In the wake of the lawsuit going on in Michigan over a country club canceling a Richard Dawkins appearance, we have another case of clear discrimination against atheists and freethinkers. This time it’s a movie theater in Texas that refused to show a video for a group before the movies because of a bad reaction from Christians in the area:
Recently, a nonreligious group in the North Texas area, the Dallas-Fort Worth Coalition of Reason, contracted with the theater to run a pre-film advertisement promoting a positive image of local atheist families. At first, it looked like a win-win situation: the coalition was told it could promote its message to local nonreligious families, and the theater would get the profits from the sale of advertising space.
Then local news stations reported on the coalition’s future advertisement and Plano religious groups slammed the theater with phone calls and letters objecting to the ad. Sadly, the theater submitted to the religious groups’ pressure and decided not to run the advertisement, leaving the Coalition of Reason group without a venue to reach out to atheists and other nonreligious Texans.
Perhaps the religious groups couldn’t be blamed for seeking to halt the advertisement if it was offensive to their faith, but the ad was simply a positive affirmation of those of differing beliefs. Isn’t seeking this kind of censorship morally wrong by our current ever evolving standards of morality? If atheists organized against a religious ad placed during the Super Bowl, wouldn’t the faithful cry foul?
Making matters worse, the theater caved to their pressure and pulled the ad. Isn’t this like a store putting up a sign in their window saying atheists aren’t welcome? The prejudice in such actions is sadly all too clear.
As with the situation in Michigan, this is almost certainly illegal under the Civil Rights Act because it is discrimination on the basis of religion.
27 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Doug Little
June 26, 2012 at 2:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Just another case where the religious will cry persecution when it doesn’t go their way. Down is up and black is white.
hexidecima
June 26, 2012 at 2:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The typical attempt by theists to prevent people from finding out that they are the emperor with no clothes and atheists are just as happy, if not happier than them.
The truth is far too frightening for them to allow it to be revealed. That’s all that explains such actions by people who call and complain about showing people not like them in a positive light. It’s not a threat at all to decent humane people who aren’t bigots. Your actions show you just as you really are, poor Christians.
Captain Mike
June 26, 2012 at 2:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That article asks too many questions. Don’t ask people, tell ‘em.
The actual situation is, of course, reprehensible.
abb3w
June 26, 2012 at 2:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m not convinced this is clear under Civil Rights act. Certainly it’s against the spirit of the law, but possibly not the letter. Is the public accommodation for showing ads before movies, or just in watching movies?
slavdude
June 26, 2012 at 2:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Slightly OT but still related to discrimination:
Georgia Apple Store Refuses to Sell iPad to Iranian-American Teen
dingojack
June 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Whew, luckily they didn’t threaten ‘South Park’ otherwise they’d be facing 12 years in prison.
DIngo
Midnight Rambler
June 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Obviously, showing that atheists are real people and can be happy is oppressing Christianity.
DaveL
June 26, 2012 at 2:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ll add this to the list of cases that belie the claim that atheists are disliked because of “strident”, “offensive”, or “militant” atheist activists.
eric
June 26, 2012 at 3:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
abb3w – I think its that they are choosing not to sell ad space to the group based on the (a)religious content of the message. They can’t do that; if the local church can buy advertising time to talk about their church, then the local atheists can buy advertising time to talk about their meetings. I don’t think it has much to do with the public accommodation-ness of the physical theater itself.
harold
June 26, 2012 at 3:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I am completely non-religious, an atheist according to the definition of the term most widely used on the internet, with the caveat that not long ago I would have been termed an “agnostic”.
On one hand, there is a strong and obsessive bias, in US society, against anyone who is openly non-religious. That bias is particularly strong among members of the Fox/Limbaugh/Tea Party movement, but is also expressed by others.
Having said that, there are plenty of strident atheists, some of whom I sometimes find offensive. Many of these are British in nationality or origin. Thus, their “stridency” does not reflect a reaction to a particularly oppressive society, but rather, often carries, to me, a tone of class bias.
It is probably true that no-one ever becomes religious because they were offended by a strident atheist, and it is unequivocally true, as I noted above, that religious bigots simply hate atheists (and followers of other religions), stridency or not.
Nevertheless, strident, insulting, inaccurate, over-generalized language is poorly persuasive. It is excellent for fostering a tribalistic sense of group identity and hostility toward outsiders.
Therefore, while I strongly support everyone’s right to be as strident an atheist as they wish, it should be noted that this video seems to have taken the opposite of the strident approach. It is interesting to note how powerful its effect was.
I’m sure the comment I quoted didn’t intend the meaning “since some people hate even non-strident atheists, therefore strident atheists don’t exist”. That would be a non sequitur and at odds with my personal observations.
richardelguru
June 26, 2012 at 3:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Harold “…strident atheists…Many of these are British in nationality or origin”
I am British, and in my experience we tend to be a lot less strident than many other cultures.
Please leave your prejudices at the door.
Vall
June 26, 2012 at 3:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I went to a meetup last week with the Metroplex Atheists. It’s part of the larger Coalition of Reason. You may remember the bus ads from a few years ago, with the little truck following the bus around with a Christian message.
These are not ads that are negative. Just the fact that we exist makes some people flip out. Is it tragedy, or comedy? The two seem closely related. I had to laugh at the truck following the bus around. The movie theater should have told the complainers that they could buy an ad too, and would have sold two ads instead of none.
rork
June 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“the coalition was told it could promote its message to local nonreligious families”
Why is “nonreligious” in this sentence, Mr Speckhardt (the original author, Executive Director of the American Humanist Association)? It’s more accurate if that word is removed.
