CBS, NBC ban church ad inviting gays

[Superlative]

December 2, 2004

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The CBS and NBC networks have refused to run an ad by a liberal church promoting the acceptance of people regardless of sexual orientation because the networks believe the ad is advocacy advertising.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/01/news/fortune500/jesus_ad_ban/

The ad depicts bouncers outside a church turning away gay, minority, and disabled parishioners, followed by the text: "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010005


Investigate ABC's Religious Discrimination

As noted on this site on Monday, ABC television (which refused last winter to air television commercials from the United Church of Christ) aired television commercials this week for Focus on the Family.

ABC spokesperson Susan Sewell told Religion News Service there was no inconsistently.

"The network doesn't take advertising from religious groups. It's a long-standing policy."

So what is Focus on the Family? Their web site reads:

"Our Mission: To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family."

They sure seem to think they're running a religious group.

Focus on the Family has different corporate entities – some more political than others. Their founded and leader, James Dobson, uses his position with Focus on the Family to campaign for Republican Party candidates. He has urged his supporters to defeat democratic senators this November. Focus on the Family is the definition of the religious right.

The public owns the airways that ABC broadcasts on.

So by what authority does the network make the decision to choose which religious messages it will broadcast? Why does ABC get decide to air messages from the right-wing Focus on the Family and ban the inclusive messages contained in the UCC’s God Is Still Speaking commercials?

It looks like ABC is doing more than deciding to air one commercial over another. It looks like ABC has decided to endorse the message of ultra-conservative values pushed by Focus on the Family. The network doesn’t have that right. We own the airways and if ABC is going to air religious messages from one group they must run them from all groups.

http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2005/05/investigate_abc.html

 

[Care4all]

December 2, 2004



http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/01/news/fortune500/jesus_ad_ban/



http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010005


Investigate ABC's Religious Discrimination

As noted on this site on Monday, ABC television (which refused last winter to air television commercials from the United Church of Christ) aired television commercials this week for Focus on the Family.

ABC spokesperson Susan Sewell told Religion News Service there was no inconsistently.

"The network doesn't take advertising from religious groups. It's a long-standing policy."

So what is Focus on the Family? Their web site reads:

"Our Mission: To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family."

They sure seem to think they're running a religious group.

Focus on the Family has different corporate entities – some more political than others. Their founded and leader, James Dobson, uses his position with Focus on the Family to campaign for Republican Party candidates. He has urged his supporters to defeat democratic senators this November. Focus on the Family is the definition of the religious right.

The public owns the airways that ABC broadcasts on.

So by what authority does the network make the decision to choose which religious messages it will broadcast? Why does ABC get decide to air messages from the right-wing Focus on the Family and ban the inclusive messages contained in the UCC’s God Is Still Speaking commercials?

It looks like ABC is doing more than deciding to air one commercial over another. It looks like ABC has decided to endorse the message of ultra-conservative values pushed by Focus on the Family. The network doesn’t have that right. We own the airways and if ABC is going to air religious messages from one group they must run them from all groups.

http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2005/05/investigate_abc.html

If the Fairness Doctrine were still in tact, ABC would have to air this commercial, I believe?

Anyway, I saw this commercial a kazillion times it seemed, about 1-2 years ago. I am as religious as they get and I did not find the messege in their commercial as a political message, I saw it as this particular's Church's religious message.

Care

 

[Superlative]

If the Fairness Doctrine were still in tact, ABC would have to air this commercial, I believe?

Anyway, I saw this commercial a kazillion times it seemed, about 1-2 years ago. I am as religious as they get and I did not find the messege in their commercial as a political message, I saw it as this particular's Church's religious message.

Care

Yeah, the story I found is old.

But I didnt know the ad actually aired.

Was it on these networks?

Or a Religious network?

 

[hjmick]

Yeah, the story I found is old.

But I didnt know the ad actually aired.

Was it on these networks?

Or a Religious network?

I remember seeing the ad, usually on a cable network. I'm pretty sure I saw it on Fox News a couple of times.

 

[Care4all]

Yeah, the story I found is old.

But I didnt know the ad actually aired.

Was it on these networks?

Or a Religious network?

It was on regular tv. Or perhaps it was on Cable tv, since I don't really watch broadcast tv too much?

The ad was well done, it certainly made me, a Christian, think twice about their message... Which was, that Jesus Christ DID NOT come in to the World
for the Righteous, but for the Sinners. The message was not that being a sexual active Gay person is okay, the message was that this Church welcomes ALL SINNERS to hear the message of God, which falls in line with, "We all fall short of the Glory of God".

We had a huge thread on this on another message board that I frequent.

I don't, in general, watch religious networks.

