Turning away
The United Church of Christ, known for its liberal attitude toward theology, church membership and clergy, is promoting its “Jesus didn’t turn people away” message in the form of a new television advertisement. The controversial ad can be seen here. Steve Sanders, who definitely appreciated the ad, summed it up this way:
In it, two black-clad, mean-looking bubbas outside a church turn away a hand-holding male couple (while letting pass a wonderfully white-bread-looking white family — check out dad’s John Edwards hair). The thugs also bar a young Latino-looking male and a young black woman. It all happens so quickly that many viewers probably wouldn’t even pick up the gay angle. The ad closes with rainbow-coalition tableau of faces as the announcer declares, “The United Church of Christ. No matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”
Surprisingly, according to a UCC press release, both CBS and NBC refuse to air the ad. The UCC press release cites this quotation from CBS as that network’s justification:
“Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations. . . and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] network.”
A rejection by NBC also declared the spot “too controversial,” according to the statement. ABC, a subsidiary of Disney, Fox stations and others will nevertheless carry it. Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, called the ads “masterful propaganda” that shouldn’t be ran.
Whether you disagree or not with the UCC or even its ad, the cowardly nature with which the networks refused to air them is disturbing, to say the least. Unwanted speech, at least in this instance, should be met with alternative speech, not censorship because of fear of government action.
22 Responses to “Turning away”
Networks have freedom of speech just as the UCC does. If the UCC wants unfiltered access to the airwaves, it should buy a station. If it is willing to submit to the reality of privately-owned media, it must play by the whims of those media outlets, cowardly as they may be.
Cowardly, indeed. And that quote from the network is ridiculous. Because the commercial touches on the exclusion of certain groups it is unacceptable? It is precisely because it addresses that important topic that it should be shown. And what on earth does a PROPOSED constitutional amendment have to do with what a network will and won’t air? You are precisely right that alternative speech, and not censorship, should be the answer here.
It is cowardly, and it is ridiculous–but it’s not censorship. The networks have the right to accept or reject advertising as they see fit. And while I disagree with what they’ve chosen not to say, I will defend to the death their right not to say it.
The irony of the refual is that it’s probably given the ad more attention than it would ever have received otherwise. Those who see the ad on FOX, ABC, or the Internet will now be guaranteed to notice a spot that they might otherwise have ignored–and to think carefully about its message.
It’s self-imposed censorship due to fear from government action. I think the meaning was clear in the context but I’ll be sure to add a qualifier for the semantically picky (or semantically challenged). I’m well aware of the rights that the TV stations have and don’t have.
I think this government fear is what concerns me most. Either the stations are using that as a excuse and are actually opposed to the ad (given the nature of their programming, I can’t believe this is true), or they’re genuinely fearful of government/societal action. Because other stations are carrying it without consequence (for the most part), CBS and NBC are clearly wrong to fear such things. That makes them ignorant, cowardly, or both. (Again, unless they truly disagree with the ad, which I find highly unlikely.)
There’s a difference between the news, programming, and ad sales divisions of a network. The news and programming cultures may be liberal (or, rather, creative in this case), but the businesspeople don’t want to tick off viewers. And, if the last election is any clue, there are rather a lot of people who would be irked by an assault on “traditional” faith values. So I don’t think we need to introduce government into this as an explanatory variable.
I agree, Josh. The rationale given for rejecting the ad is weak and cowardly. Of course, the networks have that right, but in my mind, refusing to air the ad makes them look a lot worse than airing it would have. Anyone who would be offended by the ad is likely already upset by NBC and CBS for airing programs with gay characters and themes. One ad probably wouldn’t make a difference because these folks already have it in their heads that network TV is contributing to a permissive attitude toward homosexuality. On the other hand, when news comes out about the ad being denied, these two networks lose respect from many of their viewers, gay and straight.
And as was noted in Sanders’ description, the segment that pertains to the two gay men is really quite quick. It seemed, at least to me, to be used as just one example of a more broad statement about churches being hostile to anyone who is different. Connecting that message to the federal marriage amendment is quite a leap.
But indeed, if the networks truly fear some kind of government retribution, that’s terrifying.
