Networks Censor Church Ad for being "Pro-Gay"

(From the diaries -- kos)

I found this item posted over at AmericaBlog:

Apparently the United Church of Christ (those wild folks) can't run an ad on CBS or NBC because the ad mentions gay people in a positive light. CBS had the audacity to come right out and blame it on the gays."

Please check out the press release from the United Church of Christ.

And then check out the actual commercial that is causing such controversy:

This commercial is tamer than BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.

It is time for massive action against our media giants - protests. This follows the Matthew Shepard story last week and the Washington Post's inclusion of a gay-bashing ad the previous Friday. We need church groups and civil rights groups to step up.

•  I think I need a Tip Jar . . .

  Because we need as many people to know about this censorship as possible, and you certainly won't hear about it on the network news.

  by rrbrinker on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 08:00:01 PM PDT

  •  Recommended!!

    Because this is the kind of crap that needs to stop. NOW!

    by Hoya90 on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 08:01:26 PM PDT

    •  They label other churches as exclusionary

      My first impression of the ad was that accussing other churches of being exclusionary was the hot point. The acceptance of gays didn't hit me at first. The accusation that other denominations were UnChristian might invite blowback from the  other churches. But if this was he reason why didn't the networks say so?

      by ineedalife on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:55:20 AM PDT

      •  spot on

        You got it.

        Can you imagine the shit storm that the -wingers would have stirred up? And you know damn straight that the Repugs would stir up the indignation and find a way to blame the Librul E-leets -- "Once again, commie librul American-haters, hiding behind their librul commie "church" are slandering good, Gawd-fearing Freedomites who attend real churches."

        So really, the networks have done us a favor -- if our guys play this right...

        ... Oh, that would require leadership and message savviness. Nevermind. [sigh]

        by swilldog on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 10:47:04 AM PDT

        •  It will be shown

          on many other national networks.  The 'wingers may blow a gasket, but the ad is true.  Go UCC!

          by FloridaProf2 on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 11:38:42 AM PDT

      •  Not exactly.

        Studies have shown that one of the biggest reasons unchurched people give for not going is that they feel excluded or judged.  So they're playing to that market--and without mentioning any specific denomination other than their (my) own.

        by pastordan on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 12:39:07 PM PDT

        •  I am very proud to be a UCC member

          I saw these adds at my local UCC church about a month ago, and I was very proud of what we as a congregation are trying to do.

          by dcarney on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 01:46:56 PM PDT

          •  Me too!

            I am so proud to be a UCC member!
            ps my mom ( a retired UCC pastor) is worried that people are leaving the church because they are reaching out to too many gays. How do I deal with that?

            by bookbear on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:53:23 PM PDT

            •  Similarly to...

              ...people who worry that Zell Miller is leaving the Democratic party. Frankly, I think your church is better off without people who are unhappy that the church is reaching out to gays.

              I think that, just as with the DEM party, you've got to set limits to who you want in your group. Inclusive, yes. Inclusiveness is the highest goal of a party. But that may mean losing some of the less tolerant people.

              And being intolerant to intolerance is no vice.

              [Re-reading this and your question, I think I see another problem: What if UCC becomes 'the gay church' rather than 'the inclusive church'? That's a high-wire act to balance, and not meant to be addressed in this comment.]

              by mecki on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 06:16:57 AM PDT

              •  Not likely...

                The Metropolitan Community Church, or MCC, is predominantly gay.  If memory serves, its theology is on the convervative side, with the obvious exception of its tolerant stance toward homosexuality.

                The UCC is not, nor will it be, the gay church any more than it is the white church, the professional church, or the church of any other demographic church.  It is the church for all people, some of whom happen to be gay.  This is exactly as it should be.
                

                by KTinOhio on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 11:15:17 AM PDT

                •  Good.

                  That's exactly what I was hoping.

                  by mecki on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 12:41:27 PM PDT

        •  I attend a United Methodist Church...

          and this strikes me as very similar to our church's "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" campaign.  I applaud the UCC for being more up front in their campaign though.

          I am appalled at NBC and CBS.

          by Coloradem on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 02:00:32 PM PDT

          •  asdf

            while i'm fond of a lot of what the UMC does...as a practicing non-heterosexual minister to be, i'll believe the "open ..." idea when they make a strong move to rid the church of the restriction against practicing non-heterosexuals as ministers.

            by bsmcneil on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 05:25:48 PM PDT

            •  true

              I'm a United Methodist, and applaud the hearts/minds/doors campaign, but I see your point that it seems incongrouous that we put homosexual ministers on trial ... hopefully, though, that doesn't close the door for congregants. The good news is that the last such minister was acquitted ... we'll see how the latest one shakes out.

              by AggieDemocrat on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 10:33:28 AM PDT

              •  Any hope of that changing?

                That is part of why I am UCC. I was raised Presbyterian but I would not be part of that church now -- or any other -- that did not treat gay people completely equally.

