“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

The Super Bowl Kerfuffle

J. Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs, Liberty Counsel

“If you don’t like it just turn off the TV!” goes the liberal mantra as all form of sexual perversion, obscenity and violence slinks unannounced into our living rooms. But when the message is perceived to undercut some carefully crafted left-wing narrative? Well, then not so much.

Fire-breathing feminists, liberal-media automatons and other “progressive” pro-aborts are anything if not predictable. They’ve once again concocted controversy where – to the emotionally stable among us – there is none.

The latest target of their cultish ire is Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback and all-around-great-guy, Tim Tebow. A crusty glut of anti-birth femi-ninnies (so cute when they’re mad), representing an ever-dwindling number of pro-abortion fundamentalists, have drawn a bead on Tebow for the crime of, well, existing.

Additionally charged with “speaking while Christian,” Tebow has knotted many ninny knickers by agreeing to participate, along with his mother Pam, in a Super Bowl ad commissioned by the Christian group, Focus on the Family.

As the mainstream media tells it, the ad will, in about 30 seconds, apparently set the “women’s movement” back 40 years. It’s additionally presumed (nobody’s seen it or even read the script mind you) to both horrify and offend the entire nation.

So what have these dastardly Dobson devils done? Leaks indicate that the spot will share the story – inspirational by any objective standard – of how Pam Tebow “chose” to carry baby Tim to term despite a doctor’s recommendation that she have an abortion. That’s it. No “abortion is murder” tag line (it is). No “down with Planned Parenthood” pitch (yes, please). Simply: “Hi, I’m Pam. I chose to have my baby and not abort him. He won the Heisman. Neat, huh?”

Well, you’d think Roe v. Wade had just been overturned (it will be) and that every bra-burning broad in Berkeley faced time in the pokey. The usual suspects – a shrill gaggle of leftist “women’s groups” – got the vapors, hit the fainting couch and demanded in their enduring “take-the-trash-out!” tone that CBS censor the Tebows and pull the spot.

Erin Mattson, vice president of The National Organization for Women (NOW) told ABC News that Tim’s story was “really quite offensive. … This ad is hate masquerading as love!” she barked (Tim wasn’t dismembered alive and scraped in pieces from his mother’s womb, you see. That would’ve been peachy).

The New York-based Women’s Media Center launched a censorship petition drive (since dwarfed by pro-family efforts) framing the ad as an “attack on choice.”

You get the picture.

OK – so much pablum, so little time: “Attack on choice?” “Hate masquerading as love?” Does patchouli oil cause brain damage? Give liberals a fish; they’ll eat for a day. Give them hemp; they’ll smoke half, weave a rope and then hang themselves with it.

It’s remarkable that these people are so invested in a culture of death – so blindly devoted to goddess “choice” – that they’ve lost all sense of how foolish they appear to others. Rather than taking the time to walk through an introspective analysis, they involuntarily lash-out.

They fail to ask: “In what possible way is it an ‘attack on choice’ for a woman to share the tale of how – when given two clearly defined options – she ‘chose’ life over abortion?” That’s choice defined. It just happens to be – from an angry, oft-hurting, always twisted perspective – the wrong choice.

They fail to ask: “In what possible way is it ‘hate masquerading as love’ for a woman to share the tale of how – when given two clearly defined options – she ‘chose’ life over abortion?” That’s love defined; more still, while risking self so the child within might live. (Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. John 15:12).

So if not logic, then what?

Fear.

Fear of truth. Fear that others will be touched by truth. Fear of exposure. Fear that it’s all slipping away. Fear for a legacy lost. Fear that maybe they’re wrong. Fear that maybe their choice was wrong. Fear of history’s judgment. Fear of God’s judgment. Just fear.

But they needn’t fear.

