It's interesting that they don't want to show two guys kissing for thirty seconds, but they're more than willing to show 22 guys beating the living stuffing out of each other for 4 hours.  Something definitely wrong with the priorities there, imo.  And it's fascinationg how the ads became more important than the game they're allegedly sponsoring.  I say any advertising agent that can come up with that amount of cash should be able to show their stuff, and the network shouldn't be trying to judge what is or isn't worthy to be seen.  Show 'em all.  Otherwise it seems to smack of censorship.

Ahhh ... America!   It is a different culture.

i'm not sure why abc says on one hand that they aren't going to run ads that promote some kind of controversy, and then on the other hand run an ad put forth by focus on the family!!

that makes no sense whatsoever!!

I went to the website and watched their commercial out of curiosity... it was intended to be a funny ad, but I didn't find it particularly funny... they don't really show "kissing" per se, so its not like it violates the viewing code... I think they planned it like this and it is genious in a way: submit the 2.5 million dollar ad, have it rejected (not all ads are accepted when there is limited space to begin with), then claim that they are discriminating against gays, thus causing people to view the ad themselves at the website, thus getting tons of free publicity without having to pay the 2.5 million dollars.

As for the Tebow ad from Focus on the Family, I haven't seen the ad so I can't comment on its appropriateness, but from what I understand, they are giving their opinion and saying how his mother gave him a chance at life... they are entitled to their views, and I am not sure that they are forcing their views on people... it would be different if they were showing graphic images... that would be out of line, but to have a mother and son talk about why they believe their life is sacred...so be it...

Besides, I don't think of Focus on the Family represents "Christianity" any more than Pat Robertson... there are a lot of inappropriate ads on tv these days, some of them on the Superbowl. I don't think the superbowl is necessarily the best forum for political and religious arguments...

GO SAINTS!

  Or perhaps they understand that for the most part millions of testosterone-junkie men watching football don't want to suddenly be forced into watching two men kiss.

* * *

BINGO!!    At least that is MY view.

CBS also refused to air a commerical made by United Church of Christ. There was no kissing.

Content was this:

As church bells chime in the background, a burly bouncer guards the velvet ropes at the church entrance.

"No, step aside, please," he tells two men holding hands. "I don't think so," he says to a young black girl, blocking her entrance. A Hispanic man and a person in a wheelchair are also denied entry.

The scene fades to black and a message: "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."

CBS's statement in 2004 was  that their message - that the church would accept all people - was too controversial.
 

They now said they revisited the issue.

I have told CBS how I feel.

This is a link to that commercial:

And another one along the similiar theme:

Focus on the family is an obscenity, an ugly and false imitation of Christianity.

You obvisously have never listened to any messages they have done on the radio or anywhere else.  There is a cure for ignorance and that is trying to learn.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/FocusOnTheFamilyDailyBroadcast

There are lots of material I 

think more should listen to on the family and faith.

Truth: Can We Both Be Right?
Ryan Dobson speaks to young people about the pitfalls of moral relativism.

A Conversation with Brit Hume
Veteran newscaster Brit Hume talks about his career, his son's suicide and his faith.

Choosing Life With No Regrets 1
Jacqueline Ivel explains why, as a pregnant teen, she chose to have her baby instead of aborting it.

Game Plan for a Successful Life
Coach Joe Gibbs explains how the Bible can serve as a "game plan" for a successful life.

Giving Thanks for God's Blessings 1
R.T. Kendall encourages listeners to thank God for His blessings, even in difficult times.

Christianity is being killed by ignorance of what it actually means to be a Christian and they are doing way better than most.   I find that those that don't like the facts they are proclaiming usually aren't Christians or sadly they atleast aren't recognizable from the rest of humanity.

i think that focus on the family is a big bunch of idiots, and i'm a christian, so there goes that theory, mosquito.

got any more pearls of wisdom you'd like to share???