                What I know about events in the Methodist church is limited, not being a Methodist, but I do know we've had GLBT ministers survive "trials" here in the northwest. Still, that fact that such things can happen tells me it's not the denomination for me.

                by pucknomad on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 10:41:12 AM PDT

                •  it kinda depends

                  official church line is that open homosexuals can't be in the ordained ministry (i need to check on the official language here, but i'm pretty sure that's the gist) ... that comes from a vote in the general conference of 1984. i think that vote went 75/25 for the language in the rule.

                  i'd be surprised if it were that skewed today. but as far as individual UMC churches go, i think it depends on the congregation. when i lived in dallas, the church i went to (consequently, the one W went to when he actually bothered to go) was fairly conservative. (which for UMCers isn't conservative like baptists are conservative -- like being a massachusets republican) but there were other UMCs that were very 'gay-friendly' or composed mostly of gay members. i don't know enough about them, to be honest, to know if those congregations were tolerated, marginalized or what have you.

                  it's something i'd like to change from the inside out. even as a straight guy the whole issue really pisses me off, and i'd like to see the UMC take a stronger stand for God's acceptance of ALL people.

                  by AggieDemocrat on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 10:51:35 AM PDT

                  •  Cool

                    There are some Methodist congregations in Seattle which are as inclusive as UCC ones. (oops, now the denomination will snoop on them..haha)

                    One of the Methodist congregations even hosted a one-man play about the whole sending gays to reparative therapy thing -- Doin' Time in the Homo Halfway House -- earlier this year. The show was awesome, and that the church hosted this was awesome.

                    by pucknomad on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 01:20:59 PM PDT

      •  Not really

        The ad intends to say:
        Jesus loves everyone. So do we.

        I saw no criticism of other denominations, implied or direct in this ad. I'm sure that the networks are scared of blowback from the Christian Right. But one of the actual reasons CBS used to deny the church's ad made specific reference to Bush's proposed amendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriage (and the legal incidents thereof). They may want to think that they are stepping away from a controversy, but their own words show that they, in fact, are taking a stand.

        On a more personal note, the weekend before Thanksgiving, my partner & I visited his father, a former UCC minister. We attended church services that Sunday. These were the nicest and most welcoming people I've encounterd in a long time.

        That CBS and NBC have decided that a statement of love and acceptance is too controversial says as much about these networks as it does our culture.

        by JimG 103 on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 02:10:28 PM PDT

        •  Since the Janet Jackson incident...

          CBS has lost their balls over a lot of issues.  They've decided to bend over and take it over "the culture war."

          by blksista on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 03:47:15 PM PDT

          •  You betcha. My letter to them:

            Dear CBS:

            I am deeply saddened, and also angered, by your refusal to air the United Church of Christ's advertisement in which it talks about the Church's inclusivity.  You refuse to air it because the President has supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.  Your logic escapes me, and your support of bigotry is incomprehensible.

            What in heaven's name does an amendment banning same-sex marriage, have to do with Jesus's message of acceptance and tolerance?  And what does the President's support of that amendment, have to do with YOUR programming decisions?  It is very strange, contorted reasoning for you to claim that the President's support for a ban on gay marriage means that you can't run an ad showing gay people being treated any way other than like dirt.  

            And does the President control your programming?  Are we living in America, where there is freedom of the press and freedom of speech, or are we living in a totalitarian state where the Leader's message is the only one permissible on the airwaves?  

            I'm sorely disappointed in you, CBS.  You don't hesitate to run ads that use sex to sell products; you run sit coms with crude humor and sex references; you run dramas that show people cheating on each other, or murdering each other.  All of these sorts of things are not approved by our President.  So why don't you come out and say why you REALLY won't run this ad-- because it shows gay people in a positive light, being accepted.  And because there are a lot of bigots out there (and even in the upper echelons of CBS/Viacom) who don't like gay people, and don't mind discriminating against them.

            And so you are afraid of the bigots out there who dislike gay people, who might boycott your advertisers' products, or who might inundate you with hate mail. I know you are a company out to make money for your shareholders, but you are also using public airwaves, and are supposed to air a variety of viewpoints.  Your censorship of a church's message of inclusivity, because you are afraid of the wrath of bigots, is anti-American and cowardly.  

            And so you have lost the possibility of my watching your programming, including 60 minutes, which I have enjoyed for decades.  I'm in a demographic you'd like to keep for your advertisers-- under 50, professional, educated, well-paid with dispendable income.  How sad that you would lose someone like me, so as to cater to the hatred of bigots.

            Sincerely,
            

            by concernedamerican on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 07:54:54 PM PDT

            •  Oh my

              Beautifully written, well done -- lots of superlatives. That was great.

              by pucknomad on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 09:47:55 PM PDT

  •  well, you know

    they hate us for our freedom

    oy

    by Muboshgu on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:55:56 PM PDT

    •  Yes. . .

      Those home-grown Ayatollahs and Talibans are what we have most to fear, along with the home-grown terrorists.

      They hate us for our liberty is right.

      by The Messenger on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:16:07 AM PDT

      •  take a page from Rove

        CBS and NBC want to ban the bible!  Allowed: onscreen adultery.

        by debraz on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 12:00:18 PM PDT

  •  Two Great Media Lists for Emailing

    Sorry to post off of the tip jar, but since everyone is already writing their emails to complain to NBC and CBS, I wanted to remind people to use that BBC column:

    Chris Bower's rolodex

    Rumor Mill factory

    If you're going to take the time to complain, let people know you are complaining.

    by blogswarm on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 10:01:44 PM PDT

    •  I meant Blind Carbon Copy not British Broadcasting

      But go ahead and complain to the BBC so when this story breaks worldwide people will know that decent Americans are fighting back.

      East Coast morning drive time begins in a few hours, lets see how much we can get done before then.

      US RADIO NETWORKS:

      [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

      NY RADIO STATIONS:

      [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

      by blogswarm on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 10:05:26 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for this

        I'll be using this.

        by The Messenger on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:17:17 AM PDT

    •  Phone calls

      They're posted in another diary that isn't going to be as widely read as this one -- but I think phone calls are the most effective.  Here they are:

      Once again, the contact numbers for NBC and CBS/UPN are:

      NBC President Randy Falco
      [phone]

      CBS Television
      [phone]

      
      

      by pontificator on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 10:56:00 AM PDT

      •  Here's the link

        Here's the link to the diary with the phone numbers.

        by pontificator on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 11:00:22 AM PDT

      •  CNN Now Running the story

        CNN is the first national outlet to go with this story, but I am sure they will not be the last.

