What Would Jesus Advertise?

A Christian radio station in Florida knows, and an ad from a Muslim group is right out. WTBN canceled and refunded a $300 ad buy promoting a Christian-Muslim symposium on Jesus at a local university because the spot did not "serve evangelical Christians," according to the station general manager.

The station is, of course, utterly free to reject any ads on any grounds it so chooses. But it is hard to see how simply inviting Christians to learn about Islam fails the station's stated mission. In fact that must be why station manager Christopher Gould jumped to the argument that the ultimate purpose of the ad was to convert Christians to Islam. Listen to the ad and decide for yourself.

Of course, a true test of the WTBN's policy would be for an evangelical Christian group to use the exact same language in an ad promoting a Christian-Muslim symposium on Jesus. Since the ultimate purpose of the ad would be to convert Muslims to Christianity that ad must get a green light.

Comments

[schaefer]

What would be the purpose of running an ad to convert Muslims to Christianity on a Christian radio station?

Preaching to the choir?

[The Owner's Manual]

When Christians get free reign in Saudi Arabia, then I'll get upset at this, and I'm an atheist. It must be a slow news day.

[Larry A]

How about a course covering the history of "Christian" governments. Six sessions: Heresy, Religious Wars, Inquisitions, Pogroms, Crusades, Witch Burning.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"But it is hard to see how simply inviting Christians to learn about Islam fails the station's stated mission. In fact that must be why station manager Christopher Gould jumped to the argument that the ultimate purpose of the ad was to convert Christians to Islam."

Of course, the REAL reason for the ad could be a symposium to help build bridges between Christians and Muslims who share a holy man in common. Then again, Fundementalist Christianity suffers from a massive case of paranoia about satanic intrigues, "secular humanist" conspiracies, and (after 9-11) Islamist plots to destroy their faith behind every bush, tree, and outhouse.

As for conversion, I don't remember hearing of any mandate for Muslims to go about converting the "infidels" to Islam. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Christians, on the other hand...

[Ken Shultz]

When many Christians first hear the standard Muslim take on the end of the story of Jesus' life, they often have a very emotional reaction--the idea that Jesus didn't die on the cross seems to strike at the very heart of Christianity generally and Protestantism specifically.

...Of course their take shouldn't strike Christians as any more controversial than the Jewish take that Jesus wasn't the messiah, and I don't think it would if Christians were as familiar with standard Muslim beliefs as they are with Judaism.

...For most Christians, the Muslim take is a new concept--they've never heard it before and it attacks the belief that they were saved by the death of Jesus, the belief that the bible is the ultimate authority on religious matters and the belief in original sin, all in one shot. I've seen otherwise tolerant and reasonable Christians become highly emotional the first time they hear it.

I would expect to hear a Christian radio station broadcast ads for a marijuana legalization rally before I heard one broadcast ads for a gathering in which Muslims relay the message to whomever will listen that Jesus didn't die for the sins of mankind--indeed to relay the message that Jesus didn't even die.

[D Anghelone]

Since the ultimate purpose of the ad would be to convert Muslims to Christianity that ad must get a green light.

Or a car bomb.

[phocion]

As for conversion, I don't remember hearing of any mandate for Muslims to go about converting the "infidels" to Islam. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

Look up da`wah (or dawah).

There are also those who would claim that Muslims have an obligation to convert non-believers by force, by the command of Sura 9 and a few other parts of the Koran. However, that's not a mainstream opinion.

In any case, this story has me shrugging my shoulders. They rejected an Islamic ad and said they would reject Mormon or Jehovah's Witness ads as well. They have (and should have) the right to do so, and I don't see anything hypocritical about it. I don't really understand the bit about putting the station through a "true test". The station's going to reject anything they feel could lead people away from evangelical Christianity (and hence the station), and openly admits that. Might be narrow-minded of them, but groups that don't want their members to hear opposing viewpoints about the group aren't limited solely to religions. I could see a hypothetical GOP radio station rejecting a Democratic ad about a multiparty debate about Bush's SS plan.

[Ron Hardin]

What Christian radio stations broadcast depends on the program director, and how desperate for revenue they've become. When they run on donations, they're less desperate and more selective. When the donations dry up, they take anything.

[phocion]

I might also point out that CAIR has been accused by many of openly preaching moderate and tolerant Islam, while being largely run by proselytizers and people with more extremist views. I don't know enough about CAIR to agree or disagree with that, but the viewpoint is definitely out there.

[Nope]

"...I don't remember hearing of any mandate for Muslims to go about converting the "infidels" to Islam. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Christians, on the other hand..."

The reason you don't remember hearing a mandate is that Muslims are compelled to kill the infidels. You are wrong...and corrected.

[kwais]

" Muslims are compelled to kill the infidels."

Outside of Saudi Arabia that is not really true. And even in Saudi Arabia that is not so much true.

