask him to removed, but to tell an electrician he can't throw a cross up there is just overkill. Yeah, if all their drivers started hanging up beads and Korans and 8-armed-elephants then make a call on it - otherwise - unnecessary drama, imo.

While that may seem reasonable at first glance, it has to be kept in mind that determining what isn't actually over kill is a political and social mind field.

Colin had his cross on his dashboard, why can't I have my SF sticker. Billy had his SF sticker why can't I have my Out of Euro Now sticker. Mark has is out of Euro Now sticker why can't I have End Abortions sticker etc

Saying well Colin is allowed represent his beliefs but your beliefs are a bit too nuts so we are going to stop you from doing it is something public bodies cannot do. It is, literally, all or nothing, secular state bodies cannot assess whether any particular belief is more worthy of inclusion than another other particular belief. Jakkass himself demonstrates this. Obviously he wouldn't be ok with a sticker on the dash saying that Christianity is a false religion and that theism is brainwashing.

There is really no purpose of this cross except to evangelize. It is not placed in a private position for the driver to see, it is place for everyone else to see. How small it is is rather irrelevant to the principle at work here.

philologos

Wicknight - have you heard at many people who have dropped to their knees at the sight of a palm cross on a dashboard, because I certainly haven't.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight - have you heard at many people who have dropped to their knees at the sight of a palm cross on a dashboard, because I certainly haven't.

Have you heard of people who have converted at the sight of an atheism poster calling Christians morons? Because I certainly haven't.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I wonder what's the point in giving someone the stick they can use to beat themselves with?

Well, as wicknight points out, it's a policy nightmare. If you allow one person to start sticking religious or political emblems on company property, where do you stop?

How would a christian fundamentalist feel if somebody showed up with some satanic symbols stuck to the company van? Would he/she feel comfortable, or would she run off to the Daily Mail to whinge that the housing services people were in the pay of Satan? The Daily Mail would blow a gasket, only this time, for exactly the opposite reason.

twinQuins

I've already posted about this, my feelings are thus - the company doesn't want their name associated with the personal statements of their employees which, I think, is reasonable.
It's been quoted from the Telegraph article that employees are allowed wear personal religious effects on their person which I think is a nice compromise.

If a self-employed taxi driver does so well that's fine, he has no one but himself to answer to and if he wants to tell others he's Christian I don't care but this manufactured outrage has got to stop.

mikhail

robindch wrote: »

Well, as wicknight points out, it's a policy nightmare. If you allow one person to start sticking religious or political emblems on company property, where do you stop?

There's the rub: if you're running such a company, you don't want to annoy anyone really. Probably it's easiest to just blanket ban political or religious logos, symbols or slogans. That said, the cross in this case is pretty anodyne.

Really, I can't blame the company - they're in a slightly awkward situation.

On the other hand, I have no time for the man willing to embarrass his employers to retain the right to proselytise from his company van, nor for the newspaper willing to make a mountain out of a molehill to sell papers.

Dades

Given this incident is isolated I still feel action was unnecessary. I don't see the problem with making a common sense decision to outlaw the practice when religious iconography becomes an actual issue - i.e where there's a multitude of faiths (or Satanists) or whatever being paraded around in their vehicles.

It seems the "ban everything in case it becomes an issue" attitude has actually created an issue of persecution that would not have been relevant had there been more that one person involved.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Given this incident is isolated I still feel action was unnecessary. I don't see the problem with making a common sense decision to outlaw the practice when religious iconography becomes an actual issue - i.e where there's a multitude of faiths (or Satanists) or whatever being paraded around in their vehicles.

But then they leave themselves open to the inevitable, "Oh you let the Christian put up his cross, but NOW when WE put up our logos you change your policy!
I don't envy the company in such an issue. They probably just wanted to nip the issue in the bud before it took off. Of course, the Faily Fail won't allow that if they can help it. :rolleyes:

philologos

^^ TBH with you I wouldn't see a problem with someone putting a small religious symbol in their dash irrespective of what faith that is.

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ TBH with you I wouldn't see a problem with someone putting a small religious symbol in their dash irrespective of what faith that is.

