religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column

[pantoandy]

good evening and welcome to another AA grumpy column.
i was unsure wether to post this as religous news or bizzare news
but anyway here it is enjoy....


A CHURCHGOING bus driver refused to drive a bus bearing a poster reading ’There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and go and enjoy your life'.

Committed Christian Ron Heather went on strike for three days in protest at his bus company employers putting the controversial advertising slogan on the side of their vehicles.

There are 800 buses and 1,000 Tube posters nationwide which have adopted the adverts designed by writer Ariane Sherine to combat aggressive religious posters on public transport.

Ron’s company First Buses have plastered the slogan on 20 of their vehicles ferrying passengers around his route in Southampton, Hants.

Religious Ron, 62, who has worked for the company since 2004, said: “I had already heard about them in London and I was hoping they were not coming to Southampton because I did not want to have to make a stand.

"I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face my first reaction was shock horror.

“I felt that I could not drive that bus, I told my managers and when they said they had not got another one I thought I better go home, so I did.
“I think it was the starkness of the advert that implied there was no God.”

Married Ron was called into a meeting with senior managers and agreed to go back into work providing they ensured he would only have to drive the buses if there were no others available.

A First spokeswoman said: “As a company we understand Mr Heather’s views regarding this atheist bus advert and we are doing what we can to accommodate his request not to drive the bus concerned.

“Mr Heather accepts though that he may need to drive one of these buses if no other vehicle is available for him.

“As an organisation we do not endorse any of the products or sentiments advertised on our buses.

"The content of this advert has been approved by the Advertising Standards Agency and therefore it is capable of being posted on static sites or anywhere else.

"We advise anyone who has an issue regarding the content of the advert to contact the ASA directly.”

AAG
WELL WE ALL HAVE OUR CROSS TO BEAR

[Lon]

Originally Posted by pantoandy

good evening and welcome to another AA grumpy column.
i was unsure wether to post this as religous news or bizzare news
but anyway here it is enjoy....


A CHURCHGOING bus driver refused to drive a bus bearing a poster reading ’There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and go and enjoy your life'.

Committed Christian Ron Heather went on strike for three days in protest at his bus company employers putting the controversial advertising slogan on the side of their vehicles.

There are 800 buses and 1,000 Tube posters nationwide which have adopted the adverts designed by writer Ariane Sherine to combat aggressive religious posters on public transport.

Ron’s company First Buses have plastered the slogan on 20 of their vehicles ferrying passengers around his route in Southampton, Hants.

Religious Ron, 62, who has worked for the company since 2004, said: “I had already heard about them in London and I was hoping they were not coming to Southampton because I did not want to have to make a stand.

"I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face my first reaction was shock horror.

“I felt that I could not drive that bus, I told my managers and when they said they had not got another one I thought I better go home, so I did.
“I think it was the starkness of the advert that implied there was no God.”

Married Ron was called into a meeting with senior managers and agreed to go back into work providing they ensured he would only have to drive the buses if there were no others available.

A First spokeswoman said: “As a company we understand Mr Heather’s views regarding this atheist bus advert and we are doing what we can to accommodate his request not to drive the bus concerned.

“Mr Heather accepts though that he may need to drive one of these buses if no other vehicle is available for him.

“As an organisation we do not endorse any of the products or sentiments advertised on our buses.

"The content of this advert has been approved by the Advertising Standards Agency and therefore it is capable of being posted on static sites or anywhere else.

"We advise anyone who has an issue regarding the content of the advert to contact the ASA directly.”

AAG
WELL WE ALL HAVE OUR CROSS TO BEAR

Who or what group is paying for the advertising on the buss?

[AussiePam]

Good on Mr Heather for standing up for his principles. The newspaper report has tried to turn him into a joke - but then it's probably difficult for many parts of the media industry to comprehend that principles exist.

[Lon]

Originally Posted by AussiePam

Good on Mr Heather for standing up for his principles. The newspaper report has tried to turn him into a joke - but then it's probably difficult for many parts of the media industry to comprehend that principles exist.

He is carrying his principles to the extreme by refusing to drive the bus. Would he stop reading news papers if discovered the owners were atheists, not patronize a particular store, not eat certain foods. He is an example of religious convictions run amuck.

