Well, we're at the beginning of February, but, have you implemented any of Mitch Albom's "Rules for 2010" from an earlier Post? FaceBook hasn't disappeared yet...hmmm. And, someone told me, "Stop playing Guitar Hero? Are you crazy? No, I can't play real guitar - that's why I play Guitar Hero! D'uh!" Ok...that makes sense - I think.
Now, for a little irony. It seems there's quite an uproar over CBS running an "advocacy ad" for a pro-life organization. Yet, some of the op-ed pieces I've read in the paper voice no objection over ads PROmoting alcohol consumption and for "dysfunctions," if you get my drift. I can imagine a family gathered around the TV, munching on chicken wings and drinking beverages when one of those latter ads appears during a commercial break. Interesting...
Should CBS pull the advocacy ads? Why or why not? Please be specific.
13 comments:
It really doesn't matter to me I don't want to watch a sad commercial during a happy event, that and I really don't want to think about it either.
There's no reason to oppose advocacy ads. The problem would arise if the ones with tons of money to pay for the ads were the only ones to gain access to the airwaves, and thereby access to millions of livingrooms. After all, the airwaves still belong to the people, don't they? Isn't that what vox populi (the voice of the people) is all about?
As the debate has unfolded prior to today's Super Bowl, I did read that the opportunity to air the opposing view didn't materialize. Yet, the critics failed to note this opportunity. I didn't realize "NOW" was pinching pennies, the loudest critic of all.
CF
Cobra-jet said: "I didn't realize "NOW" was pinching pennies, the loudest critic of all."
I guess NOW (National Organization for Women) doesn't have the money that some other folks, supported by multi-million-dollar foundations and powerful church interest groups, have. Is there really something shameful about being poor?
There's nothing shameful about being poor. I would guess that NOW, though, isn't poor, but, rather embarrassed that it couldn't counter the "advocacy" ad promoting pro-life with any argument substantive to show its "choice," pro-abortion. It is about 'choice". Hence, the "pro-choice" advocacy. sounds like a healthy debate to me, but to claim Tim Tebow's message was to invite 'violence against women' is simply ridiculous - how about, 'violence against the unborn'? Is that side of the debate ever discussed?
"Tim Tebow's message was to invite 'violence against women' is simply ridiculous - how about, 'violence against the unborn'? Is that side of the debate ever discussed?"
How about a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body? There are women who do not agree with those that oppose abortion. One's religion is one's own business, and the state has no say in that. But the state does have the right, and obligation, to protect those whose religion, or lack thereof, has no problem with the issue of abortion. The same religious people who are so concerned with the rights of the unborn don't seem to have such deep feelings about those who are already born.
Sorry, I misquoted Cobra-jet. I should have quoted his words as follows: "...but to claim," and so forth.
Why do I get the impression that with religion behind, allegedly, one's argument that somehow religion weakens the argument for, let's say, pro-life? That pro-life cannot provide empirical evidence that a "life" is taken with abortion? Hardly...and, since when does a government agency, the Supreme Court which paved the way for the Roe v wade amendment, declare "a woman has a right to end the life of her unborn or to bring that life to fruition nine months later? and, to what do you reference when you state "those who are so concerned ... the unborn don't seem to have ... already born"? That somehow we shunt aside those who live and breathe because of a choice already made by one's mother? What???
I'm a little baffled by Cobra-Jet's comment. There is a reference to the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade, which Cobra-Jet says, "paved the way for the Roe v wade amendment." Strange. I don't recall any such amendment to the Constitution. I only remember the Court's decision.
Oh, and about religious freedom. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. You see, there are many religious viewpoints, and there are even some who have no religion at all. Why should they be forced to adhere to a concept of abortion which only some religious groups adhere to? Get my meaning?
Oh, and about people who seem to be more concerned about the unborn than about the already born. Who screams loudest about so-called welfare cheats? Who is most opposed to health care reform for all? Who is crazy about shipping "illegal immigrants" (otherwise known as undocumented workers) back to where they came from? In short, what religious groups do more to deprive the born of any human consideration, and weep salty tears about the arguable rights of the unborn? Who? Who?
And what would Rabbi Yeshua ha-Mashiach - aka Jesus the Christ, say about all this?
Valid points, Allan. But, are we certain that those who support pro-life are religiously bound? Does one blindly follow a religious "ruling"? Hardly. If empirical evidence shows "life begins at conception," that's hardly because of religion, I would think. Where I come from, my religion does support the marginalized...if "welfare cheats" are relegated to the "trash heap," it isn't the children we criticize...only those parents who don't support their children in a meaningful and constructive way...as a parent and former social worker, I know the plight of the poor and marginalized...what has this argument have anything to do with bringing more children into the world? all children are made in the image of Our Lord Jesus Christ...too bad their parents don't realize the gifts they have been granted by God - their offspring. We never punish the children...there are social services to deal with all children...but, there's always room for one more! What if Jesus Christ had been prevented from being brought into this world?
"...as a parent and former social worker, I know the plight of the poor and marginalized...what has this argument have anything to do with bringing more children into the world?"
Sorry to paint all people who oppose abortion on religious grounds with such a broad brush. But my experience has been that people who call a tiny cluster of living cells, known to science as an embryo, a baby, seem often to be the very same ones who love to tote guns, call our President all kinds of vile and disgusting names, and dislike minority groups in general. In other words, they love the unborn, but those who are already born....well, they pick and choose between them.
I often wonder what would Jesus say, what would Jesus, the meek and loving, do about all this?
Nicholas D. Kristof, the columnist for the New York Times, said it very well in today's Times. He mentions Richard Stearns, writing in his fascinating book, “The Hole in Our Gospel:”
"The American view of evangelicals is still shaped by preening television blowhards and hypocrites who seem obsessed with gays and fetuses. One study cited in the book found that even among churchgoers ages 16 to 29, the descriptions most associated with Christianity were “antihomosexual,” “judgmental,” “too involved in politics,” and “hypocritical.”
Post a Comment