# The new UCC ad **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977 "2006-04-02T21:02:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/41 "2006-04-05T22:09:41Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Puh-leeze. Do they reject commercials for the latest laundry detergent formula because they imply that other brands will leave your clothes smelly and dirty? Do they reject commercials for the new car models because they imply that other cars are lemons which will arouse only laughter from desirable babes/hunks? You seriously don’t see a difference between implying someones religion is inferior and implying that their detergent is substandard? ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/42 "2006-04-05T23:51:07Z")
> [@baronsabato](#): > > I’m assuming you mean gays and lesbians when you say “lifestyle” even though, just to let you know, the term “lifestyle” is not considered a very polite or accurate term to use to describe the orientation of gays and lesbians. > > And to answer your question- it depends. I would say the vast majority of churches in the UCC agree with the former, and many agree with the latter. Since, as I mentioned before, the UCC is run on a congregational model, each individual congregation has enormous flexibility in doctrine; thus, there are some churches that are more conservative, and some that are very liberal, while a good number fit somewhere in the middle. Right now, only a minority of congregations are labeled “open and affirming”; that is, they have undergone a process to educate themselves and declare themselves fully inclusive of gays and lesbians. However, a great many more (perhaps even most congregations) find that there’s “nothing wrong with the ‘lifestyle’” both theologically and socially. Thus, we became the first major mainline Protestant church to pass a resolution supporting same-sex marriage, with 80% of delegates voting in the affirmative, and the first to ordain gay and lesbian people to the ministry in the 70s. > > Just a little bit of history for you: the United Church of Christ formed in 1956 as a merger between the Congregationalist-Christian churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church; these were some of the oldest denominations in the US. Congregationalists, as you may or may not know, are essentially what became of the Puritans and Pilgrims of New England. > > I always chuckle when I think about what our Puritan ancestors would think about us today. You answered my question, thank you. ---
**Author:** ![baronsabato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed655f/32.png) [@baronsabato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/baronsabato)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/43 "2006-04-06T02:50:35Z")
> [@RandMcnally](#): > > You answered my question, thank you. No problem. I would still like to know, however, why you think it does no good at all for a Christian denomination to accept gays and lesbians in the way you describe; that is, “There is absolutely nothing wrong with your lifestyle.” Surely you’ve seen and heard from, on this board and otherwise, many Christians who feel exactly that way about gays and lesbians, and plenty of gay and lesbian Christians (myself included) who can’t help but feel that way? ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/44 "2006-04-06T04:11:23Z")
> [@baronsabato](#): > > No problem. I would still like to know, however, why you think it does no good at all for a Christian denomination to accept gays and lesbians in the way you describe; that is, “There is absolutely nothing wrong with your lifestyle.” Surely you’ve seen and heard from, on this board and otherwise, many Christians who feel exactly that way about gays and lesbians, and plenty of gay and lesbian Christians (myself included) who can’t help but feel that way? My opinion on religion etc: The bible is pretty clear on the subject of homosexuality. It’s pretty much a black and white issue: you practice homosexuality, you’re in the wrong. And I feel that for a denomination to go against that isn’t a good thing. Does that mean I think homosexuals are second class citizens: no Does that mean I think can’t marry: no, but I don’t think the church should condone it. I’m going to get flamed aren’t I? ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/45 "2006-04-06T04:15:46Z")
> [@RandMcnally](#): > > I’m going to get flamed aren’t I? Perhaps not, if you’d concede that other Christians may interpt the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality in a different light. ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/46 "2006-04-06T04:26:47Z")
> [@Menocchio](#): > > Perhaps not, if you’d concede that other Christians may interpt the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality in a different light. They can interpret it however they like. I just think they’re interpreting it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/47 "2006-04-06T05:46:43Z")
