Rationality Now Rotating Header Image

marriage

The Tebow Superbowl Ad and Pam Stenzel

Tim Tebow The Superbowl ad featuring Tim Tebow (which has yet to be seen) has been causing a big brouhaha lately… with pro-choice groups opposing it to pro-life (anti-abortion) groups defending it. I’ve mostly ignored the situation, but after reading a Facebook note by Pam Stenzel and the accompanying comments, I figured it was time to toss my opinion into the mix.

Note: You can read the public Facebook note above, but you need a Facebook account to access it. You can also read the comments to the note (which I won’t address here), some of which are just as wrong-headed (if not more-so) than Stenzel’s piece.

Just to get it out of the way, I couldn’t care less if CBS shows the ad or not. I doubt if it’s anything over the top. Focus on the Family paid their $2.5 million for the ad, so bully for them. Tim Tebow sounds like a nice guy who’s done some nice charity work and is, evidently, a good football player. He and his family are overtly religious, having beliefs with which I obviously disagree, but they’re entitled to their opinions. Focus on the Family is well-known for its bigotry and intolerance toward homosexuals and pro-choice views, so I have more of a problem with them, but again… free speech.

On to Pam Stenzel’s note…

Stenzel starts with this (emphasis mine).

Tim Tebow’s pro-life ad on the upcoming Super Bowl is sure making the news and making lots of people uncomfortable. We’re always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks.

Really? We are? That’s funny, because what I normally see is people telling athletes and other celebrities to shut the hell up and stick to making movies. Since when have we (perhaps this is an exclusive “we” club) wanted our athletes to become political or social commentators?

Interestingly, Stenzel, who titles her post “Tim Tebow and the National Organization for ‘some’ Women!” claims that because of their opposition to the ad, the National Organization for Women isn’t pro-choice… they’re pro-abortion. She says…

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion.

Interestingly, her piece never really explains how or why they are pro-abortion instead of pro-choice. Perhaps Stenzel’s low-tolerance worldview sees pro-choice as pro-abortion regardless of who delivers the message? …or perhaps it’s because her statement is blatantly false.

Here’s her summary of the Tebow story.

She [Tim Tebow’s mother] got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice, chose life, and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her Heisman Trophy winner son.

It’s the classic “You would have killed Beethoven” argument which Richard Dawkins dissects in his Washington Post op-ed piece. It’s a silly argument for being pro-life. Aside from the fact that it could easily be turned on its head using Charles Manson or Pol Pot or any other “evil” person, it implies that, if only there would be no abortions, there would be more superstars in our midst. Dawkins does a fine job of dismissing it, so there’s no need to dwell on it here.

Stenzel does say that something we can all agree on is that everyone “wishes the ‘need’ for abortions wasn’t so great.” Yes, she put quotes around the word “need.” That aside, yes… I think pretty much everyone could agree that fewer abortions are better (they just don’t agree as to why fewer abortions are better). Stenzel’s solution is abstinence. That’s her whole shtick. However, her disgust and disapproval for anything other than her puritanical version of morality infuses her message, writing statements such as [sic]

“Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one.”

“We need celebrities who are self-possessed and selfcontrolled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.”

“You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint until mariage, and to say it out loud.”

“Promiscuity is so the norm that if a stud isn’t shagging everything in sight, we feel faintly ashamed for him. How sad.”

Seriously? Given context, a Superbowl ad featuring bikini-clad women selling beer (I don’t think I’ve seen that one, but I’m looking forward to it) is perfectly appropriate.

I don’t even know what she means by “commitment over decadence.” Commitment to abstinence? Does decadence meaning “sex before marriage?” Perhaps it means “anything short of a Christ-like perfection.”

The absurdity of “practice sexual restraint until marriage” is perhaps revealing. After marriage, guys don’t have to have any restraint? Is that what Stenzel believes? What is bad about pre-marital sex, anyway? She seems to have a blanket problem with it and I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that it’s a biblical objection.

The last statement is an over-the-top straw man caricature that deserves no response other than outright derision.

Stenzel just keeps digging herself in deeper as she goes.

Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers — who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term.

Didn’t she already cover this? Didn’t I already respond with something indicating that that same list of “potential lives” could also include murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, and evil dictators? What about the mothers of those people? Stenzel doesn’t say, but if she were honest, she would include those categories in her list, too. She would also include women who don’t have sex when they ovulate… or men who masturbate.

Then Stenzel continues her rant against NOW.

But when a woman uses her right to choose but chooses life instead of an abortion, NOW has a fit!

No, Stenzel. That’s not the case. They don’t have a problem with a woman choosing to have a child instead of having an abortion. They have a problem with Focus on the Family’s bigoted, anti-choice imposition of their bronze-age values on women. Even though I haven’t seen the commercial, I can place a fairly safe bet that the message, though perhaps subtle, is “If you choose to have an abortion, you’re immoral.” That is what NOW sees as the problem and that is why NOW is actually for all women.

They promote a right to choose.

Fireproof Could Have Been Good – Review Part 2

Fireproof... Never leave your partner behind In part one of this review of the movie Fireproof, I gave my overall view that the movie wasn’t as bad as I’d expected, but still squandered the potential it had to be a decent love story. In part two, I’ll focus on some specifics as well as address some of the religious issues of the movie.