You get it partially right.
“Unwanted” speech should not only *not* be censored, it should be encouraged. This is the guiding principle of free speech as laid out by our founding fathers. Good ideas and Bad should be allowed to freely compete within our minds, and in the public forum of free and open debate. The Good ideas and Bad ideas compete for survival. In the absence of censorship, and in the presence of Rational debate, and solid facts, the Bad ideas will be selected for extinction, and the Good ideas will survive and prosper.
“Unwanted” speech that’s censored, merely goes underground, and festers, until you get nasty movements like the NAZI party, The KKK, Al Qaeda, and The Heritage Foundation.
If any American feels so threatened at the thought of having to discuss sexuality, then they’re free to emigrate to Saudi Arabia, where talking about homosexuality will get one’s head chopped off.
I, for one, will stay in America, and continue to promote the ideas and freedoms our Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It’s not fear of offending per se, it’s fear of offending in a way that will cause the loss of advertising revenue.
Much of network television programming already offends many people my age and older and that has never been a concern to the networks because we aren’t in their favored demographics.
“It’s not fear of offending per se, it’s fear of offending in a way that will cause the loss of advertising revenue.”
Precisely. Controversy is inimical to commerce unless it is properly staged.
Right Paul, but if the business people are truly worried about ticking off viewers because of this ad, wouldn’t they expressing concern to the programmers (or vice versa)? Maybe I’m naive in my thinking about the level of cooperation among network execs, but it seems like they’d be more on the same page.
“Osama” wrote:
“Unwanted” speech that’s censored, merely goes underground, and festers, until you get nasty movements like the NAZI party, The KKK, Al Qaeda, and The Heritage Foundation.
While your main point may be true, your examples are pretty weak. The KKK started at a time when overt racism and “Jim Crow” laws were pretty much the norm. Woodrow Wilson, who was in office at the time, was an extremely racist president. The Nazi party came to power in open elections in Germany, making no secret of their worldview. Al Qaeda’s views are, or at least were until recently, pretty openly preached in places like Saudi Arabia. So none of these groups really came about due to censorship. (I have no comment about the Heritage Foundation.)
Wilson was “racist” by the “standards” of today but certainly not by the standards of his day. As Balko points out, IU can’t fire their worthless basketball coach by the “standards” of today and Notre Dame takes gas by dumping a black failure..by the “standards” of today. It is not quite right for denizens of 2004 to judge those of 1904 but a history major might have to explain why.
Nobody’s brought up a key issue: UCC is guilty of bearing false witness against conservative churches. The ad is telling people that red-state-minded churches are bigoted toward ethnic minorities and gays.
I guess the former prejudice comes from the common misperception that opposing policies intended to benefit minorities can be motivated only by disdain for minorities, and not because conservatives disagree on what will result from such policies. There’s probably more to it than that, but I’m a Southerner – the closest I’ve ever been to the Northest blue states is Georgia.
As for the latter, a lot of people fail to recognize that people can have legitimate disagreement over whether homosexuality is a disorder, or that a great many social conservatives do not hate gays or others of whom they are critical. Person A can think that Person B is messed up in the head without hating that person. (If that weren’t true, I’d hate everybody.)
And yes, the networks are hypocrites for airing slanderous commercials only when produced by political candidates.
I think the UCC ad is one of the most profoundly truthful ads I’ve seen in a long time.
Historically, many churches did ban both Blacks and practicing homosexuals from attending church at all. Just take the time to look up the views of W. A. Criswell and others on the Internet. During the 1976 presidential campaign Jimmy Carter and his wife left their Baptist church in Plains for another Baptist church because the former refused to change its membership rules to allow Blacks as members.
Today, churches allow attendance to these groups but often bar them from leadership positions. As well, over the last 30 years, many churchs have placed a highly disproportionate emphasis on homosexuality as a sin, particularly from the pulpit. Many gays have had to sit through one sermon after another in which AIDS was described as the gay plague or God’s punishment for homosexuality, of hearing themselves described as perverts, etc.
The ad is a metaphor as to whether all are truly welcomed, not whether they are literlly allowed in the door.
