OK, so for the past couple of weeks, the outrage from the “pro-choice” left increased  in decibels and shrillness in anticipation of a 30-second commercial to air in the Superbowl from Heisman Trophy-winner Tim Tebow and his mother, in support of life (when she was pregnant with Tim, as a missionary overseas, she was afflicted with a condition where the medical advice was to have an abortion – instead, she carried him to term).  For example, Joy Behar on The View derided Pam Tebow’s decision, as Tim could just as easily turned out to be a “racist pedophile”.

And that was one of the nicer comments.

I have been critical of Focus on the Family in the past, and hearing that they were buying a Superbowl Spot made me cringe a little bit on the inside, just because of the ham-handed way they’ve handled political issues in the US in the past.  In this case, though, I have to tip my hat to them.  In the words of the Washington Post’s pro-choice sports columnist Sally Jenkins, to write last week:

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion.

Indeed.  FotF’s strategy of not releasing the video in advance now appears somewhat brilliant in its ripping the veneer off of much of the pro-abortion left, as their rage built with CBS over its’ willingness to air the ad.  [Which is rather revealing that a group called the National Organization for Women went nuclear over CBS airing the Tebow ad, but had no similar outrage over the aired GoDaddy commercials, which - I would think - were far more offensive to women (and men).]

So, the game is over now [I really didn't want to see either team lose, though I was hoping for overtime instead of interception to end it], and the ad has aired.  So, what was all the fuss over?  Here you go…

Be prepared to be offended:

YouTube Preview Image

Really offensive, right?  Brilliantly played, Focus. Brilliantly played, I say.

In watching this whole thing played out, it reminded me of how many times we (myself included) deride things, sight-unseen, simply because of the source or the anticipated message, only to be left with egg on our faces (and lots of “splainin’ to do” afterwards”.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Monday, February 8th, 2010 at 1:53 pm and is filed under Church and Society, Original Articles, What Can You Say?, Women. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

176 Comments(+Add)

1   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 2:05 pm

Most of the outrage wasn’t over the ad itself or what it said but over the hypocrisy of the network to allow this ad but not other similar ads, such as the UCC ad a few years ago.

2   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 2:07 pm

Im noticed the same thing. As a matter of fact, the same people that screeched that the pro-life message was beeing silenced when pro-choicers screeched about the ad, can now castigate Tebow for such a wishy-washy ad. (Don’t hold your breath)

Both “sides” looked silly and hateful.

3   dave    
February 8th, 2010 at 2:16 pm

What Chad Holtz said.

The issue isn’t that CBS ran an anti-abortion ad. The issue is that CBS is completely hypocritical, not running UCCs ad a few years ago, not running an ad for a gay dating site this year, etc.

4   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 2:20 pm

The ad said nothing about abortion. As for CBS being hypocritical? Gee, who knew. Media bias – it must be a new thing. :cool:

5   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 2:33 pm

Sad part is FotF wasted over 2 million bucks that could have been spent helping single mothers raise the kids they decided to have – or to help give grants to adoptive parents

6   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 8th, 2010 at 2:41 pm

It just goes to show that complaining about what other people are doing is our favorite pastime in America. I suppose we can point to just about any expense and say that the money could have been spent in a better way if we wanted to. In the end, though, we’re not responsible for how FotF used their resources. We’re only responsible for what we do with ours.

7   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 2:42 pm

I don’t see the connection, nor the hypocrisy. CBS chose to run an add showing a mother and son relationship and her remembering his childhood.

That’s a far cry from promoting homosexuality.

8   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 2:45 pm

Re #5 – Do we know where they got the money – who actually bought the time? It could have been a grant for that very purpose?

As Phil said.

9   Paul C    http://www.thepath.cc
February 8th, 2010 at 2:47 pm

An amazing display of saying absolutely nothing for 30 seconds.

But in reading your commentary in the OP, I can see how this makes perfect sense for FoTF. I can just imagine all these organizations sitting around with baited breath, waiting for something to pounce on… Nothing? Nothing.

In the big picture though, I’m unsure of what an ad really accomplishes and if this will even be remember in about 1 week’s time (most of the storm has probably passed in the lead-up).

Though I didn’t watch the game, I am glad the Gay ad didn’t make it in.

10   Paul C    http://www.thepath.cc
February 8th, 2010 at 2:50 pm

FoTF got their money’s worth, not in the 30 seconds, but in the storm leading up to the 30 seconds. Judging this way, probably no other commercial was as impactful. But again, it’s a commercial…

11   Paul C    http://www.thepath.cc
February 8th, 2010 at 2:56 pm

You want to see ridiculous?

N.O.W. Says Tebow Ad Glorifies Violence Against Women!

12   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
February 8th, 2010 at 2:59 pm

I heard the apostles say once, “Why this waste of money. This perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor.”

Good call, Chad. (In #5)

13   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
February 8th, 2010 at 3:01 pm

I don’t see the ad as a message of anti-abortion. I see it as a message of pro-choice. Here’s a mother who made a choice to raise her son in spite of difficult circumstances. Sheesh.

14   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 3:06 pm

I say, with the power of ten billion butterfly sneezes, and with the choral prowess of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to the 20th power —-

Who cares???? Only the gospel changes anything.

15   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

lol Jerry – um, Tim Tebow is not anointing Christ’s body for burial.

Man, jerry, once you have it in for someone you really see red with everything they say don’t you? Seriously, I hope you get over this hopelessness you are in lately – it obviously must be affecting relationships far more important than this one.

16   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 3:14 pm

CBS chose to run an add showing a mother and son relationship and her remembering his childhood.
That’s a far cry from promoting homosexuality.

Neil,
The point is that with the UCC ad that was denied the reason given by CBS was that they don’t air advocacy ads. FotF is an advocacy organization who was willing to pay top dollar for an ad that advocated.

Most of the people I heard who were upset over CBS airing this didn’t care that they were airing it but wanted CBS to also air the UCC ad that it denied a few years back.

17   Jenny P    
February 8th, 2010 at 3:15 pm

I’m curious if any of you actually went to the FotF website to see the full Tebow story. That is where they put the pro-life message. And if any of you tried to get free pants last night, you know that people now watch tv with their computers on their laps.

18   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 3:24 pm

#11 – that is ridiculous.

NOW would at least make more sense and earn the respect of more people if they were consistent – why not be outraged over the way women are exploited sexually to sell beer or web domains?

19   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
February 8th, 2010 at 3:44 pm

Chad (#1), um, no, it wasn’t.

Yes, there was some outrage over the alleged hypocrisy of CBS, but it was far from being “most of the outrage”.

20   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Chad, I don’t think it’s as much a positional issue as it is a financial one.

21   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 3:50 pm

Most of the outrage was over the supposed content – which fizzled thereby embarrassing NOW.

Their contention that it advocates violence against women is asinine.

The whole thing reminds me of Rick Warren prayer at the inauguration. The odm’s were all in an uproar that he would not pray in Jesus name (as if the tag needs to be there to make it valid). And when he did – what was the general response – gladness that he did? acknowledgment that they were wrong?

NO – a bunch of wailing over the fact that he did not stick to English!

22   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 3:53 pm

lol Jerry – um, Tim Tebow is not anointing Christ’s body for burial.

this is true – of course… but the episode does serve as an illustration of a point.

When a person tries to belittle an action by deflecting attention away from what someone did with money by offering options for what they should have done with it instead.

23   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 3:56 pm

Brendt, you got percentages that prove your point? Who cares? The only outrage I heard was over what I stated in #1. If you heard differently, great!

24   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 3:58 pm

When a person tries to belittle an action by deflecting attention away from what someone did with money by offering options for what they should have done with it instead.