Despite the potential for a nice romance movie, there was so much wrong with the entire script (even setting aside the religious aspect) that any chance for a decent level of watchability was destroyed. Irrelevant scenes, undeveloped characters who suddenly seem important, stilted and contrived dialogue, female stereotyping, and a myriad of other problems all effectively screen the underlying story from being the focus.

Much of the acting was bad, but none worse than the young doctor who attempts to woo Catherine, despite her being married. In his case, the bad writing was not the sole cause of his lackluster performance. He came across as decidedly creepy, with pickup lines that deposited a virtual oily slime on the camera. In the end, there’s an implication that he is married as well, so he becomes a double scumbag… but his complete lack of appeal and disturbing stalker-like creepiness were the worst parts.

There were many useless scenes in the movie that added nothing to the story and were simply time-killing distractions. The gag with the hot sauce and the egotistical fireman, Wayne, seemed to have no point. The minor interaction with the one firehouse atheist was pointless. The entire religious “message” seemed secondary. It would have worked if it had been more of a focus (or at least shown to be the reason for the marriage being saved), or had been addressed in a less heavy-handed, clumsy way.

The religious dialogue that was scattered throughout the movie didn’t seem to contribute to the story. The dad, John, made some comments here and there. When Caleb commented on his long drive, he said, “It gave me time to think and pray.” …hopefully not with his eyes closed. Caleb’s “don’t tell me about Jesus” protestations seemed weak. The father’s dialogue was generally badly written and poorly acted, but other than the main conversion scene, didn’t really offer much of a message of Christian goodness.

What about that message? There was really very little, if any, explanation of why Christianity had anything at all to do with the saving of Caleb and Catherine’s marriage. That’s what made the message so weak. All the actions shown from the “love dare” book were secular in nature, except the day where Caleb was supposed to pray for Catherine, which he admitted he didn’t do… which seems to be showing that, even without the religious parts, the marriage was saved. Caleb has his conversion, but it’s ignored for the better part of the second half of the movie, so there was no connection there, either unless the implication is, because he’s accepted Jesus, he’s willing to clean the house, wash the dishes, and buy his wife flowers.

Addressing the religious points from an atheist perspective, I’d have to say there was a lot of silliness.

  • Caleb’s father says, “[Jesus has] become the most significant part of our lives. When I realized who I was and who he was, I realized my need for him. I needed his forgiveness and salvation.” To me, that’s sad. If a dead guy is more significant than your wife and children, not to mention a myriad of other joyous things in life, then your priorities are so far out of whack that a serious reality check is in order. Need his forgiveness? Need his salvation? What?
  • The conversion speech John gives to Caleb is right out of Cameron’s Way of the Master evangelizing program. “God judges by his standards.” … “His standards are so high he considers hatred to be murder and lust to be adultery.” … When Caleb asks about all the good he’s done, his father replies that it doesn’t matter because “You’ve broken his commandments and one day you’ll answer to him for that.” … “Jesus loves you even though you rejected him.” It’s creepy and the message that you can’t know what love is without Jesus is just offensive.
  • When the oncoming train almost hits the lieutenant while he’s helping move a car off the tracks, he sits down and says, “Thank you, God. Thank you, Lord.” I think it would be more appropriate for him to be thanking the other folks who helped get the car off the tracks before the train came by. If God had wanted to help, he could have just stopped the train… or moved the car… or perhaps kept the car accident from happening in the first place. To give thanks to a god who almost kills you is just absurd.
  • When Caleb is rescuing the young girl from the burning house and gets trapped in a room, he says (uncharacteristically, I might add), “God, get us outta here!” He then proceeds to use his axe to hack through the wooden floor and escape safely from under the house. This almost made sense, because, even though he asked God for help, he got out by himself. Quick thinking and taking action saved his life, not a benevolent god. Again, if God had wanted to help, he could have kept the building from catching fire in the first place, or at least gotten the girl to go outside before burning her home to the ground.
  • There was an implication that, unless you give your life to the Lord, it’s all about “my rights and needs.” I don’t think the “Lord” has anything to do with that. Just the opposite, in fact. If someone is “accepting Jesus” because they want eternal salvation or to avoid eternal damnation, that seems pretty self-centered to me.
  • Caleb tells Catherine, “God has given me a love for you that I had never had before.” What he’s telling her is that he can’t possibly love her without divine intervention. That’s insulting on a grand scale.
  • Caleb says, “The love dare changed my life.” and his father responds, “God changed your life. The love dare was just a tool he used.” That’s classic Christian thinking right there. Don’t give credit where the credit is due, but credit God for working in mysterious ways. It’s brilliant because it fits any situation and it’s irrefutable. You can’t prove that God didn’t use the love dare to save your marriage!
  • When Caleb finds out his mother did the love dare on his father (and not the other way around) and now knows that she’s all Jesus’y, he’s sorry for treating her badly and runs to tell her how much he loves her. “Dad, I have treated her so wrong!” Caleb cries. The implication is, of course, that only the godly folks are worthy of good treatment. His mother didn’t change in the past month, but when he suddenly finds out that she’s “all in,” his attitude toward her is completely changed. It’s hypocritical and repugnant.

There are more things like those, of course, but those are some of the highlights. None of those things added anything to the story, but their poor execution just hindered both the Christian message and the quality of the movie. The writer’s attempt to make the connection between Christian beliefs and the success of the marriage failed on a grand scale. However, it did (if you could wade through all the muck) make quite a good connection between kind, secular actions toward your spouse and the success of a marriage. Caleb started doing nice things for Catherine and it made him a better person… and she noticed.

That was the real message.