Focus on the Family is viciously anti-gay rights, anti-choice, misogynistic, pro-censorship (James Dobson was on Reagan's anti-porn commission in the 80's) and backwards in every way. They want a world where women, gay people, religious minorities, and really anybody except for them has no say in govt. or the world in any way. That is bad enough but then when they call themselves Christian that is an even worse affront, they are a disgrace to Christendom. Not only me and sighs, but most Christians are disgusted with them.

I'm a Christian and I find most of the ads that Focus on Family puts out to be offensive and not to show a true picture of the love of God.

Frankly, while I find FOTF a prejudicial organiation with a worldview that is at best troubling, that is irrelevant to me as far as the thread goes.  THey have a right to air their ad.

THe troubling thing is that CBS claimed the reason they weren't airing the UCC ad a few years back was because it was too controversial.  THey claim they aren't airing the ad mentioned upthread for a dating service because it too was too controversial.  But this ad, undoubtedly controversial, is ok???  There is an inherent contradiction in CBS' claims.

OTOH, any network has the option to put forward a political agenda if they so choose.  But they should probably be honest about it.

Beshpin - if that response was meant for me, please read my post again.  I didn't say "most Christians", I said that I find "most of the ads".  Big difference.  No I didn't do a survey - I thought I made it quite clear that I spoke for myself as a Christian.  I'll repeat.  As a Christian I find most of the ads for focus on the family offensive.   Many of my Christian friends do to.  But I do not speak for all Christians. 

Focus on the Family is a disgusting blight on humanity, and a cancer on the name of Christianity.  I'm with jon on this one.

Too funny,

You can now view the commercials at focusonthefamily.com

They are far from controvercial.  Don't even use the A word.

While you are there you could look around at this place that you direct so much hate toward. 

What they teach is scripturally sound.  jon71, I read on another thread that you are thinking of reading through the bible a second time, and I think that's a great idea.  I have read through since I joined wondercafe at least 12 times and have read it well over 30 times front to back.  You will find nowhere in the bible that God is pro-choice.  Nor will you find that God is pro-porn.

Focus on the Family gets a lot of support.  That is how they can afford to reach people during the Superbowl.

Nor will you find that GOD is anti-choice or anti-porn. Those are (bad) ideas people came up with. I've read the Bible in it's entirety before, just not recently. I've put if off for now because the Bible I had was chronological and I didn't like how rearranged it was. I'll do that at a later date.

Hi jon71,

Why would you believe that abortion is killing? The idea that life begins at conception is a political belief, not a fact, Biblical or otherwise. You're entitled to that opinion but that's all it is or ever will be. Frankly I don't buy it. As for porn that's not adultery, it's just fodder for masturbation, no sin there.

I can't argue with your logic there...

Because there is none.

I am very suprised how certain people seem on issues and how easily they seem to use the Bible to support their positions.

Judaism is not so clear and it suprises me how clear Chriostians seem to be on it.

The problem, one we tend to fail to acknowledge, is that the Christian Bible is not always identical to the Hebrew text. Also that Jews were not a homogenous group with one set of beliefs.

If you look at one version of Exodus 21, you will see that causing a miscarriage where it did not cause the loss of life to the mother was not deeemed a capital offense. There was no exile, like it was even manslaughter. There was monetary dispensation made to the husband.

The Septuagint  text said killing the fetus was considered to be taking a life, "if it be perfectly formed'. So, it became that without form it was a fine and with a form it was death, life for life based on murder.

This is a translation by Jews for Jews and we have this difference. Why? The Hellenization.

It is also a vast difference. 

The Bible is full of infanticide, along with how precious children are. Children were also property for work and for economic gain and had military and communal value. Disabled ones were of no value. Jesus lived amongst child abandonment, infanticide and abortion.

It is simplistic to look at the Bible and say children were precious bundles of joy, but it dismisses the reality within our Bibles. That reality is not so simplistic, whole cities, children included, being killed, all the firstborn of Egypt killed, the flood....

It is not so simplistic though, the Ten Commandments say one should not murder, killing was quite allowed.

Some will use Genesis and say God must breath life into someone. Some will use Exodus about formation. Some will use quickening as their guide. Some will use conception.