        One of the things that is interesting about this story is that at the bottom, they make clear that CNN is part of Time Warner, while CBS is owned by Viacom, and NBC is owned by General Electric.

        In the age of megacorporate ownership, CNN clearly does not want to be blamed for boneheaded decisions of the competition.  

        by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 12:28:05 PM PDT

        •  it's on yahoo now

          here

          rate it up if you want it to make their main page.

          by ceece on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 02:02:17 PM PDT

          •  its an AP story

            So that means that every news room in the country is potentially aware of this.

            by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 02:34:16 PM PDT

        •  Score one for local media

          The Bruce and Colin Show on WTIC in Connecticut(yes, they are LIBERAL talk show hosts) spend practically their entire 3 hour timeslot talking about this.

          And WTIC is an infinity bcstg company, which is owned by CBS.

          by grannyhelen on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 03:30:57 PM PDT

          •  AP update

            Its Wednesday night and Salon.com is now running an updated version of the AP story. I am sure that it will be in tommorow's newspapers, and discussed on the talk shows, and taken up by some of the columnists.

            I and other bloggers wrote about it today, and I have little doubt that it will continue to be a big, and evolving story.

            by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 04:57:28 PM PDT

            •  Beware the masters of spin

              From the WaPo article covering this:

              "CBS and NBC officials said the timing of the church's announcement suggest that it is milking the controversy for free publicity. Both networks said they had rejected the commercial nine months ago, though they had entertained appeals from the church until recently."

              Such BS!  According to their spokeman who was interviewed on our local radio station today, the UCC has been in conversation w. these folks for a long time and it ended yesterday at noon.

              So, let me get this straight: two network television stations are accusing a nationwide church of basically lying so they can get free publicity?!  PUH-LEEZE!

              Totally pathetic.
              

              by grannyhelen on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:32:40 PM PDT

        •  There have been calls for CNN

          to become the liberal cable channel.

          What happened to them?

          We need a mainstream outlet other than just Air America, satellite, and lefty indies.

          by blksista on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 03:49:56 PM PDT

        •  Heard it on NPR's All Things Considered

          as I was driving to DFA Meetup tonight.

          <pumps fist in air>

          I was pleased with the way they presented it. From memory, something like "the message of inclusion was too controversial" (!). This followed by that quote from CBS that made all of our jaws drop earlier.

          by Makeda on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 09:42:36 PM PDT

  •  Although an ugly and pathetic moment for

    television, this is an opportunity for the left to fully engage the culture war the right has been waging for the last 20+ years. It's time for all progressives to stand up and declare that the culture of the right is not the only one that fits under the umbrella of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
    

    by dicta on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 07:57:49 AM PDT

    •  A slight correction

      It's time for all progressives to stand up and declare that the culture of the right is not the only one that fits under the umbrella of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

      The right doesn't for one second believe in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  It isn't that they're "not the only ones that fit," they'll throw out the umbrella and make us all stand in the hail and rain (builds character, ya know).

      by MAJeff on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:19:34 AM PDT

      •  I agree.

        I was being a bit generous towards the "culture of life" crowd. They have forgotten that the culture in America is life AND liberty AND the pursuit of happiness.

        by dicta on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:55:54 AM PDT

  •  A positive response from a CBS affiliate!

    I wrote to Ron Longinotti, president of the San Francisco CBS affiliate and got this reply

    I am not aware of anything on this subject but I will look into it.

    The CBS network has published advertising policies that are not binding for affiliates.

    r

    Go team and call affiliates!

    (PS: my first real response from an activist email. I feel so...empowered)

    by exhausted by the spin on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 01:46:08 PM PDT

    •  aoeu

      I think purchasing nation wide spots is cheaper than buying up local spots.

      by TealVeal on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 02:13:45 PM PDT

      •  thats certainly true

        but if they are shut out of the national broadcasts, they can still buy ads on the local affiliates.

        by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 05:00:41 PM PDT

•  And yet, they'll do all the Viagra you want

  That's the disgusting part. Every flipping prescription medication out there for getting it up gets an ad 30 times a day. But hey, you want to be nice to gays, "too controversial"
  
  Faux News the other day was running a story on a NJ school district banning religious themed music from its holiday pageants. Do you think there will be one iota of outrage on the right because CBS and NBC are blocking an ad about the welcoming message of Christ?
  
  No, the Pharisees of the Christian Right will welcome the wise decision of CBS and NBC to hold up national morals.

  by Hoya90 on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 08:00:42 PM PDT

  •  No Doubt

    If I see another ad featuring a middle aged guy thrilled to have an erection, I think I'm going to end it all.  I JUST DON'T WANT TO KNOW.  At the same time, it really doesn't strike me as being a critical action to call up the network and demand that the ads for the latest boner drug get pulled off the broadcast.

    In comparison, ads that mention gay people in a positive light seem fairly mild.  

    by bink on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 08:52:56 PM PDT

    •  TV ads

      I have never seen an ad on TV that mentions gay people in a positive light.  None.  Although I've heard of a dial-up service for gays that runs late-night cable ads.

      Those middle-aged guys look younger than me.  Again, I don't want to know, either, yet I get 300+ spam variations on Cialis daily.

      by moltar on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:30:32 PM PDT

      •  Soap, Will and Grace, Melrose Place

        Networks are fine with showing gay people in a positive light if it earns them ad revenues.

        But when it comes to actually allowing an ad to say, "We welcome diversity." That is not allowed under the new conservative political correctness.

        We must stand up for our gay friends now, before they are hauled away to detention camps by the fascists.

        This is how it started in Germany. Use the media to take away the humanity of entire classes of people. Then when they start disappearing, nobody has the guts to stand up and faight back.

        by greendem on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 10:23:53 PM PDT

        •  Say what?

