I rarely receive ‘em.
I infrequently read ‘em.
What are “they”? Those emails forwarded by friends and family ranting about the political hot potato of the day.
For the few I do open up (sometimes inadvertently), I have yet to read a cogent argument that’s convinced me to change my position on that particular issue.
Last week I received a forwarded email about the upcoming pro-life Super Bowl ad featuring football star Tim Tebow and his mother. Reportedly, the spot tells the story of how Mrs. Tebow, pregnant with Tim, came down with a tropical ailment while living in the Philippines; the doctors then told her the pregnancy had become life-threatening. Obviously, Mrs. Tebow chose to still have the baby, her son Tim; the ad celebrates that choice.
The ad (and the fact that CBS entered uncharted ground by agreeing to ad an “issue” ad during the Super Bowl) have generated a passionate response, eclipsing interest in the actual game. (Go, Saints!) The email I received last week is case in point. Here’s an excerpt:
“I found out that CBS has cleared the way to subject nearly 100 million people to Focus on the Family’s extrema agenda by agreeing to air its new pro-life ad during the Super Bowl.
Focus on the Family has an unmistakable anti-choice, anti-birth control, anti-sex-education, anti-gay agenda. If that isn’t bad enough, its views on women are just plain insulting and dangerous. For example, its web site urges women facing unintended pregnancy to seek “wise advice” because “the hormones and extreme emotions of pregnancy make reasonable decisions more difficult.” Yeah, there is no way you can make this up.”
This dire email from NARAL was forwarded to me by my cousin, a bright guy with a big heart and a wicked sense or humor. I scrolled to the end of the message expecting a wry comment from him about the hyperbolic language in the email. Nope. Just a quick disclaimer: “I don’t usually send this type of stuff, and my apologies if this is not something you want to receive.” (Which is true, he doesn’t.)
The form email went on to urge me to not “sit by while CBS lets Focus on the Family place a political ad during the Super Bowl” and sign an online petition in protest.
Actually, the urge I felt was NOT to leap into cyber action. I wanted to scream in frustration. It drives me bonkers that the original email author believes that a position framed in polarizing and demonizing language will convince me – and others – to change positions on this deeply personal issue.
The Washington Post sports writer Sally Jenkin’s article, “Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are” captured my sentiment about the brouhaha:
“CBS owns its broadcast and can run whatever advertising it wants, and Tebow has a right to express his beliefs publicly. Just as I have the right to reject or accept them after listening — or think a little more deeply about the issues.”
I didn’t reply to the forwarded email. (Add that to the list – I never respond to ‘em.) But, it definitely pushed a button for me.
Wise Women, how do you handle it when you receive a forwarded email with a viewpoint (or hyperbolic language) that you find problematic? Any reaction to the back-and-forth about this year’s Super Bowl ads? And, perhaps most pertinent to this first weekend in February, who else is joining me in rooting for the Saints?





