Fort Worth transit bans religious ads on buses
By ANGELA K. BROWN Associated Press © 2010 The Associated Press

FORT WORTH, Texas — Fort Worth buses will no longer carry religious advertisements because of a furor sparked by an atheist group's ads that proclaim, "Millions of Americans are Good Without God."

The Fort Worth Transportation Authority unanimously voted Wednesday night to ban religious ads, a decision that many atheists and church leaders applauded during the packed meeting. Board member Gary Havener called the atheist ad divisive.

The ads, which were purchased by the Dallas-Fort Worth Coalition of Reason, will continue until the 30-day contract expires in early January. The 2.5-by-12-foot ads first appeared on the sides of four of the fleet of about 150 buses earlier this month, and are similar to those that have run in other cities nationwide in recent years.

Terry McDonald, the coalition's organizer, said Thursday that the group did not initially plan for the ads to run during the Christmas season but that he hopes the message will bring comfort to those who feel left out during the holidays. He said the ads are not intended to undermine anyone's belief in God.

He called the new ban a "secular victory," because he said churches have been buying ads on buses for years and the new policy will help keep religion and government separate.

Some ministers had been so upset about the ads — especially their run during the holiday season — that they urged a boycott of public transportation and offered residents free rides. The ministers also threw their support behind several transit employees who say they were forced to take days off without pay for refusing to drive the buses carrying those ads.

One religious group recently hired a billboard truck to drive behind the buses with messages that read: "I still love you — God" and "2.1 Billion People are Good With God," the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported in Thursday editions. This week, a bus with the atheists' ad also displayed a religious message on a rear panel — "What if there really is a God?" — an ad purchased by an interdenominational group.

While some ministers support the transit authority's ban as a compromise, not all secular groups or religious leaders do.

The Rev. Kyev Tatum said he thinks a better solution would have been continuing to allow religious advertising while rejecting the atheist ads under the transportation authority's policy that prohibits political, offensive and other types of ads. He said he doesn't understand how atheists could find Christian messages offensive because "religion is not about divisiveness but about love."

"God is in everything that makes us who we are as a country, including the pledge of allegiance, and those principles are being eroded," Tatum said Thursday.

When the controversy erupted two weeks ago, Fort Worth Transportation Authority spokeswoman Joan Hunter said the atheist ad had been approved because it was not inappropriate and "we strive to respect First Amendment rights."

The Fort Worth buses typically feature ads for local art museums' exhibits and events at Texas Christian University, which is associated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The new policy will not prohibit TCU from buying ads for sporting events but might affect ads promoting its divinity school or any religious programs, said the transportation authority's legal counsel Sylvia Hartless.

Other agencies, including Dallas Area Rapid Transit, already have policies banning religious ads.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu, I agree with Grog that the bus ads are a totally different subject and should get their own thread.

Maybe so, but it's worth bringing up here, as well. To me the issue is about whether you should be able to say or otherwise publish statements even if they elicit demands for censorship. Many people are extremely uncomfortable with open discourse about pedophilia in anything other than a pejorative sense (but see dogma's example above regarding psychology). Similarly, open religious debate in public settings has a way of making people uncomfortable. At issue is not merely the state's response to these situations but also how privately owned businesses or, to put a fine point on it in the context of this thread, individuals are treating them.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:Well, ostensibly I intended for it to be a thread to discuss this whole sordid business....but people are getting nasty and unkind over it.


I think that banning religious ads on public transit is dumb....if you pay for the ad space, you get to advertise. Lock away IMO, folks are getting to venomous.

If it is a government owned company, doesn't religious advertising breach the separation of church and state?

I was going to say "Only in America" but we had the same thing in London last year.

Manchu wrote:@KK:

Whatever the complicated relationship between the voters and the private operating company, I don't think that offering ad space to anyone who can pay for it--including all religious affiliations--violates any separation of church and state.

Did your English buses have CofE ads on as well as atheist ones? I only vaguely remember the incident.