          WTF does this ad have to do with "one man, one woman" marriage?  Do you have to be hetrosexually married to attend church these days?  No single folk need attend, you're too iffy for our Pres?

          by debraz on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 05:08:00 AM PDT

        •  Thank you!

          Especially since I am reading this on World Aids Day, it does my heart good.  Thanks.

          by Revel on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:32:53 AM PDT

          •  I mean the comments, of course,,,:-) n/t

            by Revel on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:34:10 AM PDT

        •  True

          Good comment.
          We're all vulnerable to something, because we're all flawed.  Some more obviously than others.
          What would be nice right around this time is a showing of The Diary of Anne Frank.  
          

          by Margot on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 05:55:32 PM PDT

      •  well ...

        I loved that Miller Lite commercial where the two women are all about the guys drinking Miller Lite at the end of the bar, until they start holding hands.  Thought it was pretty positive.

        by OverKral on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:48:39 AM PDT

        •  There's also the T-mobile ad recently

          The T-mobile ad is the "You!" ad, which features a cultural cross-section of couples having the same arguement (over cell phone bills from their calls to their significant other and vice versa), including what looks to be a gay couple (I think the first time I saw it, I thought they could be brothers, but they look different from one another, so I'd say the two men in the bathroom would be a gay couple).

          It just shows that gay men are equal to and have the same arguements that heterosexual and married couples have.

          by Young Freud on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 09:46:18 AM PDT

      •  Commercial Closet

        You might enjoy this website.

        by Michael D on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 06:43:03 AM PDT

  •  How many kids in America have asked a parent...

    "Dad (or Mom), what's a four-hour erection?"

    Cialis!  Get your Cialis!

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:37:02 PM PDT

    •  What's a four hour erection?

      Answer:  painful.

      by fishhead on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 10:19:31 PM PDT

      •  Four Hour Boners

        That's actually a very serious--potentially life-threatening--situation.

        by geekynerd on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 11:31:56 PM PDT

        •  Heh I heard a good joke about that commercial

          You know that commercial that says if you have an erection that lasts for over four hours you should tell your doctor? Hell if I had one that lasted four hours I'd tell everybody!!!
          And it wouldn't be me who would need to see the doctor :-)

          by Chain on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:00:27 AM PDT

        •  But what a way to go!

          A four-hour erection is dangerous and life-threatening, not just for the, um, er, penis owner, but also for the um...let's call that person the, um...penis....receiver?

          by ABBinMI on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 10:06:59 AM PDT

          •  OUCH!

            After a while, it's kind of like sandpaper.

            by tully monster on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 10:29:08 AM PDT

          •  Well, if the receiver gets tired,

            there's always the hand, although I guess one might get a pretty bad case of carpal tunnel from going that long....

            by sparklegirl on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 10:33:19 AM PDT

    •  Le Weekend

      In France, where Cialis went on the market about a year before the US, Cialis is known as "Le Weekend."

      by geekynerd on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 11:29:57 PM PDT

    •  My nephew did - I was there

      My dear sister whispered in his ear, so his older brother wouldn't make fun of him.  He blushed all red, and went "EEwwww..."

      by Mary Julia on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 02:32:20 AM PDT

  •  Pharisees - dead on!

    This is a phrase that I have been using of late as well.  It is so appropo - they are the Pharasees.  I'm waiting a prophet to shout it in thier faces.

    by LiberalBadger on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:11:59 AM PDT

    •  Pharisees is Right

      I have been calling Tim Pawlenty the Chief Pharisee of Minnesota since he was elected two years ago. He has no shame at inviting the local media to tape him reading "Christian" books to his kids, then viciously slashing health care, nursing home and education funds.

      Pharisee, American Taliban...either is an apt description of fundie wingnuts.

      by bramish on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 07:12:56 AM PDT

      •  Pawlenty the Pharisee

        I've been calling the Minnesota Family Council the "Lutheran Taliban" for years now.

        by MAJeff on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 07:29:59 AM PDT

        •  Ha!

          I have it on good authority that some of them are strident Catholics. My aunt was one of them until one of her children developed a severe mental illness and, to my aunt's credit, she figured out that this was not a curse from god and so maybe god didn't hate all those other people that the "Family Council" hated. She's still a devout Catholic but no longer a bigot.

          by bramish on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 07:37:01 AM PDT

          •  MFC

            The haters at the "Family Council" of course are from a number of religions, esp those wacked out mega evangelical fundie churches in places like Eden Prairie.  But, since Lutheranism is such a big part of MN, I like playing with it that way (plus, ya ever hang out with a bunch of WELS people?  They make the Missouri Synod look like the UCC.)

            by MAJeff on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:15:25 AM PDT

            •  Let's See

              I have a gay friend whose mother was excommunicated two years ago (yes! in 2002) from a Missouri Synod church because she refused to disown him. She now goes to a "mainline" Lutheran church and is pretty much regarded as a communist by her oh-so-devout former Christian brethren.

              by bramish on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:19:16 AM PDT

              •  Disowning your own children

                God I love "Family Values"!

                by Jeff in PA on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:47:31 AM PDT

•  This needs to go full steam ahead...

  .. .EVERY damn Fundie nutbag needs to be screaming about the evil of a church being censored!!

  Seriously, this is MY church, and this is a GREAT ad, part of a campaign to move progressive Christian values forward ... something that all Progressives have been talking about we need to do.

  This needs to raise a huge shitstorm.

  by Timoteo on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 08:02:07 PM PDT

  •  Agreed!

    I'm a UCCer, I have been looking forward to seeing the new commercials on TV. We are told to pray without ceasing in the Bible, let's bitch without ceasing to everyone and anyone about this.