Neil, I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

25   Eric    
February 8th, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Chad,

Since you made the initial assertion about “most of the outrage”, why don’t you start by backing your claim with percentages? And if the point really is “who cares”, why did you make the assertion in the first place?

26   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 4:01 pm

Experiences outrage over secular media issues is like publicly decrying what Stalin stood for; it is always understood and expected.

I am outraged that sinners express their sinful bias in ways that upset me. :cool:

27   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:05 pm

Eric and Brendt – two people who seem to desire to major in the minors.

Let’s say of the 100 percentage points of said outrage 60% of it is determined to be from pro-choice groups, and the other 40% from people upset over the UCC ad being yanked.

WHO CARES??

MOST, in fact, nearly ALL of the outrage I heard over the ad was because of the reason I said in #1. If MOST of the outrage you heard was over something else, great!!! Guess what? I don’t care!

28   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 4:08 pm

I am outraged that CBS would not air my ad promoting Following Judah’s Lion. Instead they chose Doritos??

I’m outraged!

29   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:10 pm

The Doritos commercial that played near the end of the game was hilarious . “Oh no. Tim LOVES Doritoes….”

MOST of the people in my house thought that was the best commercial (Brendt and Eric, care to dispute that?)

30   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 4:12 pm

I am outraged that Tebow tackled his mother!

31   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:14 pm

Brendt and Eric,

Why don’t you take it up with Chris L, who titled the OP: ALL the Fuss Was Over This?

By your own admissions, not ALL the fuss was from pro-choice advocates. Funny how neither of you ask him to back up his claim.

32   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
When a person tries to belittle an action by deflecting attention away from what someone did with money by offering options for what they should have done with it instead.

Neil, I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

In the biblical story Judas was offended that the money was wasted by being poured on Jesus. The theological significance was lost on him. But the story serves as an illustration… or at least a reminder.

When Judas could not object to what she did – he objected to what else she could have done.

That is the parallel I see with complaining about FotF’s use of the money. There was nothing wrong with the add itself, so let’s complain about what they should have done instead.

33   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 4:20 pm

I took the “all” in the title of the op as inclusive of the fuss surrounding the ad – regardless of the specific motivation of said fuss.

34   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 4:21 pm

I am outraged that Tebow tackled his mother!

I don’t think he actually did… and I am suspicious that the beavers were not actually playing those violins either.

35   Eric    
February 8th, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Chad,

I’m not majoring in minors. I do think that when you challenge Brendt to produce percentages to back his claim, you should be able to be held to the same standard. Apparently you don’t think so. You’ll notice that I never disputed your claim, but you make a big deal about insinuating that I did. For a guy who says he doesn’t care, you sure get worked up.

If indeed you meant to say “Most of the outrage that I observed…”, then why not just say so, instead of getting so defensive and worked up. As to number 30, I’ll state again for the record that I did not dispute your assertion at all. I also, did not make any “admissions”, so I don’t know where you got that from.

To recap, you were the first to make any assertion about “most of the outrage” and then were also the first to ask for percentages or backing to someone else’s assertion.

36   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:27 pm

Neil, I get what you’re saying now.

First, I’m not “complaining.” I made an observation and nothing more.

Second, the most common argument around here lately, where politics is concerned, is stewardship. How many times have you heard Chris L or the other “righties” here say something like: “It’s not that we are against health care for everyone, but it is fair to critique how money is being used to achieve the desired result”

If one goal of FotF is to make life a viable option for mother’s who are struggling to make that decision than critiquing how they use their funds to that end is perfectly valid. I would argue that spending over 2 million for a 30 second ad that will be forgotten in as much time is not as wise as giving $10 grand to the New Hope Pregnancy Center I support in town that is in need of diapers and bottles and cribs that they give to single mothers contemplating abortion.

37   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:28 pm

That’s great, Eric.

38   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
February 8th, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Chad,

You really need to stop taking everything so personally. I’m not hopeless, either, so save your psychological analysis for someone who really needs it (like Rick) or cares (like, uh, well I’ll get back to you).

Oh, and :-)

jerry

39   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
February 8th, 2010 at 4:34 pm

PS–I don’t have it in for you. I don’t see red.

I just want you to realize that you are not right about every subject and that there are other viable options to be considered even when you start raging against those with which you disagree.

You know, your whole ‘wow!’ kind of comments.

I’m off to school. Later.

jerry

40   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:34 pm

I took the “all” in the title of the op as inclusive of the fuss surrounding the ad – regardless of the specific motivation of said fuss.

Sure. The point is, it’s stupid what Brendt and Eric are doing.

If I did exactly as Brendt did, and said, “Um, actually Chris L, not ALL the fuss was over this ad. Some, even most, of the fuss was over the hypocrisy of CBS to run this ad and not UCC’s ad, blah blah blah….”

Had I said that you would be right to say, “um, Chad, that’s just stupid and you are creating a rabbit trail.”

41   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:40 pm

You really need to stop taking everything so personally.

I don’t take it personally, Jerry. I just think you’ve been an ass lately and jumping on every thing I say as if you are just dying to be combative.

Your tone towards me is noticeably different and given your last post “Judging God” you sounded like a guy in the dumps. Doesn’t take a psychology degree to notice that. I was hoping your treatment of me was because of your current situation rather than your character.

42   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

My outrage is more authentic and divinely supported than yours!

43   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:47 pm

I just want you to realize that you are not right about every subject

Actually, I disagree with you :)

I say “wow” when I am literally “wow’d” Sometimes you have said things that wow me. I guess I could just do what your friend Chris L does and call you a moron or any number of other names.

44   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
February 8th, 2010 at 4:50 pm

So Chad, let’s boil down what you said:

* You made an objective statement of fact, not personal experience.
* Someone disagreed with you.
* You stated that you don’t care that your statement of fact, not personal experience, was true or not.

As to your correlation in #39, it falls flat. If you read just one sentence deep into the OP, you see that Chris is specifically addressing the outrage expressed by the pro-abortion crowd. Your assertion, on the other hand, was regarding the outrage expressed by all parties (who expressed outrage).

45   M.G.    
February 8th, 2010 at 4:51 pm

Re:43

Wait, there were pro-life groups that expressed outrage over the commercial? Really? I had no idea. Who?

46   Eric    
February 8th, 2010 at 4:53 pm

Chad,

RE # 39 – Please explain what I did that was stupid.

RE # 40 –

“…most, of the fuss was over the hypocrisy of CBS to run this ad and not UCC’s ad, blah blah blah….””

“Had I said that…”

If you look at your first post, that is exactly what you said:

“Most of the outrage wasn’t over the ad itself or what it said but over the hypocrisy of the network to allow this ad but not other similar ads, such as the UCC ad a few years ago.”

47   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:53 pm

You made an objective statement of fact

lol Brendt. You need to buy some briefs that are less restricting.

When you provide the empirical evidence that what I said is not true then I’ll happily say that not most, but a lot, of the outrage was over what I said. And the point will still remain: Who cares? There was outrage. It wasn’t ALL over what the OP discussed.

I recommend boxers.

48   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 8th, 2010 at 4:54 pm

Second, the most common argument around here lately, where politics is concerned, is stewardship. How many times have you heard Chris L or the other “righties” here say something like: “It’s not that we are against health care for everyone, but it is fair to critique how money is being used to achieve the desired result”

If one goal of FotF is to make life a viable option for mother’s who are struggling to make that decision than critiquing how they use their funds to that end is perfectly valid. I would argue that spending over 2 million for a 30 second ad that will be forgotten in as much time is not as wise as giving $10 grand to the New Hope Pregnancy Center I support in town that is in need of diapers and bottles and cribs that they give to single mothers contemplating abortion.