I agree that there can be legitimate differences on homosexuality, but since the UCC ordains gays and lesbians and incorporates them into the highest leadership levels, then from their denominational viewpoint they are being truthful in accusing other churches of being unwelcoming.
At Richard Hall’s blog Connexions at “http://theconnexion.net/wp/index.php?=729″ I have posted my younger brother’s views on the UCC ad controversy.
Historically…
The ad isn’t set in history. It’s set in today’s time. It is vicious innuendo that plays to the common prejudices against conservative Christians.
Alan,
History cannot be so easily separated from the present. The AME and AME Zion churches exist today because the Methodist church made Blacks sit in the balcony and otherwise marginalized them.
Did my brother’s “prejudice” against some conservative churches begin with himself or with him being on the receiving end of demonization?
Are the Methodists still segregating the pews? The commercial implies attitudes that are common in churches today. Advertisers do not employ product differentiation by comparing the Product A of today to the Product B of yesterday. The ad is making innuendo about today’s “red-state” churches.
Mark Byron has a pretty good post:
http://markbyron.typepad.com/main/2004/12/unhappy_bouncer.html
The United Methodist Church is fairly segregated today in practice, so I would say that history is not behind us.
Oklahoma got its first African-American Bishop in September. A fellow United Methodist asked me, “Why are we getting a Black bishop? We don’t have that many Blacks here.”
People such as Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention have been inflaming prejudices against liberal Christians for years.
Bailey Smith, former president of the SBC referred to liberal clergy as “perfume-wearing, earring-wearing, Bible-hating, Christ-ignoring, sin-shirking, backbone missing.”
You still haven’t demonstrated that a significant proportion of Christian conservatives are racist. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mark trends.
In contrast, Bailey Smith has identified a genuine trend. The fashion accessories remark is Ann Coulterish hyperbole. (Hey, all the earring-wearing Christian guys I’ve met are conservatives – but that’s just more anecdotal evidence.) But the remaining charges carry weight. Theological leftists do tend to be biblical deconstructionists; they are drawn toward concepts of Christ and sin that are largely invented, and can therefore be justly accused of ignoring and shirking the genuine article.
As for the charge of spinelessness, religious lefties does tend to suck up to political correctness. And a lot of ‘em (including UMC) support the appeasenik NCC and WCC.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/index.php?cat=4
Alan,
Excepting that that is not how I view God’s grace as working, I think those setting policies for financial institutions that charge usurious interest rates have a far greater chance of licking the flames of hell than do practicing gays. In my view, much of the religious right are Biblical deconstructionists as to Christ’s gospel message for the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized.
Now if I spent several sermons each year warning that bankers and similar types were living lives of moral depravity because of the policies they push, maybe a more conservative church would come up with a theme that everyone, including Bible-ignoring bankers, are welcome.
To charge someone 20% or more interest (or fail to pay a living wage for that matter) is a far far more serious mockery of God, a far worse spitting on the sacred word, than homosexuality could conceivably be.
Nevertheless, those among the capitalists who are “Christ-ignoring” are welcome in church just as are all others sinners.
During the Middle Ages, 20% interest rates were a bargain. For credit cards, that rate is understandable, considering the high risk involved. I don’t know who in America (besides organized crime) is charging above-market rates of interest. I don’t think that even those furniture rental stores qualify, although I think they’re horrible bargains; apparently they’re for the worst credit risks.
There’s better examples of types of sin that are not treated with the same level of disdain as gay sex. (Gossip is one that comes to mind.) Sexual issues have always earned disproportionate levels of stigma – and not just from the cultural right. In the case of the cultural left, it’s nonsupport for premarital sex or gay sex that’s demonized. I’d be as unwelcome in the Screen Actors Guild as you would be in Westboro Baptist Chruch.
(Actually, Fred Phelps’ congregation wouldn’t like me either, since I agree with NARTH’s views on reparative therapy. They’d probably have some complaints about my blogroll, too.)
Sexual tolerance should be similar to religious tolerance: Group A and Group B think that each other is messed up in the head, but they can get along. That ethic is more common among both gays and social conservatives than a lot of people think. I could probably write more, but I’m too tired to think.