What constitutes offense?

[N4mddissent]

Recently, ads purchased by an atheist group in Iowa were placed on buses there. However, the bus company received so many complaints of people taking offense at the ads, they have now removed them. Even the governnor, Chet Culver, stated he was "disturbed" by the ads and could understand why others would be as well. Some people went so far as to refuse to ride the buses with the ads.

What message did the atheists put on the bus that was so offensive and caused so much resentment?

"Don't believe in God? You are not alone. " And then had a link to the website of Iowa atheists and freethinkers.

So, the existence of atheism inherent offends people? I'm curious how people, theists and atheists on this site feel about this situation. Do any theists here also find the ad offensive? Do you think the people were justified in their outrage and their successful effort to silence speech in this case?

At what point does offense begin? Obviously name-calling is offensive. Calling someone stupid or evil because of their beliefs, I believe most would see as over-the-line. But what about reasonable criticism of ideas? Is debate possible, or does taking the opposing stance in argument make you inherently offensive? And in the case presented here, is it unavoidable- since a reminder of the very existence of atheists seems offensive to enough people to force a company to refund money and "disturb" a governor?

I would also like to note the admirable statements and position by local conservative church leaders about the issue mentioned at the end of the article.

It's simply the hypocrisy of demanding that no one force any atheist to simply look upon Christian tradition in public which propagates atheism as contrary to God's will, while on the other hand demanding as a right of free speech the right to publicly denounce Christianity as inferior to the religion of human secularism. God does not have to be involved to make a religion out of any ideology. Both positions are based upon faith....any argument contrary to either position is based upon Subjective...NEGATIVE...speculation.

Thus what is being accomplished is ONE RELIGION is being endorsed by the Central Government and others that base their religion upon God instead of the HUMAN MIND are being told their belief breaches the 1st amendment, which clearly states that WE THE PEOPLE...ALL PEOPLE to include the atheist have freedom "OF" religion not freedom "FROM" religion. Thus when the Central Government favors one religion over another....it is the Government that has breached the 1st amendment...not WE THE PEOPLE. As it is CONGRESS that is forbidden from making ANY LAW in relation to religion....to include the RELIGION of the HUMAN MIND....not THE PEOPLE.

You seem to be one of those people who doesn't understand "neutrality". Sort of the George W. "either with us or against us" mentality. I wish people would take five minutes to think occasionally. It becomes tempting to exhibit what the government taking the other side really would be like.

Imagine:

The pledge is changed to read:
...one nation, godless, indivisible...

The motto is changed to:
In our minds, not god, do we place our trust.

Plaques are placed on courthouse lawns that explicitly deny the existence of god.

Teachers actively tell children that god does not exist and it is foolish to think otherwise.

Religious holidays are no longer recognized- and in fact recognition would be punishable.

_____________________________

This would be a government promoting atheism. And no one is advocating for such a government. You see, as it stands now, things like the pledge, the motto, and religious holidays are on the other side of the line, expressing a government endorsed acceptance of the existence of a god. But there is a neutral ground. Teachers don't lead prayer, but they don't deny the existence of god either- they are neutral, allowing each child to hold his or her own beliefs without influence for or against that position. The same was true of our original pledge and our original motto in this country. They were neutral until pro-belief phrases were added. Having neither the ten commandments, nor any plaque denying the existence of god is neutral as well.

But for some reason, some people just can't tolerate not having their way. It's like spoiled children who never learn how to share or never learned that to get along, you can't be a selfish brat.