What makes Focus on the Family controversial?

As long as any group is allowed to advertise, then it's fine.

If CBS allows other religions, or any group for that matter, buy and advertise, then fine. Otherwise, CBS is simply opening the door for a string of lawsuits that could put them out of business.

Anyone know how "Focus on the Family" defines family?

If this group defines family in such a way as to exclude what many Americans define as family, then we have a huge issue here.

If this group defines family in such a way as to exclude what many Americans define as family, then we have a huge issue here.

What's the huge issue? Free speech? Freedom of religion? Or simply a group that has views you personally disagree with?

Anyone know how greg defines family? - Because if he defines family in such a way as to exclude what many American define as family then we have a huge issue here.

So if the whole of Germany defined family as Pure German and no Jew, did the Jews have a huge issue that they needed to correct?

If someone knows that something is good in their heart, then no matter what their whole country says, that person needs to further that cause and perhaps die for that cause as well.

Just ask Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Just ask Oskar Schindler.(Germany) Just ask Ghandi.(India) Just ask George Washington (England)

They, like focus on the family, did not go along with the popular vote and opinion of their countries. In their hearts they knew what good truly was and they fought and died for it.

FOF coughed up $2.5 mil for the spot. CBS is in business to make a profit. If hundreds more groups wanted to buy a spot, the only consequence would be that the price would skyrocket and those with the deepest pockets would have the time. Welcome to America and the world of big business.

My problem is that the last thing I want while I'm having fun is to be reminded of the the problems of living in this world. I set aside moments like watching the Super Bowl to escape from the pressures of life for a while. I get so put off when my fun is interrupted for an important message from some activist. I believe activism is not only necessary, but a right. But so is taking a moment to enjoy life for your own physical and mental health. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their point of view, I am offended that they would interupt a moment when I have chosen for myself to enjoy my life. Because of their disrespect for me, I wouldn't listen to or respect anything they said. Next to telemarketers, I think people like that are the rudest people in the world.

Personally the issue is propriety, appropriayeness

This is NOT a political platform, it is a sports venue and by allowing it to be politicized CBS may find some teams, players not giving them the access that they would a non-partisan only presentation would garner.

Allowing this group to advertise this issue is an insult to their viewers

as opposed to promoting alcohol - where people get drunk and could possibly kill someone? So you are saying, Eriq, "celebrate family ( however you define it, they don't on the commercial), celebrate life" is wrong; but drink alcohol, get a buzz, maybe do something irresponsible is okay? What kind of thinking is that? This is a positive message, why the big deal?

cadwizard.... you have an excellent point!

This is supposed to be an escape, a day to relax and hang out with friends and family....

Tim Tebow is an outstanding football player with a compelling personal story to tell. And this is the Superbowl. Football players being interviewed often make statements of what they personally believe and how it motivated them. These run the gammut from those giving thanks to God to those who believe that a recently passed away relative watched the game. They speak to their personal experience and everyone watching can judge their sincereity as they please.

What does MoveOn.Org have to do with football? NOTHING!

It's just a game Kenn, but, I sense it must be the center of your universe. What if Tebow was a black player and he got on TV and said he really likes to screw white girls?

Why is this even an issue? The OP has even admitted that the Mormons are on the air all the time.

If CBS allows other religions, or any group for that matter, buy and advertise, then fine. Otherwise, CBS is simply opening the door for a string of lawsuits that could put them out of business.

CBS is a private business. They can do business with whomever they like.

If this group defines family in such a way as to exclude what many Americans define as family, then we have a huge issue here.

No you have your own issue. I don't give a crap how they define family. That's their business.

I set aside moments like watching the Super Bowl to escape from the pressures of life for a while. I get so put off when my fun is interrupted for an important message from some activist.

So if there is an ad to raise money for Haitian earthquake relief (and there probably will be) your attitude is "piss off, I'm watching the game?" If you're really going to be bothered by 30 seconds of commercial time that doesn't involve Brittany Spears, I bet you have a remote control.

Allowing this group to advertise this issue is an insult to their viewers

No it's not. You find it insulting because you don't agree with him, but there is no such thing as the "right to not be insulted". I don't agree with what he says either, but I defend his right to say it.

I love the what if's. If you don't like it pause the TV, leave the room, yell scream what ever blows your sail. Just quit telling me what I have to watch based on your anti-whatever views. Truth is someone out there dislikes whatever is playing at any given time. Are we ready to ban, all TV, publications, radio or blogs. I think not. So give it up and walk away.

NOW members are a bunch of screaming feminazis. How about their voice for the muslim women who must live through acid being thrown on their faces? Where are they in this matter, and where were they when the following women faced adversities that NOW should have defended.