Care

 

[Vintij]

The bible is complete interpretation. Churchs can accept whoever they want, or reject whoever they want. Makes no difference because no church will ever know the true will of god, and no book is going to reveal that either.

The bible was created by men, churchs were built by men, religion was started by men.....god has nothing to do with it, and I can assure you that whoever came up with "god created us in his image" is a complete narcissist.

I think homosexuality actually came before god in the first place. It dates thousands of years back and was accepted alot more. So if gays want to choose to be in a religion that does not accept them, they are stupid. Thats like me joining a club that hates white people and wrote a book about how we should be burned and stoned. I mean, seriously how much of a contradiction is being a gay christian? If your going to be gay, you might as well be a Diest, and follow your own path of the lord, not some other path that believes your type of people should die.

Besides, its not hard to start your own religion now adays. Go build a gay church and ban straights. Nobody is stopping you.

 

[Care4all]

The bible is complete interpretation. Churchs can accept whoever they want, or reject whoever they want. Makes no difference because no church will ever know the true will of god, and no book is going to reveal that either.

The bible was created by men, churchs were built by men, religion was started by men.....god has nothing to do with it, and I can assure you that whoever came up with "god created us in his image" is a complete narcissist.

I think homosexuality actually came before god in the first place. It dates thousands of years back and was accepted alot more. So if gays want to choose to be in a religion that does not accept them, they are stupid. Thats like me joining a club that hates white people and wrote a book about how we should be burned and stoned. I mean, seriously how much of a contradiction is being a gay christian? If your going to be gay, you might as well be a Diest, and follow your own path of the lord, not some other path that believes your type of people should die.

Besides, its not hard to start your own religion now adays. Go build a gay church and ban straights. Nobody is stopping you.

That is utterly ridiculous Vin. (re: what I highlighted in bold of your text)

It is equally a contradiction for a heterosexual, to be having sex with the opposite sex, before marriage, yet they still seem to be "allowed" to be a Christian?

There would be no need for Jesus Christ, and completely empty churches, if only the Sinless, were allowed in.

Care

 

[Vintij]

That is utterly ridiculous Vin. (re: what I highlighted in bold of your text)

It is equally a contradiction for a heterosexual, to be having sex with the opposite sex, before marriage, yet they still seem to be "allowed" to be a Christian?

There would be no need for Jesus Christ, and completely empty churches, if only the Sinless, were allowed in.

Care

I agree, but having sex in either testamen is not really a sin. It is just something the bible claims as "unclean" and you stay unclean for like a day or two, then you pray....and your clean again. With gays, the bible clearly states that they must burn. Nowhere in the bible does it say, murder heterosexual couples.

You also have to understand that when the bible was written, the sinners where not allowed the rights they have today. Thats partly because of the new testamen, but even in the new testamen....homosexuality is not accepted.

So my point was not to attack gays, my point was that.....if your gay, why would the bible be your source of faith? The bible that says you should die. The bible that says you will not go to heaven. I dont get it. Its the same punishment for murder, and dishonor. Even rape is forgivable in the bible. Homosexuality is not forgiven in the bible.

I dont get why gays would be attracted to the bible and christianity in general. It portrays a very violent and unforgiving god. I dont get alot of things about the bible, which is why I dont believe a word of it. Its more of a philosophical tool, and should never be taken literally. Yet, we take it literally everyday by not giving gays the rights they deserve. Do you see the fragmented nature of the bible and christianity in general? They love jesus so much, yet dont follow a single word he preaches. Its disgusting.

I dont see jesus as the lord, I see him as the greatest philosopher of all time, maybe thats why I try to emulate his teachings. If I really didnt give a crap, I would treat him like a god, like everyone else does.....by not listening to a word. Thats how you know your a true god in America, when everyone wears your symbol but nobody follows anything you teach.

Sure any church will allow homosexuals to come in and pray, but why cant they get married? Explain that to me....if they can pray to the same god, why cant they get married under the same god?

 

[Care4all]

I agree, but having sex in either testamen is not really a sin. It is just something the bible claims as "unclean" and you stay unclean for like a day or two, then you pray....and your clean again.
This is not true Vinti, it is most certainly treated as a sin in the Bible. It is spoken about as a sin, moreso than homosexuality, I believe. I will try to get the facts for you, or renege what I have stated if I am wrong in a bit...

With gays, the bible clearly states that they must burn. Nowhere in the bible does it say, murder heterosexual couples.

Actually, at one point in the Bible, Homosexuality, was considered as an offense that deserved death. But with hetero sexual adulterers, death was also the sentence.

I am uncertain on the timing, but an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...a life for a life "rule" might have taken away the death sentences for such actions. An eye for an eye, was put in place BECAUSE they were OVERPUNISHING for crimes and NOT punishing fairly, from what I have read up on it.

