Tebow ad exposes the intolerance of the “tolerant” Left

posted at 11:00 am on February 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Sally Jenkins, a pro-choice columnist for the Washington Post, writes a devastating essay today on the reaction from her side of the abortion issue to the Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow that celebrates choosing life.  Jenkins says she couldn’t disagree more with Tebow on the issue of abortion, but cannot believe the kind of knee-jerk overreaction coming from NOW, which Jenkins presumes refers to “National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us.”  Jenkins says the overwrought reaction exposes the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant Left and shows that so-called “pro-choice” groups are really more pro-abortion:

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

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. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She 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 and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

As for those who say the Super Bowl is no forum for personal perspectives on life, Jenkins offers a particularly compelling counterargument:

His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Trouble is, you can’t focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it — and that is the genius of Tebow’s ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: 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. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.

Shouldn’t tolerance include hearing opposing viewpoints, or at least allowing them to be aired in public forums?  After all, tolerance means putting up with something, not agreeing with it.  If the only ideas we allowed to air publicly were those that had almost-total consensus, that’s not tolerance but political correctness — a rhetorical straitjacket that goes against the very idea of free speech.

When groups like NOW want to silence people like the Tebows, they’re doing so to protect their own turf.  The ad asks people to choose life, not to ban abortion.  If NOW really was pro-choice, they’d see nothing invalid about showing the end result of one choice and the faith that carried the Tebows from that terrifying diagnosis to the pinnacle of athletic and scholarly success.  Tebow represents hope in the midst of hopelessness.  NOW doesn’t want people to have hope; they want women to buy abortions, and this ugly response has made that crystal clear.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

If you believe in rigid adherence to a small set of core beliefs, you probably are a fundamentalist even though you’re not relgious.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 5:08 PM

And because if you are a fundamentalist, you are by definition an evil hatemonger. Mao was a fundamentalist, Dobson is a fundamentalist therefore, Mao and Dobson are equally guilty of the deaths of millions.

So here we get to the meat of the gist. It doesn’t matter what you believe, the very fact that you believe some things to be true makes you a fundamentalist and by your definition worthy of scorn and abuse.

Of course, if you believe this to be true, you might be a fundamentalist.

Lily on February 3, 2010 at 5:24 PM

I confess: I am a fundamentalist teacher: I believe in teaching the basics in school.
Ergo I hate?
This thread is out of control.
People need to stop painting folks with such a wide brush.
I’ve read a LOT on Mao & Stalin inparticular.
They were not fundamentalists:they were savage opportunists.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 5:28 PM

If you believe in rigid adherence to a small set of core beliefs, you probably are a fundamentalist even though you’re not relgious.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 5:08 PM

And so according to this definition, if we are not to be labeled as a fundamentalist, we must be open to waffling on everything of importantce & principle?
No thanks.
I can be a fundamentalist on an issue & not be intolerant or ‘rigid’.
Even fundamentalists who are religous can debate & change their minds about things.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 5:30 PM

If you believe in rigid adherence to a small set of core beliefs, you probably are a fundamentalist even though you’re not relgious.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 5:08 PM

God help us. The modern “free-thinker” can’t distinguish between adhering to fundamental beliefs and committed atrocities against humanity. Did you miss that dakine lumped JAMES DOBSON, who (*gasp*) opposes gay marriage, with MAO, who slaughtered millions?

That you think they’re just at various stages along the same path makes me want to weep for the future of this nation.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 3, 2010 at 5:31 PM

If you believe in rigid adherence to a small set of core beliefs, you probably are a fundamentalist even though you’re not relgious.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 5:08 PM
And because if you are a fundamentalist, you are by definition an evil hatemonger. Mao was a fundamentalist, Dobson is a fundamentalist therefore, Mao and Dobson are equally guilty of the deaths of millions.

So here we get to the meat of the gist. It doesn’t matter what you believe, the very fact that you believe some things to be true makes you a fundamentalist and by your definition worthy of scorn and abuse.

Of course, if you believe this to be true, you might be a fundamentalist.

Lily on February 3, 2010 at 5:24 PM

–I never said that fundamentalists were worthy of scorn and abuse. You said that, in effect, Mao could not be a fundamentalist because he was not relgious. I explained that fundamentalism was not the same as fundamentalist Christianity.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 5:31 PM

God help us. The modern “free-thinker” can’t distinguish between adhering to fundamental beliefs and committed atrocities against humanity. Did you miss that dakine lumped JAMES DOBSON, who (*gasp*) opposes gay marriage, with MAO, who slaughtered millions?