You only have a right to complain if you have some financial tie to the organization, in my opinion. Otherwise it’s none of your business.

As far as the healthcare, or any other budget item in the congress, I’d say all taxpayers can have some opinion on the matter. We all have some stake.

49   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:54 pm

Eric – go shopping with Brendt.

50   Paul C    http://www.thepath.cc
February 8th, 2010 at 4:55 pm

I guess I could just do what your friend Chris L does and call you a moron or any number of other names.

Yeah guys, why don’t you consistently take the high road like Chad?

On another note, I’m not sure this ad is as deserving of as much consternation or discussion as we’re giving it… my 2 cents.

51   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 4:55 pm

M.G. – Before the actual ad played no pro-life group expressed outrage except that they were outraged by the pro-choice outrage. But after seeing the antiseptic and nebulous ad, will they express outrage that FotF made such an innocuos ad?

Therein lies a double standard.

52   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:58 pm

You only have a right to complain if…

I repeat: I’m not complaining. Just made an observation.

We all have some stake.

Whereas none of us have any stake in the lives of unborn babies and have no opinions as to how to best respond to those in need? Oh.

So your argument, Phil, is unless you give money to FotF you should just shut up and never wonder how to best use those funds to accomplish a common goal?

53   Eric    
February 8th, 2010 at 4:59 pm

Chad,

Your refusal to make or address rational arguments leaves you with no option but to belittle and dismiss other people.

54   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 4:59 pm

And Phil, If I have ever given money to FotF does that give me the right to “complain” in your eyes?

55   troy    http://www.sheepandgoats.blogspot.com
February 8th, 2010 at 5:01 pm

I heard (on NPR no-less) that the funds used by FotF for this ad were donated funds specifically for this purpose. Not from their operating budget.

56   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 8th, 2010 at 5:02 pm

And Phil, If I have ever given money to FotF does that give me the right to “complain” in your eyes?

Sure. Complain all you want. Whatever floats your boat.

57   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 5:05 pm

I liked the game…does that count??

58   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 5:05 pm

Troy – that’s great. If I can say what I would do without being labeled as someone who is “complaining” I think it would have been better for FotF to either a) make a better ad or b) insist the money be used to really do some good.

Phil – for the 3rd time, I wasn’t complaining. But I am glad I would meet your requirements should I wish to.

59   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 8th, 2010 at 5:10 pm

Phil – for the 3rd time, I wasn’t complaining. But I am glad I would meet your requirements should I wish to.

It sure read like you were to me.

com-plain
–verb (used without object)
1. to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault

Saying that you would do something differently or you could do it better than someone else is complaining. Just ask you wife the next time you tell what changes she could make to the dinner she just prepared – you know, tell her how she could have used the ingredients better.

60   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 5:12 pm

I never complain. I critique. :cool:

61   M.G.    
February 8th, 2010 at 5:13 pm

Re:comments 1-59

Apart from not using foul language, this blog reads like any political blog out there.

In other, you all sure treat each other poorly. It’s a shame.

62   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 5:15 pm

It’s so typical. Chris makes a point about the reaction to the ad and everyone runs to their perspective political and moral corners.

63   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

Phil – are you serious????

You guys are like a bunch of rabid dogs just dying to find something to attack.

Phil, Jerry, Neil, et al: You are handed 2 million dollars. Your objective: stop abortions. What is better: a) buy a 30 second commercial ad or b) fund hundreds or thousands of centers that give hands on aid to pregnant mothers considering their options

If you think for a second that B might be the smarter option then get off my back. You are being petty and arguing just to argue.

64   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 5:31 pm

Saying that you would do something differently or you could do it better than someone else is complaining.

wow (there you go, Jerry)

I’ll remember this next time someone on my church board suggests a better way of doing something. I’ll just say, “stop complaining – no one likes a complainer.”

65   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 8th, 2010 at 5:35 pm

Phil – are you serious????

You guys are like a bunch of rabid dogs just dying to find something to attack.

Phil, Jerry, Neil, et al: You are handed 2 million dollars. Your objective: stop abortions. What is better: a) buy a 30 second commercial ad or b) fund hundreds or thousands of centers that give hands on aid to pregnant mothers considering their options

If you think for a second that B might be the smarter option then get off my back. You are being petty and arguing just to argue.

I am quite serious, actually. I’m all for constructive criticism, but I think, as a whole, what most people engage in isn’t constructive. It’s criticism aimed at elevating themselves above others.

It’s not about what option I think is smarter in this case. The ad was something I had no say in whatsoever. If I were asked my opinion, I would give it.

66   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 8th, 2010 at 5:39 pm

I’ll remember this next time someone on my church board suggests a better way of doing something. I’ll just say, “stop complaining – no one likes a complainer.”

Apples and oranges. I would assume that a board member in your church would be heavily invested in the church, and would be actively serving. He has earned the right to offer his opinion on whatever matter is before the board. In fact, I’d say probably every member of the church has. You, wouldn’t, however, expect someone with no relationship with your church to come in off the street and make a suggestion about the color of carpeting.

67   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 5:39 pm

Phil – I will look forward to a future of posts and comments from you that offer no critiques on anything apart from those things you had direct involvement with or a direct say in.

My apologies for offering my own observation on a blog about how I would do something.

68   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 5:41 pm

Chad: Sad part is FotF wasted over 2 million bucks that could have been spent helping single mothers raise the kids they decided to have – or to help give grants to adoptive parents

A) The funds were donated specifically for this purpose.
B) This line of false-reasoning is little different than Ingrid’s constant “It’s sad that [Church X] chose to do [Y activity] instead of [Z activity].” (see Matt 26:9)
C) If the discussion around the ad, going to the link, etc. ends up convincing a single woman not to choose to have an abortion, I’d say it was money well spent.

Paul: FoTF got their money’s worth, not in the 30 seconds, but in the storm leading up to the 30 seconds.

Which is what I think was likely part of their plan from the beginning… What’s funny is that it cost them $0 for any marketing plan apart from the ad other than “say nothing other than ‘we’ve worked with CBS to make sure the content meets their standards’” and let the “pro-choice” crowd prove the lie of their chosen moniker.

An amazing display of saying absolutely nothing for 30 seconds.

Most of that has to do with CBS’ guidelines, which were pretty narrow w/ what would be allowed – since it had to be an advertisement for FotF, not a political advocacy spot. The press-release about the ad, and the content at the FotF site were the actual content sources.

I heard the apostles say once, “Why this waste of money. This perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor.”

Jerry: Nail – meet hammer. Thankyouverymuch.

Who cares???? Only the gospel changes anything.

Rick – FYI, our church in West Lafayette used to work with a couple agencies supported by FotF who either had crisis pregnancy centers, or placed young pregnant women with Christian families (along with training, etc.) to help them as long as was needed. In this process, these young women heard the Gospel (and experienced it) on multiple occasions. Those are the types of orgs that the FotF site will ultimately lead someone in such a situation to…

Why don’t you take it up with Chris L, who titled the OP: ALL the Fuss Was Over This?

Maybe I’m watching a different commercial/YouTube clip, but I don’t hear anything being specifically advocated in this commercial… It is only if you go to the website or read the news that you know the story (and thanks to NOW, etc. the context is known). I listened to about 30 minutes of harping on CNN the other night, and it was all about abortion, Tebow and the content of the ad (that nobody had seen yet). Whether or not CBS would air other ads wasn’t brought up at all while I was listening…

Rick: My outrage is more authentic and divinely supported than yours!