> [@RandMcnally](#): > > They can interpret it however they like. I just think they’re interpreting it wrong. Here is how my LGBT church (awaiting UCC affiliation) interprets the Bible and homosexuality. [http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php](http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php) ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/48 "2006-04-06T05:57:42Z")
> [@RandMcnally](#): > > My opinion on religion etc: > > The bible is pretty clear on the subject of homosexuality. It’s pretty much a black and white issue: you practice homosexuality, you’re in the wrong. And I feel that for a denomination to go against that isn’t a good thing. Of course, this begs the question what biblical rules you’re really interested in enforcing. Doesn’t Letivitcus have a lot of prohibitions that most christians routinely violate, but somehow doesn’t rise to the “highway to hell” status homosexuality has been assigned by certain churches? ---
**Author:** ![mrklutz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ebca7d/32.png) [@mrklutz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrklutz)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/49 "2006-04-06T20:10:29Z")
> [@RandMcnally](#): > > They can interpret it however they like. I just think they’re interpreting it wrong. The explicit statements saying homosexuality is wrong are from Leviticus – the same book that says people shouldn’t eat pork or shellfish, wear clothing made from blends, etc. Mainstream Christianity rejects all these other restrictions from Leviticus, so why not the one regarding homosexuality? I could see where an Orthodox Jew would condemn homosexuality on a scriptural basis, but not a contemporary Christian. (I’m not a Christian, btw, just pointing out an inconsistency in scriptural doctrine.) ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/50 "2006-04-06T20:32:43Z")
> [@mrklutz](#): > > The explicit statements saying homosexuality is wrong are from Leviticus – the same book that says people shouldn’t eat pork or shellfish, wear clothing made from blends, etc. Mainstream Christianity rejects all these other restrictions from Leviticus, so why not the one regarding homosexuality? I could see where an Orthodox Jew would condemn homosexuality on a scriptural basis, but not a contemporary Christian. > > (I’m not a Christian, btw, just pointing out an inconsistency in scriptural doctrine.) There is no inconsistency at all. This mindset gets recycled and posted with stunning regularity. 1. There are more texts other than Leviticus that speak to homosexuality. 2. The other items you mentioned, like shellfish, were part of the Moscaic Law–a group of laws thatr numbered aropund 600 and included the Ten Commandments. 3. The abrogation of that law is mentioned explicitly many times in the bible, including the reasons, although I doubt many people know this. I can’t remember seeing it cited. At any rate, Dopers seem perfectly able to throw out comments about shellfish but I suspect few have a full understanding of the whole story. ---
**Author:** ![mrklutz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ebca7d/32.png) [@mrklutz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrklutz)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/51 "2006-04-06T20:45:55Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > There is no inconsistency at all. > > This mindset gets recycled and posted with stunning regularity. > > 1. There are more texts other than Leviticus that speak to homosexuality. > 2. The other items you mentioned, like shellfish, were part of the Moscaic Law–a group of laws thatr numbered aropund 600 and included the Ten Commandments. > 3. The abrogation of that law is mentioned explicitly many times in the bible, including the reasons, although I doubt many people know this. I can’t remember seeing it cited. At any rate, Dopers seem perfectly able to throw out comments about shellfish but I suspect few have a full understanding of the whole story. 1. Can you point me to some of those texts? I’m not doubting you, but I’m interested in seeing what they have to say. 2. I’m sorry, I don’t follow. Are the homosexuality passages in Leviticus not part of that same Mosaic Law? 3. I’d be interested in seeing those passages as well. It’s been a long time since I read the Bible, and many of the details have become less clear in my memory. As an atheist, my interest in such things is academic, not emotional or a matter of faith, so please take these as inquiry rather than criticism. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/52 "2006-04-06T20:50:06Z")
> [@mrklutz](#): > > 1. Can you point me to some of those texts? I’m not doubting you, but I’m interested in seeing what they have to say. > > 2. I’m sorry, I don’t follow. Are the homosexuality passages in Leviticus not part of that same Mosaic Law? > > 3. I’d be interested in seeing those passages as well. It’s been a long time since I read the Bible, and many of the details have become less clear in my memory. > > As an atheist, my interest in such things is academic, not emotional or a matter of faith, so please take these as inquiry rather than criticism. > > Thanks. Sure. Sorry if I sounded snarky, that was not my intent. Posts in a few… ---