Look into Aquinas and Church belief on "ensoulment" and the soul going into males at 40 days and females at 80 days. The idea of it being at conception did not come about until 1869 under Pope Pius IX.

The Bible is ambiguous and people then have interpretations.

So, churches (various denominations) differ in their positions regarding abortion.

To me, neither side should be self-righteous.

First off, not allowing an ad to run during the Superbowl is completely at the discretion of CBS. Its their network and they can do what they want. That may be called censorship but it doesn't infringe on free speech. Whatever organisation has the right to start their own network, build it up over 60 years, purchase the broadcast rights for the Superbowl, and sell ad space. Free speech guarantees your right to say what you want; it doesn't guarantee that you can say it where ever/how ever you want. Discrimination is trickier, but minority groups have learned well that crying foul usually gets them what they want. Corporate America usually recoils pretty quick when the word discrimination is heard. Personally, I think its a load of BS most of the time. People confuse rights and priviledges with alarming frequency these days.

As for Focus on the Family, Jon71, I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. If you are employing hyperbole, I can accept that, if not, you are a boob. Whether or not you believe/accept what they preach is irrelevant - they have the right to do it. They have their own broadcasts and media and the can say what they want. (With respect to the Superbowl ad, they were at the mercy of CBS just like the gay dating service was) People here at WC talk about how evil censorship is... until it comes to some organization saying something they don't believe in then the organization becomes an "obscenity" or a "blight." Grow up. You're big enough to change the channel all on your own - exercise that right. The coin is two sided and I for one am tired of people advocating free speech when it suits them and then decrying an organization when it offends their sensibilities. Jon, I think your posts in this thread have about as much value as cold dishwater, but I will defend your "right" to post them.

Thirdly, an argument about abortion gets us nowhere. No one is going to change their opinion (especially at WC) because of some post. No point, in my opinion, in arguing about when exactly an embryo/fetus is "alive." Doesn't matter. I believe that abortion is wrong in most situations, and quite frankly, I don't care if you like it or not, nor does what you believe bother me. You can believe the Earth is flat if you want to.

Fourthly, Pornography. Its not an innocuous thing. It has negative outcomes. Can one indulge in porn without destroying the fabric of society? Sure, but I have seen what it can do to people and it is not good. I think of it like smoking. One could smoke their entire adult life without and health complications, but, then again, one could contract lung cancer.

SnP,

"Scripturally sound" covers lots of stuff. Heck it has been used to talk about Pat Robertson's recent comments on Haiti.

As far as Focus on the Family, rather than looking at scripturally sound (letter of the law) I prefer looking at it soundness in the spirit of the law. 

Calling people "perverts" does not cut it for me.

I wonder how it is scripturally sound that Focus on the Family takes some stands that they do.

(1995 FOF newsletter) "We have tried unsuccessfully, but valiantly, to keep President Clinton from permitting homosexuals in the military and from assigning women to combat situations."

They urged the withdrawl of funds and support  to United Way over Big Brothers Big Sisters accepting mentors who are homosexual. (Feb 2003)

Most of the adds on the Super Bowl are anything but family friendly and the Focus on the Family commercial was the only one that was actually family oriented.  A rather pathetic statement on what the morals and attitudes are today!

Tebow add.
http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=1d8b6f967fbcc7b44e51

Now as for those that think abortion isn't murder I would like to know how many came into the world by some other method....  abortion and murder are the same thing. 

Just read the description of a partial birth abortion where they stick a knife in the skull of a child that could be born alive and suck out it's brains.  Sounds more like something from Dr Mengela and his "work" on Jewish children.

I don't know why but I find this quote hilarious.  Used it myself many a time.

Anyway, sorry to interupt.  Back to the unwinnable arguement regarding pro-life vs pro-choice.

Free speech is not the issue. You say what you want and the chips fall where they may. Those who are pro-life and shout now about free spech also were not unanimously saying to let the United Church of Christ ad air. I say make a choice and live with it.

It is not even the issue that a network makes their own policy. You make a policy you live with it.