    Seriously, there's a new outrage every day now. But this is one we should hold onto and not let go of!!!! I have emailed every media contact I have and I think everyone here should do the same. Ask why is anti0gay bigotry okay? Do TV networks need to clear everything with the executive branch first? I'm also going to email my congresspeople and senators and demand that they step up and defend my church's right to free speech. I'm not going to let this on go!

    by chicagochristianleft on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:13:28 PM PDT

    •  It's up to you

      You're a member of a million-plus organization. The organization has power, as an individual does not. Please do all you can to get it moving.

      by Smallbottle on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:19:53 PM PDT

    •  I thought it was a great ad...

      Very effective.

      by NCYellowDog on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:35:59 PM PDT

    •  This UCCer

      is with ya.  I'm so pissed right now, I'm ready to take to the streets--in the name of Christian love and understanding, of course.  

      GAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

      by obietom on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:45:57 PM PDT

      •  Isn't the UCC the

        present day version of the Puritans?

        by BartBoris on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 05:08:38 AM PDT

        •  Puritans?

          No, the UCC was a combination (that would be the "United" part) of 4 denominations back in 1954.  Christian, Evangelical, Reformed and Congregational.  Not every church in those denominations joined (there are still Congregational churches).  UCC runs the gambit, but they are pretty left - particularly those churches that are part of the "Justice and Peace" and "Open and Affirming" programs.

          UCC = Unitarians Considering Christ

          UCC = Union of Converted Catholics

          You get the idea...

          by LiberalBadger on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:14:58 AM PDT

          •  UCC - I feel conversion coming on!

            What if someone sets up a website where you announce you have been called to the UCC?  

            Unitarians Considering Christ
            Union of Converted Cathoics
            Un Churched Christians
            Ultra choice christians...

            I love your idea of what this could mean!

            Then we get just tons and tons of names - people who support the UCC "turn no one away" type of belief.

            Call it No Christian Left Behind!  Something like that.

            And make it clear that the longer the ad goes unwatched over the air, the longer we continue our "mission" to draw people into this movement.

            Even "no child left behind" should be reinterpreted in the light of the saying:  "Let the little children come to me"  (and the sense that all children are included, white, black, gay, heterosexual, rich, poor, those with gay parents)

            Jesus leaves no child behind.  Jesus leaves no person behind.

            This just has me steamed!!!  

            I'm literally almost ready to apply to a divinity school so I can start spreading the real word on what the Man of Peace stood for!
             

            by Freudian Slipper on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 11:29:13 AM PDT

        •  Well, actually...

          Yes, to a degree. One of the UCC denominations is the Congregational Church, which is the descendant of the Puritan church. Most New England towns and villages have a Congregational Church at their centers.

          It's quite liberal, open, and tolerant. The fundamental value underlying the Puritans' disagreement with the English Church concerned the status of the individual congregant; the Puritans believed that the church belonged to the people and should be controlled by them; the Anglican Church disagreed. Hence the name Congregational; the congregation runs the church, here.

          American democracy owes the Congregationalists a great debt. New England's colonial democracy was a direct result of democracy in the church, and America's democracy was thanks in large part to New England's. So, from the church who brought you democracy, openness and tolerance. Nice.

          by Shashalnikya on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:25:38 AM PDT

          •  Interesting

            So this tidbit of history could be used effectively to counter the current arguments of the Southern Baptist Convention about the intention of a vast church regulating the behaviors of the people.

            by lilorphant on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 07:18:11 AM PDT

            •  SBC = Papists

              They've become the rich, heirarchical, powermad organization that they used to use as a defamatory caricature of Catholics when I was growing up in the South.

              The "Pharisee" label is perfect.

              The SBC'spublic profile and political power is much too great at this point for the whining victim label to work anymore.

              The organization (not the church-goers) must become synomymous with greed, blood-lust and corruption.

              Where is the Southern Baptist's version of Savanorola or Luther?

              S/he can't come soon enough.

              by lobbygow on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 10:18:04 AM PDT

              •  asdf

                The "Pharisee" label is perfect.

                I'm not sure it is.  While it's true that 'Pharisee' is always perjorative in the New Testament, and is used in a way that certainly would also apply to the people we're talking about, I think it would be a mistake to use it that way ourselves.

                As I understand it (I was raised Catholic, myself) modern Rabbinical Judaism is, in fact, directly descended from the Pharisees.  And I don't think modern Rabbinical Jews deserve to have their forbears made into a common insult.

                There are lots of us here, surely we can come up with something else.

                by hautdesert on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 10:46:58 AM PDT

                •  Who were the Publicans? (

                  I ask that because we might be able to refer to the "republicans" as "Publicans" if it fits!

                  And maybe that would work into this frame we're trying to get established here.

                  Just a possible avenue to consider.

                  by Freudian Slipper on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 11:34:08 AM PDT

                  •  Jews who collected taxes for the Romans...

                    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12553d.htm

                    by KTinOhio on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 01:29:07 PM PDT

                •  Pharisee isn't really perfect

                  Not historically anyway.  The Pharisees were the "learned men" that Jesus disputed with in the temple in his youth.  As a reaction to the Diaspora, they believed that a learned layman could lead a congregation and accept sacrifices, rule on Talmudic law, etc, and that attendance at the Temple wasn't strictly required for every religious purpose.  They really represented a democratization of Judaism.  Rabbinical Judaism is the direct descendant of Pharisaic Judaism, as after Titus' run through Palestine in 66-70 AD, they were the only organised sect of Judaism left.  The Saducees (Priests and Levites), as the Judean aristocrasy, were the direct target of the Romans, and most of the smaller sects just got wiped out for being in the way.
                  However, given the fundamentalists understanding of the word Pharisee, it does fit them to a tee.

                  by Geeno on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 12:50:30 PM PDT

                  •  Money-changers in the Temple...

