Today, there are few corners of our communal life untouched by rancorous political division.
there will be one less when it broke with long-standing tradition and
sold an evangelical Christian group time in which to air an
antiabortion ad during this year’s Super Bowl. If this were a football
game rather than life — or, at least, commerce — it’s the kind of
ruling you’d want to send up to the box for a review of the call on the
field.
The Super Bowl, which is this country’s most-watched
television event, also has evolved into the world’s premier showcase
for video advertising. Until now, though, the networks always have
declined to accept issue-oriented or political spots. In recent years,
for example, they’ve turned down ads from the liberal activist group
MoveOn.org and the United Church of Christ.
This year, after a bit of back and forth,
Dobson and his organization are longtime opponents of legalized
abortion.
The ad reportedly will feature the
and seven months’ pregnant with Tim, she contracted dysentery and fell
into a coma. When she awoke, according to her account, doctors said the
drugs they’d used to treat her virtually guaranteed a life-threatening
stillbirth. They advised an abortion. She declined out of religious
conviction.
Asked about the sudden change in direction,
because it “did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms.” He
said
to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for the few
remaining spots in Super Bowl XLIV.” Notice that phrase “few
remaining”? This year, a 30-second spot is going for about
Whatever its motives,
has made a bad call. There ought to be places in our lives that are
free from profound confrontation. Focus on the Family has every right
to produce its ad, of course, and
— so long as its policies are evenhanded — has every right to run
issue-oriented spots. It really comes down to a question of taste and
civility. You don’t talk politics at the
table, and you really ought to be able to watch a football game without
being confronted with another person’s views on abortion, or the
treatment of veal calves.
Is there really a difference between this sort of
Super Bowl ad and the other 60-odd trying to sell you beer or cars or
computers? Yes. One is a pitch; the other is proselytizing. We suffer
the former as the price of life in a consumer society; we abhor the
latter as a coarse invasion of privacy. There are moments when we open
ourselves to moral persuasion, and moments when we’re entitled to
simple recreation. It’s the sort of distinction on which civility
relies.
Ever wonder how the Tebows’ heartwarming story won nearly
Baptist minister husband, Bob, one of the founders of Campus Crusade
for Christ. This is hardly their first foray into social activism. Tim
was home schooled and played football at a public high school whose
athletic programs were opened to students educated at home by a
law. In the years since, mother and son have helped promote so-called
Tim’s Laws in other states to open public school sports to
home-schooled children.
Both mother and son are vocal opponents of abortion,
though there’s a curious aspect to the story she’s told in numerous
interviews. Pam has repeatedly said that all this happened in
criminalized abortion in 1870. Since 1930, its criminal code governing
abortion makes no exception to save the life of the mother and requires
prison time for doctors and women involved. It’s remarkable that Pam’s
doctors were willing to give advice that put them at such risk.
More than most, the Tebows have benefited from the
reverence American society accords the religious consciences of its
people and the decisions based on those consciences. The Tebows’ story
is a tribute to this country’s respect for choice — though somebody
else will have to pay to get that message across.
—
(c) 2010, Los Angeles Times.
Visit the Los Angeles Times on the Internet at http://www.latimes.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
