Archive: January 31, 2010 - February 6, 2010
Heavens, before you know it there won't be any beer or cheeseburger ads during the time outs; just all these faith groups arguing back and forth about the meaning of life. People will get so caught up in the debate they'll wait until play resumes to go to the kitchen or the bathroom.
By Thomas G. Bohlin | February 6, 2010; 7:32 AM ET | Comments (2)
I do not want to make an American Idol contest for "best ad" out of these issues. Because, in the end, such ads simplify and cheapen to 30 seconds of sound bite human experiences of enormous complexity and anguish.
By Katharine Henderson | February 5, 2010; 4:59 PM ET | Comments (5)
Why is a subject as serious as abortion being treated like a political football kicked around on Super Bowl Sunday? The next thing you know there will be Michael Vick ads for an animal humane society, Gilbert Arenas ads for gun control or Tiger Woods ads for sex therapists! Some things don't need to be fodder at this end of football season celebration.
By Vashti Murphy McKenzie | February 5, 2010; 11:31 AM ET | Comments (9)
There was an urgency about the President's plea for unity: "Progress doesn't come when we demonize opponents," he said. "Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God."
By Sally Quinn | February 4, 2010; 6:22 PM ET | Comments (2)
So many people today are paying so much in humiliation for the grabbing they did on a piece of plastic that pretended to be money.
By Erica Brown | February 4, 2010; 9:28 AM ET | Comments (0)
Nothing, not a plague of Biblical proportions or a President John Edwards, would harm the Republic more than allowing a handsome football quarterback and his mother to give a Super Bowl commercial celebrating life.
By John Mark Reynolds | February 3, 2010; 7:17 PM ET | Comments (44)
The point is that every single one of us is lucky to be alive against hyper-astronomical odds. Tim Tebow owes his existence not just to his mother's refusal to have an abortion. He owes his existence to the fact that his parents had intercourse precisely when they did, not a minute sooner or later. Then before that they had to meet and decide to marry.
By Richard Dawkins | February 3, 2010; 2:23 PM ET | Comments (62)
Are we going to move away from the historical stance that abortion is a private moral choice rather than a public one? That decision, that change, deserves a long and serious public conversation. If a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl kicks off that discussion, well, good for the pro-lifers, whether you agree with position or not.
By Pamela K. Taylor | February 3, 2010; 11:27 AM ET | Comments (12)
It concerns me that in what is supposed to be an "open society" such as America, that we would disallow people the right to pay for commercial airspace because it conflicts with people's personal views.
By Matt Maher | February 3, 2010; 11:05 AM ET | Comments (2)
The Focus on the Family anti-choice ad that will appear during this Sunday's Super Bowl will not be based on a reasoned discussion of the issues surrounding abortion, rather it will be an emotional appeal meant to equate a fetus with a fully-grown Heisman-trophy winner. It is the standard anti-choice sucker punch, and I regard it as utterly misguided if not actively dishonest.
By R. Elisabeth Cornwell | February 3, 2010; 11:01 AM ET | Comments (6)
The real question is what are abortion advocates afraid of? Are they afraid that millions of Americans will be exposed to viable alternatives as it pertains to abortion? Tim Tebow is as wrong as President Obama who constantly addresses abortion reduction and seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America.
By Samuel Rodriguez | February 3, 2010; 1:10 AM ET | Comments (7)
My heart cries out for a meaningful conversation about these important matters of abortion and care for women and I trust Jim Daly when he says he feels the same way. I wish we could agree that Super Bowl ads are not the way to do it.
By Janet Edwards | February 2, 2010; 5:02 PM ET | Comments (7)
As Focus on the Family has said in its statement, clearly the intent of this ad is not to wage a new battle culture war, but rather to let people know that as they wrestle with these difficult life and death decisions like the one Pam Tebow had to wrestle with so many years ago, they don't have to wrestle alone.
By Charles "Chuck" Colson | February 2, 2010; 4:19 PM ET | Comments (6)
If the "pro-choice" forces think they have an effective counter argument to justify the continued wholesale killing of unborn Americans, then they should pay their money and make their case. I suspect they know they don't have such arguments and so they descend to the tactic of seeking to silence the arguments of their opponents.
By Richard Land | February 2, 2010; 4:09 PM ET | Comments (170)
Why try to advertise God or morals during the Super Bowl? What a waste of money. That money could be used to really help people in Haiti.
By Arun Gandhi | February 2, 2010; 2:51 PM ET | Comments (2)
This Super Bowl ad featuring Ted Tebow plays politics with faith. I have no doubt that Tebow is a person of faith, and he is entitled to his beliefs. Others are entitled to their beliefs. So, show everybody's faith-based ad, or don't show any. Otherwise, CBS is allowing ad time during the Super Bowl to become a political football.
By Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite | February 2, 2010; 1:49 PM ET | Comments (5)
There are slew of social problems which, if presented as engagingly as different beers, might make America a different place. Thing is, organizations which deal with people problems historically do not have enough money to do that.
By Susan K. Smith | February 2, 2010; 1:15 PM ET | Comments (2)
I would love to use the Super Bowl as an opportunity to recite verse 5:32 from the Qur'an and try and convince millions of Americans that Islam does not condone violence and that the Qur'an deems taking of innocent life as an abomination. This pro-life message could go far in combating Islamophobia.
By Muqtedar Khan | February 2, 2010; 1:09 PM ET | Comments (1)
When lives are devastated by disaster, the best of humanity surfaces as many set aside personal conveniences, agendas and interests to selflessly take part in what the Bible describes as pure religion.
By Michael Otterson | February 2, 2010; 11:21 AM ET | Comments (12)
CBS made the wrong decision, but not for reasons most people suggest. Having rejected a Super Bowl ad from ManCrunch.com, a gay online dating service, as too controversial, CBS will nonetheless air a so-called pro-life/anti-choice ad sponsored by Focus on the Family. Both moves are probably good business, but lousy public policy.
By Brad Hirschfield | February 2, 2010; 11:13 AM ET | Comments (11)
Safi's biography of the Prophet serves to refocus the reader's attention on the person through whom the Qur'an was revealed.
By Asma T. Uddin | February 2, 2010; 11:01 AM ET | Comments (1)
I wonder if CBS would have accepted an ad, paid for by the Alzheimer's Association or the American Medical Association, about the higher incidence of early Alzheimer's and other brain disorders among ex-football players who have sustained concussions?
By Susan Jacoby | February 2, 2010; 10:06 AM ET | Comments (182)
Those who do not like the message in the Tim Tebow ad can easily change the station, turn off the sound, or go to kitchen for a few minutes. I don't think anyone is going to be forced to watch either the Super Bowl or its ads.
By Ramdas Lamb | February 2, 2010; 2:21 AM ET | Comments (7)
Here in America we are, and should be, free to buy abortions and anti-abortion ads. We are not, and should not be, free to kill "abortionists" or to suppress "speech."
By Willis E. Elliott | February 1, 2010; 10:50 PM ET | Comments (3)
Perhaps Super Bowl commercials will evolve from arguments about "Tastes great! No, less filling!" to "Jesus is Lord! No, Jesus is myth!" I've participated in debates on the latter topic, but there's a time and place for such discussions. The Super Bowl is neither the time nor the place.
By Herb Silverman | February 1, 2010; 5:57 PM ET | Comments (12)
This advertisement may be part of the future of advocacy, particularly in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's recent ruling regarding corporate and union participation in political campaigns. I just hope that people on both sides of any critical human issue will not divert millions of dollars from delivery of services to the coffers of the corporate media.
By Jack Moline | February 1, 2010; 5:09 PM ET | Comments (1)