Mannahnin wrote:Even if offered as a service for general sale, having pro or anti-religious messages on a government-owned bus is arguably a violation of the separation clause. In this case it doesn't look like it's been challenged to find out; it's just their policy and rationale, and in keeping with some other locales in Texas.

Monster Rain wrote:I don't know.

I think that if the people paid for the ad space they should be able to put whatever they want up there, within the acceptable standards of course(no nudity and cursing).

Manchu wrote:No, these ads never presented any danger of conflating church and state. They were approved, according to the T, out of respect for First Amendment rights. The problem is that it's turned into a row. There is no policy justification for this new "no religious discourse in ads" policy other than the operators being uncomfortable with the amount of media attention the various sides are drawing to them. It's very much like Amazon and the book in question here. Think about this: before there was talk of arresting this fellow or even issuing a warrant, the main controversy was over whether the book should be allowed to be sold. Similarly, in this thread, extra-judicial uncomfortablity has led otherwise educated people to the erroneous opinion that these bus ads were contrary to the separation of church and state. This is how things really work in a democracy: public sentiments get confused with public policies and sometimes are translated into public policies, which just reinforces the confusion. I think that's part of what dogma is trying to get across, but he should correct me if I'm mistating his concerns.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Manchu wrote:Did your English buses have CofE ads on as well as atheist ones? I only vaguely remember the incident.

Yes, the atheist adverts in the UK were largely done in response to certain aggressive christian adverts. I think there were a few that advertised a website than when you went to to visit were all fire and brimstone stuff.

What has happened in the American case you highlighted is that after a history of religious advertising a group of atheists have done the same thing, and some religious people have become extremely upset. Some can dole it out but can't take it, it would seem. So to prevent further upset on both sides, though largely because of a few christians, who got particular worked up and had a "billboard truck to drive behind the buses" carrying pro-god messages, they've ended religious advertising of any nature on their buses. It seems from the report that an end to religious advertisng is welcomed by a lot of atheists and theists alike, and no surprise when some people become that upset about stuff they don't like being advertised.

Some however can't see the hypocrisy they desire to be returned...

The Rev. Kyev Tatum said he thinks a better solution would have been continuing to allow religious advertising while rejecting the atheist ads under the transportation authority's policy that prohibits political, offensive and other types of ads.

Ok, his solution is just to ban the atheist adverts...

Manchu wrote:The net-effect is bad because the idea that religion is not a topic appropriate to public discourse is reinforced.

As for the UK, wouldn't it be perfectly acceptable to ban all bus ads except CofE ones? I mean, you have a state religion, right?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Manchu wrote:@KK:

Whatever the complicated relationship between the voters and the private operating company, I don't think that offering ad space to anyone who can pay for it--including all religious affiliations--violates any separation of church and state.

Did your English buses have CofE ads on as well as atheist ones? I only vaguely remember the incident.

I thought public transport meant it was a state owned bus company.

Apparently the atheist ads were a response to religious ads on buses. They weren't CofE, they were by some evangelical group.

http://www.jesussaid.org/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7681914.stm

http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The net-effect is bad because the idea that religion is not a topic appropriate to public discourse is reinforced.

As for the UK, wouldn't it be perfectly acceptable to ban all bus ads except CofE ones? I mean, you have a state religion, right?

It isn't CofE style to put ads on buses. They are too laid back for that.

We do have freedom of speech in the UK. Anyone would be allowed to run any kind of advertising unless it promoted racial hatred or something like that. Or cigarettes, they are banned too.

yeenoghu wrote:Advertising = $$$ for space. I lean towards Atheism in that I don't care because I don't know because I know that I can't know ergo I don't care. So I don't care if someone wants to pay to write whatever wierd far fetched thing they want. I would rather protest billboards we all have to see as a profitable commodity than protest the actual content of the billboard. Sure, I will paint a big logo that says GOD IS A MOLLUSK AND THE WORLD IS FLAT on the side of my garage if some pays me enough to do so, and my "round-earther" mollusk-hating neighbors will just have to deal with it. Wierdo round-earthers.

yeenoghu wrote:Advertising = $$$ for space. I lean towards Atheism in that I don't care because I don't know because I know that I can't know ergo I don't care. So I don't care if someone wants to pay to write whatever wierd far fetched thing they want. I would rather protest billboards we all have to see as a profitable commodity than protest the actual content of the billboard. Sure, I will paint a big logo that says GOD IS A MOLLUSK AND THE WORLD IS FLAT on the side of my garage if some pays me enough to do so, and my "round-earther" mollusk-hating neighbors will just have to deal with it. Wierdo round-earthers.