That you think they’re just at various stages along the same path makes me want to weep for the future of this nation.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 3, 2010 at 5:31 PM

–Saying that Mao and Dobson both slaughtered millions because they were fundamentalists makes as much sense as saying Obama and I are both black because we both live in the US. My comment was only to explain that, yes, they both can be considered fundamentalists.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 5:34

PM

dakine said she abhors fundamentalists, considering them dangerous. She made a list of those she considers fundamentalists. The list contained James Dobson and Mao.

And you’re defending her.

This kind of thinking is a cancerous growth on the bedrock of our nation. It was discovered just in time. Those of us who see relativism for the sinking rathole of despicable intellectual vacuousness it is are killing it with heavy doses of chemotherapy.

It will only hurt for a little bit, Jimbo. Then you’ll be all better.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 3, 2010 at 5:42 PM

This kind of thinking is a cancerous growth on the bedrock of our nation. It was discovered just in time. Those of us who see relativism for the sinking rathole of despicable intellectual vacuousness it is are killing it with heavy doses of chemotherapy.

It will only hurt for a little bit, Jimbo. Then you’ll be all better.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 3, 2010 at 5:42 PM

–If you fit the dictionary definition of fundamentalism, you are a fundamentalist. And if you don’t like it, go argue with the US Military and ask it to change its definition.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 5:49 PM

My comment was only to explain that, yes, they both can be considered fundamentalists.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 5:34 PM

My comment was only to explain that saying that Dobson and Mao should be considered fellow travelers because by some definition they can both be called fundamentalists and that because they are both fundamentalists, one is as evil as the other, is ridiculous.

YOU
did not say that, however, dakine is the one who put up the the all inclusive list as evidence as to why all fundamentalists are evil no matter what they consider to be their fundamental truths to be. I want to be clear on that point.

Lily on February 3, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Dakine, I saw your last comment. It’s alright and I offer an apology to you in return. I guess I was whining a bit myself. (Surprised Blake didn’t tell me to knock it off too) Obviously you’re not a troll and the hypocrite remark was too much too. If you just eased up on the crusade a bit. I just honestly can’t filter out the points from the barbs.

The point is I know a lot of people you would call fundamentalists. I’m not, but I admire the devote adherent to their faith. I used to be there but have lost a lot of it in the last ten years since the war started and have been deployed. My more devoted friends aren’t just surviving the war in respect to their faith, they’re thriving in it. And they’re magnets for people who want to find that inner strength and be like them. I imagine if the only thing you think of when you think fundamentalist, is some idiot holding a sign that says, “Death to All Who Insult Mohammed”, or “God Will Punish Gays”; you could have a poor view. I really know no one like that. In fact, with all the parts of society or the world they tend to disagree with, they do a lot of praying for them. Like friends here who actually pray for our enemies. I just tend to pray that my Door Gunners are on target.

I did a study a long time ago where the author was trying to return Christians to the basic beliefs of our faith and to get back to a point where we accepted the Pentateuch History as the literal word of God. The point was if you dismiss the age of the patriarchs because it seems so impossible to believe, if you can’t get your faith around the days it took God to form the heavens and the Earth, what else can you allow as fable from the Bible. Once you’ve gotten to that point, there’s really nothing left except civility by committee again and what we decide we’ll accept as fact and tenet to follow from what we are supposed to believe is the word of God given to man. If that’s all fundamentalists are, what is wrong with a genuine return to our core faith?

Hawk

These are people that would

hawkdriver on February 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Hawk

These are people that would

hawkdriver on February 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Ignore the rest of the words behind the curtain.

hawkdriver on February 3, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Good stuff hawk, and as I said before, stay safe brah.

Quick note for Lily, Joe, etc. I’m referring to fundamentalists in a more general sense across different categories of groups. I fully understand that Fundamentalist Christianity has particular meaning. Also, I was in no way equivocating Mao to Dobson. Somebody asked me to list people or groups I consider to be fundamentalists, and I was simply trying to do so across different categories. I continue to believe that true fundamentalists (of any stripe and religious or not) are dangerous and poisonous, but obviously in varying degrees depending on the person or group.

dakine on February 3, 2010 at 11:29 PM

That is the criteria. If you believe in the Son, Jesus Christ God in the flesh, you have eternal life. It doesn’t mean you are perfectly sinless, and have all the answers about everything, but it does mean that when you stick to the Scriptures for your foundation, you can’t go wrong. Mr. Palmer obviously, at least with regard to black people, did not, and the results were tragic.

Joe Pyne on February 3, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Thanks for the response Joe. I understand your point.

dedalus on February 3, 2010 at 11:40 PM

Thanks for the response Joe. I understand your point.

dedalus on February 3, 2010 at 11:40 PM

You are certainly welcome, I appreciate an honest question.

Joe Pyne on February 4, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Gees Jimbo, anyone who opposes abortion or gay marriage is an evil fundamentalist? You are getting away out there my friend.

garydt on February 4, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7