Scribblings of a Madwoman

Okay, I'm going nuts...

I'm deeply concerned about the state of my mind today. It appears that I have agreed (at least partially) with the Rev. Jerry Falwell. He actually sounded pretty reasonable. I'm talking about his reaction (or at least part of his reaction) to NBC and Viacom's decisions not to air an ad for the United Church of Christ. He appeared on CNN's Crossfire and actually said that he felt the ad should be aired.

The United Church of Christ is making two statements. One, everyone is welcome to attend the Church of Christ, which hopefully is true in every church in America, though I doubt that it's true. And certainly it is at Thomas Road Church in Lynchburg. (Source: CNN's Crossfire detailed link below).

He's saying that he knows that people have been made to feel uncomfortable in certain churches and that everyone should be invited. He also went on to say that he disagreed with the UCC's position on homosexuality but that he felt that everyone should be welcomed into church.

I don't believe that heterosexuals who are promiscuous or homosexuals should be rewarded for their misbehavior, but they should be, should be invited to, allowed into church and preached the Gospel to.

Now, if Jerry Falwell can say that he disagrees with the UCC's position on homosexuality but that he thinks the ad should be aired, why are the networks afraid of it? Homosexuality isn't mentioned directly in the ad. In fact the bit in question (I think) is where they show two women standing close together and one puts an arm on the other's shoulder. I honestly didn't take the ad that way at all.

For those of you who have not yet viewed the ad, it is available at www.stillspeaking.com. For those of you that have slow connections I will summarize. There are two Aryan-looking guys standing in front of a large stone church building. They are acting as bouncers and are turning away people who are trying to enter and only seem to be allowing affluent looking whites to enter.

When I saw it, I saw it as more of a socio-economic message...but maybe that's just my own prejudices coloring my view. I am well aware of churches that are more concerned with bringing in people with deep pockets than people who want to serve a higher power. I think it is disgusting that Viacom and NBC are saying that a message of inclusiveness is too controversial for their viewers. They said that the ad implied that same-sex couples are welcome and that since the Executive Branch of our government has advocated defining marriage as a bond between a man and a woman that the ad was too controversial. I just don't get it.

Is it so controversial that a religious organization would disagree with members of the government? Haven't the networks aired ads against abortion (made by religious groups) when Clinton was doing his abortion should be "legal, safe and rare" initiative? It seems to me the networks are censoring messages that they disagree with rather than just trying to stay out of contentious issues. Is this a neo-totalitarianism? (Is that even a word)? By neo-totalitarianism I mean is the media squelching dissent on its own without direct government involvement? Maybe I'm just nuts...

[EDIT]: I should disclose that I have have had involvement with the United Church of Christ so my opinions could be colored by that experience. For several years I worked for a youth program that was founded by a UCC minister and sometimes utilized UCC churches.

Sources
Jerry Falwell quotes are from CNN's Crossfire Transcripts http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/02/cf.01.html

Viacom's rejection of the UCC's ad:
http://www.stillspeaking.com/news/release2.html.

Posted by alycia at December 6, 2004 10:44 PM