Manchu wrote:No, these ads never presented any danger of conflating church and state. They were approved, according to the T, out of respect for First Amendment rights.

Manchu wrote:The problem is that it's turned into a row. There is no policy justification for this new "no religious discourse in ads" policy other than the operators being uncomfortable with the amount of media attention the various sides are drawing to them.

Manchu wrote:It's very much like Amazon and the book in question here. Think about this: before there was talk of arresting this fellow or even issuing a warrant, the main controversy was over whether the book should be allowed to be sold. Similarly, in this thread, extra-judicial uncomfortablity has led otherwise educated people to the erroneous opinion that these bus ads were contrary to the separation of church and state.

Manchu wrote:This is how things really work in a democracy: public sentiments get confused with public policies and sometimes are translated into public policies, which just reinforces the confusion. I think that's part of what dogma is trying to get across, but he should correct me if I'm mistating his concerns.

Mannahnin wrote:Which ads? The ones in TX, or the UK?

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:No, these ads never presented any danger of conflating church and state. They were approved, according to the T, out of respect for First Amendment rights.

Well, the first is, I think, a statement of opinion, and the second was that they gave as their original reasoning.

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:This is how things really work in a democracy: public sentiments get confused with public policies and sometimes are translated into public policies, which just reinforces the confusion. I think that's part of what dogma is trying to get across, but he should correct me if I'm mistating his concerns.

I definitely agree that there's a danger here. Angry shouting, even by crowds, shouldn't be the basis for serious and sober public policy. That said, public sentiment is also often one basis of public policies, and that's not inherently a bad thing.

generalgrog wrote:My question is why do some Athiests feel the need to evangelize? I mean I certainly understand why religious people do, but for a group of people that are supposedly not religious why proselytize?

Mannahnin wrote:
I definitely agree that there's a danger here. Angry shouting, even by crowds, shouldn't be the basis for serious and sober public policy. That said, public sentiment is also often one basis of public policies, and that's not inherently a bad thing.

When you believe that you have found the truth, often times you feel the need to tell others of this fact; particularly if you see those others laboring under the same "delusion" that you once did.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Dammit, just when I was gonna type "InB4Mattyrmblamesallhisproblemsonreligion".

When you believe that you have found the truth, often times you feel the need to tell others of this fact; particularly if you see those others laboring under the same "delusion" that you once did.

This works for both sides.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

When you believe that you have found the truth, often times you feel the need to tell others of this fact; particularly if you see those others laboring under the same "delusion" that you once did.

This works for both sides.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
This works for both sides.

Ahtman wrote:
I think that was the parallel he was pointing out, only he figured it would be obvious enough to not need to be pointed out. Or as Ranier Wolfcaslte would say...

generalgrog wrote:My question is why do some Athiests feel the need to evangelize? I mean I certainly understand why religious people do, but for a group of people that are supposedly not religious why proselytize?

GG

dogma wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Dammit, just when I was gonna type "InB4Mattyrmblamesallhisproblemsonreligion".

When you believe that you have found the truth, often times you feel the need to tell others of this fact; particularly if you see those others laboring under the same "delusion" that you once did.

This works for both sides.

Sure, the difference is only regarding the presence of dogma.

Manchu wrote:
@KK: Yeah, I was kidding about the CofE ads. Just wanted to point out that the UK has a state church and inquire as to how that affects issues like that. Our Establishment Clause was written with that in mind. It doesn't prohibit the state from doing things like selling ad space to churches. But the state may not refuse to sell ad space to only some churches or give preference in selling that space to any churches.

