This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Quarterback sneak

Quarterback sneak - Comments

popeye's Avatar Comment 1 by popeye

The worst part is that there were some Super Bowl ads that were rejected that I think were less controversial than this.

I am upset by this, however, I am going to reserve complete judgement until after I see the ad since they have claimed it is not as bad as people are making it out to be. Either way, I do not think the add will change the mind of anyone.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:18:00 UTC | #438148

sdando's Avatar Comment 2 by sdando

But they also rejected an add by a gay online dating service because it featured two men kissing.

I probably won't be watching anyway because I hate how much resources we spend on sports in the US and the Super Bowl is the height of that decadent wastefulness.

Tim Tebow though seems to be the worst sort of brainwashed/repressed evangelical Christian. Too bad he gets a bully pulpit just because he can run and throw a football.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:29:00 UTC | #438151

Rikitiki13's Avatar Comment 3 by Rikitiki13

So, is this a case where Focus on the Family (if tax-exept) can be taxed now, since this advert and especially the money paid for it cross over the seperation-of-church-and-state boundary£

Could such a case be made£ Might be a good way of exposing (again!) religions' tampering where they shouldn't and their ubiquitous attempts at control.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:29:00 UTC | #438152

Darrell E's Avatar Comment 4 by Darrell E

I agree with R. Elisabeth Cornwell. I am sure that the ad will be disgusting. And I would encourage anyone who feels like it to tell CBS how they feel about the ad. But, talking about whether or not CBS should be "allowed" to air the ad is ridiculous. If you pick and choose which instances of expression to apply free speech rules to, then that ain't free speech.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:34:00 UTC | #438155

sbooder's Avatar Comment 5 by sbooder

It is the start of the Six Nations Rugby here in the UK on Saturday. Unlike the Super bowl, it is on the BBC, which you in the US, may or may not know, is free from adverts (commercials).

It is such a pleasure to watch free from interruptions.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:38:00 UTC | #438156

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 6 by hungarianelephant

sbooder - But on the downside, you will have to listen to Jonathan Davies whining about something and Jeremy Guscott reminding everyone that he knows how to play at inside centre. I'll take RTE, ads and all, thanks.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:51:00 UTC | #438159

bluebird's Avatar Comment 7 by bluebird

Reps from NOW & FOF briefly discussed this on LKL recently:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/02/02/lkl.gay.ad.cnn

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:54:00 UTC | #438160

Godless Sodomite's Avatar Comment 8 by Godless Sodomite

The plot thickens (as plots are wont to do):

It isn't just a matter of CBS accepting ad money from a religious hate group. We now learn that CBS worked with Focus on the Family for months to write and develop the commercial. The involvement of CBS indicates that they not only approve of groups airing ads that advocate for a certain social or political position, they are themselves engaged in the advocacy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-02/the-making-of-cbss-pro-life-ad/full/

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:03:00 UTC | #438162

Mitch Kahle's Avatar Comment 9 by Mitch Kahle

Tebow was a victim of religious brainwashing from an early age, so I suppose we can't really blame him. Although he should be able to think for himself after 4 years of college.

My question for Focus on the Family: what about the millions of abortions performed by God?

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:05:00 UTC | #438163

Alkal's Avatar Comment 10 by Alkal

Tim Tebow as a poster-child for a pro-life pitch is the same as Adolf Hitler for a pro-choice pitch. Both arguments are equally specious.

The irony is that the ad celebrates the CHOICE Pam Tebow made in keeping her fetus (giving birth is a choice)- even while working to deny other women the CHOICE to do so. Surely the religious are very very simple minded.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:09:00 UTC | #438164

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 11 by prettygoodformonkeys

3. Comment #457729 by Rikitiki13

I agree that FOTF should be taxed, like all religious organizations should be, but I'm not sure how they've eroded the barrier between church and state, any more than any other church.

It might (technically) be easier to make the case that atheism should be tax-free also, since it comments on the same issues, and is also ontologically based (?).

Not sure what the government definition of a non-taxable religion is.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:29:00 UTC | #438168

popeye's Avatar Comment 12 by popeye

sdando said:
Tim Tebow though seems to be the worst sort of brainwashed/repressed evangelical Christian. Too bad he gets a bully pulpit just because he can run and throw a football.