**Author:** ![mrklutz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ebca7d/32.png) [@mrklutz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrklutz)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/53 "2006-04-06T21:03:12Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > Sure. > > Sorry if I sounded snarky, that was not my intent. > > Posts in a few… Nope, you didn’t sound snarky. I was just being overly cautious to make sure I didn’t come across as trying to refute you rather than asking questions – seeing as it can be a very emotionally charged subject. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/54 "2006-04-06T21:31:05Z")
> [@mrklutz](#): > > 1. Can you point me to some of those texts? I’m not doubting you, but I’m interested in seeing what they have to say. > > 2. I’m sorry, I don’t follow. Are the homosexuality passages in Leviticus not part of that same Mosaic Law? > > 3. I’d be interested in seeing those passages as well. It’s been a long time since I read the Bible, and many of the details have become less clear in my memory. > > As an atheist, my interest in such things is academic, not emotional or a matter of faith, so please take these as inquiry rather than criticism. > > Thanks. In the aftermath of Christ’s death, and during the infancy of what would become “Christianity”, nobody cast a longer shadow than **Paul.** Many Christians consider **Peter** the head of the Christian church becase of words spoken to him by **Jesus.** Still, the most zealous of the early Christians was Paul, and he is the most prolific writer in the NT. It was Paul who made the case that the Mosaic Law was rendered null and void by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ;\* that Jesus’s death “fulfilled” or “completed” the Law. \* This view didn’t come without some confusion and some detractors. In the book of **Acts** there is a raging dispute about circumcision. By this point, Gentiles were being welcomed into the Jewish Congregation of those who were to later become Christians. Yet, the established members were requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised—something that the Mosaic Law required. Paul was broughti into the dispute and reiterated that circumcision was no longer required of converts, _because the Mosaic Law no longer applied._ To save time, here is a [recent post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7243207&postcount=29) that lists many of the texts in the NT where Paul makes it clear that the Mosaic Law was no longer binding. Here is [another](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5648656&postcount=55) and [another.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4932764&postcount=10) The point is this: There is no hypocrisy on the part of Christians who state that homosexuality is condemned in the bible based on the Mosaic Law’s provisions on shellfish, or mixed threads (etc etc) because those laws were abrogated by the absolute founding fathers of the Christian Church; _and haven’t been in effect or binding on Christians for 2000 years._ Now that begets a more compelling argument than that of hypocrisy. A case can be made that…if shellfish, mixed threads (and hundreds of other laws!) were, _along with a prohibition of homosexuality_, part of the Mosaic Law… and if the Law was abrogated…( towards things like shellfish etc)… and language towards homosexuality was part of that same law… than certainly the prohibition on homosexual behavior was ended right along with it. That’s a compelling argument, (and would be a further hijack) and worthy of a separate discussion. But suffice it to say, that there is no case for hypocrisy between homosexuality vis a vis shellfish. (\* there isn’t to say that there isn’t an argument; simply that the whole shellfish/mixed thread thing is usually totally misunderstood.) ---
**Author:** ![mrklutz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ebca7d/32.png) [@mrklutz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrklutz)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/55 "2006-04-06T21:43:21Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > …That’s a compelling argument, (and would be a further hijack) and worthy of a separate discussion. Oops. You’re right, we’ve gotten rather far afield here. Apologies to the OP. Thanks for the info – very helpful. The cites did jog my memory. Sad to say, I should have remembered that bit to begin with, given that it was emphasized plenty of times in my Lutheran education. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/56 "2006-04-06T21:47:04Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > There is no hypocrisy on the part of Christians who state that homosexuality is condemned in the bible based on the Mosaic Law’s provisions on shellfish, or mixed threads (etc etc) because those laws were abrogated by the absolute founding fathers of the Christian Church; and haven’t been in effect or binding on Christians for 2000 years. But if I understand you correctly, then it **would** be hypocritical to claim that homosexuality is **forbidden to modern Christians** because of that Mosaic Law condemnation, while simultaneously claiming that eating shellfish is OK because of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law. And from what I’ve seen, many anti-gay Christians are, wittingly or unwittingly, making precisely such an argument. They claim that “You must not lie with a man as with a woman”, etc., is still a valid prohibition against homosexuality, while at the same time arguing that the similar prohibitions against eating shellfish or cutting one’s sidelocks, etc., are no longer binding. And that, ISTM, is indeed a hypocritical or at least inconsistent position. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/57 "2006-04-06T23:03:18Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But if I understand you correctly, then it **would** be hypocritical to claim that homosexuality is **forbidden to modern Christians** because of that Mosaic Law condemnation, while simultaneously claiming that eating shellfish is OK because of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law. I think you’re right in part. (in my view) Most Christians who decry homosexuality using the Levitcus texts do so out of ignorance. They are blissfully about the Mosaic Law in it’s full scope, it’s reach in Jewish society and just how many parts of day to day life it touched. (Including the fact that The 10 Commandments are part of the Mosaic law) Nor are many aware of the texts cited that establish Paul’s admonition that the Law was ‘fulfilled.’ Still, many informed Christians state that the _spirit_ of the Law was not abrogated; that in fact Jesus reaffirmed this when he actually quoted parts of the 10 Commandments. To them, he actually **strengthened** it to include not just one’s\* behavior\* but their _thoughts_—that the Law was to be manifest in one’s heart. It’s generally stated that the laws that governed ‘ceremony’ like shellfish, mixed threads etc, or ‘ritual’ like animal worship, sin atonement etc were ended while the ‘moral’ laws—like the 10 commandments for example----were not only not ended but strengthened by **Jesus, Paul et.al.** But in the end, the informed Christian who makes his case on knowledge, and the one who does so out of ignorance, many times reach the same destination. But the question as to whether there is/was some distinction between shellfish and homosexuality—as in ceremonial/ritual vs moral laws—is another discussion. _I’m pointing out that if Leviticus is to be used, it is this distinction between ceremonial and moral laws that should be discussed to see whether, in fact, hypocrisy is being practiced._ > [@](#): > > And from what I’ve seen, many anti-gay Christians are, wittingly or unwittingly, making precisely such an argument. They claim that “You must not lie with a man as with a woman”, etc., is still a valid prohibition against homosexuality, while at the same time arguing that the similar prohibitions against eating shellfish or cutting one’s sidelocks, etc., are no longer binding. > > And that, ISTM, is indeed a hypocritical or at least inconsistent position. Once again, the pertinent discussion then is: 1. Is/was a distinction made that separated the laws in such a way that some of them still applied in some way or another? 2. What texts support that view? (if any) (and by whom?) 3. is this consistent with the rest of the bible? (not the least of which is Jesus’s own words) But those are different threads, right? ---
**Author:** ![baronsabato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed655f/32.png) [@baronsabato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/baronsabato)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/58 "2006-04-07T01:03:49Z")
Yes, the shrimp/gays thing is a bit overplayed, and doesn’t really work in context. However, while I can accept **RandMcNally** ’s belief that homosexuality is sinful according to Christian law, I would prefer if he recognized or admitted that this issue is not as clear-cut as he seems to think, and that there are plenty of Christians who have absolutely no problem with gays and lesbians, and that this acceptance can be argued biblically. For mainline churches like the UCC, accepting that the prohibitions against homosexual practices in the Bible may not be applicable to today should not be (and often are not) that difficult, since most of us have no problem with female ministers, something that Paul may not approve of either, considering his admonitions to the female congregants of the Corinth church. ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2006, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/59 "2006-04-07T03:59:35Z")