And if that doesn’t work, I can always pull up NPR to agree with me… ;-)

Chad: How many times have you heard Chris L or the other “righties” here say something like: “It’s not that we are against health care for everyone, but it is fair to critique how money is being used to achieve the desired result”

Brief lesson in logic:

Situation A: There is a problem, X, which exists. I can spend $Y and do Option ABC to tackle X, or I could spend $Z and do Option DEF to tackle X. John Doe believes that Option ABC is wasteful and stupid, supporting DEF instead, and says so.

Situation B: There is a problem, X, which exists. I can spend $Y and do Option ABC to tackle X. John Doe suggests that $Y would be better spent buying a pet rabbit instead of spending it to tackle X.

If you cannot see that Situation A (the healthcare discussion) is different than Situation B (comment #1), then you’ve got bigger fish to fry, logically speaking.

Before the actual ad played no pro-life group expressed outrage except that they were outraged by the pro-choice outrage. But after seeing the antiseptic and nebulous ad, will they express outrage that FotF made such an innocuos ad?

While I’ve not checked the ODM sites (for whom such antics might be SOP – see Rick Warren:Inauguration), I’ve not seen any mainstream pro-life organization lambaste the ad for its innocuous nature. Perhaps you could provide a link.

#17:I’m curious if any of you actually went to the FotF website to see the full Tebow story. That is where they put the pro-life message. And if any of you tried to get free pants last night, you know that people now watch tv with their computers on their laps.

Welcome, Jenny!

Sorry it took us a bit to free your comment from first-time commenter moderation… (Everyone else, all comments post-17 are off by 1 number…)

69   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 5:54 pm

Brief lesson in logic:…..

zzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz

some one wake me up with dad is done scolding us all

70   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 6:24 pm

In other, you all sure treat each other poorly. It’s a shame.

seems to me Chad and I were treating each other fine…

71   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 6:32 pm

WOW – my turn to use that…

Clearly Chad overstated his case in #1… a simple admission may have stopped the rhetoric.

Clearly there is plenty of pettiness on both sides regarding percentages of outrage – seriously people!

Did Chad complain about the $2M- yes… and he continues to hold his position. But there is nothing else see here – much could have been done with the money. But if it were collected under those pretenses it should be used for that purpose… the givers voted with their $$$’s.

72   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 6:34 pm

I have been critical of Focus on the Family in the past, and hearing that they were buying a Superbowl Spot made me cringe a little bit on the inside, just because of the ham-handed way they’ve handled political issues in the US in the past.

Hey Phil, why not cite the definition of “complain” to Chris L? Why do you single me out?

73   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 6:35 pm

C) If the discussion around the ad, going to the link, etc. ends up convincing a single woman not to choose to have an abortion, I’d say it was money well spent.

I was with ya until this one Chris L…. it reminds me of the cliche – if just one person comes of the Lord than,… granted it is true, but that’s not to say more abortions could have been stopped using the money other ways. In other words, you should have stopped with reasons A) and B) – which were sufficient in and of themselves.

74   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 6:39 pm

If the discussion around the ad, going to the link, etc. ends up convincing a single woman not to choose to have an abortion, I’d say it was money well spent.

Yeah, cause most of the women who have abortions are watching the Superbowl with a MacBook on their laps. And they would all be so convinced to not have an abortion because just maybe their unborn child will one day be in the NFL and be their ticket out of the projects.

75   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 6:39 pm

zzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz

some one wake me up with dad is done scolding us all

Chad, you made an accusation, Chris responded. Your response was to mock him and call him a name. henceforth you can no longer claim you’ve taken the high road. He addressed you directly, but he stuck to the argument.

76   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 6:40 pm

I think everyone really needs to calm down -

77   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 8th, 2010 at 6:44 pm

Neil re: 75 – His pompous “let me give you a brief lesson in logic” is off-putting and, honestly, boring. I didn’t even read it as my eyes glazed over.

If calling him “dad” is as offensive and immature as the numerous words and phrases he has used towards me, well, then I guess I’m on the same road as he on this one.

78   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 6:47 pm

I’m not saying he has never been overly aggressive to you… but you have specifically claimed the high road.

But when you mock his post and call him a name – you lose that right.

I’m not sure why you find his response “off-putting” – you made the accusation of inconsistency, he responded.

79   Neil    
February 8th, 2010 at 6:50 pm

…furthermore – why the need for sarcasm?

I disagreed with his point C) as well, but instead of a sarcastic response, I disagreed with a counter argument.

80   M.G.    
February 8th, 2010 at 6:58 pm

Re:70

Neil, you’ve always struck me as a stand-up guy. If your teammates could show as much patience in handling people with whom they disagree, that would be a good thing.

Just an observation from an impartial third party to this fracas.

81   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 8th, 2010 at 6:58 pm

Phil – I will look forward to a future of posts and comments from you that offer no critiques on anything apart from those things you had direct involvement with or a direct say in.

My apologies for offering my own observation on a blog about how I would do something.

Well, honestly, I haven’t written an article with the intent of criticizing the content in quite a while. It’s something that I’ve been somewhat convicted of, honestly. Not in the sense that I think it’s in any way wrong to refute lies, but I do not want to become so cynical that nothing and no one can live up to my standards. Being a critic is easy. Creating something that professes truth and illustrates beauty is much harder.

82   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Neil – I would agree that (C) is the weakest of the counterarguments, in that it is entirely pragmatic (and could thus be abused when taken to an extreme). Since we’re talking about $2MM and change, though, the price isn’t all that high.

Also, figuring that last night’s Superbowl was the #1 watched show of all time (160MM people), and that (according to Neilsen) 51% of watchers were there for the commercials, spending about 1.5 cents per viewer was a fair investment. Simply listening in my workplace, I heard a number of conversations about the ad in the past week or so (along with discussions on the underlying topic).

83   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 9:05 pm

That ad was a watershed of pro-life decisions. :cool:

The Crisi Pregnancy Centers do the best hands on dealings with women and most of them are volunteers. Tebow is sincere and seems to be a committed Christian, but Super Bowl ads are just a waste of money.

84   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
February 8th, 2010 at 10:17 pm

Chad,

If someone gives me two million dollars, first I’m gonna treat myself to a nice steak at Applebees. Then I’m going to pay off all my personal debt. Then I’m going to buy my former church’s building and give it to my current congregation as a gift. :-)

Then I’m going to mail a few dollars to you so that you can buy a few more classes at Duke. I mean, as much as you are spending at Duke for an “M-Div” you could be spending to help a lot of people, instead you are using it for yourself. Sad. Really. Sad.**

I’m sure not going to give it to CBS or NBC or ABC or Fox.

And, don’t forget, :-)

**I’m sorry Chad, that was a cheap shot. I humbly ask for your forgiveness.

***I know you don’t take it personally, but I seriously wish you’d lighten up a bit. You are way too high strung and take this blog stuff far too seriously.

85   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
February 8th, 2010 at 10:29 pm

I actually agree with Chad to a point.

I think the ad was a ridiculous waste of money.

It offended me that they would spend 2.5 million to put that tripe on.

All I got out of it was that If you choose to let the baby live you might get a Heisman winning quarterback.

What if she died?
What if Tim was born Misformed?
What if he became an axe murderer?
What if he was handicapped in one way or another?

In any cases, there would not be this commercial.

How about: I chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term because I value life. I value life because God values all life, Heisman quarterback or not ( or something of that ilk)

Then how about a smidge of the Gospel??

They would have been better off I think giving that money to programs to help mothers carry their babies to term, adoption, abstinence education, or something along that line. They could have bought a few seats and held a banner with a web address where Mom Tebow (or someone else) could have told a full length life-affirming story.

I truly thought it was a waste of money, though, no publicity is bad publicity.

86   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 10:42 pm

Thank you PB – your lack of charity never fails to fall below reasonable expectations…

87   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
February 9th, 2010 at 12:40 am

Now there (#85) is something to say ‘wow’ about.