NOW said not one word when David Letterman made crude remarks about Sarah Palins minor daughters. Whether you like her or not is one thing; but for him to make such filthy remarks about her underage daughters with A Rod is another. Never heard a word from you about that, NOW. Wonder if anyone would have had a problem with the remarks if they had been made about any liberals' minor daughters? You bet; and it would have been justified.

NOW never made a peep about Axelrod's unsolicited and unprovoked remarks about Carried Prejean. Whatever you think about her opinion, she was asked a question; she answered, and she didn't attack anyone. Certainly this wasn't a matter for Axelrod, Senior Presidential Advisor, to weigh in on. This was not a manly thing to do at all. He hasn't nothing better to do than this? It's absolutely disgusting, as is he:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRs1R3W06ho

According to McNeill, she finds it "Offensive" that Tebow would be allowed to speak and celebrate life - after doctors had recommended his mother abort him. I find it highly offensive that she is a proponent of, condones and supports the ripping apart of limbs on unborn infants, and feels it is her place to squelch the voices of those who think differently than she does. The same 1st amendment this hypocrite enjoys, and would raise h_ll were she not afforded this right, she wishes to take away from others.

The fact that it is a celebration of life and traditional family values, and not of the agenda (completely opposite) of her choice is what gets her. BTW, I am female

Fred..the fact that you have to ask that question tells us that #1 your not very well informed about these people and their "my God or NO God" agenda.OR #2 You would not believe the huge FACTUAL amount of negative propaganda they spew and all of the lies that they espouse and their hate filled skreeds so why even try to give you reality? They are the American Taliban! No If's Ands or but's!!!

I do not find standing up for the traditional family very controversial ...... Since when did standing up for what is considered normal, controversial? Wouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't gay marriage be controversial ? When the story is simply "look what can happen when you give life a chance" - what's the problem?

Just because they are trying to sound so innocent in this one instance, they cannot hide their real, larger agenda.

Does that make airing their commercial during the Super Bowl wrong, in your opinion? Simply because you disagree with their agenda?

Just because they are trying to sound so innocent in this one instance, they cannot hide their real, larger agenda.

What isthe larger agenda??? Don't all advocacy groups (no matter the cause) have an agenda. Are we now going to decide which agenda cannot be seen on TV?

I could understand if the story was about questionable video, (sex, porn, an advocation of murder)........but to tell the story of a woman who chose not to have an abortion and is glad/thankful she did not, is somehow wrong (??????)

I am sorry, I don't get that point.

replytoj001

Focus on the Family spent so much on Prop. 8 in California (opposition to gay marriage) that they had to lay people off. Check out the influence of FOF on the U.S. Air Force Academy (both located at Colorado Springs).

Focus on the Family spent so much on Prop. 8 in California (opposition to gay marriage) that they had to lay people off

And Pro-Prop 8 groups spent a large amount of money also......

I see this as a free speech issue.

If Focus on the Family was for Prop 8 and spent money to promote Prop 8 then fine, but they did not, they were against Prop 8 and spent their money as they saw fit.

If a Pro-Choice or Pro-Abortion group wants to promote their agenda, then buy the add time and make the point.

replytoj001

Yeah, Focus on the Family can't hide its real agenda......like promoting life (if Planned Parenthood had its way, Tim Tebow would have been aborted) and healthy and strong families. We can't have THAT!!!

Let Planned Parenthood put on their own feel good ad.

Chuck D: Mrs. Tebow was a missionary in the Philippines (sp) at the time of the "abortion recommendation". thus having nothing to do with Planned Parenthood.

Oh look, a man with an opinion on abortion. Yawn.

If it's about baby killing and not control then lets see where this discussion goes after all the white men walk away from the table. I don't even believe that the anti-choice inquisition really believes it's about saving lives. It is plainly about keeping women in the place where god intends them to be--subject to the demands of their keepers.

namesrtaken

That is such a lie

oh good grief, namesrtaken!

The first amendment states that the GOVERNMENT will not infringe one's freedom of speech. Last time I checked, CBS was not affiliated with the government, so the first amendment argument simply has no standing.

The problem here is that CBS has refused to air sociopolitical Superbowl ads in the past (particularly those from the far left). The issue is not whether or not THIS ad should be aired, but whether this ad should be treated differently from all other ads in the past.

glnhpli,

You and I seem to be two of the very few who get that this is not a freedom of speech issue. Thanks for your comments! I agree with all of your arguments against this ad. Now let's watch some football and save the preaching for church!

