Tim Tebow's Super Bowl Ad

2/7/2010

Someone asked me the other day what my opinion is about Tim Tebow's upcoming Super Bowl ad. Here's my two cents worth:

1. I whole-heartedly support Tebow's right to say whatever he wants on national television. It's a free country last time I checked; live and let live. However, lest I be misunderstood on this issue, I should note that the necessary corollary to this position is that Mancrunch.com (the gay dating site that also applied) should've been allowed to purchase TV time as well. Fair is fair. Be careful what you ask for my conservative friends; you just might get it.

2. My personal preference is that "positions-based" advertising (from either side) not be aired during the Super Bowl. It's an American past-time for crying out loud. Must we use it as an opportunity to inflame those who disagree with us?

3. While I appreciate (and agree with) some Christians' desire to eliminate/minimize abortion, I'm not sure that this is/was the best way to accomplish that. I could be wrong, but I have a hard time believing that a highly controversial 30-second spot is going to suddenly cause 100's of women across America to call and cancel their appointments at their local abortion clinics. Why not take the obscenely large amount of money that's being spent on this, and put it towards something that we know reduces the chances of an abortion happening? May I suggest Option Ultrasound or your local crisis pregnancy care center instead?

4. Christians standing up for their "rights" in the public arena seems, to me, to be counter-intuitive to the message of Christ. Isn't that the whole point of Christianity, that we give up our rights? Why can't we Christians work on "changing America" one person and one heart at a time? It might just work better than the top-down approach that seems to be turning people away.

9 Comments

Adrian

2/7/2010 07:18:32 am

If this commercial helps one woman not have an abortion it will be worth it to the few that gave Focus on the Family the money. I am not sure the ad even says abortion in it, so I think it is more of a pro-family ad than pro-life.

As for MANCRUNCH.com, they were doing it as a joke knowing that 2 guys with their tongues down each other throats would get denied! They would of put the money up and I am surprised CBS didn't accept it!

Matt Raithel

2/7/2010 11:59:48 pm

I think the top-down approach can be very effective, but it should not be the only way. You're right: people are to be reached on a personal one-to-one basis.

on point #2: it's more than a game. it's the best time each year to reach the most people in the world at the same time.

2/8/2010 12:00:23 am

after all of the hoopla, I missed the ad! when did it air?

Boyd Allen

2/8/2010 12:20:33 am

Adrian, true, any amount of money is well spent if it saves one life. But my question is this: is it money well spent if it could've saved MORE lives when spent another way (Option Ultrasound, etc.)? It seems to me that the right thing to do would be to spend it in the ways that make the biggest difference.

2/8/2010 12:27:12 am

Matt, is the top-down approach really that effective if it just polarizes both sides against each other? In that case it's not changing any minds; it's just making both sides more passionate about what they ALREADY believed before we started!

Wouldn't the money be better spent on grass-roots, in-the-trench efforts that actually deal personally with the women one-on-one (where the life-and-death decisions are ACTUALLY made)?

You are right; it is more than a game; it IS the best time to reach the most people...which is exactly why everyone's so bent out of shape about it. But like I said, I'm not convinced it's changing minds as much as it is inflaming people that already hate Christianity and what it stands for.

Also, the ad was way early...maybe even before kick-off, not sure.

CLJ

2/8/2010 01:36:04 am

There was nothing inappropriate with Tim Tebow's ad, but time I checked gay marriage is still outlawed in most states. The majority of the people voted that Tebow's ad should be allowed, but please don't blur the lines it was two gay guys kissing!! I have no problem with gays doing whatever they do (in private) its America it is a free nation, but America was also founded on family values!! Its a slap in the face to see some freakin morally demented gay kissing scene during the superbowl, that might be why it didn't air...idk..lol Im sure there are alot of parents that would have just loved there 5 yr old kids to see two gay guys making out while watching the superbowl!! As far as your point about the money being better spent elsewhere, I wont disagree...idk but to say that a Focus on the Family ad should be banned along with one from "Mancrunch.com"?!!

2/8/2010 05:08:45 am

The problem with the word "inappropriate" is that it means different things for different people. Clearly the majority of Americans (myself included) agree with your assessment of Mancrunch.com's proposed ad as "inappropriate". However, is "majority rules" REALLY the official criteria that you want CBS using to determine whether they're going to run an ad or not?

The majority will not ALWAYS agree with me. I like to be careful what weapons I wield; chances are they'll be used against me at some point.

As to the "slap in the face" comment, I don't disagree; however, Jesus' response to that exact scenario was something along the lines of "turning the other cheek" I believe.

Are we honestly so paranoid that we believe that our children briefly seeing two dudes kissing is going to permanently corrupt their morals? If nothing else, it would've given families all across the nation a very good opportunity to talk about homosexuality and what they believe about it.

I'm not saying that I wish Mancruch.com's ad would've run; I'm simply saying that fair is fair (whether I happen to like it or not).

Lastly, I DIDN'T say that Focus on the Family's ad should have been banned. In fact, I provided a link to one of Focus' programs that I happen to agree with (Option Ultrasound). If you read closely, I said that my personal PREFERENCE is that neither side airs it's inflammatory stuff during the Super Bowl.

Weston

2/8/2010 06:24:02 am

My problem with this whole hoopla is that no one knew what the ad was actually going to say/be about specifically. But since it was FOF doing it and everyone knows Tebow's story, they assumed it was a big anti-abortion ad. And anything FOF does (according to some groups, PP, NOW, etc.) is bad and protest against it. PP even did a big video protest of it! Not even knowing what it was all about! So I guess my problem was the reaction from some groups.

CBS had every right to accept or deny anything they want. And however they make that decision, I don't care. But PR wise I think it behooved them not to accept the mancrunch.com ad. Besides the Tebow ad at least had a football connection.

I agree with Boyd, my PREFERENCE would be that neither side use the SB for stuff like both of these ads. Lets stay with beer, chips, pizza and softdrink commercials!!

The ad that's actually getting the most reaction is the Audi "Green Police" ad. I thought it was funny and kinda creepy too..

2/8/2010 10:26:28 am

Boyd, I do agree that Option Ultrasound or feminists for life may be a more productive option.
I don't think the tebow commercial was even really about pro-life but more of a fun football one with the tackling of his momma. Did they play both commercials or just the one where he said I love u mom?

Tim Tebow's Super Bowl Ad

Leave a Reply.

Boyd Allen

Categories

Archives