Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I sure hope there's a lawsuit over this:
Complaints have led to removal of an atheist group's "Imagine No Religion" billboard in Rancho Cucamonga.The General Outdoor sign company took down the Freedom From Religion Foundation billboard on Thursday after the city asked if there was a way to get it removed. Redevelopment director Linda Daniels says they got 90 complaints.
So if they got 90 complaints about the innumerable Christian billboards around the country, do you suppose they'd be demanding they be taken down as well? Not bloody likely. This is a rather blatant violation of the First Amendment and a suit should be filed immediately.
Politics
Comments
Apparently it's not so clear cut. See this discussion at Friendly Atheist.
Posted by: mollishka | November 25, 2008 10:12 AM
I'll agree with you that taking down the billboard is a violation of the First Amendment.
But, just as a side note, will you agree with me that the people who put that billboard up are douchebags?
Posted by: Brandon | November 25, 2008 10:14 AM
Why would putting up a sign that said, simply, "Imagine No Religion" make a person a douchebag? Are the religious of such tender moral fortitude that suggesting that one merely imagines the removal of religion is socially out of bounds???
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | November 25, 2008 10:16 AM
No, the billboard said, "Imagine No Religion," with a picture of the World Trade Center towers intact. I'm not going to explain how that could be perceived as just slightly dickish.
Posted by: Brandon | November 25, 2008 10:20 AM
Oh, this particular billboard doesn't have that picture. It's from the same group, anyway.
Posted by: Brandon | November 25, 2008 10:21 AM
The city certainly has no business objecting to a billboard based on religious content. That said if the company took it down of its own will they are a private entity and are not bound by the 1st amendment to present any opinion other than their own.
They may have contractual obligations to their customer but that is, of course, not a constitutional issue.
Posted by: Lance | November 25, 2008 10:41 AM
No, Brandon, not even slightly dickish. Given that the 9/11 hijackers were religiously motivated, without religion the 9/11 attacks would not have happened.
Posted by: Russell | November 25, 2008 10:41 AM
9/11 also wouldn't have happened without airplanes, angry people, a poverty-stricken Middle East, or the Pauli Exclusion Princple. And yet you aren't seeing any billboards that say, "Imagine: No Pauli Exclusion Princple." FRFF is no better than any other group who uses 9/11 for their own agenda.
Posted by: Brandon | November 25, 2008 10:48 AM
Well, here in VT billboards are banned, so I get to look at trees and fields when I drive.
Suckers!
Posted by: slpage | November 25, 2008 10:49 AM
"No, the billboard said, "Imagine No Religion," with a picture of the World Trade Center towers intact. I'm not going to explain how that could be perceived as just slightly dickish."
Posted by: Brandon | November 25, 2008 10:20 AM
"Oh, this particular billboard doesn't have that picture. It's from the same group, anyway."
Is that guilt by association, Brandon? Group X posted dickish billoboard somewhere, sometime. Group X posted a significantly DIFFERENT billboard (perhaps in response to to dickish complaints, excuse me, I mean in response to dickishness complaints). therefore this new billboard has no validity whatsoever?
It's too bad you're not going to explain why posting a picture of the World Trade Centre with the the words, "Imagine no religion" is slightly dickish, Brandon, because I for one need to have it explained to me. It seems to me that at least some relatives and friends of those who died might well think that religion had something to do with their deaths and might think that the world would be a better place with less fanatical devotion to unprovable beleif systems.
Posted by: plum grenville | November 25, 2008 10:56 AM
While they may not be bound by the First Amendment to put the sign up, they may be a test case of some sort for restraint of trade or some such issue. And, yes, we should all complain about religious billboards put up by the same firm to see what the company does about them.
Posted by: democommie | November 25, 2008 10:56 AM
If memory serves me correctly the latest incarnation of the FFRF "Imagine" billboard is styled in the form of a stained-glass window; likewise with the "Beware of dogma" billboard...not the twin towers. Brandon, your argument doesn't even have a basis.
Posted by: stevogvsu | November 25, 2008 10:58 AM
Brandon - please explain why a person would be a "douche bag" for promoting a society without religion? I can't make the connection.
