Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
SMART, the regional bus system for the Detroit area, has refused to accept an ad for the side of their busses that urges people to leave Christianity. The ads read:
"Curse on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Chrsitianity? Got questions? Get Answers!"
The Thomas More Law Center has filed a federal lawsuit over the refusal to run the ads, saying that they must defend the right of non-Christians to speak their mind as much as they defend the rights of Christians.
Oops, I'm sorry. I misread that. It was actually an anti-Muslim ad that read:
"Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get Answers!"
But the Thomas More Law Center really has filed a suit. And guess what? They're right (finally!). Just like the same authority could not refuse to accept the atheist ad that ran a few weeks ago, they can't refuse to run this one either. The complaint, true to TMLC form, is little more than a political diatribe, but the legal arguments are still valid. And I expect them to win on summary judgment.
The group behind the ad is led by Pamela Geller -- yes, the staggeringly stupid blogger who declared a few months ago that Sarah Palin didn't quit as governor, "The lower 48 needed her and she heeded the call." You say something that moronic, in public and on TV no less, and you've pretty much relegated yourself to being a punchline forever. But the constitution still protects her rights too.
Politics
Comments
The TMLC winning a case?
The end times must surely be upon us
Posted by: H P | June 2, 2010 9:44 AM
My first reaction was seeing the TMLC and agreeing with them - you had me in suspense through Google Reader by not mentioning that it was anti-Muslim at first, damn you.
This ad makes sense in a city like Detroit with a large Muslim population. That it comes from a CHRISTIAN is... well... troublesome at first, but I do agree with you...
What bothers me on the part of Detroit's bus system when it comes to denying these ads is not only Constitutional - but also the fact that we all know the city is basically bankrupt. Can they even AFFORD to deny ad space?
Posted by: Joshua | June 2, 2010 9:50 AM
Detroit has a relatively large population of Islamic people, so this campaign should be a success. I wonder what they are to be converted to, of course. Eastern Orthodox Christianity would be a good fit.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 2, 2010 9:51 AM
Eastern Orthodox Christianity would be a good fit.
Yeah. The Eastern Orthodox and Muslims go way back, what with the Byzantine Empire v. the Turks and the Crusades and whatnot...
Actually, that's probably one of the saddest things of all. The people who are putting out those ads probably have no clue about the long history of both conflict and cooperation between Christians and Muslims of various stripes. All they care about is the dichotomy of "we're right, you're wrong."
But it's not that simple. It's never that simple. And 1400 years of near-constant warfare in one part of the globe or another should really have brought that point home by now...
Posted by: Geds | June 2, 2010 10:01 AM
@Joshua - this isn't the City of Detroit's bus service; it's a suburban bus system run by a consortium of communities not including Detroit, but which does offer some service to some parts of the city. Detroit has its own completely separate bus system. Part of the reason public transit in the metro area is such a mess is because the two systems refuse to do anything even vaguely resembling cooperation and coordination of their schedules.
(SMART may also not be in a position to refuse the ads; I don't know much about their finances.)
Posted by: Cathy W | June 2, 2010 10:27 AM
After 1400 years amd all that bloodshed, it has to be that simple. "We" can't have paid so much and done so much for anything less.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 2, 2010 10:40 AM
Huh. I was pleasantly surprised at what TMLC was doing, and then clicked through to read the rest, and was disappointed.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | June 2, 2010 10:43 AM
I would donate money to a group to try and run an ad on the very same buses using Ed's wording ("Christianity" instead of "Islam").
It would be worth the money just for the entertainment value of seeing the TMLC try and argue that the leaving Islam one is a-okay, but the leaving Christianity one is somehow unconstitutional or otherwise Evil.
Posted by: David | June 2, 2010 11:03 AM
Pamela Geller, staggeringly stupid and mad as a hatter.
Fixed it.
Posted by: Dr X | June 2, 2010 11:09 AM
When is Geller going to support all the formerly orthodox and conservative Jews disowned by family for marrying Goyim? Close to half of my extended family was disowned by their Jewish families.
Posted by: Dr X | June 2, 2010 11:15 AM
Ed hasn't been paying attention. The exact same thing happened in Miami (FL), the TMLC filed suit, and the ad agency not only reinstated the ads but also tripled the distribution at a discount.
The TMLC may be clueless about the establishment clause, but they do appear to know what a free press means (at least when it's printing something they like).