Mind-boggling.

88   chris    
February 9th, 2010 at 12:51 am

C) If the discussion around the ad, going to the link, etc. ends up convincing a single woman not to choose to have an abortion, I’d say it was money well spent.

My criteria is different. I think it would only be well spent if 10 woman choose to not have an abortion. Or maybe 100.

For tangential argumentation see “Doritos commercial portrays single black mom on a date”.

But if stops one black man from touching someone else’s dorito or someones mom, I’d say it’s money well spent.

89   chris    
February 9th, 2010 at 12:54 am

All I got out of it was that If you choose to let the baby live you might get a Heisman winning quarterback.

Maybe the commercial was an excuse for why is footwork and throwing mechanics suck.

90   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 1:50 am

Jerry, I’m thinking I need to add a few more lines to my Memo of a couple years ago:

Dear Christian in the Public Eye: Don’t worry, you can pretty much be sure that no matter what you say, people will line up to bitch that you didn’t do it right – from the right, left and in-between. And those are just your brothers and sisters in Christ.

91   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 6:45 am

“Dear Christian in the Public EyeBullhorn Guy: Don’t worry, you can pretty much be sure that no matter what you say, people will line up to bitch that you didn’t do it right – from the right, left and in-between. And those are just your brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Hey man…that’s just life. The Tebow ad was just meaningless and not worth “all the fuss” from the right, left, and in-between.

92   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 7:54 am

Moral outrage is an enemy of redemption. And then there is moral outrage about moral outrage. It’s all so self righteous and self serving.

Without the gospel moral outrage is like fireworks – a big bang with nothing to show for it.

93   chris    
February 9th, 2010 at 8:41 am

Dear Christian in the Public Eye: Don’t worry, you can pretty much be sure that no matter what you say, people will line up to bitch that you didn’t do it right – from the right, left and in-between. And those are just your brothers and sisters in Christ.

That happens with everyone Chris L. not just Christians.

The ad was good. I liked it. I think it made a point. Others (PB) would say not strong enough of a point. While others would say it made no point. And others still would say that the only point was money poorly spent.

The problem with most Christians is not that we voice an opinion. The problem is that we never voice an opinion about how WE personally fail Jesus everyday.

94   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 9:08 am

“The problem is that we never voice an opinion about how WE personally fail Jesus everyday.”

Bingo.

95   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 9:16 am

I am outraged that I am not outraged by my profound lack of reflecting Jesus in my own life.

96   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
February 9th, 2010 at 9:55 am

Adventures in missing the point.

I like that we have a pro life ad. I think the ad misses the point. The Tebows have a great story, not because of how Tim turned out, but because his mom obeyed God at a risk to their lives.

97   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 9th, 2010 at 10:05 am

Adventures in missing the point.

I like that we have a pro life ad. I think the ad misses the point. The Tebows have a great story, not because of how Tim turned out, but because his mom obeyed God at a risk to their lives.

Meh…

The ad never makes the claim that if someone doesn’t have an abortion, they’re guaranteed to give birth to the next Heisman winner. Man, I never cease to be amazed at the ability of people to find the dark lining of every cloud.

I hope the people who find joy criticizing everyone else enjoy it when they’re on the receiving end.

98   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 10:12 am

Although it may be unintentional, abortion and other moral issues can become stumblingblocks to the gospel. Many unbelievers think they have to be pro-life to be a Christian – in that order.

99   Neil    
February 9th, 2010 at 10:29 am

Pastorboy,

I don’t think the ad ever mentioned “how” he turned out – you made that connection. And this is just a fact of life – it’s how “endorsements” work… you need some level of celebrity status for the impact.

100   Neil    
February 9th, 2010 at 10:32 am

I heard a few stats this morning, on my local secular talk-radio… the add has generated more media buzz than any before it… the majority perception of FotF has swung from negative to positive… the hits to their website have increased 40-fold, starting even before the add played… whether or not someone agrees with the content – the results have paid off.

101   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 11:02 am

“the results have paid off.”

Hits = results. That what they were looking for anyway. When it doesn’t bring results it goes away.

Media buzz – Website hits – positive perception.

Madison Avenue strategy.

102   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 11:08 am

It’s all just energizing the base anyway. In other words preaching to the choir. Politics. There will be pro-lifers in hell and some pro-choicers in heaven.

Unless being pro-choice is the unpardonable sin.

103   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 11:18 am

Here is what I do not understand:

When Pastorboy preaches on the beach to sinners using some harsh approaches but at least giving the gospel he is attacked. (I disagree with some of it as well)

But when Tebow presents a slick, nebulous, and innocuous commercial that has nothing to do with God or the gospel he is defended.

I don’t get it.

104   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 11:18 am

#84 –

Jerry, I’m at the point where I can no longer write off your assiness to your current emotional state but have to assume this is just who you are.

You are just a jerk.

105   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 9th, 2010 at 11:24 am

Here is what I do not understand:

When Pastorboy preaches on the beach to sinners using some harsh approaches but at least giving the gospel he is attacked. (I disagree with some of it as well)

But when Tebow presents a slick, nebulous, and innocuous commercial that has nothing to do with God or the gospel he is defended.

I don’t get it.

Well, for one thing, PB preaches a gospel that pretty much says that God hates sinners, or at least it very much comes off that way.

I also don’t know that I would say the Tebow commercial had “nothing to do with God”, but even so, I’d say there’s a big difference between taking issue with what someone did say and taking issue with what someone didn’t say.

106   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 11:38 am

Pastorboy uses the word “Jesus” and Tebow’s ad does not. That is a pretty big “omission”.

It’s a double standard. I have disagreements with both and I just sensed a more proactive defense when it came to Tebow and FotF.

107   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 11:39 am

…the results have paid off.

If only all ethical choices could made based on results.

This morning hundreds of scared women had an abortion because they couldn’t envision a world where they could make ends meet with a baby. They thought nothing about that commercial.

So the results didn’t really “pay off” for them.

108   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 11:44 am

I just sensed a more proactive defense when it came to Tebow and FotF.

No doubt! Of course, guess who the “base” is that was said to be stirred up by this ad? (hint: look around on this blog).

Anything is fair game to critique, debate, argue, even “complain” about, but touch the sacred cows of FotF, Palin, the GOP, capitalism, the flag, the military, or corporations and watch the guns come out.

109   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 9th, 2010 at 11:45 am

This morning hundreds of scared women had an abortion because they couldn’t envision a world where they could make ends meet with a baby. They thought nothing about that commercial.

So the results didn’t really “pay off” for them.

How do you know what these women are thinking, really? I’ve heard too many testimonies of God using the most mundane things to reach someone or get a message across to simply write it off. Even though I don’t agree with PB’s methods by-in-large, I don’t doubt that God has used what He’s doing for His purposes along the way.

110   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 11:51 am

Even though I don’t agree with PB’s methods by-in-large, I don’t doubt that God has used what He’s doing for His purposes along the way.

ANd yet you still critique, or, in your words, “complain” about what he does.

Lighten up, Phil. I have my opinions about how 2 million could be better used to accomplish a common goal. I think the ad was a waste of money. You don’t. So what? You are being petty like your friends here when you harp on and on about people “complaining.”

111   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 11:54 am

Personally I find moral wars to be gospel neutral and sometimes a stumblingblock. There are some enemies of the cross who are pro-life.

112   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 11:59 am

And Phil, you never answered my question in #72.

It appears there is a huge double standards here. Not that I’m surprised.

113   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 9th, 2010 at 12:00 pm

ANd yet you still critique, or, in your words, “complain” about what he does.