                    ...pretty much sums up the whole "Church-Mart" phenom for me.

                    by Timoteo on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 01:59:36 PM PDT

              •  Mainstream Baptists

                Baptists are not all the same. There are huge battles going on withing the Southern Baptists Convention. A longtime leader in the struggle with the fundamentalists wrote about the UCC ad controversy on his blog today, after I sent him a link to my own commentary.  There are lots of Baptists who are passionate about freedom.

                by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 11:59:34 AM PDT

                •  Frederick

                  Because of your post, I commented on Dr. Prescott's blog. Thanks for the direction. He's cool.

                  by CFnAR on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:55:45 PM PDT

            •  That might be difficult

              to pull off. In spite of pulling away from what they considered to be an oppressive regulatory agency (the Anglican church), the Puritans regulated the behavior of their congregants to a quite extraordinary degree. Most of the preachers were whip smart, of course, and some of their best ministers wrote sermons that are mind-bending in their acuity of thought.

              Puritan churches served as the only real meeting place for entire communities in early America; their societal influence was perhaps even more far reaching than those of mega churches today. Election day sermons were popular, and Sunday sermons would sometimes last for hours.

              The Puritan preacher knew his congregants intimately, and any transgression or violation of the norm was punished, usually after formal, sometimes agonized, and always prolonged theological investigation.

              Still, if left leaning Christians would do some research into early American Christianity, they would nevertheless find much to bolster their political arguments. (This is in addition, naturally, to all the rich text one can find in the Bible that supports liberal causes.) Early-ninteenth-century abolitionist movements, for example, were often championed by East Coast churches, and some of the most fiery anti-slavery sermons were penned by ministers who by most standards would be considered quite conservative today.

              America's past is filled with complex, passionate, and sensible Christian progressive thought, and can be mined to further social causes today. For example, Howard Dean quoted an Early American Puritan preacher last summer in one of his speeches. Such simple and forthright declarations of faith based on great American theologians from the past can be done freely, impudently, and insistently by progressive leaders today.

              by Thaxter on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 01:54:29 PM PDT

          •  Gay ministers

            If I'm not mistaken, the UCC's first gay minister was ordained (or whatever the procedure is) in 1972.

            by Linnaeus on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 07:52:59 AM PDT

            •  Procedure?

              You make it sound like some kind of unpleasant surgery...

              Oh, wait.

              by pastordan on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 12:43:04 PM PDT

              •  haha!

                I'm ordained, too (Anglican), and so far the ordination's been the highlight of my ministry!

                </snark>

                by fishhead on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 01:41:41 PM PDT

              •  Sorry

                It's been ages since I've been in a UCC church, and I didn't know if the process by which you became a minister was called ordination.

                by Linnaeus on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 10:56:52 AM PDT

          •  Excellent Points...

            ...about the UCC, and particularly the influence of the Congregationalists on colonial-era participatory democracy.

            There's an excellent novel of that time  which conveys just that.

            There's one particular scene where an unusually large crowd turns out for the Wednesday night sermon, because rumor has it that it will be followed by a town meeting vote on a matter to be presented by the minister (and everyone wants to get in on that).

            The minister winds down his sermon, shifts his tone, and says, "I now wish to speak, not to the congregation, but to the town." With that, the people resettle themselves and take on the mantle of authority.

            I've long felt that this book ranks right up there with "Huckleberry Finn" and "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater" as the finest example of the American literary tradition. It's a compelling story with honest characters in a frontier setting. It spans several years leading to the earliest days of the American Revolution, and includes a climactic scene at the Battle of Bennington.

            I'm picking it up again right now for about my 20th read. It'll be a soothing balm after too many position papers and other political tracts.

            And, yeah, support your local UCC church. They're philosophically progressive, spiritually giving, and very open and welcoming to all people, period.

            "In the 1960s, the issue was the mixing of the races. Today, the issue appears to be sexual orientation. In both cases, it's about exclusion." - Ron Buford, United Church of Christ

            by RubDMC on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:20:49 AM PDT

            •  Oh, and...

              ...the UCC and Congregational Church also cite the influence of Martin Luther, who really drove home the notion that there is nothing standing between the people and God (much to the chagrin of the priests, bishops, cardinals, pope, and other hangers-on of that vast self-serving bureaucracy known as the catholics)

              by RubDMC on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:23:38 AM PDT

            •  Ummmm...does it talk about how they 'settled'

              with the Native Americans during that time?

              It got pretty harsh with church Indians as well as "unchurched" Indians...and I'm putting it mildly.

              by blksista on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 03:57:47 PM PDT

              •  The local Indians

                By the time of the story, most had moved on to get away from the encroachment. They were feared by the settlers, as portrayed in the book.

                One of the minor characters also carried an old wound from the French and Indian Wars.

                Indians also appear in the Battle of Bennington scene, as they were employed as scouts by the British for a time. They're seen at a distance, but there aren't any direct encounters.

                The story is set in what is now Manchester, NH (site of one of Kerry's last rallies), and the main characters travel by canoe up the Merrimack and Winnepesaukee rivers to Tamworth, near Mount Chocorua.

                It's a settler/caucasian-centered story, no doubt.

                Peace out, RubDMC

                by RubDMC on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 07:54:51 PM PDT

          •  As a member of a progressive church...

            ...that has recognized gay relationships and has been picketed by Operation Save America (formerly Operation Rescue; see link) for its support of gay rights, I an disgusted with the networks' cowardice in this matter.

            http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/streets/oh/Columbus/july-18-stumbling-blocks-confronted.htm

            [Until last summer, I had never had to cross a picket line to go to church.  I took the opportunity for a little friendly debate with the OSA folks after the service.]

