We read:
"Whether it was his unorthodox play, outspoken religious views or likable underdog personality, Tim Tebow attracted unprecedented attention to his every move this season, becoming a sports and pop culture phenomenon. Unfortunately for Tebow fans, the ride came to an end Saturday night with a crushing loss to the New England Patriots.
Those watching the game from home may have noticed an advertisement during the second quarter of the broadcast from Focus On The Family, that did not exactly fall in line with the usual beer and Taco Bell commercials aired inbetween game breaks.
The ad featured children reciting John 3:16, which happens to be Tim Tebow’s favorite bible verse, followed by directions on how to donate $5 via text to the Evangelical Christian non-profit organization.
The Post reports that last year Fox Sports rejected a John 3:16-themed spot for the Super Bowl, stating it “does not accept from religious organizations for the purpose of advancing particular beliefs or practices.”
The Colorado Springs based nonprofit expects that they may hear criticism from Saturday’s ad, but say it’s worth it.
“We will hear about shoving religion down people’s throats,” Schneeberger told the Post. “But if it‘s OK to shove Doritos down people’s throats, and cars and everything else, we have the right to advertise, too.”
Source
22 comments:
"we (Focus on the Family) have the right to advertise, too."
Hmmm... What product are they actually trying to sell? Maybe they should do an infomercial, just like all of the other snake oil salesmen out there. Focus would fit in rather nicely.
BTW, Focus on you own damn family!
If the insatiably greedy TV networks are willing to sell airtime for one message, then they must do the same for all messages, especially since they are using "the publics airwaves" (LOL) to make limitless amounts of money while paying only pennys on the dollar for the opportunity.
"TV networks ... make limitless amounts of money "
What the hell are you, anti-business? Anon2:36=RINO
Anon 2:35, what's your beef with Focus on the family? You sound like a typical liberal, "I support free speech as long as I agree with it". If you don't like it, don't listen to it, its as simple as that.
Tim Tebow is the best. There seems to be a lot of jealousy of him.
Tim Tebow is the best. There seems to be a lot of jealousy of him.
" If you don't like it, don't listen to it, its as simple as that"
I agree. And... I you don't like abortion, then don't have one.
What if an Islamic group wanted to advertise the opening of a new Web site to promote Islamic issues? What if the imagery included the sounds of Islamic prayer and images of Muslims praying? Would you allow or deny them advertising?
As an outsider, let me tell you that as regards "US-land" the rest of the world (whether religiously orientated or not) considers that the USA has become a quasi-theocratic state because so much emphasis is given to the candidates' religious beliefs in public broadcasting.
So it's hardly better than Iran or Israel in the irrelevant religiousity!
2:35 Typical liberal 'I don't like what you say so shut up' If you don't like the message, ignore it.
4:48: There are those here in the U.S. that would agree with you - I'm one. Why can't people focus on a candidates qualifications and political philosophy rather than their religious beliefs?
Why can't people focus on a candidates qualifications and political philosophy rather than their religious beliefs?
Because religious beliefs (actually, a worldview) drives their political philosophy.
For example, a person who views every human being as being made in the image of God, and thus inherently valuable and possessing "certain inalienable rights" is going to make very different decisions than someone who views individual humans as nothing more than a fancy animal with no inherent value.
BTW, there are very good arguments against making the U.S. a theocracy. For example, James Madison (a Christian, specifically, Episcopalian) made this compelling argument against tying church and state together.
I have to wonder what is meant by a "quasi-theocratic state". The men who set up our Federal Government were far more religious than our government is today, yet they specifically set it up to avoid a theocracy. So what exactly is the complaint here?
Use the Name: I have no complaint about avoiding a theocracy. In fact a theocracy, even a quasi-theocracy, is the last thing we need.
"In fact a theocracy, even a quasi-theocracy, is the last thing we need."
Then, why do you guys complain about prayer in schools, War on Christmas, etc.? I am curious about that.
Focus on the Family is a conservative group that pishes for the traditional america family its a good group unlike the ACLU and NAMBLA
Anon 3:47
"Then, why do you guys complain about prayer in schools, War on Christmas, etc.? I am curious about that.
When have you heard me complain about that?
As far as I know individuals may pray in school. Schools (or our government) may not require or forbid individual prayer.
War on Christmas? Isn't it rather a war about who may celebrate Christmas and where they may do so? Again, our government may not require a particular religious observance, and at the same time may not forbid one. If a public employee wishes to decorate his/her office, there is no problem. If a government official requires or forbids that, then there is a problem.
You have the right to free speech but you do not have the right to force someone to broadcast it.
Dean,
What do you mean by "a quasi-theocracy"?
So why are there religious mottos on state insignia and currency (referring to belief in "God"). Be honest Luke, you'd love it if US laws coincided with all your religious prejudices, and enforced them too! eg. criminalize any abortions: no same-sex marriage: criminalize homosexual behavior, etc., etc.
Another bit of quasi-theocratic evidence:
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.
In its original form it read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Be honest Luke, you'd love it if US laws coincided with all your religious prejudices, and enforced them too! eg. criminalize any abortions: no same-sex marriage: criminalize homosexual behavior, etc., etc.
So would you suggest overturning laws against rape and murder? The also "coincide with my 'religious preferences'".
If Scientology can buy TV time so can crispys.
But I still agree with Anon2:35- if they are that concerned about morality then perhaps they should be more worried about what THEIR OWN families are doing/watching/listening to than what MY family is doing/watching/listening to. Because the odds are (strictly mathematically speaking, based on marketing data) that the majority of people out there don't agree with their specific interpretation of moral or upright behavior. I mean the reason there isn't a pack of fundys called the "Moral Majority" any more is that if the majority actually agreed with them on some of their core issues (especially re:published content on TV, music, literature, and on the 'net) then the providers of said "objectionable" content would have gone broke when their offended audience tuned out....
Post a Comment