Posted by: Cynical | June 2, 2010 11:15 AM
Ouch. Up to the fold, I am thinking "well, damn, good for them. That's something to respect."
Then I read below the fold, and *poof* , no more respect.
*sigh* At least they are doing the right thing from an actions only perspective, even if the reasons they are doing it are pretty regrettable.
Posted by: PennyBright | June 2, 2010 2:04 PM
Makes you wonder. I ride a SMART bus almost every day - and I saw some of the "Atheist Bus Ads" they accepted back in March. (Though a few did get vandalized.
I wonder if any of these ads would/will be vandalized?
Posted by: Ray Ingles | June 2, 2010 3:24 PM
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Posted by: Zachary Smith | June 2, 2010 3:58 PM
Atheist ads run on buses in Detroit and Miami with nary a peep from anyone, but run an ad offering help to apostates from Islam and the authorities are suddenly running scared and need a lawsuit to remind them of their Constitutional obligations.
Running from what? Why are Muslims scarier than Christians, Hindus and Jews?
Posted by: The Alternate View | June 2, 2010 10:30 PM
The Alternate View @ #15:
Not true. There were plenty of christianist asshats whining about those, drivers refusing to do their jobs, fake rules made up after the fact to avoid running them. The comment two above yours links to reports of vandalism.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 2, 2010 10:40 PM
Asshats, yes, but the authorities ran the ads and told the drivers to suck it up. Why were the authorities afraid of Muslims?
Posted by: The Alternate View | June 3, 2010 12:29 AM
Ironically, Thomas More himself was responsible for burning people at the stake.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | June 3, 2010 1:50 AM
That's "anti-religious"? On what goddamned planet?
Posted by: MadScientist | June 3, 2010 8:56 PM
Apostasy is a capital crime under Shari'a (including the civil law of Afghanistan). Do you think people who hold to Shari'a are going to treat those who encourage apostasy any better than apostates?
Posted by: The Alternate View | June 3, 2010 11:30 PM
The Alternate View wrote:
Of course not. But to not allow such ads would be to put Sharia law above the first amendment. Sound like a good idea to you?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 3, 2010 11:32 PM
Yet the first impulse of the SMART system's ad people (and Miami's also) was to axe the First Amendment to avoid violating Shari'a rules.
What's your take on that?
Posted by: The Alternate View | June 4, 2010 12:26 AM
Perhaps if you'd actually read the post, you'd know. It's not terribly subtle. I even put an exclamation point after it. Of course, the bus system did not do it to avoid violating Sharia; I doubt whoever made the decision would know Sharia from My Sharona. They were just trying to avoid controversy. But they clearly violated the constitution in the attempt.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 4, 2010 1:17 AM
If the bus systems wanted to avoid controversy, they wouldn't run atheist ads. Only some kinds of controversy are bad.
In the USA, there are a lot more Christians to offend than Muslims, yet multiple agencies have proven to be much more solicitious not to offend Muslims. Racial and ethnic minority status has nothing to do with it, or there would be major blowups over things which offend Catholics. If there's any threat to the First Amendment, it's the combination of Political Correctness and Islam.
Posted by: The Alternate View | June 4, 2010 8:28 AM
"If the bus system wanted to avoid controversy, they wouldn't run atheist ads."
Why are you making the assumption that all advertisements involving atheism are controversial?
Posted by: daniel rotter | June 6, 2010 8:12 AM
Look at the numbers. Perhaps 30% of the population of the USA finds atheism offensive and controversial. Only 1% of the population of the USA would have any personal reason to be bothered by offers of assistance in leaving Islam. Despite this, the atheist ads go up with few problems while the anti-Islamic ads are cancelled unless and until suits are filed.
What's the lesson here? Are the agencies afraid of Muslim violence? Should they be censoring viewpoints out of such fear?
Posted by: The Alternate View | June 6, 2010 8:41 AM
"Look at the numbers."
You mean the "numbers" you just made up out of your own guesswork?
Posted by: daniel rotter | June 6, 2010 3:04 PM
If you had ever spent time in the South, you would know that the level of offendability is very high in large parts of the USA. I had to be careful wearing a T-shirt which said something as mild as "Untied Dyslexic Church of Dog".
Posted by: The Alternate View | June 9, 2010 9:06 AM