Lighten up, Phil. I have my opinions about how 2 million could be better used to accomplish a common goal. I think the ad was a waste of money. You don’t. So what? You are being petty like your friends here when you harp on and on about people “complaining.”

I’ll lighten up when you lighten up. Apparently, you believe that unless something meets your standard of perfection, it’s not worth doing at all, or that the people who invested in it were wasting their money.

It’s one thing to have an opinion. It’s another to be a Monday morning quarterback. I think that we’ve been pretty consistent here about trying to defend people from being unfairly attacked. Heck, I’ve even defended you quite a bit. Of course, we’re not perfect, and we all have our biases.

I simply don’t see any difference in people complaining about what an ad didn’t say than I do in people complaining about what Rob Bell didn’t say when he was on an interfaith panel. It’s all based on the same attitude that I know better, and I would do things differently.

Well, that’s fine, if you want to do things differently, do them differently. Just don’t make so everyone else has to live up to your standard.

114   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
February 9th, 2010 at 12:01 pm

This morning hundreds of scared women had an abortion because they couldn’t envision a world where they could make ends meet with a baby

Really, how do we know this is why? Granted it makes great press and it works the emotions but how do we know that it was 100’s? Why is it OK to say 100’s did it because of this and it’s wrong to suggest that perhaps 100’s did it for reasons that were purely of convenience?
Even if this is true, what makes us think that FoF’s money would have actually reached these “poor” women? Even if they did think this, it doesn’t mean it was correct thought. In counseling we deal with false self thoughts all the time.
And just for full disclosure, I could care less about the commercial one way or the other.

115   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Apparently, you believe that unless something meets your standard of perfection, it’s not worth doing at all, or that the people who invested in it were wasting their money.

Oh please, Phil. What a bunch of crap. Just because I state my opinion on a matter about how I might do something is not the same thing as any of the stuff you are talking about. You are talking nonsense.

All you have done since I shared my opinion (which was not in a complaining or judgmental way, as you have painted me to be) is argue that no one should “complain” (of course, you label it as complaining when cooler heads would call it a simple critique).

If you had bothered to ask me at any point in this discussion you would know that I could care less about the ad itself. When I heard the ad was coming out I was more curious to see how Tebow (who I can’t stand) might be used than I was in the actual message. For one, I think advocacy for pro-life options is a great idea and an ad can do some good in that regard. The ONLY controversy I heard about the ad was over CBS’s hypocrisy for not showing a UCC ad. I, too, thought that if this ad were aired they should let the UCC air theirs. However, when I saw the ad, all bets were off. It wasn’t really outright advocating anything (thus, UCC may not have an argument when trying to compare it to theirs) and it really didn’t advocate anything about pro-life. Most women debating an abortion aren’t watching the SuperBowl with a laptop on their laps, so most of them probably never went to the website.

So yes, when all is said and done I have my own ideas about how 2 mil could be spent to save lives.

Next time I have an opinion I’ll ask YOU if it’s OK that I share it.

116   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

“And just for full disclosure, I could care less about the commercial one way or the other.”

The voice of reason. God’s opinion as well.

117   Joe    http://joemartino.name
February 9th, 2010 at 12:15 pm

Rick,
I’m not sure if you are taking a stab at me or not…

118   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 9th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

Oh please, Phil. What a bunch of crap. Just because I state my opinion on a matter about how I might do something is not the same thing as any of the stuff you are talking about. You are talking nonsense.

All you have done since I shared my opinion (which was not in a complaining or judgmental way, as you have painted me to be) is argue that no one should “complain” (of course, you label it as complaining when cooler heads would call it a simple critique).

Whatever, Chad…

You said the following:

Sad part is FotF wasted over 2 million bucks that could have been spent helping single mothers raise the kids they decided to have – or to help give grants to adoptive parents

Had you described your opinion without using the word “wasted”, you might have a point. It certainly came off as judgmental. Perhaps I misread your intent. I could have been wrong. It’s certainly happened before.

119   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

Nope. I actually agree with you. I hope that doesn’t upset you. :)

120   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 12:44 pm

Oh, Phil, so this is all over the word “wasted.” Whatever. Here is another one: What a waste of time.

Still no answer to 72?

I look forward to seeing your very first comment on nearly 75% of all future posts here reading:

Why are you complaining? Stop complaining, guys.

You know what is a bigger waste of time than critiquing something? Complaining over the fact people are critiquing.

And if Brendt and Eric are wondering, it is bigger waste 672.3% of the time :)

121   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Had you described your opinion without using the word “wasted”, you might have a point.

This is a load of crap and you know it, Phil. Given the attitude of you guys here I could have said:

Sad part is FotF used 2 million bucks that could have been spent…

And the same petty arguments would have been flying.

122   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 12:50 pm

So yes, when all is said and done I have my own ideas about how 2 mil could be spent to save lives.

You’re always welcome to withhold your monthly donation to FotF, so that they don’t “waste” the money you’ve given them…

123   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 12:53 pm

This morning hundreds of scared women had an abortion because they couldn’t envision a world where they could make ends meet with a baby. They thought nothing about that commercial.

Evidence, please… Or is this just speculation?

124   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 12:54 pm

You’re always welcome to withhold your monthly donation to FotF, so that they don’t “waste” the money you’ve given them…

And you, Chris L, are welcome to withhold your monthly gift to N.O.W so they don’t waste your money when they fuss over things you think are pointless.

125   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Pastorboy uses the word “Jesus” and Tebow’s ad does not. That is a pretty big “omission”.

No omission. The website the ad points to uses the word “Jesus” quite frequently.

Somehow, I suspect the (non) use of that word was one of the CBS definitions which specified the difference between “political advocacy” and “advertisement” (pointing to a specific website).

One can be a complete ass and use the word “Jesus” on a frequent basis, and one can be completely honoring to Christ without using his name in a 30-second TV ad…

126   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 9th, 2010 at 12:57 pm

This is a load of crap and you know it, Phil. Given the attitude of you guys here I could have said:

Sad part is FotF used 2 million bucks that could have been spent…

And the same petty arguments would have been flying.

If it makes you feel any better, Chad, I’d now say you’ve moved on from complaining and entered into whining territory…

127   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

ne can be a complete ass and use the word “Jesus” on a frequent basis,

Your honor, exhibit A: Prophets-Priests-Poets.info

128   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

And you, Chris L, are welcome to withhold your monthly gift to N.O.W so they don’t waste your money when they fuss over things you think are pointless.

I don’t recall ever whining about how NAG chooses to spend its money…

129   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 12:59 pm

Phil,
that is what you’ve been doing from the get-go.

Still waiting on an answer to my question in 72.

Unless, of course, you know an honest answer will cause dad to send you to time-out

130   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 1:00 pm

I’ve read your question on #72, and perhaps you’d better go bone up on logic again, bud. Phil’s not being inconsistent.

131   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 1:00 pm

128: doesn’t matter. According to Phil, complaining is complaining. You are complaining over people complaining. That should make you a double whiner.

132   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 1:01 pm

“One can be a complete ass and use the word “Jesus” on a frequent basis, and one can be completely honoring to Christ without using his name in a 30-second TV ad…”

I agree. My point was nobody should make any fuss about the ad from either side.

133   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 1:03 pm

#130 – lol. Logic – Chris L’s answer to everything – bury you in a bunch of letters and call you a moron.

I was critical of how Fotf spent the money here when it could have been used differently, IMO. You admit to being critical of FotF in the past. Phil labels me a “complainer” but you are a logical saint.

LOL.

See why I use the term “circle jerk” to describe you guys?

134   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 9th, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Phil,
that is what you’ve been doing from the get-go.

Still waiting on an answer to my question in 72.

