Ron Heather – Christian Bigot
So I’m back from the USA, have shaken off the jet-lag, and ready to delve back into the world of blogging once again. During my absence in America (which I plan to document in another blog post), the BHA successfully launched the range of atheist adverts on buses, trains, and billboards. I have yet to see one of the buses, but I’m bound to be in London one of these days.
One story that caught my attention was how a Christian bus driver, Ron Heather refused to drive his bus because it had an atheist advert on it. His words were:
I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face, my first reaction was shock horror.
…
I think it was the starkness of this advert which implied there was no God.
Starkness. Really? So now saying something is more than 50% likely is considered a “stark” proposition? Wow. How stark are Christian adverts that proclaim God does exist then? Having a first reaction of “shock horror” shows that you are someone who has absolutely no understanding of anyone else’s view, and your actions confirm it. Mr Heather, you are a bigot. Thank you for being the reason these adverts need to be shown; the fewer people like you there are, the more healthy society will become. We aren’t asking for dominant views, or for you to succumb to our beliefs. We are asking for equal time to share our opinion.
The real problem I have with this issue though, is that Mr Heather was meant to be providing a service to the community, and he rejected that service in order to feel like he had won some ultimate battle against people who oppose his view. At my first London Atheists Meetup, I met an atheist who was a driver on the London Underground (the subway system). He didn’t mind the number of Christian adverts that are plastered all over the underground network, neither did he refuse to work because of them.
Of course, I think there are probably people behind this entire event. The atheist ads have been on the news for months, and talked about at length by fundamentalist Christians, including Christian Voice. It wouldn’t surprise me if Mr Heather was either asked, or planned to “rebel” against the system, simply to get air time on radio and TV.
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
I'm really hoping that the ASA take up Green's challenge. Every time that man opens his mouth, the secular cause takes one more step forward!
Isn't bigotry a requirement to Christianity.
It seems to be. They're all about screaming for their freedom, just as long as no other faith or non-faith has it.
This highlights the distinction between the rational and irrational. A rational idea doesn't feel threatened by an irrational one. An irrational idea is threatened by every other idea in existence.
Therefor, whenever a religious person here's about atheism, they see a threat.
This kind of reminds me of the thing we have going on here in the US where doctors and pharmacists are protected from having to do ANYTHING that 'violates' their faith. Sooner or later we'll have a christian scientist who doesn't have to do anything except pray as a doctor.
I wonder, if I don't have to work where I might see or hear ideas that I don't like, how long before I can have those jews fired because their jewishness disturbs me? Or those filthy buddhists?
you can totally have atheists fired. been there, done that.
"freedom" to christians means to the freedom from ever having to encounter anything other than their viewpoint, ever.
of course, even if the whole world converted to worshipping the sky-daddy en masse, the next day you would hear about people who just aren't christian enough, and how we ought to punish them. it would end in a death match between ray comfort and kirk cameron, which would make the whole thing worthwhile if i could only be around to see it . . .
i don't really care, he's only made a fool of himself to the general public of the uk, which is largely non-religious, or at least not that far up the religiosity meter. i do agree that religion is enjoying undeserved and unjustifiable respect.
in london every so often you hear on the news: muslim cook is sueing his employer for asking him to handle pork. i mean you should have read the job description better! don't apply in the first place or make an agreement beforehand!
I doubt the bus driver was told he'd have to drive a bus plastered with an anti-christian message.
"the less people like you there are" makes it sound like we are going to go around WWII style with interment camps and creepy experiments. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, you have to do careful editing to keep the Religies from taking things out of context.
If you take what I said completely out of context then yes. The full context:
I think is quite clear in meaning; Mr Heather is a bigot, and the adverts are going to help raise awareness for atheism, thus minimizing the number of bigots, and increasing the health of society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
He doesn't seem to hate the message. He just want to be part in transmitting it.
