London. Washington, D.C. Barcelona.
The viral growth of the atheist bus movement has been a godsend to writers on both sides of the Atlantic.
A few days ago, Britain-based New York Times writer Sarah Lyall did a slightly-tongue-in-cheek, lively “London Journal” story on the success of the campaign in England.
She canters smartly out of the gate with this sympathetic lede focused on campaign spokeswoman Ariane Sherine:
The advertisement on the bus was fairly mild, just a passage from the Bible and the address of a Christian Web site. But when Ariane Sherine, a comedy writer, looked on the Web site in June, she was startled to learn that she and her nonbelieving friends were headed straight to hell, to “spend all eternity in torment.”
That’s a bit extreme, she thought, as well as hard to prove. “If I wanted to run a bus ad saying ‘Beware — there is a giant lion from London Zoo on the loose!’ or ‘The “bits” in orange juice aren’t orange but plastic — don’t drink them or you’ll die!” I think I might be asked to show my working and back up my claims,” Ms. Sherine wrote in a commentary on the Web site of The Guardian.
And then she thought, how about putting some atheist messages on the bus, as a corrective to the religious ones?
Seen through Ms. Sherine’s eyes, as described by Lyall, how could the campaign be otherwise than a “corrective”?
After all Sherine sounds rational (how would you feel if you found out from a website that you were going to hell, even if you didn’t believe in hell?)
The Christians who posted the bus advertisements do sound, well, rather…extreme, particularly when they aren’t quoted to explain themselves.
By the way, take a look at the new face of British atheism. Sherine is a media dream—articulate, attractive and wry.
There’s a bit of a fairytale quality about the way Lyall tells the story, rather unusual in a piece about atheism.
And so were planted the seeds of the Atheist Bus Campaign, an effort to disseminate a godless message to the greater public. When the organizers announced the effort in October, they said they hoped to raise a modest $8,000 or so.
But something seized people’s imagination. Supported by the scientist and author Richard Dawkins, the philosopher A. C. Grayling and the British Humanist Association, among others, the campaign raised nearly $150,000 in four days. Now it has more than $200,000, and on Tuesday it unveiled its advertisements on 800 buses across Britain.
“There’s probably no God,” the advertisements say. “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
After quoting some reactions to the bus slogans, Lyall goes on to write about the “lack of outrage it has generated.” The Methodists were pleased that the English were actually talking about God, she wrote.
Then we are plunged into the interesting peculiarities of British society:
Although Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Church of England, Britain is a deeply secular country with a dwindling number of regular churchgoers, and with politicians who seem to go out of their way to play down their religious beliefs.
Yes, but what about those pockets of religious revival, particularly in London, to which Time alluded a few weeks ago?
In 2003, when an interviewer asked Tony Blair, then the prime minister, about religion, his spokesman, Alastair Campbell, interjected, snapping, “We don’t do God.” After leaving office, Mr. Blair became a Roman Catholic
It doesn’t seem to be clear to anyone, possibly even Tony Blair, why he was less than forthcoming about his faith, but it might have been because being a Prime Minister and a Roman Catholic could still be a bit dodgy in the U.K.
More recently, Nick Clegg, a member of Parliament and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, announced that he was an atheist. (He later downgraded himself to agnostic.)
“Downgraded?” Some might argue that he’d seen the light — half of it, anyway.
Although the tone of the story stays pretty light throughout, Lyall could have added a few articulate, dissenting voices without losing anything.
For a sample of British coverage, check out a recent article by Riazat Butt, the religious affairs correspondent for The Guardian. You gotta love an article with a lede like this:
Anyone who has spent a chilly half-hour waiting for a double-decker may already have doubted the existence of a deity. But for those who need further proof, a nationwide advertising campaign aimed at persuading more people to “come out” as atheists was launched today with the backing of some of Britain’s most famous non-believers.
Butt’s story carries more detail about reaction in the U.K., and includes this interesting statistic (from the British Humanist Association):
According to the BHA, “huge numbers” of people in Britain have non-religious beliefs — between 30 and 40% of the population, with a higher figure, between 60 and 65%, in young people.