Me neither, but someone would no doubt. There's always someone to complain about such things. I assume the company were hoping to avoid future hassle when a hypothetical Johnny Too Much Free Time decides to kick up fuss.

sponsoredwalk

So naturally you all are equally opposed to public company X having
michelin man wheels or a michelin man figurine hanging beside some
tree-shaped air freshener by company Y in their car, for fear of
propagating the idea that the state has some allegiance to Michelin
corporation ergo displaying some sort of state favouritism :eek:

Similarly I'm sure there is equal frustration at public companies, such as
the company that guy works for, using Ford cars instead of bland
unbiased cars for fear of creating some image of favouritism or bias,
or perhaps giving some of us the idea that the state supports companies
with a rich history of supporting racism/antisemitism & with links to
South American death squads.

I too hold deep, deep resentment at those bus drivers who put on a
certain radio station above others as they travel up the north on
state-funded buses, giving tourists (& yours truly) the impression that
the state prefers fm 104 over phantom 105.2 :mad: Such a contentious
issue it is for state-sponsored vehicles to even appear to condone one
thing over another.

Damn postman & his nokia mobile, tempted my fragile little mind into
thinking the dept. of communications was indirectly telling me that I
must buy a nokia or else my pension wont be coming to me! Why?
Because he had some affiliation with the state! This same man had
a copy of Uncle Vanya in his bag that day, I thought he was going to
shoot me with Chekov's gun to stop me getting my pension if I didn't
comply! You see my fear! Had to get the dept. to officially give me a
statement that they were in no way affiliated to Chekov. Best not to
let situations like these even arise by banning everything with a shadow
methinks!

Once I seen a bus driver smoke Marlboro. I was deeply offended because
of the KKK allegations & because I thought the Health Minister might have
approved of this because it was linked to a state-sanctioned business
via the state-sanctioned bus driver. It seems logical right? There is simply
no other way to interpret the situation either so it's justifiable. Glad some
people share my pain about these sensitive issues...

I was wrong to defend this man earlier, I now feel that the state showing
christian favouritism via this mans windscreen is far too important & it's
just rational to censor his personal beliefs from being expressed via his
workplace. Some might criticize me for defending a publicly-funded
company that pays a private company with a rich history of racism &
funding Brazillian death squads when they choose that private company
over another private company thereby displaying state-sanctioned
favouritism & allegiances that are harmful & offensive, but I mean they
just don't get the consistency of it all & I just can't help that.

---

Honestly, I see no other way to highlight how hypocritical it is to call
for censoring this guy from carrying a bible/cross with him than with
examples such as those, don't know how anybody could miss the gaping
logical hole here unless there was some ideological motivation behind all
this. Personally I think this is all fcuking bat-siht crazy, the logic of you all
trying to censor a person from bringing his bible to work with him equally
applies to him & his favourite-air-freshener, but for some reason we
just don't hear people, who brag about being consistent, also applying
that same consistent logic to the other things that it can be applied to
in the same fcuking picture :pac: Purely ideological & if I was a christian I
would rightly interpret this as an attack on religion masquerading as
political correctness (masquerading because there are so many logical
gaps in this approach it doesn't make sense why religion is being targeted
unless there is an ideological reason to attack it over michelin man air
fresheners).

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I don't see the problem with making a common sense decision to outlaw the practice when religious iconography becomes an actual issue [...]

As I said above, by common consent in professional environments, nobody talks religion because everybody knows how quickly it can lead to arguments. In this context, yer man's choice to display religious symbols in his car is unprofessional of him since it puts his employer into the difficult position of either having to request people to stop doing this, or to risk setting a precedent and either (a) possibly having their cars filled at some future point with religious and political stuff, or (b) subsequently, having to ban what was previous permitted. None of these options are very palatable and that's why the guy should not have forced the issue.

Subsequently showing up in the national media and intentionally embarrassing his employer in public just makes the situation worse.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't see a problem with someone putting a small religious symbol in their dash irrespective of what faith that is.

The issue is that it sets a precedent that company property can be used for the display of religious (and by extension, political) messages.

That's inappropriate.

sponsoredwalk

swampgas wrote: »

Personally I don't think anyone should flaunt their religion or lack thereof in a public space. It's just rude.