A few facts: Ron Heather's a fairly quiet, fairly regular guy. Early sixties. Drives a bus. Family man. Used to be in the merchant navy. He's not a bigot – too thoughtful and too interested in passing the time of day with all sorts of people of varying views and ideologies for that – he wasn't particularly 'asked' to do what he did, nor was it particularly pre-planned. Your statement that "the less [ -- should read 'fewer', gramatically speaking -- ] people like you there are, the more healthy society will become" would sound ridiculous to anyone who actually knew Ron Heather (as I do); what gives you the right to assess someone's character and worth in that kind of sweeping way? Where's the rationality? Peace be with you, dude.
Sotonian, what if the sign had been for something else. Something, say, related to hip-hop culture or gangsta rap? Lots of people have problems with those. If he refused to drive the bus because of that? Or liberal politics?
No, he can only get away with this because of the "anything I believe because of religion is A-OK!" attitude.
What if it was a sign for, lets say, Buddhism? Or the Jehovah's Witnesses? Or Islam? Or Shinto?
No, its only because its atheism.
Is the bigotry just his? No.
His is just a perfect example.
Mr Heather's actions give me the right to critisize him. The advert wasn't aimed at him, and his religion has numerous adverts saying non-believers were going to hell (which I feel I should remind you we didn't complain about). Mr Heather had two options; he could have laughed at the silly advert and driven the bus, or he could have ignored freedom of speech and everyone else's opinion and refused flat out to do so. Only a bigot chooses the second option, because only a bigot is absolutely intolerant of another person's views. If I had the task of driving a buss with a big slogan "God will burn the non-believers", I would drive it with gusto, knowing full well than any non-believer who see's it will laugh at the message.
Mr Heather's actions give me the right to critisize him. The advert wasn't aimed at him, and his religion has numerous adverts saying non-believers were going to hell (which I feel I should remind you we didn't complain about). Mr Heather had two options; he could have laughed at the silly advert and driven the bus, or he could have ignored freedom of speech and everyone else's opinion and refused flat out to do so. Only a bigot chooses the second option, because only a bigot is absolutely intolerant of another person's views. If I had the task of driving a bus with a big slogan "God will burn the non-believers", I would drive it with gusto, knowing full well than any non-believer who see's it will laugh at the message.
"The less people like you there are, the more healthy society will become" doesn't sound like a criticism of Ron's actions one morning a couple of weeks ago. I'm guessing that you know Ron Heather entirely through media portrayals; I think that this is a rather shaky foundation upon which to build the resonant but rather creepy-sounding statement just quoted.
As for "only a bigot chooses the second option, because only a bigot is absolutely intolerant of another person's views", some friendly advice: stick to blogging. If you ever tried, I don't know, novels or agony uncle columns, you'd need to learn a bit of light and shade.
Peace be with you!
Certainly, it wasn't a criticism just based on his decision to not work that day, but he didn't just do that did he? No, he contacted radio shows and news networks to vent his bigotry. Why did he have to make such a big fuss of the matter? Only because he is intolerant of other beliefs. If he had simply not gone to work, I would have criticised him for having a ridiculous way of looking at things, but probably left it at that. The fact that he went all out to publicise his opposition to the posters makes him no less bigoted than groups like Christian Voice.
As for the second part of your comment, I think you'll find that the definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant of beliefs different to their own. Please demonstrate how Mr Heather didn't fulfil these requirements?
Certainly, it wasn't a criticism just based on his decision to not work that day, but he didn't just do that did he? No, he contacted radio shows and news networks to vent his bigotry. Why did he have to make such a big fuss of the matter? Only because he is intolerant of other beliefs. If he had simply not gone to work, I would have criticised him for having a ridiculous way of looking at things, but probably left it at that. The fact that he went all out to publicise his opposition to the posters makes him no less bigoted than groups like Christian Voice.
As for the second part of your comment, I think you'll find that the definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant of beliefs different to their own. Please demonstrate how Mr Heather didn't fulfil these requirements.
