Alternet has published an article by Jeannette Batz Cooperman on the UCC ad controversy (which contains a few quotes from me). She offers a different take on the debate than most of the recent media coverage:
At the surface, the UCC ad controversy looks like it's about a couple of broadcasting corporations holding up fat trembling fingers to see which way the political winds blow. But dig a little deeper, and you strike the gnarled roots of the Tree of Knowledge itself. This is the central religious conflict of our time: literal versus metaphorical understanding.
The religious denominations most outraged by the Night Club ad are those that believe religious teachings must be taken literally and remain unchanged through history. They see it as sinful, arrogant and self-indulgent to loosen our grip on our various sacred texts, placing them in cultural context and allowing our interpretations to evolve. And they're applying their method of Biblical understanding to another denomination's commercial.
The networks are taking the commercial literally too, by categorizing it as advocacy of a public-policy issue and insisting that it implies criticism of other churches. No other denomination is named; gay marriage is never mentioned. The real question the ad raises is not one of public policy, but of "welcome." That's a religious question, and again, its answer hinges on how literally one defines the word. Should people feel welcomed because they have the ability to walk through a church doorway and not be turned away? Or does welcome require unconditional acceptance?
…..
When news of the UCC ad's rejection broke, I asked random acquaintances how they had interpreted the sound bites. Most had automatically assumed that the cause of controversy was the ad's depiction of "gay couples." Outraged, they rattled off apparent contradictions, from Will & Grace to Darwinian reality shows and bared-claw political ads. What they failed to realize was that these networks had drawn lines between political ads, commercial ads, news and entertainment – between persuasion and advocacy, between shock value and real controversy – with different standards and protocol for each.
I squinted to see those lines, but every time I thought I had one in focus, it wiggled and blurred.
NBC's answer sounded so simple: they avoid controversy. But isn't the war in Iraq controversial? What, then, of military ads? There's bitter controversy over global warming, what about those SUV ads? Would a network reject scenic footage of the pristine Arctic wilderness in Alaska because it implied resistance to the president's plans to drill for oil there? Few ideas are more central to the original Christian message than the dignity of the poor and the dangers of wealth and greed, and most Christians at least mumble objections to consumerism – but avoiding that controversy would wipe out TV altogether.
Neither station wanted to discuss its position with reporters or elaborate it for the public. But last year, in a flap over Superbowl advertising, CBS went into detail about its policy: "Advertisers shall be afforded maximum latitude to touch on matters of public concern, either in institutional advertising or in promoting their goods and services, so long as messages do not rise to the level of explicit or implicit advocacy."
In the broadest sense, all advertising is advocacy. But CBS isn't about to draw that line. So we're left with the narrower sense of advocacy: that it pushes a particular viewpoint on a public issue. "If we had said we support gay marriage and disagree with the president's message, sure," says UCC seminarian Chuck Currie. "But this was a theological message."
That, too, is dangerous ground: The CBS memo said proselytizing was unacceptable, adding, "This commercial does proselytize."
Nothing could have offended the UCC more.
"'Proselytize' means basically sheep stealing – trying to steal members from other churches – and that's not what we're trying to do at all," exclaims UCC spokesperson Powell. "This is a warm message of welcome geared specifically toward people who have no church affiliation whatsoever."
Click here to read the full article. Cooperman is offering readers one of the few in-depth discussions concerning the controversy. Take a look.