Especially given the reverse correlation (though not necessarily causation) regarding the health of a developed society relative to its religiosity.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 25, 2008 10:58 AM
Taking race, wealth, military power, and yes, monotheistic religion out of any interpretation of 9/11 is like discussing math without numbers. The billboard is spot-on: without a belief system celebrating fanaticism as a sign of holiness 9/11 is pretty hard to imagine happening. There are no men wearing the white cowboy hats in this western.
Posted by: jws | November 25, 2008 10:59 AM
FRFF is no better than any other group who uses 9/11 for their own agenda.
I disagree, Brandon. It wasn't airplanes or a poverty-stricken Middle East that motivated and was used to justify the 9-11 attacks. It was a religious belief. It's at least plausible to blame 9-11 on religion, and far more plausible than blaming it on some of the other "causes" (such as homosexuality or abortion) cited by other groups. You can certainly argue that the FFRF is painting with too broad a brush, but there's no way they're "no better than any other group who uses 9/11 for their own agenda."
Posted by: Eveningsun | November 25, 2008 11:03 AM
Lance had it right. Doesn't matter if it's related to 9/11 or not, or even if it's dickish. The facts are that the city asked the company to take it down. This is inappropriate. The city should have just told those 90 complainants to call the FFRF or the billboard company. If the billboard company took it down of their own accord, that's their business, but the city needs to stay out of it.
Posted by: CyberLizard | November 25, 2008 11:23 AM
I would hope that the group who sponsored the billboard got their money back, or at least a pro-rated amount.
But the city definitely crossed the line on this one.
Posted by: Tony P | November 25, 2008 11:33 AM
No I wouldn't agree with that at all. Of course you agree that billboards advertising various religious groups are the result of doucebag action as well?
Posted by: GH | November 25, 2008 11:34 AM
The city is saying they don't censor billboards, and the decision is not theirs (see the Friendly Atheist site).
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 25, 2008 11:38 AM
A member of Orange County Atheists wrote to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and got a similar response to the one posted on friendlyatheist.com. The City Manager's office is claiming the city had nothing to do with getting the billboard removed. Of course this contradicts the articles I've seen (including the one Ed linked to) which all state that the city requested the billboard be removed. OC Atheists wrote a follow up email asking for a clarification. AFAIK they haven't received a response yet.
I wonder if this is an example of one city employee/department acting beyond their capacity. The Redevelopment Agency fielded complaints, got their panties in a bunch and contacted the billboard company without approval from the City Manager. I'm not saying that excuse would negate the need for a lawsuit, just speculating as to the reason for such contradictory claims. Or maybe the City Manager's office is just lying in the hopes that this will go away.
Posted by: peaches | November 25, 2008 11:53 AM
Brandon, I'm curious, have you seen any billboard with the image of the trade center on it and that message? I have seen the picture floating around the internet in the form of a 'demotivator' poster, but haven't heard of anyone putting that up as a billboard. I've seen a couple of the FFRF billboards (one in Phoenix, and one in Madison), and they were both the same style with the stained glass window motif.
And it would be significantly less douchebagish than the plethora of billboards I see every time I drive to Topeka claiming that abortionists are murderers, that I'm going to burn forever, and all the problems of the world are my fault as a non-xian.
So the whiny xians can take their complaints, fold them 'til they're all sharp corners and shove them up their ass as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: FastLane | November 25, 2008 11:54 AM
I'm so stealing that.
Posted by: peaches | November 25, 2008 11:58 AM
No, I don't think putting up that billboard makes anyone a douchebag. Even if it had pictures of the twin towers on it, I wouldn't say that. I'm not the biggest fan of the FFRF. I think they do tend to be overly simplistic and take on cases that are silly; they're the atheist equivalent of Liberty Counsel, a giant step below the more respectable groups in their category in terms of credibility. But I don't think pointing out that religious beliefs can motivated barbarism, including the bombing of the WTC, is a bad thing. Does it tell the whole story? Of course not. And that's what I mean by being overly simplistic. But you can only say so much in a billboard. The point is to stimulate discussion and make someone think about things they may have never considered. I don't have a problem with that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 25, 2008 12:06 PM
Peaches,
Credit should be given to Heinlein for the original. And it is well worth stealing.