What is a “non-religious belief”? I’d also like to see some indepedent corrobaration of those statistics.
Godless buses sponsored by local and national groups have rolled through Washington, D.C., and trolled through Barcelona, Spain. Have you seen them? What was your reaction?
The advent of this new atheist campaign does seem to be an, errr…heavensent opportunity for journalists to examine freedom of speech and cultural issues. Let’s hope there are a few more incisive stories waiting to be written — we’ll see whether the godless campaign phenomenon has wheels, let alone legs.
Picture of London bus is from Wikimedia Commons
 | Posted at 7:23 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (22) |
January 9, 2009, at 8:44 am
Possibly little more than a fad amongst the moneyed class.
January 9, 2009, at 8:54 am
I’m outraged!
That the atheists hadn’t more spine, that is
“Probably” no god/God? Only probably? Tsk!
January 9, 2009, at 9:04 am
My question is, why use the word “probably”? If they are truly atheists, then why not take their ads all the way? Is this simply British understatement, or was it a compromise among the ad sponsors?
January 9, 2009, at 9:08 am
The word “probably” needs to be in there to meet British ad guidelines, according to Lyall’s article.
Stoo, the Time article said that London has become a crucible for faith—fueled mostly by immigrants, as I recall. The HTB revival may be an anomaly, or may not be….
January 9, 2009, at 9:18 am
Okay sorry yeah I was referring to that HTB thing.
Mike, Martha:
Apart from what EEE mentioned, Dawkins himself puts its as “almost certainly” no god. Atheists tend to avoid stating “definitely no” god - because we can’t know that for an absolute fact (just heavily doubt it based on what we observe). Asserting absolutes is more the business of the religious.
January 9, 2009, at 9:23 am
I just love the idea that considering the existence of God is worthy of public viewing. Of course I was christened a Methodist way back when, so perhaps the Methodists cited in this story “just glad they’re talking about God” is where my heart is, but as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I am still truly pleased. Of course I wouldn’t mind a more “pro-belief” in God statement on the buses, but in the meantime “probably” speaks tons. I don’t know that the human mind can read that word and not automatically go into consideration mode.
This whole campaign should raise much discussion about God’s existence.
January 9, 2009, at 10:15 am
Mike:
Well, are you aware of the distinction between “weak” and “strong” atheists? “Weak” atheists do not claim straighfoward that there is no god, but rather, that there is no reason to believe in one, even if the possibility she exists is there. “Strong” atheist on the other side claim that they are positively sure that there is no God, using arguments that point to the imposibility of such being to exist. I consider myself a “weak” atheist, and so I suspect these atheists who posted this bus announcements are too.
January 9, 2009, at 10:41 am
This reminds me of when Paganism emerged in Unitarian Universalism. The head of the UU Christian organization said it was good to see some UUs who were serious about worship.
January 9, 2009, at 10:55 am
“This whole campaign should raise much discussion about God’s existence.”
Margaret, couldn’t agree more. Believers certainly should be happy and ready for any opportunity to add their voices to any renewed debate about spiritual matters, rather than getting discouraged and offended at inevitable opposition. Whether those believing voices will be represented in the media is far less certain, judging by their absence in Lyall’s article.
I don’t know of the proportion of sympathetic response to the athiest ads in UK, but I understand the response to the Washington DC leg of the campaign has been far more negative.
January 9, 2009, at 10:59 am
I wonder how this goes over in some other “pockets of religious revival” in the UK. Park one of these atheist rolling billboards across from, say, the Finsbury Park Mosque, or certain neighborhoods in Bradford and see what happens. I would imagine the reaction might be a tad more…pointed then that of the amiable Methodists.
January 9, 2009, at 11:27 am
IMHO, it’s a light piece because it’s light story—whether in Barcelona, London, or DC. Dueling bus ads—puh-leeze.
January 9, 2009, at 12:16 pm
Well, Stoo, I’m sorry, but that’s just not good enough
Should I be out in my back garden sacrificing to Thor on the off-chance that the Aesir exist? Either you do or you don’t - atheists, get off the fence! Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Philip Pullman, enough of the diffidence and foot-shuffling! Overcome your natural modesty and tell us straight out what you think!