There is a race of people in Iraq called the Assyrians, they have been here longer than the moslems or so they claim. Either they are a much more wily people than I had realized, or it is not the goal of all moslems to kill infidels.

I think jews were predominant in most of the Arab world before the state of Israel also. I am not sure about that one. I know there is a considerable quantity of jews in Morocco, and some in Turkey also.

[David McElroy]

It sounds like a business decision on the part of the radio station, and I'd have made the same decision. I don't know whether that station is one of the non-profit Christian stations or one of the larger commercial stations (such as one of the Crawford chain), but the first thing it needs to stay in business is loyal and happy listeners. If they accept that ad, they run the risk of alienating the people they need to survive and thrive. You can look at it completely in a business context and see that it makes sense, regardless how you feel about Christians or Muslims or any other religious group.

When I was a newspaper publisher (for small community newspapers), I became very sensitive to what some segment of our readership might object to. It didn't matter that I was willing to take ads for pretty much anything. All that mattered was that I needed my readers. I had to have my readers or I'd lose my advertisers. Without advertisers (or even a fraction of them), my profit dives and the monthly P&L starts looking ugly. So my decisions were driven by making the vast, vast majority happy.

The truth is that almost nobody ever wanted to run an ad that even MIGHT offend someone, but we were likely to reflect it if it might upset enough people. The $250 (or whatever) that we might lose just wasn't worth the risk to the rest of our business.

So it seems to me that this is truly a business decision, not an ideological one -- unless you consider why some of the listeners might not like it. I suspect a radio station catering to a liberal audience would similarly reject an ad from the NRA (and for the same reasons).

[kwais]

I am thinking it doesn't even have to be just a buisness decision. Even if it is a not for profit station, the guy still wants to be heard.

Much the same as we don't write posts in old threads, because who wants to write if no one is going to read it. So to would the christian radio station not want to alienate its listeners.

[crimethink]

Is it not possible that the ad might make it sound like a friendly get-together to talk about a mutually revered religious figure -- but the actual event would turn out to be an attempt at conversion? I know it would be unprecedented that an ad would misrepresent the thing being advertised, but we have to at least have to consider the possibility. 😉

I've also noticed that the Reason staff has grown to love the "I know they're free to do what they want with their own property, but..." caveat. Need I remind y'all that the reason private entities should be free to do what they want with their property is that the market will punish them if indeed they are making the wrong decision. They lost $300 by refusing to run the ad; if the symposium is not really a threat to their listeners' faith, they lost it for nothing.

[matthew hogan]

Although it might be better for evangelicals to learn Islam from a Muslim mouth, and their rejection may be rooted in a fear of anything benevolent (dialogue) associated with Islam, what's wrong with this? Didnt agree, didnt run the ad. Not a problem.

The fact that many -- including commenters here -- can repeat that all Muslims are supposed to kill all nonbelievers (in the face of centuries of Jewish and Chrisitan existence in Muslim countries -- even Hindus in India), makes the case that eliminating igonrance may be a good policy issue.

[REg]

Since when have libertarians been so preachy about what private individuals do with their businesses?

"But it is hard to see how simply inviting Christians to learn about Islam fails the station's stated mission."

Who appointed you censor to go about determining whether businesses are following their stated missions? I sure didn't expect to see that on a libertarian blog.

[kwais]

Does anyone know of a libertarian website that refuses to have comercials involving pictures of a sweaty bald guy humping a carpet?

[Gary Gunnels]

Wouldn't "Christ" see this as rather cowardly in light of the "Great Commission?" Here a Christian radio station has an oppurtunity to support efforts evagelize this pagan population and they back out of it. 🙂

crimethink,

Part of the free market - of course - includes communication and discussion of events, actions, etc. Then again, you also want to force people (via taxation and other measures) to support the speech that you perfer, so what would you know about a free market?

[Jim Walsh]

What Would Jesus Advertise? I dunno, but it might go somethin' like this...

"Hi, friends! Crazy Jesus here, for Crazy Jesus' Sensational-But-Never-Sin-Sational Used Cars, with prices so low, YOU'LL THINK IT'S A MIRACLE!"

I'll work on it and get back to you (not)...

[Mr. X]

"Council on American Islamic Relations" is probably one of the worst sales pitches of our time, right up there with "Army of One," "put Social Security in a lock box," "It's a Child, not a choice," and marketing soda for people who'd rather get extra calories by eating more as "Diet Coke." Without a hyphen, CAIR's name refers to relations between American Muslims and American Nonmuslims. But I've also seen it written as "Council on American-Islamic Relations," which would seem to imply relations between Muslims and real Americans, as if the two were mutually exclusive. And people who to think of Muslims as being unpatriotic for valuing their religion over the "American" label aren't likely to be nuanced about the absence of a hyphen.

[Bunnie]

Ah yes, my favorite past time of libertarians: going after the Christians.

Sad. Sad. Sad.

And I say that as someone who used to proudly call herself a libertarian.