Posted by: sng | November 25, 2008 12:08 PM
A city in America is taking a billboard down because the message it displays offended 20 people. More people will see this message now, unite in a cause and label themselves either against or for the message. Then, just because they hate any expression of religion other than their own hypocritical following, the Christians will band together and once again strip a group of their right to convey a message.
Now I'm feeling the need to find people who hate the Christian billboards that are sometimes seen with messages about how people will suffer in a fiery abyss for all eternity if they refuse to join their cult. So we're going to "hell" if we don't "repent"? That offends me and is an attempt at character defamation. But hey, its cool, because I'm in America, right? So I can go down to city hall with a bunch of my friends and strip a person's right of conveying a message? "Oh, but what do you mean Mr. Councilman? We're a Christian nation? Aww, shit."
Posted by: kkw | November 25, 2008 12:59 PM
Posted by: WScott | November 25, 2008 1:00 PM
Ed,
"I think they do tend to be overly simplistic and take on cases that are silly; they're the atheist equivalent of Liberty Counsel, a giant step below the more respectable groups in their category in terms of credibility."
Could you expand on this a bit? Which cases have they taken on that are silly? How are they comparable to the Liberty Counsel? What have they done to lose credibility? I'm a member and I'm interested in understanding what issues you have with the organization. If simplicity is, as you seem to be saying, understandable in the context of a billboard, then where does the "overly" come in? Apologies if you've already addressed this in more detail and I've just missed the post.
Posted by: Barbara_K | November 25, 2008 1:11 PM
Brandon: No, the billboard said, "Imagine No Religion," with a picture of the World Trade Center towers intact. I'm not going to explain how that could be perceived as just slightly dickish.
I wish you would. Is it dickish any time someone points out what may be an underlying cause of 9/11? Or is 9/11 more properly understood as some random event with no real underlying cause that needs to be understood?
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 25, 2008 1:37 PM
According to your logic, the next time I get drunk and run your ass over with my car, I can simply say the Pauli Exclusion Principle was the cause, and you can't really complain. Hey, if it wasn't for that damn principle, I'd have driven through you, rather than over you.
Likewise, I can blame my car--as you blame planes--for your demise at my drunken hands.
You seem to have a wee problem distinguishing between motives and method.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 25, 2008 1:41 PM
Bitching on a website will not stop this kind of outrageous infringement of right and justice:
LET THEM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909-477-2700
(909) 477-2849 FAX
cityinfo@ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us
City Council
council@cityofrc.us
Dr. Donald J. Kurth-Mayor
L. Dennis Michael-Mayor Pro Tem
Rex Gutierrez-Council Member
Sam Spagnolo-Council Member
Diane Williams-Council Member
If you like to encourage the state to investigate the abuse of power and violation of civil rights:
California Attorney General
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Attorney General's Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: Public Inquiry Unit
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
(800) 952-5225
(916) 323-5341 Fax
Or, just this;
http://www.atheistsunited.org/about-atheists-united/programs/147-automatic-message-generator
Posted by: Aaron | November 25, 2008 1:43 PM
Brandon, though you seem to have abandoned this conversation, understandably, can I just say that the Pauli exclusion principle has absolutely nothing to do with this? Sure, 9/11 wouldn't have happened without it, but it also wouldn't have happened without gravity. Essentially, your statement is meaningless. Religion was used to justify the attacks. The presence of planes, the pauli exclusion principle, the planck contstants, the presence of gravity all were necessary for the attacks, but they have nothing to do with justifying it.
Posted by: Fakey McFakerson | November 25, 2008 1:48 PM
Yes, now there will be a lawsuit
Posted by: Brian Westley | November 25, 2008 1:52 PM
Okay, fine, maybe "douchebag" was a little harsh. Sorry. I still stick by my point. The FFRF is correct in stating that religion was a motivating factor in the 9/11 attacks. And that doesn't have that much to do with this particular billboard. The fact still stands that FFRF basically said, "religion caused 9/11," which is simultaneously alienating any religious people who might have sympathized with them, and ignoring the millions of other factors which led to our current situation. My beef is not with atheism, it is with excessive simplicity.