It is not the abortion issue because I am not a "fan" of abortion nor am I pro-abortion, though my belief is that it must be a safe and legal medical procedure for those who do choose it. I am pro-choice.

It is not a rag on Focus on the Family. I would not care who sponsored it, even if it was a group I previously loved.

For me, it is that as a consumer, I can and do tune elsewhere or buy papers elsewhere... They have free speech, no censorship... but they pay the price if one is incurred from business and political decisions, period. 

TV networks are struggling for revenue, they make choices. At last year's SuperBowl NBC refused to air a fetus ad. If it pissed off pro-lifers, then it did. If it costs ratings, then it does. NBC refused the PETA ad where women fondled fruit and veggies in a suggestive manner. If it pissed off the PETA folks, then it did. If it cost ratings, it did. 

I tuned CBS off. I loved their Monday night sitcoms, but you play politically sensitive and it gets politically sensitive.  Why? Because you say gay is too extreme or sentitive or polarizing and that abortion is not????  I am gay and if it pissed me off then it did.

What did it, Tebow's ad? No. Not allowing United Church of Christ commercials? Not really. Gay dating services? No, not really.

Money grubbing bastards is more apt. You say no and then go ahead later for a dollar, well there is a word for that. You say "tasteful" and then air Go Daddy commercials ... well...

It was urged scrubbed by folks who let CBS know their feelings. If it damaged their reputation, alienated viewers or discouraged support for the network and its sponsors... then that is the cost for the decision.

I think it is a very sad state of affairs when deciding not to have an abortion is considered politically threatening.  Can't say too much about Focus on The Family, but the ad itself was refreshing. 

As long we are staying away from controversy --- how about those Audi Green Police Ads? 

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenpolice?blend=2&ob=1&rclk=cti

Want to talk about fascism disguised as environmental stewardship?  But such is the Al Gore Cult.

hey, cbs can run the ads they want, i don't care.

but for them to say something like 'we won't run THIS ad because it is too controversial', and then run an anti-abortion ad is ridiculous.

I think that two guys kissing is HOT 

Your bit about abortion and murder being the same thing is nonsense. If you want to believe it's morally wrong, fine, you have that right, but it's only an opinion. It's not backed up either Biblically or medically. As Stevie G. pointed out Exodus 21 implies that GOD doesn't accept the view of life beginning at conception, but it's not so flat-out to prove that. I'd say it's heavily inferred. Either way you don't have anything more that opinion.

As for partial birth abortion if you describe an appendectomy in enough detail, it'll be gross. So what. Someone would have to be pretty gullible to be swayed by an argument like that.

Stabbing a pair of sciccors into a childs brain and then sucking out brains isn't removing an appendix!!!!

So how did you come into the world?   Born in a jar... I feel sorry for you if you can't see that abortion is the murder of a child before it has been born.

I hope you realize that God felt it was worth it to send Jesus to save us and that alone means there is a value on every life.  That dismissal of the value of life is something we see in the naturalistic thoughts that mankind is nothing more than slime that got smart.

wow, from 'abortion is wrong' all the way to 'evolution is wrong' in one single post.

and on a thread with the words 'super bowl' in the title.

amazing.

just out of curiosity, how many partial birth abortions are done in canada??  because from what i know, even getting a second trimester abortion is pretty much impossible here. 

i just want to clarify that before i wade in on this one.

It sounds like it did a great job at getting attention!

http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/26238

Focus on the Family is trying to say there is value in a human life, naturalism is saying man is of no value.    Think about it!

well, focus on the family only values human life that is heterosexual and christian. 

what does evolution have to do with any of this???

The term is intact dialation and extraction/evacuation, partial birth is primarily a political term.

Now, if we look at FOF and the like's attitude about how emotionally scarring an abortion is, then I ask what purpose is served by adding to that? 

It is self-serving abuse! It is heaping abuse onto people you claimed are already abused for political or self-serving purposes!

The IDX procedure is also used to remove stillborn and miscarriages. Talking about that parent, as someone who "needs a f 'ing hot iron shot through their head" or talking about "stabbing a pair of sciccors into a childs brain and then..." to get at others just plain disgusts me.