The legal scholar Eric Barendt argues that the uncodified nature of the United Kingdom constitution does not mean it should not be characterised as a "constitution", but also claims that the lack of an effective separation of powers, and the fact that parliamentary sovereignty allows Parliament to overrule fundamental rights, makes it to some extent a 'facade' constitution.[20]

In one article, Lord Scarman presents a spirited argument for a written constitution for the UK, but still refers to the 1688 compromise and resulting acts of parliament as a constitution.[21]

A. V. Dicey identified that ultimately "the electorate are politically sovereign," and Parliament is legally sovereign.[22] Barendt argues that the greater political party discipline in the House of Commons that has evolved since Dicey's era, and the reduction in checks on governmental power, has led to an excessively powerful government that is not legally constrained by the observance of fundamental rights.[20] A Constitution would impose limits on what Parliament could do without a legal majority. To date, the Parliament of the UK has no limit on its power other than the possibility of extra-parliamentary action (by the people) and of other sovereign states (pursuant to treaties made by Parliament and otherwise).

Proponents of a codified constitution argue it would strengthen the legal protection of democracy and freedom.[23] As a strong advocate of the "unwritten constitution", Dicey highlighted that English rights were embedded in the general English common law of personal liberty, and "the institutions and manners of the nation".[24] Opponents of a written constitution argue that the country is not based on a founding document that tells its citizens who they are and what they can do. There is also a belief that any unwarranted encroachment on the spirit of constitutional authority would be stiffly resisted by the British people, a perception expounded by the 19th century American judge Justice Bradley in the course of delivering his opinion in a case heard in Louisiana in 1873: “England has no written constitution, it is true; but it has an unwritten one, resting in the acknowledged, and frequently declared, privileges of Parliament and the people, to violate which in any material respect would produce a revolution in an hour.”[

The following countries can be considered to have an unwritten constitution:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: no official constitution was ever written down, because the political system evolved over time, rather than being changed suddenly in an event such as a revolution. It is continuously being defined by acts of Parliament and decisions of the Law Courts. See Constitution of the United Kingdom.

Britain, it is often claimed, is the world's only democracy without a written constitution. While parts are in fact written down, the UK lacks a core constitutional document and relies on various unwritten aspects, such as parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives, as well.

Yet despite its "unwritten" status, it has at the same time influenced the writing of constitutions in other countries more than anywhere else on earth. The lecture will attempt to show how the form evolved and ask whether it is time it was now shelved

Orlanth wrote:
Take even a cursory look at social history of the Soviet Union and you will see plenty of atheist dogma.

Ironically this often relies on the dogma that atheism is packaged as 'reason' and thus dogma free and fail to see paradox.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Take even a cursory look at social history of the Soviet Union and you will see plenty of atheist dogma.

Ironically this often relies on the dogma that atheism is packaged as 'reason' and thus dogma free and fail to see paradox.

I see someone didn't get the joke.

But no, that's not atheist dogma. Nothing the Soviet Union ever did was contingent on the necessary absence of God. Notably, there is no theist dogma either. There is Christian/Jewish/Muslim dogma, though.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:No, these ads never presented any danger of conflating church and state. They were approved, according to the T, out of respect for First Amendment rights.

Well, the first is, I think, a statement of opinion, and the second was that they gave as their original reasoning.

No, I mean that these ads did not violate the legal standards as articulated, not just that I think they're okay.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:This is how things really work in a democracy: public sentiments get confused with public policies and sometimes are translated into public policies, which just reinforces the confusion. I think that's part of what dogma is trying to get across, but he should correct me if I'm mistating his concerns.

I definitely agree that there's a danger here. Angry shouting, even by crowds, shouldn't be the basis for serious and sober public policy. That said, public sentiment is also often one basis of public policies, and that's not inherently a bad thing.

Right so. As I said, I think that the general idea of confusing what is hard to talk about with what is inappropriate or even illegal to talk about is what's at stake here. The solution put into place in this case is one in which everyone but the T itself loses. But that will be very hard to make people see.

Mannahnin wrote:Atheism can't have dogma, just as theism can't.