> [@baronsabato](#): > > Yes, the shrimp/gays thing is a bit overplayed, and doesn’t really work in context. However, while I can accept **RandMcNally** ’s belief that homosexuality is sinful according to Christian law, I would prefer if he recognized or admitted that this issue is not as clear-cut as he seems to think, and that there are plenty of Christians who have absolutely no problem with gays and lesbians, and that this acceptance can be argued biblically. For mainline churches like the UCC, accepting that the prohibitions against homosexual practices in the Bible may not be applicable to today should not be (and often are not) that difficult, since most of us have no problem with female ministers, something that Paul may not approve of either, considering his admonitions to the female congregants of the Corinth church. I respect your views on this, but I still believe this is a cut and dry issue. But that’s the beauty of this, we both can go on living our lives, and we’ll find out who’s right when the time comes. ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2006, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977/60 "2006-04-07T16:41:54Z")
Not that it’s terribly relevant, I was curious about where this ad might have run so far. I work in the advertising industry, so I pulled a report. Although it has run on one network affiliate, it appears that it is not running as a broadcast network ad. Below are the detected occurrences so far (times are in US Eastern Standard, and cable network occurrences are from the East Feed.) ```auto 04/03/06 09:19:59 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/03/06 09:51:25 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/03/06 12:06:45 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/03/06 12:46:46 A&E A&E 04/03/06 14:52:30 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/03/06 15:19:59 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/03/06 15:51:24 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/03/06 16:30:46 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/03/06 18:46:46 A&E A&E 04/03/06 20:14:20 BET BET 04/03/06 20:47:57 HALL HALLMARK CHANNEL 04/03/06 21:38:55 HALL HALLMARK CHANNEL 04/04/06 00:50:27 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/04/06 05:49:36 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/04/06 07:25:01 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/04/06 09:03:30 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/04/06 10:11:13 CNN CNN 04/04/06 10:15:18 FAM ABC FAMILY CHANNEL 04/04/06 11:39:11 FAM ABC FAMILY CHANNEL 04/04/06 12:24:18 FAM ABC FAMILY CHANNEL 04/04/06 13:25:01 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/04/06 15:03:31 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/04/06 16:36:13 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/04/06 17:54:46 HALL HALLMARK CHANNEL 04/04/06 19:19:05 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/04/06 20:27:55 CNN CNN 04/04/06 21:37:50 A&E A&E 04/04/06 22:58:19 HALL HALLMARK CHANNEL 04/04/06 23:26:30 HALL HALLMARK CHANNEL 04/05/06 00:49:54 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/05/06 05:52:33 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/05/06 06:24:14 WAFF NBC 04/05/06 08:09:49 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/05/06 10:20:10 HALL HALLMARK CHANNEL 04/05/06 10:25:53 FAM ABC FAMILY CHANNEL 04/05/06 11:58:56 FAM ABC FAMILY CHANNEL 04/05/06 12:54:11 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/05/06 13:05:54 FAM ABC FAMILY CHANNEL 04/05/06 14:09:49 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/05/06 16:50:39 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/05/06 17:25:46 HALL HALLMARK CHANNEL 04/05/06 20:11:32 A&E A&E 04/05/06 20:42:38 A&E A&E 04/05/06 23:14:12 HALL HALLMARK CHANNEL 04/05/06 23:34:00 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/05/06 23:56:51 FAM ABC FAMILY CHANNEL 04/06/06 00:11:33 A&E A&E 04/06/06 00:42:39 A&E A&E 04/06/06 06:43:37 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/06/06 07:07:48 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/06/06 08:48:21 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/06/06 11:32:25 FAM ABC FAMILY CHANNEL 04/06/06 12:24:14 FAM ABC FAMILY CHANNEL 04/06/06 13:07:48 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/06/06 13:28:53 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/06/06 14:48:21 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/06/06 18:25:57 HALL HALLMARK CHANNEL 04/06/06 18:36:39 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/06/06 18:52:55 BET BET 04/06/06 20:21:39 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/06/06 22:00:53 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/06/06 23:16:35 FAM ABC FAMILY CHANNEL 04/06/06 23:38:50 CNN CNN 04/07/06 00:51:51 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/07/06 06:34:23 AMC AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS 04/07/06 07:24:21 HIST HISTORY CHANNEL 04/07/06 09:08:11 TNT TNT ``` [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-ucc-ad/350977.md?page=4)