An ad for the Super Bowl produced by Focus On The Family is causing controversy before it's even had the chance to air. The ad (in case you don't know already) features Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam Tebow.
Mrs. Tebow and her husband were Christian missionaries in the Philippines. She was pregnant, and she contracted amoebic dysentery, an infection of the intestine caused by a parasite found in contaminated food or drink. The illness cause her to go into a coma. The treatment for the condition required strong medications that doctors told Pam had caused irreversible damage to Tim. They advised her to have an abortion. She refused, citing her Christian faith as the basis for her hope that her son would be born without the disabilities the doctors had predicted. She spent the final two months of her pregnancy in bed, and in August 1987 gave birth to a healthy boy.
Tim Tebow went on to win the Heisman Trophy in 2007 (for those of you outside the United States, the Heisman is awarded each year to the college football player considered to be the nations best), and then lead the University of Florida Gators to the National Championship the following year.
So, what is the controversy you ask?
It seems that some groups, such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), the Feminist Majority, and other groups oppose CBS showing the ad to the 100 million Super Bowl viewers. There are also reports that the Women's Media Center, based in New York, is coordinating the attack on the ad, along with the two aforementioned groups.
These groups charge that CBS has always rejected “political” ads in the past, and should reject this. The website for NOW calls the ad by Focus On The Family an “anti-abortion rights Super Bowl ad” (you can may click the following link to read their posting and the comments on their stance over the ad: http://www.now.org/news/blogs/index.php/sayit/2010/01/26/focus-on-the-family-s-anti-abortion-super-bowl-ad-just-say-no-thanks#comments ).
What NOW and the other groups don't seem to understand, is that abortion is not “politics”, but from a Christian perspective is about morals. It is also amazing, that a group touts itself as “pro-choice”, opposes any mention of a woman who made the choice to give birth instead of choosing to abort. They even go so far as to suggest that an ad which is pro-life is misogynistic. Excuse me, but how could anyone consider an ad depicting a woman who is strong enough to make the choice to give birth instead of making the choice for death, misogynistic? How could anyone in their right mind consider that to be hatred of women?
This shows the hypocrisy of NOW and the other feminist groups. They want a "strong woman" image, but if that woman is strong enough to decide to give life instead of aborting, they oppose her decision. It's time the 'pro-choice' crowd uses honesty for a change, and calls themselves what they are 'pro-abortion' and 'pro-death'. They certainly aren't 'pro-choice' when the choice is life.
I also find it strange that these same groups have been so deafeningly quiet when Super Bowl ads from the past have depicted women in ways that could certainly be considered “misogynistic”. I also find it strange that in essence, they want no dialogue from anyone with an opposing viewpoint. I have always been under the impression that is what America is all about...you can have your viewpoint, and I can have mine.
These same groups are always talking about the “intolerance” of the “ultra conservative” Christians, yet they themselves are the ones practicing intolerance. To tolerate means (according to the dictionary): permit something: to be willing to allow something to happen or exist; endure something: to withstand the unpleasant effects of something; and lastly, accept existence of different views: to recognize other people’s right to have different beliefs or practices without an attempt to suppress them (my emphasis added).
Yes, they want to suppress Focus On The Family's right to express their view, so who is really being intolerant here? So much for “meaningful dialogue” with them.
If you want CBS to be aware of your support on the acceptance of the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad, you can email them at the following email addresses:
Sumner Redstone, Executive Chairman and Founder : Redstonesredstone@cbs.com
Les Moonves, President and CEO, : lmoonves@cbs.com
Nancy Tellem, President, CBS Paramount Network TV Entertainment Group, : ntellem@cbs.com
Sean J. McManus, President CBS News and Sports, : sjmcmanus@cbs.com
1. I went back over my article, and I don't see how it could interpreted as my portraying "a mob of bloody women fresh from killing fetuses"...I was merely giving the link that explains the position of NOW, and the reactions to that position. 2. Much of the opposition to the ad has come from pro-abortion groups, at least thats the way the main-stream media has been reporting it, and being Catholic, pro-life, and this being a pro-life blog, I wrote my article on that basis. 3. I do stand by my definition of tolerance. I haven't seen nor been made aware of any pro-life organizations attempting to block the pro-abortion groups from expressing their ideas or beliefs. I haven't exactly seen the pro-abortion groups running out to produce an ad touting the "benefits" of abortion, either. I have only utilized the ability to delete and/or block a comment on one of these blogs after I wrote a piece defending Pope Pius XII on our "Church Under Attack" blog. The comment I deleted, and the commentor that was blocked was a Holoxaust denier, and I refuse to give any such groups or individuals any credibility by allowing their comment to remain, especially when that comment iincluded a link to a website that essentially called all survivors of the Holocaust, all veterans who saw and witnessed to the concentratiuon camps, liars. I don't think that anyone would call me intolerant for that. Except perhaps other Holocaust deniers.
ReplyDeleteYour brother in Christ,
Steve
Thanks Steve - Agreed that my reference to a mob was a bit colorful... I've been reading too many colorful stances on this issue today, and I reckon that was reflected.
ReplyDeleteRegarding a group airing an ad espousing the "benefits of abortion" during the Superbowl - well... I reckon the precedent is now set... I have little doubt that, when the moment arrives, the opposition to such an ad will dwarf the current controversy... there's no tolerance in foxholes.
M'best - Thomas
A couple of things...
ReplyDelete1) The link to the blog on NOW's site doesn't exactly portray a mob of bloody women fresh from killing fetuses...
2) Much of the opposition to the ad is based on questions about the veracity of the ad, and questions about the willingness of CBS to air it in face of the network's policy of not patronizing interest groups.
3) Do you stand by your definition of "tolerance", and feel that the pro-life interests fall outside of the definition you have supplied?
Love - Thomas