JM - you said it! Proselitizing is NOT what the Superbowl is about. Is Ms. Tebrow going to sing of her choice during the Halftime show?. Give me a break, please. As a mom of a wonderful boy (who by the way, believes herself to be a proponent of 'family', I personally revile those who would co-opt the concept for their own personal aggrandizement, the choice to have him was MINE AND MINE ALONE (with help from my husband, of course) My decision and Mrs. Tebrow's are hardly fodder a football game commercial. I am uninterested in the Tebrow's. I AM interested in the football. If this ill advised and poorly masked attempt at increasing revenues is allowed to go forward - I think executive heads are going to be dangling by tenuous connections.

I didn't want to see Janet Jackson steel plated nipple, I don't want to hear the Tebrow's intimate choice dissected on TV. , wash my hands, and return to the game AFTER these two are given a forum to discuss what NO ONE at MY superbowl party cares to hear. I guess it will be a run for the head, sink and kitchen for refills this year, ALL AT THE SAME TIME during the Tebrow silliness.

I took a poll of my guests numbering ~30 adults ages 18 and over. Results - not a single one has any interest in hearing OR seeing this santimonious bulls-it. Can we watch the game now?

Your tv has a MUTE button?

When you and your guests at your Super Bowl party pay for the air time, you get to hear what you please. Until then, you - as well as the rest of us - are restricted to whatever is provided as the half-time entertainment; or you can just mute the tv. Pretty simple.

namesrtaken:

What does anything have to do with "White men?" I am female, and believe that the only thing that bothers Terry O'Neill is that Planned Parenthood didn't beat Focus on the Family to that particular audience. There are a lot of commercials that will air that night; it is a huge audience. If the time is funded, the time is theirs.

Ars - some of my words were inadvertently deleted but I did say that during this 'commerical' we'd all get up and use the head, wash our hands, refill our glasses and plates and return to the game when the game returned to the screen. that's what I meant and is a way of 'muting' the preachfest which is 'paid advertising'. After all, the jury is in on how football fans feel about this. I don't really think we care - as long as the game is not preempted for the sermon. Sports fans are capricious about our games anyway. While I detest Mike Tyson - I DID enjoy watching him in the ring during his prime. An ignorant cannibal was nonetheless fun to watch though I never bet on him. Now, THAT would have been heresy indeed! Bring on the pigskin, please and stop with this dopey 'pro=family' chant? I am pro family, too. Only NOT on TV during the superbowl. But she paid, so I guess that gives her entree to blurt about whatever. Next year - will someone pay to discuss anal excretions which they feel are urgent to discuss during halftime? Why not since the time goes to the highest bidder, regardless of content? Sports has no scruples anyway - it's just blood lust.

What is disturbing to me is that I keep hearing about how this is a freedom of speech issue. If we were talking about whether or not the government had the right to stop CBS from airing the ad, then it would be a free speech issue. This particular discussion is not a free speech issue, it is an issue of taste. Does CBS want to break with a longtime tradition of keeping politics out of the Superbowl? The free speech clause determines that the government has no right to limit speech, not CBS. As a broadcaster, CBS can air whatever it chooses. It truly bothers me that most of my fellow Americans have such an uninformed concept of what our constitution has to say about what "Freedom of Speech" really means.

Even though I do agree with the message I wanted to thank you for your reply....this is the first truly sensible thing I've read.

Keav, I also don't agree with their message but I agree with your stance. You have a lot of common sense.

I don't watch the game anyway so I couldn't care less.

I agree with you all around, Keav: Couldn't disagree more with the message, hold the First Amendment too sacred to deny them the time . . .

Of course, I also think American football (gridiron) is a bore, so it's possible I don't have a horse in this race. :)

Yeah, but ManCrunch and the UCC also were going to pay for their ads and they weren't allowed to air - so that is NOT a valid point. If the Focus on the Family ad can air, so should those other PAYING ads.

Luv you!

Hear Hear!!

I see nothing wrong with airing it. There are a lot of spots advertising things I don't necessarily agree with or products I have no intention of using. I'd like to think that I have sense enough to see what's right & what's not & make my own choices in the matter.

My personal "un-favorite" is for the online dating service for married people wishing to have an affair... you know, "when divorce isn't an option".

If networks can air an ad promoting adultery, why on earth would anyone have a problem with them airing one promoting life?

Wow, Jim, could any of these "lefty socialist ACLU lovers" possibly be as narrow-minded, unfair and rude as you are? We all still have to live together in this world, but I guess you can make it hateful if you want to.

As I stated above, the first amendment has nothing to do with CBS's decision to air (or not to air) a commercial such as this. The first amendment protects our speech from GOVERNMENT interference; nowhere does it state that a corporation has to allow any ad it does not deem appropriate.

P.Wiggins..Yeah Right!...so was JonesTown at one time!

That's fine, if CBS did not have a history of refusing to air socio-polital ads it did not like during the superbowl.

because Lacy made the CHOICE to carry her baby to term. she weighed the pros and cons of her situation and made her CHOICE to have her baby. he committed 2 murders. she didn't seek a legal procedure. she didn't CHOOSE abortion.