Reading this blog, I'm not seeing much "tolerance" here towards Christians. Hey, I've just realised, reading the vitriolic comments on other athiest sites (including Dawkins.net), not to mention the athiest bus campaign, it sounds more and more like the death throes of athiesm. The biggest bigots of them all are the athiests themselves who reserve such venom. Which as such does not endear many to the athiest cause.
Athiests simply cannot get away with saying that "religions have caused more bloodshed in the 20th Century than any other" – it was the athiestic and secular regimes of Stalin, Mao and Hitler (all who tried to eradicate relgious beliefs in some form or other – often by extermination) who caused most bloodshed – they were the biggest athiest bigots of the lot.
@Sotonian: You clearly don't understand the simple concepts written above. I apologize for the harshness of the statement, but as far as I can see it is true. Let me illuminate using an (admittedly extreme) example.
A guy (we'll call him Bob) is a nice old guy. Good to his grandkids, donates to some darn fine charities. Contributes to the community. Always pleasant to his neighbors. There's just this little thing, that oen time that he raped and murdered a six-year-old. And defended his actions with ridiculous hypocrisy. Hmm, to me, it seems that regardless of the rest of that fine stuff, the less people out there like Bob, the better. Because I'm not in favor of kiddie raping. But that's just me, I guess.
Do you see the parallel? If someone does something that you find completely morally objectionable, then you are perfectly justified in saying you wish that person, and those like him, no longer existed (in the benign sense that doesn't involve killing them), regardless of how nice they are otherwise.
What if he was pleasant to be around, but well, just wouldn't drive the bus if "those niggers" got on, implying with "their starkness" that they might be equal? Why, that might be BAD. But no, instead, he refuses to do his job because there's an advertisement about religion he doesn't agree with. THATS okay. It clearly isn't as 'bad' (in the sense of making unsupportable statements) as religious ads, and yet he finds"shock horror". He is hypocritical. And a bigot, in that any opinion that in any way conflicts with his own on a subject causes horror and revulsion. And I agree that hypocritical bigots are not the kind of people that I want around. Sorry. You aren't he type of person I want around, either, in that your comments show you to be willfully ignorant. But, I do hope that you, just like I hope the bus driver, can change. And then you might be the type of person that isn't just wasting oxygen.
In the meantime, have a nice day, and try not to be too scared of your imaginary friend.
If someone does something that you find completely morally objectionable, then you are perfectly justified in saying you wish that person, and those like him, no longer existed (in the benign sense that doesn't involve killing them)
I disagree; I could wish that their actions had been different, but to wish for their non-existence would feel wrong for me.
And then you might be the type of person that isn't just wasting oxygen.
You disbelieve in God because you'd be jealous of anyone else sitting in judgement, right? ;)
In the meantime, have a nice day, and try not to be too scared of your imaginary friend.
Cheers, pal. Actually, I feel less scared and more comfortable in my own skin as a Christian than I used to feel as an atheist. A suggestion: try putting the Tillichian notion of 'the ground of all being' alongside the more readily-available notion of 'God out there' and you have a richer, fuller Christianity to disbelieve in and to attack. You'd like to test your strength against a WORTHY enemy, right??
If their actions are different, then they are different, therefore they don't exist as they did. The objectionable bit is gone. I didn't say you would WANT to wish that, only that you would be JUSTIFIED in thinking it…and your only response is 'would feel wrong for me'. If your wife is raped and slaughtered in front of you, you woudl be justified in wanting the man who did it brought to justice and executed. If you are against the death penalty personally, that's fine, but nonetheless, from an objective standpoint you would be justified in wanting it. I note you don't actually address my points, only my opening (which led into me actually making my point and was a preamble) and my closing (which was admittedly a bit snarky).
Oh, and I disbelieve in god for my own reasons. I could destroy your assertion, but I recognize that you're just being snarky, so won't bother to pound a point home against a joke.