You also have to understand that when the bible was written, the sinners where not allowed the rights they have today. Thats partly because of the new testamen, but even in the new testamen....homosexuality is not accepted.

Nor is sexual permiscuity by hetero sexuals, or adultery by heterosexuals, or sodomy by hetero sexuals accepted by any Christian Church or the Bible.

So my point was not to attack gays, my point was that.....if your gay, why would the bible be your source of faith? The bible that says you should die. The bible that says you will not go to heaven. I dont get it. Its the same punishment for murder, and dishonor. Even rape is forgivable in the bible. Homosexuality is not forgiven in the bible.

Because NONE OF US would have even a "chance" of earning our way in to Heaven, repeat NONE OF US. Only through the death of Jesus Christ, and his blood shed, as our sacrificial Lamb, do we have this opportunity, is what Christianity teaches. Gays aren't excluded just because they are sinners, just as adulterers are not excluded from this taking place.

Yes, many believe that they need to repent, I happen to be one of those people, but I have relatives on my husbands side that believe that the acceptance of Christ alone washes them of their sins.

I believe that God works in mysterious ways, that we do not know when He will call us to repentence. I went 15 years, living without Him, not needing Him...but one day, just in one day, I changed. It was a very humbling experience, my own personal experience.

Never, would I have believed, that I could be a Full Fledge believer and most importantly "follower" of Christ.

So, I guess I give other sinners, the benefit of the doubt and I believe in the power of God, to bring "us home to Him".

I dont get why gays would be attracted to the bible and christianity in general. It has a very violent history, that was allegedly "supported" by god. I dont get why god would murder the first born of every egyptian household? I dont get alot of things about the bible, which is why I dont believe a word of it. Its more of a philosophical tool, and should never be taken literally. Yet, we take it literally everyday by not giving gays the rights they deserve. Do you see the fragmented nature of the bible and christianity in general? They love jesus so much, yet dont follow a single word he preaches. Its disgusting.

I didn't understand all of those things either Vinti, but I have been finding out more and more the circumstances that surrounding these confusing things and it has made some of them easier to understand.

I dont see jesus as the lord, I see him as the greatest philosopher of all time, maybe thats why I try to emulate his teachings. If I really didnt give a crap, I would treat him like a god, like everyone else does.....by not listening to a word. Thats how you know your a true god in America, when everyone wears your symbol but nobody follows anything you teach.

I can't disagree that the hypocrisy is everywhere, it surrounds us like wolves in sheeps clothing. But consider this, Jesus is not doing this, but man is...and they have been corrupted or lead astray.

I think the biggest contradiction is being the preacher that turns gays away from the church. I dont remember jesus turning anyone away. Which is why gay marrage is not allowed, because too many people take the old testamen literally.

Most people in America do not agree with giving the label of "marriage" to couples of the same sex.

Most people do agree with giving Civil Unions to same sex couples, with all of the gvt benefits given by marriage.

------------------------------------------------------------

I think that the Government should NOT issue any marriage licences and should only issue civil unions, and leave "marriage" up to the churches, which is where it had begun.

 

[Vintij]

Most people in America do not agree with giving the label of "marriage" to couples of the same sex.

Most people do agree with giving Civil Unions to same sex couples, with all of the gvt benefits given by marriage.

------------------------------------------------------------

I think that the Government should NOT issue any marriage licences and should only issue civil unions, and leave "marriage" up to the churches, which is where it had begun.

I agree with you on the last part, about leaving marriage up to the churches. But I dissagree with the church on their policy of not giving homosexuals the title of "marriage". Im sure that if jesus did exist, and was alive today, he would not treat any believer different from the next.

Thats why I dissagree with most of America, about gay marriage. If gays believe in christ, and follow the lord.....why are they denied the simple act of being united by a father in a church. Its just not equality, and jesus was the first one to preach equality. The first one to teach that every sinner can be forgiven and live a life with the lord, married or unmarried. Apparently today, sinners (homosexuals) can be forgiven by god, but not live a married life with the lord.

Can someone tell me where in the bible jesus said "gays can not get married or be forgiven". I really must see this myself because I dont remember jesus saying that.

 

[Care4all]

Can someone tell me where in the bible jesus said "gays can not get married or be forgiven". I really must see this myself because I dont remember jesus saying that.

There would be no reason for Gays to be married during Christ's time, marriage was very important because of procreation.

It was also very important to have many, many, children, to help run your farm or your estate. Children were a "prize" a gift, and many times when the woman was barren, it was considered a curse.