Vall
June 26, 2012 at 3:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What I meant to say in the second sentance: the truck with a Christian message following the bus around.
baal
June 26, 2012 at 4:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Abb3w – advertising that is open to all comers in a public forum cannot be limited by religion. The focus is on who could buy the ads and whether or not the facility had a non-discrimitory reason for that rule. The fact that you have to pay to get into a movie theater doesn’t change the theater from a public venue to a private one. They’d need something like a membership and limit the total number of members.
If the theater had a rule against, say gory, pre-movie adverts. They could then keep out anyone who had a gory ad regardless of their religion. Lots of places try to work around the problem with a “controversial” clause. i.e. if we get complaints, we get to pull the ad. The problem with this work around is that it’d allow a bunch of not ok discrimination based against protected classes. So the “controversial” clause doesn’t get the venue owner all that far. (I don’t think they have one is this case)
DaveL
June 26, 2012 at 4:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s not at all what I was getting at. The thesis is often advanced that atheists, on the basis of their tone, are to blame for the discrimination and venom directed against them. This case is one of many examples where atheists have gone to great lengths to make their message as positive and non-confrontational as possible, and yet the backlash remains, disproving that thesis.
mikegarber
June 26, 2012 at 4:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“If atheists organized against a religious ad placed during the Super Bowl, … “
Im thinking the other way around ….. ?How? much would we need for a 30 second Super Bowl spot? Lets start collecting now!
harold
June 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
richardelguru –
My statement was not intended to imply that British people in general, whom I am not prejudiced against, are strident atheists.
Rather, I was referring to the rather small set of publicly strident atheists whom I am aware of. It includes the recently sadly deceased Christopher Hitchens (whom I agreed with on many issues but not all), and Richard Dawkins at some phases of his career. Given the small sample size, it may indeed be unfair for me to generalize about national tendencies.
harold
June 26, 2012 at 4:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dave L –
I completely agree with you, then.
Modusoperandi
June 26, 2012 at 5:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Now, look, Athiests wouldn’t get this so-called “backlash” from real America-loving Americans if they would simply sit down and admit that they’re wrong. And then, with that out of the way, the country can finally get together on the really important issues, like making Big Governmnent small and getting it OUT of the way of the Job Creators and making Small Government big and IN the way of falopean tubes.
slc1
June 26, 2012 at 6:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re slavdude @ #5
The stories on this non-transaction failed to note the following. The sales person was, himself, of Iranian ancestry and speaks Farsi. He overheard the would be buyer telling an individual in Farsi, who was accompanying her, that she planned to send it to a friend in Iran. The sales representative was entirely correct in his refusal to sell her the IPAD as exporting a computer to Iran is illegal.
ArtK
June 26, 2012 at 7:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sadly, for many people, “strident” equals “daring to exist at all.”
billyeager
June 27, 2012 at 6:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@17 Mikegarber
Genius. Never mind namby pamby local theist pressure-groups, we should be taking on the bigger fish. If we raised enough money for a 30-second Superbowl ad we’d accomplish a hell of a lot more than a disparate bunch of local roadside-signs, bus and theatre ads.
Remember, it has been proven that perceived atheist prevalence reduces anti-atheist prejudice.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21343437
reynoldhall
June 27, 2012 at 8:08 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What bugs me is how they try to justify discrimination. I’m currently having a huge argument with a so-called “former 40 year atheist” and this is what he said:
What’s his justification for this steaming pile? Basically since “atheism” has no moral rules (or anything attached to it) one has to get their morality from outside atheism. Therefore, it’s impossible to know how trustworthy atheist are, therefore…..
Yeah. While in the meantime this tool refuses to say what his belief system is, or what his morals are. What makes him think that he’d be “trustworthy”?
And this guy says he’s not even a christian either. He refuses to say what he is.
(I’ve linked to my reply to him as well)
John Hinkle
June 27, 2012 at 9:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Nonreligious” is in the sentence because the religious will cover their ears and sing, “La la la, I can’t HEAR you!”
nigelTheBold, who sings like a needle to the ear
June 28, 2012 at 9:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
reynoldhall:
Yeah. That’s very true.
But then, we don’t get our morality from a poorly-written book of folk-tales and rules for living in nomadic groups of sheep-herders, either. So that’s a plus, near as I can count it.
Your acquaintance appears to have no knowledge of the nature of ethics and morality. The morality we accept today comes from the same place — humanism. It doesn’t matter if you’re Christian or atheist. We don’t condone striking our servants with rods no thicker than our thumb or selling our daughters (as advised in the Bible).
Further, it seems many (most, perhaps) atheists also don’t hold others in contempt because of their sexual orientation. Evidence suggests atheists tend to hold to a higher morality than many Christians, who claim to have an objective source of morality. So, no, the lack of trust of atheists is irrational, based on ignorance.
abb3w
June 29, 2012 at 4:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@15, baal:
My language was imprecise; that’s not what I’m suggesting. Rather, I’m asking whether the offer of advertising is per se a service in terms of the Civil Rights Act, or whether it is incidental. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know what the case law might be; but it seems it might be something where the lawyers would argue they only have to sell movie tickets to all religions equally, rather than sell ad space to all religions equally.