‘If they wanted “that garbage” they knew where to look’

Imagine that… there were leftists upset about the John 3:16 commercial aired during the Broncos/Patriots game over the weekend.

Melinda Henneberger at the Washington Post:

John316Though not exactly a Benetton commercial – I think I spied one black girl in the crowd at the end – was there anything wrong with a pitch that verbally, anyway, underscores the message that God loves us all? Sure there was; some of my friends on social media were appalled, saying that if they wanted “that garbage” they knew where to look, thanks.

My own, initially positive, reaction was followed by queasiness of a different sort. Were we Christians really hawking Jesus alongside Cialis now? (If you have an epiphany lasting more than four hours…) Not, as anyone who’s ever visited a holy site can tell you, that the commoditizing of faith is anything new. And in following Jesus’s directive that we spread the Word, televised pitches are nowhere near the most extreme measures we have tried.

On Twitter, I asked whether those who were offended by the ad would have minded as much if they hadn’t known that the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family had sponsored it.

“If I were Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist, yes,’’ tweeted back my ‘She the People’ colleague (and Tim Tebow fan) Sandra Fish. “So I am.”

We shouldn’t criticize the critical.  We’re all called to be more tolerant, more open-minded, more affirming… of superficially shallow hypersensitivity.  

You’ve got to love the hypocrisy.

H/T to Deacon Greg.

Elizabeth Warren comfortably in the top 1%
Huntsman reportedly out of GOP race; will endorse Romney
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • MichaelLaprarie

    I think there must be a copy error from the original manuscript for Matthew 6:5.  It seems more reasonable that the original should have read, “And when you pray, do not pray
    standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I
    tell you the truth, nothing awakens the hypocrites and cynics more quickly than this.”

    • I was always under the impression the advice was against going deliberately to such places for the intended purpose of being seen in prayer. I rather doubt Jesus would have criticized a carpenter who quietly prayed between tasks at the job site, nor told him to stop just because other people were noticing it and talking about it amongst themselves.

    • The kids are praying in that commercial now?  What?

    • jim_m

      The verse you site is speaking about praying in an ostentatious manner, or praying in order to appear pious and earn yourself some sort of credit for being religious.  That was not in this commercial and I don’t think it applies to atheletes in general or Tim Tebow in specific.

  • Commander_Chico

    Benetton ads give me the creeps.  What sweatshops do they make their clothes at?

    I’d like to do an Ezekiel 23:20 ad:


    The first expression of “size does matter.”

    • *sigh*  Do you even have any idea what that passage is about?

      • Commander_Chico

        Seems pretty clear to me, but you tell me your interpretation.

        • jim_m

          You didn’t ask me but it is clearly a metaphor for Israel’s waywardness and their desire to be with and be like the Assyrians and Chaldeans.

          And yes, it is a startlingly graphic metaphor.

          • Yeah, that.  It’s not about “size matters.”  It’s about what the perversity of the Israelites was like.  Very little has changed in 2500 years in regards to what people think about when they think about perversity.  In fact, people turned it into a billion dollar industry called pornography.

          • Commander_Chico

            I think it was one of the first examples of porn, just telling the story of two slutty sisters.

  • That’s the same thing that many Wizbang members are saying about Santorum. Just sayin.

  • Were we Christians really hawking Jesus alongside Cialis now?

    Jesus went where the sinners were.

  • jim_m

    They were offended?  GOOD!

    Get used to it.  This is a free country.  You are going to be offended by the views and beliefs of others.  If you don’t like it you can ignore it or you can present your view. 

    Perhaps it would be instructive to point out that the presentation itself was not offensive or meant to be so, but it was the content that people object to.  Many people will respond not by simply presenting their differing beliefs but by doing so in a deliberately offensive manner.

  • Entrope

    As an atheist, I have to say that I’m not sure who they expected to convince with that message — but I would rather see that than an advertisement selling drugs, alcohol or intimate hygiene products.