Why? Doesn't make any sense to me. You may as well use this argument
against men with long hair, or multi-coloured mohawks because it's just
rude after all, not the done thing. Everything is rude, time to just have
sex with rude & get over the shame methinks...

swampgas wrote: »

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Often it is there quite intentionally. It would be very easy to put the bible in the glove box when it's not being read.

It's very easy for those mohawk'ed freaks to just wear a hat out and
about to save us all the shame of seeing it. I mean they should just
understand that what they're doing is rude & they should be ashamed
of it. Why? Because!!!

Please, tell me about the horrors that will occur due to the fact that
someone intentionally left a bible out, I'd love to hear about it because
the horrors of this sound as if they'd rank well on a pie-chart for
something equally horrendous.

swampgas wrote: »

And just because you feel the bible is wonderful doesn't mean that other people would be comfortable discussing it.

I had to ask myself how you mustered the courage to write this post
despite the fact that someone might not be comfortable reading it, but
I simply can't find a sensible answer to this question so I'll ask you, how
does the logic of what you've just said apply to Jakkass because he
(hypothetically) wants to talk about the bible to total strangers but not
to to you when you make posts on forums, or talk to anybody at all?
This logic would stop Hellen Keller from seeing because someone might
not like her looking at, or listening to, them :pac:

Jakkass wrote: »

The only ones that seem to get offended at things like this are some atheists

CYP

Dades

I'd be a lot more "offended" by one of those cringeable car-window decorations that show a cartoon Celtic fan urinating on a Rangers jersey. (Probably displayed by someone who has never even been to Scotland).

mikhail

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So naturally you all are equally opposed to public company X having
michelin man wheels or a michelin man figurine hanging beside some
tree-shaped air freshener by company Y in their car, for fear of
propagating the idea that the state has some allegiance to Michelin
corporation ergo displaying some sort of state favouritism :eek:...

It was quite amusing to read the series of reasonably posts leading up to your hysterical little rant. When everyone avoids mentioning what tyres they use in a professional context because it is an emotive, divisive topic, your comparison won't be daft as a brush. Though someone who throws a fit when his employers tell him he can't personalise company property will still be a twit.

sponsoredwalk

robindch wrote: »

As I said above, by common consent in professional environments, nobody talks religion because everybody knows how quickly it can lead to arguments.

mikhail wrote: »

When everyone avoids mentioning what tyres they use in a professional context because it is an emotive, divisive topic,

These are such convenient reasons why people don't talk about religion in
a professional context they seem a little too good to be true. Simply put
the reason people do not discuss religion in a professional context is not
because they are "divisive" topics it's because religion has nothing to do
with the majority of professional business. Religion is not talked about in
most contexts for the same reason the storm that creates the eye of
Jupiter or yaks milk are not talked about - it's just got no relevance to
the work being done (in most scenario's).

Furthermore I think these are dishonest statements because religion is
talked about in some professional contexts, such as "act of god" in
insurance claims, religious holidays being given, needless to say in
a church or somewhere these are nearly all that's talked about.
Kind of highlights the flaw in using such broad arguments, even my
yaks milk & eye of Jupiter examples above aren't as broad as you've
made your claims out to be.

I'll also add that many religious people simply do not view religion as
being divisive & do not shy away from conversations on the topic. It
is definitely true that religion is highly divisive but that simply doesn't
stop people, especially when the majority of those in a certain area
are of the same faith, from talking about that faith.

mikhail wrote: »

your comparison won't be daft as a brush.

My comparisons were with regard to the idea that someone seeing a
bible or cross in a car/bus might get the idea that the state endorses
religion X, & I was just taking that idea to it's logical conclusions. I
think you'll find that argument in this tread preceding my post & calling
my examples "daft as a bush" doesn't change the fact that they follow
from that perspective.

---

The main point I'm making is that you all know well that the state isn't
favouring one religion over another because a guy has a cross in his
windscreen, & if you think they are you can easily find out without trying
to censor this person from doing what they want. Also, considering
the claim of rationality that's thrown around I find it highly irrational
to ignore something so obvious & to prefer censoring everything you
can instead of letting people feel comfortable bringing a bible or cross
to work in what is generally viewed as a free society.