To4ever...that's a slippery slope.

If a baby is wanted by the mother and it's killed, it's murder. If a baby is unwanted by its mother and it's killed, it's an "abortion".

You can choose to call it a "legal procedure" vs. "murder", but it's either morally justified to kill a living being inside its mother, or it's not. That's where the debate comes in, and what gets people on both sides of the issue so emotional. Abortion may be a legal procedure, but that doesn't make it morally right, at least for those who are against it.

Yes, it really is mostly a question of whether the fetus is a person from conception, or only becomes a person at some other less well defined point. I remember there was one philosopher that defined it as the point of becoming self-aware, which has the consequence that he has to admit that even infants might not be persons.

There is one other problem for the pro-life position, even if we all admit that the fetus is a person from conception. We probably accept that we all have the right to remove a parasite from our bodies (like bacteria, or ringworm), right? What if the parasite is a person? Biologically speaking, the fetus can be considered to be acting like a parasite on the mother.

I am hopeful that as a society, we can recognize that the right of a person to life trumps the right of a person to remove a parasite from their bodies. Otherwise, we promote the idea that under some circumstances, a human being has the right to terminate the life of another. The only reasonable circumstance should be an imminent threat to another life. That is why a consistent pro-life position includes a rejection of the death penalty and euthanasia.

Please don't assume all pro-lifers are backward thinking sexists. As far as I can tell, most pro-lifers have a very consistent vision for a culture that respects life from conception to natural death.

As far as this commercial, I don't think it is a big deal. I tend to be morally conservative, but I don't let liberal biases in media get to me. So anyways, go Saints!

We probably accept that we all have the right to remove a parasite from our bodies (like bacteria, or ringworm), right? What if the parasite is a person? Biologically speaking, the fetus can be considered to be acting like a parasite on the mother.

C'mon.

The rest of your post is actually quite good. This, however....parasite? Really?

Except for the fact that no matter how long you work on it, a tapeworm never becomes human.

Why?

A man cannot have an opinion? Or is the "as a man you will never get pregnant" position...???

Wait, wasn't the "pregnant man" on Oprah?

replytoj001

If its gonna be decided whether a person pays child support or not, the decision should be both persons responsibility.

If a couple buys a house and one person is a homemaker and the other works outside the home, it doesn't make the house the homemakers because they spend more time in the home.

This whole abortion/anti-abortion should of stayed out of government control and left the decision the the persons involved.

Hey look at it this way.......a child is a cash machine and a tax write-off!

Disagree? Prove it!

My only exception to abortion is Proven rape or incest.

All others are defined as oopsy babies, pay the piper and stop using the taxpayers money to raise your children!

@Jeff, why am I NOT surprised that you're an anti-choice man who also rails on children who are on welfare? Gross.

As a survivor of rape, this ad could cause flashbacks for me. I will not be watching the superbowl.

As a survivor of rape, this ad could cause flashbacks for me. I will not be watching the superbowl

I'm sorry you had to go through such a terrible ordeal. No woman should ever have to experience that.

But you do realize this ad has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with rape? It's about the choice a woman made to go through with a high-risk pregnancy against the advice of a doctor who suggested she terminate it.

Unfortunately, the way abortions are performed today, there are no paternity tests and no questions asked for underage girls who are taken in for abortions to determine who the rapist or incestuous perpetrator is so young girls can be protected and not sent back into that environment.

Is it really worse to have an innocent baby (who thousands of couples would be willing to adopt) and have the crime discovered so the perpetrator can be prosecuted and the girl removed from a dangerous situation? OR Is it really better to abort the baby and send the young girl home to the same situation to be further raped and abused no questions asked? Who is really being protected?

There is an unfortunate statistic that is related to this - up to 80% of all female prostitutes were victims of incest. As advocates for women's rights, we should make it as difficult as possible for these types of situations to occur. The current abortion policies only foster these situations and help to keep them hidden and perpetuate some men's insensitivity and disrespect to women and children.

Erosion of beaches and rights is a slow process.......you are right

They control, manage, regulate a little here and then a little there....then the two merge, and a right is controlled, managed, and regulated......only one day we wake up and go, "wha?????"

replytoj001

That would be a valid opinion IF other "controversial" ads such as those from MoveOn and United Church of Christ weren't denied in the VERY recent past to run during the Superbowl. I would have had absolutely no problem with this ad running, except for the fact that I tossed MoveOn $20 to get their Superbowl ad run and it got denied. At the time I posted on this very site complaining about it and the denial of freedom of speech, and people like you had fun all day telling me that it's a business and freedom of speech doesn't apply. So stop your bitching about our bitching.