In the end, you're welcome to your faith. I don't particularly care. Tillich's notions were no more reasonable than any others…and in response to your comment, I don't care how rich or full a fantasy is, I won't prefer it to reality. I almost certainly know more about religions in general and Christianity in specific than you, though of course I could be wrong. This discussion wasn't about the existence or non-existence of god, though, it was about a bigot who should be immediately fired from his job.
As someone else stated, not only did he refuse to do his job for hypocritical reasons, he then SPOKE OUT ABOUT IT. Were this a private thing, I could chalk it up to a mistake, or that he needed time to think things through. But he went public and gave an interview. This indicates a certain degree of calculation. Whether he was influenced by outsiders or not, the point remains that he is, by his own statements, a bigot. An outspoken one. And for that he should be fired, because he's not rendering the services he's been hired for. I suppose it never occurred to him to wear a sign that says "I disagree with the sign on my bus", eh? Probably because it would have gotten him less press.
You've hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph mate, people who oppose this campaign surely saw the plans weeks if not months ago, but chose the day the adverts started to be angry. Seems to me that they aren't really offended but just want to make a fuss for the press. Especially the red-tops, who will no doubt take the side of the Christians on this.
PS. Saw an atheist bus in the flesh for the first time in Leeds the other day, jolly good show!
Hey people.
I also am a friend of Ron Heather. Please don’t slag him off, he is a caring and considerate man, and if you knew him you would realise that. I find it a shame that some people debating would launch a person attack on someone they don’t even know instead of constructing a constructive and un-judgemental comment.
I (it may surprise you taking into account the opening paragraph), like many on this blog, think the BHA bus adverts are a good, healthy and important campaign (even though I don’t personally agree with the content). I think this because these, the Christian Alpha, and other questioning advertisements are making people think, rather than never challenging their opinions and worldviews.
Surely all people (Christian, Atheist, or other) who are passionate about what is true and what is not, are glad that we are searching and evaluating the things of life and existence? Let’s peaceably encourage this!
Kisses.
I am glad you like the adverts; I have no problems with you; you are not a bigot. Mr Heather does not like the adverts, and the manner in which he expressed his disgust makes him a religious bigot, even if he is caring and considerate to his friends.
I find this argument rather silly in fact, because so far two people have commented on this blog as "friends" of Mr Heather saying how nice he is. I almost feel like saying "Well, duh!". Of course he is caring and considerate to friends…you wouldn't be friends with him if it were any other way. Unfortunately his actions towards his friends do not reconcile with his actions towards people who do not share his beliefs, and this makes him a bigot. Your argument fails because you could use it to justify Hitler (who I am sure was very nice to his friends…but not so nice to the Jews).
Your right in that Ron is caring and considerate towards his friends, but again you have prejudged a person you do not even know anything about (except one incident in his life). I think you misunderstood me (how did Hitler get thrown in there?). __You are assuming, it seems to me, that he is not this way towards those who are not his friends. So can I share how he acts toward those who are not his friends (maybe even those who are his enemies)?__Ron spends a lot of his time serving others. He and his wife give up their time and resources to be involved with helping underprivileged people who live in one of the most deprived and impoverished areas of England, running and volunteering for community clubs and workshops as well as other social action projects. The people he serves are of a variety of worldviews and backgrounds, and not necessarily his ‘friends’. __
(continued)____As I have already expressed, I do not totally agree with Ron’s’ views of the advertisements (I believe in freedom of speech and opinion, not censorship), my point was not really based on the advertisements as such, more on your sweeping judgement of Ron.__He may not get everything right, but he certainly takes ‘love your enemies’’ seriously…__
Exile,
Ron may be a lovely man…to you. But because of his clearly bigoted ACTIONS he is not such a lovely man…to me. Someone who acts like MY point of view should not be tolerated, that my (lack of) belief should be disallowed, is not my idea of a nice guy.
I’m not attacking him personally. If I met him I’d not punch him in the nose. But I don’t like him because of what he has done. That’s how you judge people, by what they do and how they treat you.
He’s treating me, and others like me, rather poorly.
