Is SF violating the Constitution? in San Francisco discussion Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Is SF violating the Constitution?

Author	Comment
The Ludovico Treatment	Is SF violating the Constitution?	Lead	[-]
Member Posts: 825 (02/27/09 10:16:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tags : None Remove this ad Aren't Muni buses and cable cars "government property"? If so, why are they promoting religion? Doesn't that violate the concept of "separation of church and state"? Every time I see an "Islam is the answer" or "submission to God" sign on a cable car or bus I get more pissed.
westside progressive	Oh lord!	#1	[-]
Member Posts: 2783 (02/27/09 10:42:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Of course you're pissed, since you hate Muslims. For me, just add that to the list of things advertised on the back of a MUNI bus that I won't buy. I do have a funny story about this. My partner noticed it when we were driving, and asked what the purpose of that was. I said that it's advertising. Any company or group can buy an ad. I guess they think that you'll convert to Islam if you see it on the back of a bus. "Or plow into the back of the bus, depending on how you feel about Islam," said my partner. To which I joked, well, I guess you can read it two ways... "Islam," or "I slam, as in, into the back of the bus." But seriously, I think it's public advertising space, so anybody can buy it. To tell them they can't, and allow some other group, would be discriminatory.
The Ludovico Treatment		#2	[-]
Member Posts: 828 (02/27/09 11:03:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	What you're saying WP is that its ok for government to promote religion as long as its PAID. link to video
westside progressive		#3	[-]
Member Posts: 2788 (02/27/09 13:08:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	They're not promoting religion. They're just selling ad space. Get a grip. For what it's worth, I'd support getting rid of all billboards and MUNI ads. I think they're ugly and they make it seem like everything's for sale to the highest bidder, which generally means corporations. I'd like to see a lot less of the consumerist culture marring my beautiful city. But if they're going to sell ads, then it's only fair that everyone gets an equal shot.
The Ludovico Treatment		#4	[-]
Member Posts: 832 (02/27/09 13:34:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	They're not promoting religion. They're just selling ad space. Get a grip. Advertising isn't promotion?
westside progressive		#5	[-]
Member Posts: 2789 (02/27/09 13:51:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Advertising IS promotion, on the part of those making and paying for the ads, not on the part of those selling the space. Do I like the government selling ad space? No. So in that sense, I guess it's not "OK" with me, anticipating your usual line. But does it rise to the level of a constitutional question? Please.
The Ludovico Treatment		#6	[-]
Member Posts: 834 (02/27/09 14:16:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	But does it rise to the level of a constitutional question? Please. Why not? We both agree that they are advertising a religion on government property. Whether they are doing it for mercenary reasons or for ideological reasons doesn't matter to me. Last Edited By: The Ludovico Treatment 02/27/09 14:18:35. Edited 1 times.
westside progressive		#7	[-]
Member Posts: 2791 (02/27/09 14:56:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If you wore a religious T-shirt into city hall, you'd be advertising religion on government property too. That's not unconstitutional, because it's not the government that's actually doing the advertising. No reasonable person could construe that as a government endorsement of religion. Likewise, no reasonable person could construe a private individual buying an ad as an endorsement of that ad by the seller of the space. I guess the key word here is "reasonable." Come to think of it, there are all sorts of use of government property by private indivduals for religious purposes, from Rabbi Whats-his-name on Channel 29 (which doesn't seem to bother you so much) to kooks spouting sermons in public squares. None of it actually bothers me, because it doesn't amount to government endorsement of religion. Those spaces are open to all, and none are permanently reserved for one group or the other. It's a completely different story when government puts a cross on public property, or when someone posts the 10 Commandments on a courthouse.
The Ludovico Treatment		#8	[-]
Member Posts: 835 (02/27/09 17:31:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If you wore a religious T-shirt into city hall, you'd be advertising religion on government property too. That's a non sequitur. If I wore a religious t-shirt on Muni, then I'd be advertising religion on Muni, but it would obviously be my own personal opinion. However, if I PAY the city to put my religious message on their buses, then I'm paying the government to promote my religion for me. I don't care if its Scientologists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Atheists, etc. - they shouldn't be advertising on government property. That being said I also think that should apply to politicians, propositions, and "message" advertising. Remember the flap over the pro-life ads on BART trains? If government property is used to advertise "Yes on 8" or for one candidate over another, that is a problem. I'm with you WP, I'd prefer no advertising. (we actually agree on something!) But, if they are going to advertise, they need to be much more careful with what ads they take.
antfaber	Sadly, you're wrong...	#9	[-]
Member Posts: 1926 (02/27/09 18:47:23) Great and Powerful Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Government entities that sell advertising aren't endorsing the product advertised. As long as they don't refuse to sell to one religion over another, they're in the clear. My sites: Link to SF Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/calendar_sf Link to SOMA Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/somacalendar Link to District 6 Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/d6calendar
westside progressive		#10	[-]
Member Posts: 2794 (02/27/09 21:14:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad Seriously, Lud... neither you nor I may like it, but the constitutional questions are settled on this one. But this little tidbit makes me a wee bit curious... I don't care if its Scientologists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Atheists, etc. - they shouldn't be advertising on government property. Aren't you forgetting someone? Jews, Lud. How come you didn't mention Jews? I only ask because there's a red-bearded Richmond district-based Rabbi who has a weekly slot on public access TV. His name escapes me at the moment, but he's definitely there, 'cause I've seen the program and actually met the guy. As I understand it, I don't even think he pays for it, because public access TV is free. You just sign up for an available slot, and you're free to broadcast religious propaganda using public equipment. And yet... I don't see you clamoring for his removal from public access TV. Now my position is consistent -as long as everyone gets an equal shot, big shoulder shrug, regardless if it's Muslims buying ad space or Jews getting free air time. I won't be buying what they're selling either way. But you... this Muslim thing really seems to get your goat. The Jewish thing... not so much. Could it be as simple as 'Jews fine, Muslims bad' in your mind? No, of course not. It's high minded principle... from the same person who's arguing on another thread that we should remain friends with the world's worst despotism, because they're cool with our objectives of controlling the middle east. Oh, Lud, you're so transparent...
el Greco SF		#11	[-]
Member Posts: 121 (02/28/09 10:18:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Someone could test this all out. Suppose the Fundamentalist Bible Thumpers Church came to Muni wanting to buy ad space that said "Jesus is the only way to be saved from hell." Does anyone really believe that Muni would accept that ad?