Just to be clear he actually isn't that good at throwing the football.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:30:00 UTC | #438169

champloo007's Avatar Comment 13 by champloo007

As much as I may detest this ad, for I am pro-choice. I must say that if they have the money to buy the spot then they should be able to air whatever they want as long as it is within the guidelines that everything else has to follow. I will however say that they could be using all of this money to help people in Haiti or others who are far less fortunate then a few cells being destroyed.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:34:00 UTC | #438170

sdando's Avatar Comment 14 by sdando

Popeye:

I said he could throw a football. I never said he did it well.

I still don't get why playing sports makes one a role model or hero worth listening to.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:36:00 UTC | #438171

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 15 by Border Collie

At ten thousand dollars per second, maybe they would do better feeding orphaned Hatian children or other hungry children here in the US. I wonder how many children and for how long they could feed with two or three million dollars? But, this is America, the biggest money wasting country on the planet. Typical narcissistic behavior of such groups.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:41:00 UTC | #438173

But God's Avatar Comment 16 by But God

Another article here but it comes to a different conclusion and not it's not written by a Christian.

Tebow's Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:45:00 UTC | #438176

Inside centre's Avatar Comment 17 by Inside centre

I'm just surprised they didn't get Kurt Warner to do it. He mentions god rather a lot and rather unnecessarily. But as I have no idea of his stance on this maybe he's pro-choice.

Agree with the author and with other posters here. We can't be hypocrites about freedom of speech in this regard. Painful as that may be.

(As an aside, hungarianelephant I also know how to play inside centre, but not as well as Jerry)

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:54:00 UTC | #438178

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 19 by mordacious1

For those saying that the ad should be allowed due to free speech, the problem arises that it isn't free speech because other groups with the money for an ad are not allowed to run their ad. I saw the gay dating-site commercial and there wasn't anything offensive about it.

Also, if one hate group (and this anti-gay bunch can be classified as that) can run their ad, why not the KKK? As long as they don't say anything outrageous, it shouldn't be a problem. Maybe "KKK might be your way...join now". This hate group is being given preferential treatment.

One more thing, it's been discussed in the media that Mrs. Tebow is making up this story. She was in the Philippines when she gave birth and it was against the law for a doctor to advise her to have an abortion. More facts have to come out on that, but it could be a case of "lying for jebus".

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:56:00 UTC | #438180

stanleygarden's Avatar Comment 18 by stanleygarden

Well, unsurprisingly pro-lifers are trying to use this transparently obvious piece of casuistry in hopes of winning over the sympathy of the feeble-mided. What they don’t realize - or perhaps do but decide to ignore knowing that most people are gullable and easily impressionable and therefore likely to take the bait - is that the same sophistry can be used against a pro-life position. Hitler, BTK and Osama Bin Laden could be as well concieved as products of a decision against abortion…there.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:56:00 UTC | #438179

Squigit's Avatar Comment 20 by Squigit

We should hit back with an equally dihonest and disgusting add featuring a pro-life mother about to abort a fully grown and mature Hitler, but is then persuaded by either a priest/preacher to not abort OR, even worse, the Tim Tebow add.

What utter stupidity. What utter ridiculousness that people are persuaded by such non-arguments.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:00:00 UTC | #438181

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 21 by Cartomancer

There are two problems here. First, whether moral issues should be fair game for advertising, and secondly (and not mentioned in the article) the hypocrisy, double-standards and heavy-handed agenda-furthering of CBS themselves.

It has not been mentioned yet how, six years ago, CBS rejected a pro-LGBT ad from a liberal religious group - entirely on ideological lines.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/29/protests-over-super-bowl-ads-for-anti-gay-christian-group/

One might object that a corporation is perfectly entitled to display partisan bias in its output - newspapers show editorial bias all the time for instance. But surely there is something a little sinister about massively wealthy companies with obvious political and social agendas vying with their millions of dollars to use one-off popular spectacles as a way for their side to get a virtual monopoly on the argument?

Surely all this does is elevate the role of wealth in influencing the public debate, which cannot but be a huge step in the wrong direction?

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:18:00 UTC | #438186

glenister_m's Avatar Comment 22 by glenister_m

If CBS will allow anyone who can afford an ad to place one (assuming it meets acceptable guidlines), then I don't have an issue with it.