I generally agree with what Ed said in his comment. But you can't just ignore the implications. I did see the billboard with the twin towers. And it felt like somebody was pointing a finger at me saying, "You caused 9/11!" And don't pretend I'm looking too deep into it. That was exactly the message they were trying to get across.
So yeah, the city was wrong to take down their billboard, but don't expect me to shed a tear for them.
Posted by: Brandon | November 25, 2008 1:59 PM
@sng,
Duly noted, thank you.
Posted by: peaches | November 25, 2008 2:08 PM
Brandon
Where did you see this 9-11 billboard?
I've also seen the image online, but wasn't aware of any billboards.
Posted by: ggab | November 25, 2008 2:42 PM
"I did see the billboard with the twin towers. And it felt like somebody was pointing a finger at me saying, "You caused 9/11!" And don't pretend I'm looking too deep into it. That was exactly the message they were trying to get across."
Are you a Muslim, Brandon? Unless you are, I don't see why you feel condemned by the FFRF World Trade Centre billboard. So yes, I do think you're reading something into it that isn't there.
And btw, your profound commitment to freedom of speech is duly noted. Remember freedom for the speech we hate?
Posted by: plum grenville | November 25, 2008 2:57 PM
One obvious idea, would be that the sign was stolen, but I guess that the matter hasn't gone to the police or that news would be getting around. If so, that would leave the company or the council, or a collusion of both. It seems obvious to me that the council and the company need to make a joint statement explaining what took place. Stalling or denial will surely only make it worse.
Posted by: Heraclides | November 25, 2008 3:15 PM
I think a First Amendment lawsuit is a little inappropriate here. A billboard is private property and the owners have the right to put up whatever they want (assuming it is not obscene) and take down whatever they want. I highly doubt they were somehow obligated to take down the billboard because the city requested them to. They could have said no to the city if they wished. Yes, we all have the right to free speech, but a private company has the right to decide what messages it wishes to display on its private property.
Posted by: mroberts | November 25, 2008 3:15 PM
Brandon, if the FFRF were using billboards to promote, say, woo-woo from Freke and Gandy, I'd have a problem with that. But this? This is in the same league as those "Why believe in God?" billboards that the AHA recently had put on buses. It's not a cutesy trick to imply that theists are generally stupid or nuts, nor is it otherwise intellectually dishonest. It's just making the presence of atheism known in the public square.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | November 25, 2008 3:27 PM
I live just 2 minutes from the billboard. I moved here just a few months ago from NYC and while it is beautiful, it is not the liberal CA I was expecting. I live in a very Mormon area and the nearest atheist group is 40 minutes away. It was good to see the billboard. It just felt like progress. I've never seen an atheist billboard in person. I know you can't really blame the sign company because they just want business, but it was just a bit sad to see how quickly people tried to beat down my point of view.
Posted by: ToniAK | November 25, 2008 3:34 PM
From the article Brian posted:
"Last Thursday, Redevelopment Director Linda Daniels said a member of her staff had informed the sign company about the 90 complaints the city received regarding the billboard.
"We contacted the sign company and asked if there was a way to get it removed," Daniels told the Daily Bulletin.
On Friday, Daniels denied making the comment. "
LOL, typical.
Posted by: MPM | November 25, 2008 3:39 PM
Umm, you might want to read up on your 1st amendment jurisprudence. A violation of the Establishment Clause does not require that the government actually force anyone to do anything. It's enough to promote religion over non-religion, or to send a message to atheists that they are "outsiders, not full members of the political community". The government most emphatically cannot get around the constitution by making "suggestions" with a wink and a nod.
Which is exactly why the city has gone into coverup mode.
Posted by: DaveL | November 25, 2008 4:21 PM
Being a private citizen doesn't give you the right to do anything you want with your business. Can McDonalds refuse to serve you based on race? No. Can the billboard owner? Nope. How about based on religion? Atheism? Again, probably not. So, whether the government is involved or not, the FFRF may have a case against the billboard owner for illegally discriminating against them as a customer.