KenKnows		#12	[-]
Member Posts: 1164 (02/28/09 11:53:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Ludovico Treatment wrote: Aren't Muni buses and cable cars "government property"? If so, why are they promoting religion? Doesn't that violate the concept of "separation of church and state"? Every time I see an "Islam is the answer" or "submission to God" sign on a cable car or bus I get more pissed. Islam is my least favorite religion because so much recent terrorism has been done in the name of Islam without nearly enough Muslims denouncing Islamic terrorism. That said, there is nothing wrong with the ads that you described, and those ads certainly are not a violation of the separation of church and state. Those ads were one form of freedom of speech, and government funds were not used to pay for those ads.
antfaber	I think they would accept that ad.	#13	[-]
Member Posts: 1929 (02/28/09 13:49:00) Great and Powerful Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There are occasional controversies about ads on public transit. I think BART decided to no longer allow alcohol ads a few years back, and I vaguely remember a fuss about an anti-abortion ad campaign, but don't remember how it turned out. If you want, you can start a campaign to have MUNI prohibit all religious ads. That would work. Just prohibiting Muslims from advertising won't fly. My sites: Link to SF Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/calendar_sf Link to SOMA Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/somacalendar Link to District 6 Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/d6calendar
antfaber	Actually, there's a Bhuddist recruitment talk going on in the Main Library's Koret Auditorium now	#14	[-]
Member Posts: 1930 (02/28/09 15:34:30) Great and Powerful Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't know if they're even paying for the space. My sites: Link to SF Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/calendar_sf Link to SOMA Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/somacalendar Link to District 6 Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/d6calendar
westside progressive		#15	[-]
Member Posts: 2797 (02/28/09 22:08:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Someone could test this all out. Suppose the Fundamentalist Bible Thumpers Church came to Muni wanting to buy ad space that said "Jesus is the only way to be saved from hell." Does anyone really believe that Muni would accept that ad? I do. I have no reason to believe they would not.
antfaber	Lud, maybe you should move to Toronto	#16	[-]
Member Posts: 1933 (03/02/09 17:46:53) Great and Powerful Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	from Torontoist: The Atheist Bus / It's Raising Quite A Fuss Actually, if you want to go on a crusade, how about doing something about the fact that DPT doesn't enforce parking laws around churches (double parking, etc) on Sundays. I don't know if they do the same for synagoges on Saturdays, but a guy I know who works for St. Anthony's told me that a PCO used to drive up Jones Street every Friday after the Muslims across the street started their service & would ticket everyone who was illegally parked, until a nun who worked at St. Anthony's gave him/her holy heck about it. My sites: Link to SF Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/calendar_sf Link to SOMA Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/somacalendar Link to District 6 Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/d6calendar
The Ludovico Treatment		#17	[-]
Member Posts: 842 (03/02/09 17:50:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't understand why any religion should get preferential treatment over another and I don't understand why our government is allowing religious advertising on its buses. I don't care if they are paying for it. The Buddhist thing should go too.
KenKnows		#18	[-]
Member Posts: 1165 (03/02/09 19:01:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Ludovico Treatment wrote: I don't understand why any religion should get preferential treatment over another and I don't understand why our government is allowing religious advertising on its buses. I don't care if they are paying for it. The Buddhist thing should go too. Lud, you started this same thread on at least two different message boards. I then posted my reply to you in both places and you still claim that you do not understand. Your latest reply amounts to saying "I don't understand why any advertiser should get preferential treatment over another." Any advertiser and any religious group can advertise.
antfaber	I think the key word is "endorsement"	#19	[-]
Member Posts: 1936 (03/03/09 22:40:08) Great and Powerful Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If there's an ad for a brand of soda on a Muni bus, is the City & County of San Francisco "endorsing" that brand of soda? I don' t think so. In fact, any other soft drink manufacturer can plunk their money down and purchase equal or greater ad space. Unless you can come up with a religious (or atheist) group that has tried to buy advertising space and been denied, I don't see a problem. If we could convince every religion to do the same as these Muslims, Muni would be rolling in dough. The Sabbath parking thing is a policy (albeit an unwritten one) that discriminates in favor of Christians and against Muslims (at least). That bothers me a lot, and no one is doing anything about it. My sites: Link to SF Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/calendar_sf Link to SOMA Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/somacalendar Link to District 6 Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com/d6calendar
westside progressive		#20	[-]
Member Posts: 2801 (03/04/09 00:35:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad The Sabbath parking thing is a policy (albeit an unwritten one) that discriminates in favor of Christians and against Muslims (at least). That bothers me a lot, and no one is doing anything about it. That bothers me too, much more than some silly ad on a MUNI bus. Sometimes I come home from work very late. I'm very tired after a long day at work, and there have been times when I've searched half an hour for a parking spot. Well, you know, I think I'll start a Church of Westside Progressive, and in this church we place great value on the sacrament of an extra half hour of sleep, and if that means I need to park in the street, then I should be allowed to do it.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Is SF violating the Constitution?

Is SF violating the Constitution?