I like the headline on this one, all set to raise instant ire in all who see it:
Billboard companies allow slam against God.
Gracious. Call the troops. Someone has slapped a billboard on the side of a building giving God a funny mustache and a stupid grin to make him look stupid in front of everyone. The shame! The travesty! It’s the end of the world!
In actuality, it’s just a statement on a billboard by a road. If you don’t believe in God, you’re not alone. Finally, some truth in advertising. It’s aimed at the people who may have turned from faith, or are at least starting to doubt it, and wonder what to do. Find people who’ve gone through it, boys and girls. We’re out here. Don’t be shy.
How does World Nut Daily spin it? It turns out the bigger issue is about billboard companies who’ll run those so-called “slams” but are unwilling to run WND advertisements based on worse lies and slurs:
Two major billboard companies are allowing signs that slam Christian faith, even though they rejected out-of-hand a billboard campaign that asked for documentation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.
First off, they aren’t slamming anyone’s faith, nor aimed at any specific religion. No religion is being insulted. No believers are overtly getting insulted in the language itself. It’s not saying “God sucks!” or “Christianity sucks!” or “Everyone who believes in god is an idiot!” It’s just making a statement that there are people who don’t believe. What happens in the heart and head of the reader is a separate issue that has nothing to do with the advertising.
If the billboard company refused to run WND’s ridiculous birth certificate ads, they were right to do so. That was propaganda designed to sow seeds of distrust in a popular candidate. Slurs and allegations without any basis in fact, I might add, no matter how much “research” they’ve put in. Not finding any evidence for their claims has just made them cry “conspiracy” all the louder, instead of admitting to the possibility that they might actually be wrong about it.
“I found it ironic that the billboard … is maintained by Clear Channel,” wrote a WND reader who noticed the apparent double standard. “I seem to recall Clear Channel did not want to run any of the ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate’ ads on their billboards, because of the ‘sensitivity of the issue.'”
They were being polite. They were also holding to their promise not cater to groups engaging in character defamation. The certificate signage was suggesting Obama was a liar and not fit to lead the country.
Company spokesman Tony Alwin did respond to WND’s request today for comment on the latest development, sending a link to the “code of industry principles as a guide for content” from the Outdoor Advertising Association of America.
Specifically, it calls on companies to “Observe Highest Free Speech Standards.”
“We support the First Amendment right of advertisers to promote legal products and services, however, we also support the right of outdoor advertising companies to reject advertising that is misleading, offensive, or otherwise incompatible with individual community standards, and in particular, we reject the posting of obscene words or pictorial content,” the code states.
Alwin did not respond to subsequent questions from WND on whether his company has determined “Are you good without God?” doesn’t mislead anyone, doesn’t offend anyone and meets all community standards.
I’d hazard a guess that it’s because he thinks you guys are crackpots and has already given you more time than you deserved. The question is innocuous. It’s also reminding other non-believers to continue being good role models because the world is, quite literally, watching.
It’s not misleading. There is no offensive content in the language. There is nothing obscene in it beyond what readers imagine. If it offends you, you need to look at why. It’s not our fault if you can’t begin to fathom it.
“WND’s reporters have investigated this issue more extensively than the rest of the media combined – sending senior staff writer Jerome Corsi to Hawaii and Kenya in search of evidence,” he has said. “We have commissioned private investigators in Honolulu. There is simply no persuasive evidence to affirm Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth. There is no hospital on the island that will confirm the first black president of the United States was born there. It’s all conjecture. And no controlling legal authority in this country has ever asked Obama to provide the proof.”
Have they ever insisted someone prove it before? Has any president had to drag his birth certificate out to show it was real? Has every one of their certificates been given to guys who check for counterfeiting to make sure everyone was truly who and where they said they were? Or are you guys just picking on Barack because he’s different?
Did they not see the article demonstrating how Barack might be related to everyone who has ever been president? Only one guy out of all of them was not a descendant of John “Lackland” Plantagenet, once king of England and a signer of the Magna Carta. That’s quite the pedigree. Maybe Martin Van Buren’s legitimacy should be worked over with a fine tooth comb, instead. He was a Dutchman! The first Dutchman ever elected! Man, did nobody check if he was really American first?
Turns out they did, in a way. He was the first ever president born with the status of American Citizen. All the previous ones had been British subjects when they were born. Does that negate their legitimacy? Maybe Americans ought to discount the earlier boys and name Van Buren as first proper Prez. That poor sod got stuck with an economic downturn while in office, too, and he failed to achieve a second term despite popularity. Too many people blamed him for their problems, I guess. And the wheel just keeps on turning…
WND looks unwilling to give up on their billboard bullshit, but we can hope other companies like Lamar and Clear Channel have the public in mind as they turn away every attempt to discredit Obama.