Unless, of course, you know an honest answer will cause dad to send you to time-out

Actually, I was just trying to be merciful…

Anyway, all Chris said was:

I have been critical of Focus on the Family in the past, and hearing that they were buying a Superbowl Spot made me cringe a little bit on the inside, just because of the ham-handed way they’ve handled political issues in the US in the past.

I don’t really call that complaining. He was giving his opinion about their past action. He didn’t harp on it. He didn’t say what they should have done.

You started your whole critique here with an attitude of “I could have done better…”.

Maybe it’s a fine line, but, in my opinion, you crossed the line a long time ago.

Look, I try my very hardest to be charitable with you even though I disagree with you on things. I just can’t understand why this particular issue seemed to cause you to come out with guns blazing.

135   Paul C    http://www.thepath.cc
February 9th, 2010 at 1:09 pm

#127: Congratulations for presenting the most ironic comment of the week. Staggered that this might have been typed with a straight face.

In a debate, there’s the secret of knowing when to stop. This is completely pointless.

136   M.G.    
February 9th, 2010 at 1:09 pm

Sigh.

I hate to jump in, Phil, but I don’t get where you’re going with this. Chris L. isn’t a complainer when he “gives his opinion about their past action?”

What if you give a negative opinion about a past dinner to your wife? What if you told her the meal was “ham-handed” and that it made you “cringe?”

Doesn’t that meet your earlier definition of complaining?

I’d say your my favorite writer around here, but sometimes you strain to make a poing (usually defending another writer.)

137   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 1:12 pm

I was critical of how Fotf spent the money here when it could have been used differently, IMO.

I believe the term was “wasted”, which is different than “used differently” (one implies, well, money for nothing, and the other implies inefficiency).

You admit to being critical of FotF in the past.

Pretty non-specifically. Let’s see what I wrote:

“I have been critical of Focus on the Family in the past, and hearing that they were buying a Superbowl Spot made me cringe a little bit on the inside, just because of the ham-handed way they’ve handled political issues in the US in the past.”

No specificity (beyond “ham-handed” handling of political issues) involved. How this non-specific comment in the OP is in anyway similar to your caterwauling is beyond me. (And, just to be more specific, the particular instance I had in mind in my nonspecific criticism was Dobson’s dabbling in GOP king-making, which I thought was outside the mission of FotF and contrary to its 501(c)3 status, even though he was claiming to act as a private citizen in the matter.)

[FYI: If you continue to use derogatory sexual slang, you will go on moderation. Last warning.]

138   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 9th, 2010 at 1:14 pm

Someone please give me a more ironic example than Americans discussing wasting money.

139   M.G.    
February 9th, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Re:135

I agree with the second sentiment. This debate is dwindling in value. Sometimes you end up arguing just for the sake of arguing.

140   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 9th, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Sigh.

I hate to jump in, Phil, but I don’t get where you’re going with this. Chris L. isn’t a complainer when he “gives his opinion about their past action?”

What if you give a negative opinion about a past dinner to your wife? What if you told her the meal was “ham-handed” and that it made you “cringe?”

Doesn’t that meet your earlier definition of complaining?

I’d say your my favorite writer around here, but sometimes you strain to make a poing (usually defending another writer.)

Well, maybe…

I guess if I said something like, “you’ve had your problems in the past, hun, but this meal is awesome” it might go over well. Honestly my wife doesn’t get that upset those sorts of things, so it’s hard for me to really judge. Honestly, I cook about 80% of the time, and I will admit that I’ve made some stuff that’s made me (and others) cringe…

We all like to complain every now and then. We have whole industries devoted to it. Honestly, I was not in the best mood yesterday, and I guess Chad’s responses tapped into that vein. I probably should have just let it go.

I honestly don’t care that much about that ad either. Haven’t we all just been in a place where you’re like, “if I hear one more person complain about something, I’m going to kick their @ss…”

141   M.G.    
February 9th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

As long as I’m wringing concessions out of people, Chad, I hope I have the credibility with you where I can “dude, chillax. You really do come out with the guns blazing sometimes.”

When emotions are involved, it takes effort to keep the argument from devolving into a slingfest. But it’s worth the effort.

142   Joe    http://joemartino.name
February 9th, 2010 at 1:28 pm

We could talk about the money that Ed Young Jr. is “wasting”

143   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 2:00 pm

M.G.
I agree that there are things I may come out with “guns blazing.” This is not one of them, though.
Merely stating my opinion about the use of money by FotF is not “guns blazing.” Since that moment I have simply been responding to what I perceive to be insanity among some of the writers here.

If I were really upset about the actual issue the least I would do is write a post on my own blog, perhaps titled “All the Fuss is Over This???” and go on to say how the beef the UCC had and the beef the pro-choice groups had was all for not – the ad was a waste of time and money and didn’t really do or say anything. The money could have been better spent.

But I didn’t even start to draft such a post – why? Because in the end I don’t really care.

But Phil, in the future I’ll ask if you if it’s OK to offer my opinion on a matter or critique something. I wouldn’t want you getting all up in arms about my “complaining”

Sheesh.

[FYI: If you continue to use derogatory sexual slang, you will go on moderation. Last warning.]

LOL. You are such a hypocrite.

144   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 2:07 pm

Sad part is FotF wasted over 2 million bucks that could have been spent helping single mothers raise the kids they decided to have – or to help give grants to adoptive parents

I stand by every word of this – and still feel it to be true. None of your complaining, Phil, has changed my mind. You are welcome to disagree and think that the money was well spent. But I feel much more good could have been done if it was used differently. Don’t worry, I’m not going to call Dobson and tell him how mad I am (cause I’m not) or go shoot anyone over my hysteria (which is non-existent).

145   M.G.    
February 9th, 2010 at 2:28 pm

Re:143

I’d just say that comment 133 is less a gun and more like cannon fire. If you toned down the language about 5 notches, I’m assuming you’d have more credibility with the guys around here. Maybe you and Chris L. could both take steps to get the situation down from Defcon 1.

Just my 2 cents.

146   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 9th, 2010 at 2:31 pm

M.G. – my last comment in 133 may have been over the top, a result of 132 comments of nonsense.

Given the way things go around here, though over the top, I think it’s a pretty fair assessment of the group.

147   M.G.    
February 9th, 2010 at 2:44 pm

Re#146

That’s a shame.

In the end, then, I guess you have to ask yourself who’s the bigger fool: The people unknowingly engaged in an activity you find reviling, or the guy who is standing around watching?

Either way, I hope you can extend enough grace to see this place as more than what you described in comment 133.

148   John Hughes    
February 9th, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Hey. This is more entertaining than the Superbowl commercials.

149   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
February 9th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

what is sexual about ‘circle jerks’? Isn’t that a west coast band from the late 70’s?

150   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
February 9th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Sorry, forgot link.

151   Neil    
February 10th, 2010 at 12:08 pm

I don’t see the hypocrisy in not allow our blog to be ridiculed using sexual innuendos.

152   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
February 10th, 2010 at 12:14 pm

#133 Was unbecoming for a Christian, a Minister, and even for this site.

I think you guys ought to moderate it. You all know that a circle jerk is not just a punk band. It is a crass sexual act.

153   Neil    
February 10th, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Re 152: He was warned. That’s how it works, a warning is given, then moderation if the offense is repeated.

154   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 10th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

Chris L. – Joy Behar’s comment was to suggest that the argument against abortion should not be how good a person turns out since the opposite can happen as well. I agree with her on that. Abortion is murder regardless of how a person turns out.

I do not think she “derided” Pam Tebow’s decision.