Some general thoughts: for adherents, religion is a matter of ultimate concern. It was no small matter for Ron to refuse to drive that morning… but if we draw an analogy with the medical profession, a surgeon would conceivably refuse to carry out his duties if he'd turned up to a dirty, understaffed operating theatre. Surgeons don't usually do this, but, medical and professional ethics being what they are, we know that this is a possibility and this knowledge helps hospitals to make sure that the facilities they provide don't fall short. A member of the public who (let's say) publicly objects to a chain of newsagents marketing Playboy-branded stationery at young girls; a bunch of caterers at Heathrow who strike for a living wage; a bus driver who decides where a line should be drawn – like it or lump it, they're making an activist stand in an attempt to change the social, moral and aesthetic climate around them. I think that Ron increased Christian visibility by his actions; personally, I prefer his quiet militancy to the attempted cleverness of some churches who "welcomed" the campaign as "a contribution to the debate".
To pick up on some of Adrian’s specific comments:
[To Exile] .. I am glad you like the adverts; I have no problems with you; you are not a bigot. …. [Concerning Ron] … and this makes him a bigot
When I read the opening of your post, the image popped into my mind of you as a kind of customs officer, waving a security wand over people. Bigot? Red light, angry buzzing sound. Non-bigot? Green light, pleasant chime, "thank you sir; on your way."
That's something of what I meant by 'light and shade' in my previous remarks. We disagree profoundly on this, and we're not going to agree any time soon – that's clear. But when I worked with people with mental health issues, we were asked to be sensitive about our use of language. "Terry has schizophrenia" means that the person named has a condition which, perforce, he must learn to manage (often with the right support and help, maybe medication); Terry may also be a bus driver, a poet, a dad, whatever. "Terry is a schizophrenic" seems to limit Terry's identity, defining it exclusively in terms of his mental health condition and probably invoking all sorts of stereotypes. You, unlike me, think that Ron's action a couple of weeks ago was bigoted… okay, but why not stop at saying this? Why not acknowledge – for the sake of logic, and a more gracious more nuanced response to the human world – the possibility that Ron acts in a bigoted way in some situations and in a non-bigoted way in others? (Referencing the Monty Python sketch): I know I do.
Bigotry is a vile system that needs eradication to preserve a tolerant society.
I do acknowledge that Ron acts in non-bigoted ways to some situations. This is evident by the fact that he is your friend, and that he has friends. However just because a murderer doesn't murder in some situations doesn't make him any less of a murderer. It takes one murder to become a murderer, and one act of bigotry to become a bigot. Unlike the status of "murderer" though, the status of bigot can be temporary, and Mr Heather has only to apologise for his senseless actions and return to proper work to rid him of his.
Mr Heather has only to apologise for his senseless actions and return to proper work to rid him of his.
[Sings]: The vilest offender who truly disbelieves
That moment from Dawkins a pardon receives…
:)
An open question: do you feel that you have ever acted in a bigoted manner?
Mmm, I'm not sure if I'd go as far as to call him a bigot, but I do have to admit… it does seem at least somewhat intolerant to just stop doing your job. Even beyond that, not showing up to work because you disagree with something seems ridiculous to me. I'm surprised he wasn't fired for just stopping his work. I suppose in that regard, I find it to be an odd work ethic sort of thing.
And well, I have to agree with others on this blog in some respect. Mr. Heather shows an intolerance for what I choose to think, and that's not an aspect of him I'm very fond of. Is he a nice person, great to his kids, and so on? Very possibly, how would I know, I'm not even from the same country. Yet apparently he is so against what I think that he would act in a manner I find inappropriate… so I can't help but think he might act inappropriately towards me as well. I feel as if I am courteous, respectful, and even very supportive of the many Christians in my life, and despite not being one myself, would not choose to act as he did.
Why do so many Christians read atheist blogs, anyway? I never search theirs out; I wonder if there's a group of atheists who goes and criticizes Christians, or if it's just a one way exchange. Anyone know?