            FIrst Community Church is a member of the Center for Progressive Christianity and is affilioated with the UCC and the Disciples of Christ.

            http://www.fcchurch.com

            http://www.tcpc.org

            FWIW, I consider myself a Unitarian, but I feel more at home at FCC than in UU churches.  IMO, the UUA has tried to become all things to all people, and has abandoned traditional Unitarian Christianity {see link} in the process.  Those who like this sort of thing will find this to be the sort of thing they like, but I was looking for something a bit more "Christian" yet not tied to first-century doctrine.

            http://www.americanunitarian.org
            

            by KTinOhio on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:21:57 AM PDT

            •  for what it's worth

              some of us are happy with the UU "being all things for all people."  that's what the merger was supposed to be.  i agree with both the idea of the unitarian nature of god (or rather the lack of divinity for jesus) and that if there is a hell, god wouldn't send anyone there.  but i also believe in karma and different parts of other religions.  that's what i like about our faith as it is today.  what i don't like is when we swing towards christianity just to pick up new people at special events/when we have visitors.

              but yeah.  :-)

              by bsmcneil on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:44:55 AM PDT

              •  Hell

                Yeah, it always struck me that any god who would send you to hell for not worshipping him seems terribly insecure.

                by Primordial Ooze on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 09:01:12 AM PDT

            •  I am not sure they are gay-friendly

              Dont assume they are just because they say they are the true Unitarians.  The group was formed by a couple of relatively recent converts (less than ten years) who were unhappy with what they felt was the excessive political activity - including gay advocacy but for the most part liberal advocacy -of the UUA and also they don't like the Universalist train of thought.  I used to read their bulletin boards and I wouldn't join their group because they seemed to be jerks to me.  If you are interested they have a forum on their website and also they are involved in the conservative UU website (the name escapes me.)  I would suggest lurking for awhile to see whether you like what they are selling.    

              by sberel on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 03:20:03 PM PDT

              •  I am a member of the AUC...

                ...and, to the best of my knowledge, the organization has never addressed the issue.  While I'd be surprised if most of the members weren't somewhere left of moderate, the American Unitarian Conference - as an entity - is explicitly apolitical.

                by KTinOhio on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 04:54:25 PM PDT

                •  That certainly was their stated goal

                  The two guys who got it started were apoplectic about the UUA's Washington office & they felt the UUA should have its tax status revoked.

                  The rub is that some people consider ministering to gays a political issue.  As always, I suspect this comes down to the local congregation.  Since UU is well known as explicitly gay-friendly I think it's important for gays interested in AUC who are used to welcoming congregation and similar programs to proceed, but with caution.

                  by sberel on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 05:10:30 PM PDT

          •  public figures?

            I know the past has had some congregationalist presidents and visible leaders.  is there any high profile people from the UCC now that could make an issue of this while displaying him/herself as a person of piety?

            this is the Religious Left that people have been talking about, and we need to start to really redefine the term What Would Jesus Do?
            

            by LeftCoaster on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:24:34 AM PDT

            •  too much on his plate already, but . . .

               . . .IIRC, Barack Obama is a UCC member.

              by sngmama on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:48:53 AM PDT

              •  No...

                He's Church of Christ.  Not the same denomination.  It's an independent evangelical church.

                by tully monster on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 02:14:19 PM PDT

                •  Nope, sngmama is correct.

                  The church in Chicago of which Barack Obama is a member is Trinity United Church of Christ.

                  by pucknomad on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 02:31:11 PM PDT

            •  Howard Dean

              Howard Dean is UCC.

              Wouldn't I just love to have him on TV talking about this!!

              by pucknomad on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 09:03:49 AM PDT

          •  A Congregational church can be part of the UCC

            The ones that aren't are called Congregational Christian Churches.  The key is to look for the UCC designation.  I am a UCC member and have never been prouder of my denomination.  Did either of those networks air a Swift Boat ad?  I'm willing to bet they did.  How hypocritical can they get???

            by BarbcusaB on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 10:12:07 AM PDT

          •  Wow

            Not that we are overtly religious people, but checking out the UCC website made me think that I might actually consider checking out their church. My family pretty much shunned organized religion ever since the rise of the Christian Coalition, but this looks like a church for us lefties.. . .

            by julie37 on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 10:37:54 AM PDT

            •  welcome to the "mainline protestant"

              churches! The Presbyterians, for example, are almost identical to the UCC church in most matters. As are the Episcopalians. And the Methodists, the Disciples of Christ, Lutherans, the Quakers, and the Unitarians. It's frustrating that so many people are blinded by bad experiences that they miss the point that the most traditional, mainstream churches in this country are on the RIGHT side of the discussions. This country was founded by, and run by, people who think like us, for a long, long time.

              Basically you need to do some research into your church options. Some are right wing and some are left wing, and you might be surprized by which are which.

              by asdf on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 02:39:13 PM PDT

              •  This is what bothers me

                Christianity has traditionally had a strong strain of social justice in the United States and elsewhere - but the mainline churches have been losing members for years while the fundamentalist churches grow.  What's with that?

                I wish that those on the left who take spirituality seriously would give denominations like the ones you mentioned a hard look.  There they will find congregations which are inclusive and politically active, while at the same time nourishing the soul through the liberating mesage of Jesus' teachings.

                Then they might want to read "Stealing Jesus:  How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity" by Bruce Bawer.

                by fishhead on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 05:04:48 PM PDT

    •  Bitch without ceasing

      I love that.

      by AngelinNC on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:48:28 AM PDT

      •  Would make a great handle!

        Or perhaps a really good modern psalm.