This is about life. The Tebows’ story is about life. And the giver of life is the giver of love. And the giver of love – who is both the bread of life and perfect love – gives us this: “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear …”

Don’t fear. Choose love. Choose life.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, and Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


6 Responses to “The Super Bowl Kerfuffle”

  1. The Tim Tebow Abortion Ad
    (Advocacy Groups, “Free” speech, Corporations, and the Supreme Court Decision)

    I think most folks are missing the point on this Tebow/Superbowl/Abortion commercial issue. Many supporters of the ad seem to see it as a “free speech” issue. I am quite sure the story on its face is quite wonderful on a human level and in no way would I find the story it tells offensive in any way, but the precedent it sets for who controls the “free speech that matters” is chilling. Let’s be honest: the ad is designed to gain support for the movement to overturn Roe V. Wade. It should be quite successful in getting its message across. Yes, I believe everyone has a right to speak their mind on an issue – but the point is who gets access to the audience and how big that audience is. This is what I choose to call “free speech that matters”. If I want to express my opinion I have the ability to write letters, add comments on web sites, hand out fliers in the street or get on a soapbox in the town square and preach away. In other words, I have the right to speak freely, but the impact of what I have to say is severely limited by my financial means. In other words, I have the right to speak freely, but if I want to effectively saturate the public with my speech, it is going to cost me a lot of money. It would be hard to argue that people would be equally influenced by my efforts compared to some group armed with enormous financial resources mostly provided by a few extremely wealthy contributors. Therefore the irony of the phrase “free speech”. My free speech would cost nothing and therefore be “free” in that regard, but Focus on the Family’s free speech will cost 2.5 million dollars. It will reach 100’s of millions of listeners and will undoubtedly influence a lot more than my speech will. I do not believe the founding fathers could have envisioned a time where technology and the concentration of enormous wealth in the hands of a few extremely wealthy individuals, advocacy groups or corporations could wield such power to influence the electorate. Neither could they have envisioned a culture so wholly saturated by the perfected art and science of advertising, which so successfully manipulates us to buy (i.e. vote for) things we neither want nor need. I know Focus on the Family is purportedly a group of like-minded individuals exercising their “free speech”, but if one were to examine where most of the money to support their agenda comes from they would undoubtedly find that a few extremely wealthy contributors provide a bulk of the money. * “Free speech that matters” today is not “free” by any stretch of the imagination. The ones in the positions of wealth and power are the ones who can afford to buy the time to get their message across: the average American citizen cannot. Who ultimately decides whether this ad gets on the TV? Why the corporation of CBS does. Do you think they will decide whether to run it based on religious belief, ethics, morality or free speech issues? No, they will decide based on how it will help their bottom line.Today, billionaires (and the groups they support) as well as corporations can afford to do this, but the day is coming when even the billionaires will be overwhelmed by the high bids of the corporations for the airtime. Remember, in a free market economy the product or service will cost as much as the market can bear. Corporations dwarf billionaires in their financial resources: thus, the market will ultimately only be accessible to the corporations. Corporations (including foreign–owned ones) not only control what “free speech” we see and hear in the media, but now thanks to last week’s Supreme Court decision, they can bring their total sum of power and monetary resources to bear upon what we see and hear in the media in regards to the selection of and campaigns for or against all of our future political leaders. There are no longer any monetary restrictions to their “free” speech right to get their man elected. The market for airtime or “free speech that matters” will now bear infinitely larger sums. We will now truly have the best politicians money can buy. So next time you rejoice in your right to “free speech” on an issue, or your opinion of a political candidate, go outside in your backyard and scream as loud as you can – it’s free! * Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, said funds for the Tebow ad were donated by a few “very generous friends'' and did not come from the group's general fund. (From: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/CBS-urged-to…)

  2. Well, if you have a problem with wealthy organizations having influence, Planned Parenthood should be really high on the list of those you have problems with! If they're not, your entire post is highly hypocritical.

  3. Yes it is on the list. I believe big money is the problem, not what is said. I don't think the corporations really care whether one is republican or democrat, right or left, religious or atheist. They just want to sell their stuff. They will pay to promote whatever agenda will best boost their profits. While we as americans argue over what to call the thieves robbing us of our wealth, the thieves will slip away with it in the dark.

  4. Yes, it is on the list, too. My point is that big money dictates the agenda. Billionaires' contributions now allow them to dictate what is said, but I fear soon even they will not be able to compete with corporations for air time. Neither will the pittance raised by the DNC or the RNC or any “grassroots” advocacy groups.I don't believe corporations care whether we are republican or democrat, left or right, religious or atheist, etc… they just want to increase their profits. They are “amoral”. I believe if we wish to remain a democratic republic and not become a corporate oligarchy, or worse, we need to look closely at this issue and how it might be corrected fairly.

  5. great article. thank you