[crimethink]

Gary Gunnels,

Please point out where I said Taylor has no right to discuss this. Seriously though, is it really on-topic for this blog to ridicule the non-coercive (however potentially stupid) actions of private entities? I don't think so, and it seems that this is only done when certain detested groups are involved (Christians here, and PETA in the previous post).

btw, misrepresenting the statements of others may count as a kind of communication and discussion, but hardly an informative kind.

[crimethink]

The event will show that the two religions have more in common than differences, particularly among conservative worshippers, Bedier [of CAIR] said.

Except for the question of whether the statement "Jesus is God," is a basic tenet of the one true faith, or blasphemy. Kind of a wide difference there, it would seem.

All the more reason to believe this is a bait and switch operation, and that the station is indeed protecting their own interests by refusing the ad.

[Phil]

I don't know whether that station is one of the non-profit Christian stations or one of the larger commercial stations (such as one of the Crawford chain), but the first thing it needs to stay in business is loyal and happy listeners.

The fact that they're selling ads should be a big clue. Non-profit stations aren't allowed to sell ads. They can take underwriting for program sponsorships, but no ads. I was the business director and general manager for my college's radio station, and was often made painfully aware of the bright line separating the two.

crimethink, I suppose Reason, or anyone else, could formulate an argument regarding "private" entities being given exclusive government licenses to broadcast on certain frequencies, then discriminating on the basis of religion . . . ?

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

Tell me where I claimed that you did?* The only one misrepresenting things here is you. Of course you were whining about Taylor's criticism, which was the heart of my commentary.

Seriously though, is it really on-topic for this blog to ridicule the non-coercive (however potentially stupid) actions of private entities?

Sure. If the story were about Muslims you'd have no problem with it. Its the fact that Christians are criticized here that has your shirt in a bunch.

*For your edification, I'll quote my ony remarks to you on this thread:

Part of the free market - of course - includes communication and discussion of events, actions, etc. Then again, you also want to force people (via taxation and other measures) to support the speech that you perfer, so what would you know about a free market?

How you spun that into what you've claimed that I wrote I don't know.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

BTW, you've been more than forward in your criticism of the private acts of homosexuals. You're a Grade A hypocrite (and bigot) as far as I can tell.

[Gary Gunnels]

One wonders when libertarianism became a philosophy which ignores (via commentary) the actions of private actors. Just because (unlike crimethink) I don't want the government to force theists to become atheists doesn't mean I cannot criticize the basic irrationality that lies at the heart of any religion after all. Those who argue otherwise desire a sterile intellectual world as far as I can tell where their orthodoxies are immune from criticism.

[Gary Gunnels]

Correction: Just because (unlike crimethink's advocacy of government coercion re: abortion) I don't want the government to force theists to become atheists doesn't mean I cannot criticize the basic irrationality that lies at the heart of any religion after all.

[Gary Gunnels]

Bunnie,

I'm curious. As a libertarian, why do I have to be "pro-religion?"

[Eric the .5b]

Is a group of some type, whether political or religious or whatever, obligated to encourage members to talk, debate, or otherwise interact with people from differing groups? As a non-religious man, am I somehow obligated to attend Christian services or "Christian-Skeptic Dialogues"?

No and no, and if some twit wants to snark at me for not wanting to waste a few hours of my time, well, that's his or her problem, not mine. I get nothing out of Christianity. If someone else does, great for that person.

Now why would it be any different if I were a Christian and talking about Islam?

[smacky]

One wonders when libertarianism became a philosophy which ignores (via commentary) the actions of private actors. Just because (unlike crimethink) I don't want the government to force theists to become atheists doesn't mean I cannot criticize the basic irrationality that lies at the heart of any religion after all. Those who argue otherwise desire a sterile intellectual world as far as I can tell where their orthodoxies are immune from criticism.

GG,

I am completely with you on that one. Well put.

[crimethink]

Gary Gunnels,

See previous thread, where I had made similar comments about a critique of Mercedes' decision to offer non-leather interiors as urged by PETA (a group that I have my share of differences with). Perhaps I'm not as much of a hypocrite as you so blithely assume.

And again, point to where I supported forcing atheists to become theists. You've moved from mere misrepresentation to outright lies -- but such is the natural course of one who spices his agruments heavily with ad hominem attacks.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

You've yet to justify your first claim of misrepresentation; I suspect you never will, because you realize that its completely groundless. You are always far more about generating heat rather than light.

You've been more than willing to criticize the private acts of homosexuals, thus what you have had to say on the PETA matter is beside the point. You're a hyporcrite who picks and chooses when and when not criticizing private actors is appropriate. Indeed, I suspect the PETA matter is mere cover at this point.

And again, point to where I supported forcing atheists to become theists.

All you need do is see my correction (which came right after the statement you are now complaining about) to clear up that issue. I knew you would attempt to avoid it though. 🙂