        Or one of those cursing psalms - called "Bitch without Ceasing."

        Gonna look up some psalms here and see if one fits!

        by Freudian Slipper on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 11:40:14 AM PDT

        •  A great sermon title, even

          Wouldn't you love to see that on the sermon marquee outside a church?
          
          November 28, 2004
          First Sunday of Advent
          Sermon: Bitch without Ceasing!
          
          ;)

          by Hoya90 on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:09:24 PM PDT

  •  Bravo to the UCC....

    for being inclusive

    for standing up for its bedrock beliefs

    and most of all for doing whatever it can to reclaim Christianity and religious belief from the haters.

    by MJB on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 10:08:28 PM PDT

    •  Carrot and stick

      Give UCC the carrot, NBC and CBS the big stick.

      You can let UCC know you support them:

      Barb Powell
      Press Contact
      United Church of Christ
      700 Prospect Ave.
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      216-736-2175
      [e-mail]

      by debraz on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 05:44:42 AM PDT

      •  Donate

        You can also donate to the campaign at the website.

        by hardleft on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:59:32 AM PDT

        •  Money won't fix it

          Although it will help. The larger battles must take place in the streets.

          by JamesC on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:40:43 AM PDT

    •  I'm proud

      that my grandfather and four of his brothers were Evangelical ministers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Evangelical church, then known colloquially as the "Liberal Lutherans," is now part of the UCC, while I am an Episcopalian (thanks, Dad). The UCC needs to have this issue raised and made a major topic of discussion.

      by davelf2 on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 07:04:27 PM PDT

  •  Josh Marshall has picked it up

    Talking Points Memo

    But haven't seen it on the Democratic Underground other blogs.

    by exhausted by the spin on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 11:04:08 PM PDT

    •  Found it on TPM

      then went to the kos open thread to see if it was talked about and wound up here.  Who's organizing? I'm a news junkie, but I'll gladly forego CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS until they return to the days when they at least gave lip service to freedom of speech.

      by ksh01 on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 11:51:48 PM PDT

      •  As Josh noted

        Can't air a benign ad that's nice to gays, but you can endlessly flog the swift boat liars. Nice country, huh?

        by SteveLCo on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 04:06:57 AM PDT

    •  Atrios

      Atrios posted it in the middle of the night.  That guy needs help for his sleep disorder.

      by therealcervantes on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:02:21 AM PDT

      •  Espana

        Atrios is summering in Spain at the moment.  Their night is our day. :)

        by bink on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:34:29 AM PDT

        •  That would be . . .

          España.  Gracias, lo olvidé.

          by therealcervantes on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 06:48:20 AM PDT

          •  Those diacriticals are tough

            .. especially when años becomes anos .... not pretty.

            But I tend to drop them, too.

            by Timoteo on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 07:52:24 AM PDT

            •  You think that's bad...

               Mispronounce the word for "obligation" or "obligated" in Japanese, and you can get "diarrhea."  As in, "One must be very cognizant of the concept of diarrhea in Japan, as its social mores are grounded in diarrhea and centered on the degree to which one is diarrhea to another."

               But there are only 2 irregular verbs and none of that male-this-object, female-that-object stuff.  Now that would make my head spin.

               BenGoshi
              _________________
              

              by BenGoshi on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 08:06:36 AM PDT

              •  IIRC

                A U.S. diplomat introduced the Pope in Puerto Rico as "la papa," which means "the potato."  Simple error of gender.

                And then there's JFK's famous declaration to the people of Berlin, Ich bin ein berliner, which means, "I am a jelly doughnut."  Should have omitted the article.

                In the parking garage in Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, a sign in English says, "Keep to the right," and in Spanish, "Vaya por el derecho," which means something like "Go on behalf of your rights," or maybe "Keep to the path of righteousness."  That gender thing is a pain.

                by therealcervantes on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 09:51:30 AM PDT

                •  Knew about the Jelly Doughnut thing -

                  
                   - that's the most (in)famous one.  But not the others.  Thanks.

                   How about President Carter's intepreter in Poland saying that the President "lusted" after Poland?  A classic.

                   Saw a Japanese-English dictionary one time that had a picture of an airliner with its various parts labeled in English, including, the "tail," "fuselage" and "fright deck."  You'd think, I mean you'd really think they'd double check those things, knowing how easily they get the "r's" and "l's" mixed up.  But whatchagonnado, eh?

                   BenGoshi
                  _____________

                  by BenGoshi on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 09:59:07 AM PDT

                •  My all-time favorite

                  was Senator Lloyd Bensen's attempt, during a speech in Mexico, to say that he was embarrassed.  He didn't know that "estoy embarazado" means "I'm pregnant."  :)

                  by moiv on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 11:40:08 PM PDT

              •  Also in Spanish, be careful

                about the difference between "cajones" (drawers or boxes) and "cojones."  (hopefully you know the meaning here - "balls")

                Don't be accidentally telling someone what they need is in your "cojones" or his or hers or anybody's.

                Happened to my German sister-in-law and the story among my Spanish in-laws has never died!

                by Freudian Slipper on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 11:59:15 AM PDT

                •  I think before one opens one's mouth --

                  
                   -- when speaking a 2nd or 3rd language, one has the diarrhea to pronounce words correctly, and it's the speaker's fault (not that of the language attempt) for failing to meet this diarrhea.

                   BenGoshi
                  ________________
                  

                  by BenGoshi on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 12:15:35 PM PDT

            •  entonces . . .

              Feliz ano nuevo.

              (ouch!)

              by therealcervantes on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 09:44:34 AM PDT

              •  I'm a bit rusty...

                
                 celebrate the new ass?

                 

                by BenGoshi on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 10:01:44 AM PDT