    • Thank you for your intellectual honesty as opposed to the political bigotry being displayed by others.
      In my opinion the spot was exactly like other ads, offering something to people but not requiring them to take buy into it.  As a Christian, I and am happy to see the offer of the same peace my faith brings me.  I can’t understand why this would offend anyone more than a cereal commercial would if they are not interested in it. I know where to look for cereal if I want it too.

  • JWH

    Honestly, I was less concerned about the commercials and more concerned about the bartender bringing me another drink while I watched the game.  

  • herddog505

    Perhaps her friends can publicly refer to Islam as “that garbage”.

    Let me know how that works out.


    Has anybody contacted DWS about this pretty clear breach of The Rules of Civility in Public Discourse(1)?

    (1) Wasserman Shultz, Debbie, et al.  The Rules of Civility in Public Discourse.  Washington: The Democrat National Committee Press, 2011.

  • Brucehenry

    Nothing wrong with the ad itself, or running an ad like it on any show, event, or whatever. But Focus on the Family IS a big ol’ bunch of homophobic pharisees, and anything with their logo on it raises my blood pressure.

    But the ad itself? It’s fine…

    • Focus on the Family IS a big ol’ bunch of homophobic pharisees…

      Bruce… can you back that up in some way?  I mean… that phrase has been used so much as to render it meaningless but I’m sure you can provide some specific instances of FOTF homophobia…

      • jim_m

        Yes and can you back it up in a way that does not rely upon characterizing religious conviction about sexual practices as “Homophobia”.

        I’m not going to hold my breath for that.

        • Brucehenry

          Replying to both of you:

           Have it your way, Rick. Google “Focus on the Family Gay Rights” and see if you recognize the homophobia. But, to be fair, what I should have said is “Focus on the Family STRIKES ME as a big ol’ bunch of homophobic pharisees and anything with their logo on it raises my blood pressure.”


          As I remarked to another commenter on another (long, lonely) thread last week, Jim, bigotry is bigotry whether it is “based on religious conviction” or not. If a fanatical Muslim believes homosexuals should be beheaded, while a fundamentalist Christian merely feels they should be denied the right to marry or adopt, the difference is one of degree, not kind, in my opinion.

          • Mr Kimber

            I don’t think no being not able to adopt  or marry is anyway near BEHEADING.

          • Brucehenry

            As I said, a matter of DEGREE, not kind.

          • jim_m

            That’s a cop out.

            You are directly comparing the murder of gays to disapproval of their lifestyle. There is no comparison and anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would understand that.

          • Brucehenry

            Says the guy who “disapproves” so much that he would deny people basic rights, under law, based on his personal disapproval. Of course, it’s OK, because it’s based on his “religious convictions,” not just regular old garden-variety convictions.

            I said it was a matter of degree, Genius. Is the difference great? Yes. But it’s still bigotry, Muslim or fundie, based on “strongly held religious conviction.”

          • jim_m

            Name any rights under the law that FOTF opposes?  If you are thinking same sex marriage that is not the law in most states and therefore not an issue.  And it is one thing to oppose same sex marriage and another to say that you are violating their civil rights by doing so.

            At some point it seems that you are saying that advocating for laws is oppressing their civil rights.  If that is the case then the logical extension is that anyone who disagrees with you on a political position is violating your rights.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s a matter of political disagreement, Jim. I say that gay people should have the same rights as anyone else, including the rights to marry and adopt. FOTF, and the law in most states, disagrees. In my opinion, a right is a right, whether the government recognizes it or not.

            When interracial marriage was illegal, couples of different ethnicity still had the *moral* right to marry, even if they didn’t have that *civil* right.

            My point is that the position that a certain group of people should not have the same rights as the majority group is a bigoted position, whether it is based on religious conviction or not. Perhaps my analogy was a bit overblown, but let’s not pretend you don’t see its basic validity.

          • Phobia’s and hysteria are always cop out arguments, nearly as much an indicator that someone has lost an argument as Godwin’s Law is.