155   Eric    
February 10th, 2010 at 1:25 pm

Rick,

I don’t know the whole content or context of Behar’s comment, so I won’t touch specifically on that. But, I have to agree wholeheartedly with the idea that we should not be judging the importance of human life based on its “potential”. That was what made me originally leery of the talk of the add featuring Tebow, because there was talk that the point was going to be “my Mom took a risk and look what would have been missed if she did not”. Now, that did not end up being the overt message of the commercial, but might have still been a subtle implication.

Any time abortion is argued against on the basis of what a life could become and “contribute” to society, the humanist argument has won out. Life is precious and to be respected for one reason only, and that is because it is bestowed by God, not based on how we arbitrarily assign value. If we fall into that trap, we give credence to arguments that “less than valuable” life, as decided by man, can and should be done away with.

So,

156   Eric    
February 10th, 2010 at 1:27 pm

Oops, apparently I thought I had more to say, but really did not. Or…you can fill in the blank if you like!

157   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 10th, 2010 at 1:30 pm

I completely agree, Eric.

158   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 10th, 2010 at 2:46 pm

Question for you all:

Suppose you are in a church council meeting trying to decide what to do with the gift of 2 million donated to the church. One option presented it to build a new steeple on the church so all the town can see the church and be attracted to it. One person objects to this idea and offers her own. Her idea is to use the money to build a soup kitchen and perhaps a half-way house for single moms who need help with their newborns.

By a show of hands, who here would respond to this person in the way comments 12 and 68 responded, by quoting this scripture: “Why this waste of money. This perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor”

159   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 10th, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Regarding the offensive comment…

Chris L has used a number of even more colorful phrases to insult me in the past, yet nothing is said.

Not long ago a writer here used the phrase “theological masturbation.” I remember it because I thought if I had said the same thing I would be strung up. But not a peep was said.

I guess the rules are only enforced when they are beneficial to “dad.”

160   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 10th, 2010 at 2:58 pm

Suppose you are in a church council meeting trying to decide what to do with the gift of 2 million donated to the church. One option presented it to build a new steeple on the church so all the town can see the church and be attracted to it. One person objects to this idea and offers her own. Her idea is to use the money to build a soup kitchen and perhaps a half-way house for single moms who need help with their newborns.

By a show of hands, who here would respond to this person in the way comments 12 and 68 responded, by quoting this scripture: “Why this waste of money. This perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor”

It’s really not a comparison, exactly.

In the context of a church meeting, I would expect each member to have input on the decision.

What we’re doing here is talking about a decision that was made a long time ago. Talking about what should have been isn’t very useful or productive most of the time.

In fact to use you analogy, if a church votes and decides to buy the steeple, would it be helpful for the person who objected to continually talk about how the money could have been used in a better way? It would not. In fact, if they continued, it would just be sewing division in the congregation. And actually, I’ve seen that sort of thing happen before – it ain’t pretty.

Not long ago a writer here used the phrase “theological masturbation.” I remember it because I thought if I had said the same thing I would be strung up. But not a peep was said.

I’d say the connotation of the term you used is quite a bit more vulgar than the other term. The “theological masturbation” term (which, I believe N.T. Wright used in a video that I posted here) was obviously not meant to connote a sexual act.

161   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
February 10th, 2010 at 3:01 pm

Chad,

We’ve been over part of this before. Chris L. has been rebuked during those times. Just because you don’t see it happen, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.

Not every person is offended by certain comments and not every person reads every single comment. So if one or two of the people who would have corrected/rebuked/warned somebody about an inappropriate comment hadn’t read that, should they be chided for not reading and censoring everything?

Frankly, the immature comments, arguments, choice of language from many around here (authors and commentors) is absolutely astounding to me.

162   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 10th, 2010 at 3:04 pm

n fact, if they continued, it would just be sewing division in the congregation

.

I agree…if the person continued going on and on about it.

I made one remark about how the money could have been better used and Scripture was used out of context to whip me into shape.

It’s a cheap and abusive way to use Scripture, IMO.

The “theological masturbation” term (which, I believe N.T. Wright used in a video that I posted here) was obviously not meant to connote a sexual act.

All in the eye of the beholder.

163   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 10th, 2010 at 3:06 pm

Just because you don’t see it happen, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.

So you do it in private? Why? If you are going to rebuke some publicly why not everyone?

From the perspective of those of us on the outside, Christian P, it appears you guys just let Chris L and others get a free ride.

164   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 10th, 2010 at 3:10 pm

I made one remark about how the money could have been better used and Scripture was used out of context to whip me into shape.

It’s a cheap and abusive way to use Scripture, IMO.

I actually don’t like the use of Scripture as a weapon like that, either… So I agree in that regard.

The “theological masturbation” term (which, I believe N.T. Wright used in a video that I posted here) was obviously not meant to connote a sexual act.

All in the eye of the beholder.

This is true as well. I was just making the point that the “theological masturbation” phrase wasn’t really aimed at anyone as an attack. It was a phrase that Wright used in the video…

We could go back and forth about which one is worse I suppose, but really, I have no desire to. Personally, I have less of a problem with phrases deemed vulgar than I do with invectives thrown out at people.

165   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
February 10th, 2010 at 3:11 pm

Regarding 158, I would respond as Peter did to Annanias and Sapphira: “Wasn’t it your money to do with what you want? Then why have you lied to the Holy Spirit.”

The only person who has an obligation to use money is the person who owns it.

166   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 10th, 2010 at 3:18 pm

That’s cool, Phil. I just wish you guys would stop “complaining” over what I said. :)

167   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 10th, 2010 at 3:20 pm

From the perspective of those of us on the outside, Christian P, it appears you guys just let Chris L and others get a free ride.

FYI – I see Christian IRL somewhat regularly (including last night, braving the snowstorm to attend a Pacer’s game), and discuss numerous things, including how things are going here, what I could do better, where I should focus, etc. If he wants to post that here, I don’t have a problem with it, but it does seem a little bit silly to suggest that (using your frame-of-reference analogy) a petulant child is in the midst of a temper-tantrum pointing fingers at everyone but himself deserves anything but a roll of the eyes, and to be ignored in a corner.

168   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 10th, 2010 at 3:25 pm

sorry, dad. I’ll try to behave

169   Eric    
February 10th, 2010 at 4:46 pm

Ah yes, the “but someone else did it too” defense. I’m not quite sure where in the Bible that one is found, but I suspect if it’s in there, it wasn’t lifted up as a model to be followed.

170   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 10th, 2010 at 5:09 pm

Eric,
Actually, that is not what I am saying at all. I was making reference to my mention of hypocrisy. I’m not an eye for an eye kinda guy.

171   Eric    
February 10th, 2010 at 5:22 pm

Ok Chad, I’ll take you at your word, but I will say that what came out from you in response to being admonished was pretty much all defensive and justification (and included pointing out how others have done the same or worse). Whether you were mainly pointing out what you perceived as hypocrisy or not, the take home message for readers of your responses was that you felt justified in your use of a derogatory sexual slang phrase and felt like you should not be held accountable if others have done similar without admonishment. I find it hard to believe that any Christian (especially a pastor or student of the Bible) would prefer to provide a defense of their use of a derogatory sexual slang phrase rather than repent and ask forgiveness.

172   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 10th, 2010 at 5:52 pm

Eric, life is full of unbelievable things

173   Neil    
February 10th, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Re 158: Even thought I think this hardly fits… I would vote for the soup kitchen no the steeple.

But, if we wanted a steeple and someone said – here’s the money for it – that’s what it should be used for.

174   Neil    
February 10th, 2010 at 6:28 pm

Just once Chad I’d like to see you admit a mistake, apologize for something, most anything that hints of you making a mistake.

175   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
February 10th, 2010 at 8:16 pm

Neil, I have numerous times in the past here and elsewhere.

176   Neil    
February 10th, 2010 at 9:18 pm

OK