Now as far as your other statement, there are only 2 sins that are "unforgivable", one that Christ told us about, and one from the Book of Revelation:

Matt 12:31-32

"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

NKJV

And:


Rev 14:9-11 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice,"If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." NKJV

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Every Station, radio and TV has to get a license to operate. They must display this license in a place viewable by the public.

If one feels a TV station ( not a network, unless it privately owns a station) is violating the conditions of that license they can and should write to the licenseing agency ( I believe the FCC?) If enough people complain OR if a complaint has enough factual information in it that clearly shows a violation of the conditions under which said license was issued, then action will be taken to either make the Station fix the problem or their license will NOT be renewed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As to the fairness doctrine. If I pay fir an ad are you claiming that whom ever disagrees with that ad can, for free, be given time to rebut it?

 

[Care4all]

As to the fairness doctrine. If I pay fir an ad are you claiming that whom ever disagrees with that ad can, for free, be given time to rebut it?

No.

They just had to be given the opportunity to purchase Air Space/Time from them, for their own Ad, (during similar viewing audiences, I believe...), if they wanted to run one.

AND

IF this was regarding a Public Issue of Interest.

 

[red states rule]

No.

They just had to be given the opportunity to purchase Air Space/Time from them, for their own Ad, (during similar viewing audiences, I believe...), if they wanted to run one.

AND

IF this was regarding a Public Issue of Interest.

They have the right to refuse any ad they wish.

Is this now a "Public Issue of Interest"?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They have the right to refuse any ad they wish.

Is this now a "Public Issue of Interest"?

They are required to abide by Federal Law, which may in fact restrict that " they can refuse anyone they want" in certain ways or conditions. The License and the Agency doing the licensing will be specific. One needs to read that information and take the appropriate steps if they suspect a violation has occurred.

 

[red states rule]

They are required to abide by Federal Law, which may in fact restrict that " they can refuse anyone they want" in certain ways or conditions. The License and the Agency doing the licensing will be specific. One needs to read that information and take the appropriate steps if they suspect a violation has occurred.

I believe an ad from the Moveon.org nuts was refused during the Super Bowl - why is this ad any different?

This ad is hardly of vital interest to the community

They had every right to refuse it

 

[Care4all]

I believe an ad from the Moveon.org nuts was refused during the Super Bowl - why is this ad any different?

This ad is hardly of vital interest to the community

They had every right to refuse it

I really don't know.

And I do not think that you can make this decision? How do you NOT KNOW that there are Gays, or divorcees excommunicated from their own Church, or in a Church that only has all blacks or all whites or all asians and you are looking for one that accepts EVERYONE with opened arms, and not looking for a place of comfort, within the religious realm?

If you were talking about an ad for potatoe chips, I would be certain it is not an ad of Public Interest, but this particular ad, could have had a sincere message for a sector or two, of the Public?

And I am not saying that I am in agreement or not in agreement with their own position and what their ad portrayed.

I am arguing that it appears that it honestly could be a Ad that involved "something" of Public Interest, and that they should be allowed to express their views on the Public Airways...

IF, it is in the Fcc laws, and a part of their licencing contract, with us....

basically, as Retired sgt said.

 

[red states rule]

I really don't know.

And I do not think that you can make this decision? How do you NOT KNOW that there are Gays, or divorcees excommunicated from their own Church, or in a Church that only has all blacks or all whites or all asians and you are looking for one that accepts EVERYONE with opened arms, and not looking for a place of comfort, within the religious realm?

If you were talking about an ad for potatoe chips, I would be certain it is not an ad of Public Interest, but this particular ad, could have had a sincere message for a sector or two, of the Public?

And I am not saying that I am in agreement or not in agreement with their own position and what their ad portrayed.

I am arguing that it appears that it honestly could be a Ad that involved "something" of Public Interest, and that they should be allowed to express their views on the Public Airways...

IF, it is in the Fcc laws, and a part of their licencing contract, with us....

basically, as Retired sgt said.

Care, let them get off their ass and do their own research. If it means that much to them - they will find the Church they are looking for

Using your logic - any ad would be of interest to someone - and therefore must be aired

 

[Care4all]

Care, let them get off their ass and do their own research. If it means that much to them - they will find the Church they are looking for

Using your logic - any ad would be of interest to someone - and therefore must be aired

No.

I believe that in this case, the argument was, that these stations had ads for other religious entities, (of public Interest) from Focus on the Family's James Dobson, and others, telling or representing a message that differed with theirs, and that they had a right to get their message out, ON THE PUBLIC'S Broadcasting Air Waves,

and that the individual owner of a Station, who is leasing LIMITED air wave space from the Public, can not prevent the adversary from presenting the "other side" just because he owns the station and differs with it....

Or something like that....?

Care