I don't see how him being a nice person to his friends or children has any play in this event. People are generally always nice to their friends, but they can be bigoted somewhere else. There is no rule saying "If you are nice to your children you cannot be a bigot" because the two are completely separate. I'm sure Hitler was nice to Eva Braun, as well as his higher ranking officers, but it doesn't make him any less of a bigot who murdered millions of Jews.
Why do so many Christians read atheist blogs, anyway?
Not sure, but probably makes for a better planet that they do:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/31/olive...target=”_blank”>http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/31/olive...
If you wanted to dip your toe into the range of Christian opinion on all the issues of the day, Ship of Fools is probably the best place:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb...
Anyway, I can't speak for others, but I'm interested because I'm a friend of Ron's… I'd googled his name and found this site in the top ten; as it's reasonably intelligent and non-vile (you should see someof the stuff out there… mind you, there are plenty of nutjob 'Christian' fundies on there too) I thought I'd interlocute with you guys, from my own Christian standpoint.
Not showing up to work because you disagree with something seems ridiculous to me.
Well, that's two hundred years of trade union struggle down the toilet, then. Tolpuddle Martyrs, it was all in vain ;)
Sorry, that first link didn't quite come off… just Google "guardian homophily burkeman" and you'll get to the page I meant.
… not showing up to work because you disagree with something seems ridiculous to me …
Well, the Tolpuddle Martyrs needn't have bothered then, eh? :)
As for Christians browsing atheist blogs, well, it's probably to the social good. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/31/olive...target=”_blank”>http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/31/olive...
If you wanted to read a range of intelligent Christian opinion, Ship of Fools is a great place to start.
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/
Love and peace to you!
Actually, that link didn't seem to work (the first one) – just Google 'Guardian homophily Burkeman' and you're there.
I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact, I'm pretty much saying the same thing: what does how nice he is have to do with how he acts? The word bigot is a very harsh word to me, so I prefer not to use it.
the definition I found for bigot, which is what I use the word as, is…
"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
Is Ron Heather like that? Maybe, maybe not. But this one act of his does not prove that to me.
And I suppose I should be more specific: not showing up to work because of something like THIS seems ridiculous to me. When he took the job as a bus driver, he knew he would not have any sort of say in what is on the bus. It in no way impedes him from doing his job, nor does any sort of harm to him.
Tired of this deception. Hitler was NOT an atheist. Read Mein Kampf sometime. He talks about being an agent of god and the creator and all that.__Stalin and Mao abolished religion (or attempted to), but abolishing religion doesn't make you an atheist.
Isn't there a huge difference between Christian and Atheist adverts?
One is proposing that something might exist whereas the other is proposing that something doesn't exist. It's hardly suprising that someone doesn't want to be part of the distribution of a message that states his belief is unlikely. Christian messages suggest that there may be a god. That's a farcry from saying 'there may be a god so stop ya atheism'.
Simple: one is negative, the other is positive. Someone holding beliefs has a right to refuse to be part of the distribution of a message which acts to dismiss those beliefs.
Let's suppose the message had been "Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work", or "There is no other intelligent life in the universe" or "There are no psychic powers"? Would he have been justified in saying "No, I won't be a party to spreading that message"
As far as negative/positive goes, yes, the religious ad is making a 'positive' statement in that it postulates something exists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the thing in question is good. I think we can all agree that statements supporting racist groups are positive (racist groups exist) yet not a positive thing (racism is bad). Nor do I think it is hard to see how many people might see the existence of God/Jesus/whatever as a bad thing. if one sees things that way, then, from a value perspective, asserting atheism is asserting a negative (god doesn't exist) which is a positive (god not existing is a good thing).
He has a perfect right to say he won't put any signs up on his lawn. But he has no such right to refuse to do what his employers legally require.
If my company suddenly picked up a contract with the Republican Party (who I disagree with on virtually all subjects) and I said I wasn't going to work with them, my company would have every right to fire my ass. Happens all the time (almost happened to me once not all that long ago).