Posted by: eric | November 25, 2008 4:59 PM
After 9-11 Clearchannel put "Imagine" by John Lennon an a "grey list". That means they weren't really banning it so much as letting the employees know that the bosses didn't want it played. Not banned of course (right).
That makes the "Imagine no religion" line even more fitting after it was suggested that the billboard come down.
Posted by: ggab | November 25, 2008 5:19 PM
Those offended by the Twin Towers billboard might think of how those of us who are atheist or of other non deity oriented religions feel when our pledge of alleigance suggests we aren't part of this nation, when 9/11 bumper stickers emphasize "God Bless America" - as if the religious wish to blame atheists for 9/11, or any number of other occasions where atheist, godless, etc. are used as an insult, slur, the worst thing you can say about someone.
If the city took action on this billboard, when they don't on religious billboards, they did violate separation of church and state.
Posted by: SusanHelit | November 25, 2008 5:21 PM
Susan
There was no twin towers billboard.
Brandon was looking for something to support his view and just swung away.
There was a group in Connecticut that put up a sign like that for a meeting a while back, but unless Brandon is about 18 inches tall (the sign was pretty small) and lives in Connecticut, his claim of having seen a billboard is as valid as the rest of his opinion.
"Those awful atheists made me feel like it was my fault!"
Maybe he really does believe it and is acting out of a deep seated guilt that he has?
Of course, this is only my opinion.lol
Posted by: ggab | November 25, 2008 6:10 PM
Umm, you might want to read up on your 1st amendment jurisprudence. A violation of the Establishment Clause does not require that the government actually force anyone to do anything. It's enough to promote religion over non-religion, or to send a message to atheists that they are "outsiders, not full members of the political community". The government most emphatically cannot get around the constitution by making "suggestions" with a wink and a nod.
Your post was not ignored DaveL, I just had nothing to add. I would have to study further on the issue, just as you suggested.
Happy?
Posted by: mroberts | November 25, 2008 10:06 PM
Psst.. the other one- on "Another Whacko Kansas Church", where I point out the difference between between the local's treatment of you and your treatment of homosexuals.
Posted by: DaveL | November 25, 2008 10:13 PM
Posted by: Barbara_K | November 25, 2008 1:11 PM
Me too.
Posted by: Riman Butterbur | November 25, 2008 10:35 PM
Yes, but what's the address of the billboard company? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2008 11:07 PM
And another thing... if the FFRF are "douchebags*", as suggested earlier, what does that make the 'religious types' they are applying themselves to? Just asking is all ;) -DJ
*I'm impressed, it's in the dictionary!
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2008 11:12 PM
Once again we see how the privatisation of public space allows for oppression that the government could never get away with.
Posted by: Paul Murray | November 26, 2008 12:34 AM
General Outdoor Advertising.
http://www.general-outdoor.com/Contact.htm
General Outdoor Advertising
632 S. Hope Ave.
Ontario, CA 91761
909-983-4414
fax 909-983-7579
Posted by: feckless | November 26, 2008 1:09 PM
Thanks for that feckless. I have sent them a polite enquiry as to why the decided to take the billboard down.
I'm not holding my breathe until a reply comes that's for sure!. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 26, 2008 11:39 PM
Religiholics can proselytize (even in the
workplace.But skeptics can't.
Religion is on offense. atheists are playing
defense.
Posted by: Ed-words | November 27, 2008 9:56 AM
Religiholics can proselytize (even in the
workplace). But skeptics can't.
Religion is on offense. atheists are playing
defense.
Posted by: Ed-words | November 27, 2008 9:59 AM
First prop. 8 and now this. May as well move to Utah or some such. /grumble
ToniAK - You needed to shell out the $$ and stay well north and west of the IE if you wanted the blue state, left coast lifestyle. I moved out here for the affordability knowing full well I'd be surrounded by huge vans, SUVs and pickups sporting "NOTW" decals, McCain/Palin and Yes on 8 bumper stickers.
Posted by: twincats | November 27, 2008 9:33 PM
FUCK YOU JESUS!
Posted by: Joaquin Martinez | January 16, 2009 7:12 AM