[oscar]

Originally Posted by Lon

He is carrying his principles to the extreme by refusing to drive the bus. Would he stop reading news papers if discovered the owners were atheists, not patronize a particular store, not eat certain foods. He is an example of religious convictions run amuck.

Spot on Lon. However, under British law it would be a beach of his human rights to ask him to do anything in which he had a conflicting interest.

[AussiePam]

Originally Posted by Lon

He is carrying his principles to the extreme by refusing to drive the bus. Would he stop reading news papers if discovered the owners were atheists, not patronize a particular store, not eat certain foods. He is an example of religious convictions run amuck.

No, I don't agree. It's not the same thing at all. He would be driving a moving advertisement (a very in your face one) for something he disagrees with. He hasn't threatened to nuke the hell out of the country this has occurred in, nor is he about to embark on civil disobedience, or inciting others to possibly murder anyone. He took the matter up with the appropriate authorities and appears to have consented to a reasonable compromise. This is not obsessive bigotry and it is not at all like the other examples you stated. I'm not saying I agree with his opinions. Just that I admire him for standing up for them in a reasonable way.

[oscar]

Originally Posted by AussiePam

No, I don't agree. It's not the same thing at all. He would be driving a moving advertisement (a very in your face one) for something he disagrees with. He hasn't threatened to nuke the hell out of the country this has occurred in, nor is he about to embark on civil disobedience, or inciting others to possibly murder anyone. He took the matter up with the appropriate authorities and appears to have consented to a reasonable compromise. This is not obsessive bigotry and it is not at all like the other examples you stated. I'm not saying I agree with his opinions. Just that I admire him for standing up for them in a reasonable way.

Our buses are a constant source of advertising almost daily. Every day, there has to be offence some-where. The Saudi passenger offended by an ad on the bus for alcohol. The vegetarian driver offended by an ad for the meat market. The cancer victem offended by the ad for ciggarettes. The blue-rinse brigade offended by an ad of Beckham in his pants. The hetrosexual offended by an ad for Lesbian rights.

He should have realised this when he took the job. I'm sorry Pam, but i'm sick of seeing this country pay out compensation from the tax-payers pockets because some-one is 'offended'. We have just had another farcical case in the courts of a muslim looking for a pay out because he was asked to move alcohol in his supermarket job that involved, moving alcohol.

[Lon]

Originally Posted by AussiePam

No, I don't agree. It's not the same thing at all. He would be driving a moving advertisement (a very in your face one) for something he disagrees with. He hasn't threatened to nuke the hell out of the country this has occurred in, nor is he about to embark on civil disobedience, or inciting others to possibly murder anyone. He took the matter up with the appropriate authorities and appears to have consented to a reasonable compromise. This is not obsessive bigotry and it is not at all like the other examples you stated. I'm not saying I agree with his opinions. Just that I admire him for standing up for them in a reasonable way.

Would you feel the same way if a bus driver refused to drive a bus that advertised liquor or tobacco, or showgirls with to much cleavage? How about medical clinics that might do abortions?

The bus driver is just that, a bus driver. He is certainly entitled to his religious convictions but refusing to drive the bus is hypocritical because I am sure we could find other examples in his day to day living wherein he has not sussed out a particular action as being against his beliefs.

[oscar]

Originally Posted by Lon

Would you feel the same way if a bus driver refused to drive a bus that advertised liquor or tobacco, or showgirls with to much cleavage? How about medical clinics that might do abortions?

The bus driver is just that, a bus driver. He is certainly entitled to his religious convictions but refusing to drive the bus is hypocritical because I am sure we could find other examples in his day to day living wherein he has not sussed out a particular action as being against his beliefs.

Well said.

Anyone who takes a job knowing the buses are a constant source of advertising is a hypocrite.
If the advert was placed in hios church then he'd have my sympathy. This country is a muli=ethnic community of all races and religions. The moment we start to pander to Christianity extremists, we start pandering to Islamic extremists. They are no different when it comes to principles.

[AussiePam]

I don't care enough about the subject to go on arguing just to go on arguing. You win.