January 9, 2009, at 12:32 pm
Ok, first off, our modern concept in hell, is really more akin to Paradise Lost and Dante’s Inferno than anything in the bible. Many of the words and references were translated in that vein, so that said, Hell is a much bigger issue to the revivalist mentality that carried over from previous days than to Jesus
I mean, Jesus was all about changing the world into the Kingdom of Heaven, pushing back darkness with light and doing it as leaven spreads through bread or salt flavors food… by being salt… not so much the afterlife.
On the other hand much of the cult of modern church people seems to be more concerned with getting into the after life club than actually having an impact on the world and the approach is less of being salt that flavors that around your or leaven that spreads through the bread, to one of screaming at people how they will burn in some bad place when they die if they dont look act and taste how they salt should taste.
It kind of goes back to the argument of putting religiousity (quotes, prayers, etc) in school, govt buildings, on money… if jesus was in our lives and actions in a noticeable way, we wouldnt need it on money and walls… in lieu of the former, the latter is pretty much wasted on those that already have been turned away from Jesus by the church cult.
On a side note, I have a friend that plays secular music in bars (perish the thought
and he invariably ends up in discussions about Jesus and church with atheists, agnostics, etc between sets. when he talks about what jesus was really into, most buy right into it…. most of humanity wants to make a world that looks like the Kingdom of Heaven (but not call it that)… they just dont think church people are interested in doing that and dont like the self-righteous, hypocritical way that many of them behave if they do try.
but… my soap box is tipping over from my own self-righteousness and hypocrisy so I better stop ranting.
January 9, 2009, at 12:36 pm
“Well, are you aware of the distinction between “weak” and “strong” atheists?”
An weak and arbitrary distinction if you ask me. The etymology of “a-theism” means just that: “no god”. We already have a designation for those who have no beliefs, but can’t rule out the possibility (however remote) of God’s existence: agnosticism.
January 9, 2009, at 1:01 pm
The “strong” versus “weak” argument can get funny sometimes. I tried to ask a “weak” atheist why he did not call himself agnostic and it seemed like he just liked the word “atheist” and was not ready to come out as an agnostic. But as we know, words are worth fighting over.
January 9, 2009, at 1:01 pm
[…] E. Evans discusses press coverage of the British atheist advertising campaign. “What is a “non-religious belief”? I’d […]
January 9, 2009, at 2:28 pm
Atheist and Agnostic aren’t mutually exlusive anyway, depending on how we define things - although like Jerry says there’s a lot of wrangling over these terms.
January 9, 2009, at 3:14 pm
I’m an agnostic, so the use of “probably” is perfectly acceptable to me. And it’s less likely to enrage fundamentalist types—especially in a European country where they hardly exist anymore—except in Islamic enclaves. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the bus went through a neighborhood that believes in practicing sharia.
In America, forget it. The ads probably wouldn’t even be accepted.
January 9, 2009, at 10:06 pm
It’s too bad that people don’t have a sense of humor. Because the perfect answer to the ‘probably does not exist ad’ is another one that says: “But what if He does?” But such advertising repartee is probably too much to ask for.
January 9, 2009, at 10:41 pm
I had read about the “Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness’ sake” bus campaign and the consequent anti-campaign.
Here’s a different bus campaign:
These mass transit billboard schemes are really strange. I admire the catchy phrases the way I might admire some especially skillful graffiti tag — a momentary flash, then it’s gone — but I have a hard time believing anyone has bought the marketing pitch that the signs will have a real effect.
Will they convince people to buy the product — to “be good,” or “stop worrying and enjoy life,” or (alas, since these are my peeps) make anyone think about a vocation to religious life? Not bloody likely.
So what does that leave us? Campaigns and anti-campaigns. A public pissing contest in sans serif type.
Sheesh.
January 10, 2009, at 8:34 pm
What a waste of money all this is!
January 25, 2009, at 2:07 am
[…] Can 800 British buses be wrong? » GetReligion […]