However we had a problem with television ads in British Columbia a few years back. MacMillan Blodel, the main (clearcut) logging company was running some 'Forests Forever' ads on tv claiming that they were using sustainable practices. Several environmental groups tried to run ads to counter MacBlo's campaign, essentially saying that MacBlo was lying, but all were denied by the network for vague reasons (probably one of which was that MacBlo employed a lot of people and the networks didn't want to make waves).

In essence, just because you can afford a tv spot, doesn't mean that they will air it, and you don't have much in the way of legal recourse if they won't.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:23:00 UTC | #438188

Diocletian's Avatar Comment 23 by Diocletian

This is not as much a 'free speech' issue, because FOF is paying $83,000 per second to run this ad. CBS can reject ads as well, such as the PETA ad with the women making sexual gestures with vegetables... Not to defend CBS, but they do have stock holders and they are responsible for making a profit. For better or worse, we live with the issues surrounding a 'free-market' (please let's get NOT get off course on what is a 'free-market' economy). Free speech allows for individuals to express their views, which is why the KKK still hold rallies, Holocaust deniers continue to ramble on incoherently, and preachers will promise heavenly rewards. We have a right to share our ignorance with anyone who will listen.

However, publishers do not have to publish books, newspapers aren’t required to print opinion pieces, and media corporations are within their right to lean toward their political views.... We, as the consumer, have the right buy their services or not.

It is pretty simple in the end.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:33:00 UTC | #438191

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 24 by Dr. Strangegod

Sounds like a great time for a piss break to me. GO COLTS!

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:42:00 UTC | #438195

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 25 by alaskansee

Carto

I agree, freedom of speech goes out the window when CBS and money are the standard.

I do however get the strong impression, from my vantage point above the US, that the citizens think that it is democracy.

Loud often passes for right and the will of the majority for justice, bring out the lynch mob.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:47:00 UTC | #438196

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 26 by crookedshoes

At the risk of sounding somehow crazed, I could not care less about an advert on the tv....especially some dope who throws a ball! I see your concerns and I too think it stinks that a gay ad is censored... etc....
The thing is, you are not going to find a group of thicker heads than those watching the superbowl. You also will not get a group of thicker heads than those running the television station hosting the superbowl. Want to show your disdain???? TURN IT OFF. They might actually get that message.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:49:00 UTC | #438198

sbooder's Avatar Comment 27 by sbooder

sbooder - But on the downside, you will have to listen to Jonathan Davies whining about something and Jeremy Guscott reminding everyone that he knows how to play at inside centre. I'll take RTE, ads and all, thanks.



I will do the old trick I always do for the cricket. Turn down the TV and listen to the radio commentary.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:53:00 UTC | #438203

Diocletian's Avatar Comment 28 by Diocletian

alaskansee

I hate to burst your bubble about your view of Americans, but honestly we don't confuse advertisement with freedom of speech or vice versa. In fact, the issue of freedom of speech is so ingrained in our psyche that we re-evaluate and question its meaning on a fairly regular basis (it is the bread and butter of Constitutional lawyers - thank goodness). Advertising is an entirely different animal, and we study that too... in depth. Now if you want to fault us not letting a little thing like being offensive get in the way of free speech... you have us on that one.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:08:00 UTC | #438208

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 29 by Mr DArcy

Who wants an abortion? No-one. It's not like one of life's ultimate temptations is it? No-one WANTS an abortion, but sometimes they are necessary. It seems the quarterback's mother made the right decision not to abort him. So bloody what?

IMO the biggest abortion is American TV, where you can't watch anything without being bombarded by ads of all kinds. In the so-called free market, we have the freedom to turn off, which I do very often. British TV is not much better but we do have 2 channels that run without ads, except for the upcoming programmes, paid for by the TV licence payer, £142.50 pa.

I can well understand why football, (soccer) has not been well received by American broadcasters. The game consists of a 90 minute game divided into 2 halves and possibly extra time and if still a draw, penalties. 45 minutes without ads? Whooaah, that's asking too much of the likes of CBS!

I expect CBS to pay much more attention to the World Series than the World Cup. Baseball is just so much more amenable to being interrupted than football.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:40:00 UTC | #438220

jcob82's Avatar Comment 30 by jcob82

Border Collie,

I agree with you the money could be better spent on children who are actually alive. George Carlin said it best however. "When your pre-born you're fine but when you're pre-school you're fucked." The christians don't care about children until it is time to fill the church coffers with money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w15OS2PdCKo

edited to add link to George Carlin clip

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:09:00 UTC | #438232