The ban in most, if not all US states also has exceptions for the life of the woman.  Again, referring to them as above disgusts me.

I support your right to your opinion. I support your right to expression of that opinion and your right to vote with your personal conscience.

I however do not support anyone's right to abuse people and claim it is the Christian thing to do.

 So long as we all know that there no abortion laws on the books in Canada whatsoever.  Supreme Court struck the last one done with a direction to Parliament to write a new one.  Which it never did.

even without abortion laws forbidding third trimester abortions, how many are performed in canada, granton?? 

again, i don't think that you see all that many doctors who will perform an abortion in the second trimester, let alone the third, unless there is some pretty major circumstances, like maternal death or something.

There are regulations,  though there may not be laws.

At a policy convention in 2005, some members of the Conservative Party moved to have American like language on "partial birth abortion" used. They found out that American style rhetoric does not really cross the border so well (remember please that I am an ex-pat). No, that is correct, no third term abortions are done in Canada for elective reasons.

If not rooted in law then how can that be?

The Canadian Medical Association says abortions on request can only be done up to 20 weeks. Hospitals and doctors comply with that policy.

For compelling maternal health reasons or serious abnormalities, they are done beyond that. As far as thrid trimester, there are very few places that one can be done inside Canada.  None in Quebec at all. Most are sent to the US. They are funded because they are deemed medically required.

Bringing American style rhetoric to Canada about "partial birth" abortions promotes misinformation regarding Canada and about abortion in Canada.  

I think it's importarant Besh to be aware that there are lots of conditions that arise in the late stages of preganancy that might require this procedure .... anything from heart to kidney failure .... severe deformities to the fetus ..... major blood loss from internal obstructions ..... it's not a casual decision at all saving the life of the mother.

 I don't know the numbers ss, and I guess there are "guidelines" - that just doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence though --- would be interested in seeing them.

Agreed besh, illegal and wrong aren't the same thing - 

So, how about that Super Bowl?

LOL!!

didn't watch it, but i saw some of the commercials on 'youtube' the next day.  that one with betty white was friggin' HILARIOUS!!!

In America elective third trimester abortions are always illegal and elective second trimester abortions are very rare. Only a few states allow them and even in those states over 90% of the abortions performed are first trimester and over 90% of the ones done second trimester are medical emergencies. Dilation and extraction (D & E) abortions (there is no "birth" partial or otherwise, the name is very dishonest) are only performed in medical emergencies. Every woman who has ever had a D & E wanted to give birth to a happy healthy child, but medically it just wasn't meant to be.

 That's great that you can speak for every woman.  I'm not sure I could even say I understand one.

who are you referring to here??

Let me ask you one simple question  Would you kill a new-born to save your own life?

Is it fair to allow the baby who could be dying.......  to die slowly , in great pain or to choke on it's own blood supply ?  horrible distress....... in the few minutes that it may have to live ?

Would you prefer to let both the mother and the baby die ? especially when the baby might die regardless ?

There are ethical choices at play, certainly. Deciding right and wrong medically is not for me to say. I leave that to doctors. Deciding that is based on medical ethics. To allow a  healthy person (one that would live) to die, in order to not have an unhealthy one die (one that would die), is simply unethical to me. Now, if the healthy patient wished to die, based on their own ethics, I support their right to their medical and moral decisions. To me, it is the personal ethics and sense of right and wrong that would be wrestled with in that instance and not the medical, legal or societal ethics.

There are decisions made where one person dying is allowed to die or is on life support that is taken off, and organs donated so that another lives. It is rarely deemed unethical or wrong. To me, it is neither. Also, to me, if a person refused those organs, that is their choice. It is again their personal ethics that need wrestled with, not the medical, legal or societal ethics.

For those who have wrestled in what is supposed to be a blessed event with who to save, and at what cost, they have my empathy and compassion.... not my judgement.  

ahhh...

thanks for clarifying for me.  i was momentarily confused.