Knowing What’s Best for My Children
Bob Parsons, the CEO of GoDaddy, has been talking on his weblog about the television ad they put on the Super Bowl last weekend. They had purchased two 30-second spots for the ad, but after the ad aired for the first time, someone at the NFL apparantely complained to Fox that the ad was inappropriate and Fox decided to not let it air a second time.
GoDaddy is an Internet domain name registrar, which means that they are one of many companies who will let people register domain names for personal and corporate web sites. I’ve got my domains registered at GoDaddy, including thirty or so we’ve registered for various projects through work.
The ad is an attempt to poke fun of last year’s “wardrobe malfunction” and the concerns that many people have raised since then. The ad has almost nothing to do with GoDaddy or the services it provides and was, I believe, created to generate exactly the kind of publicity it is getting now.
Any way, Mr. Parsons sets out to answer some of the criticism he’s received over the ad in an article on his weblog. In it, he defends the ad by saying that it showed nothing “worse than what you might see while walking down the street on most summer days”. That may well be true, but that comparison is irrelevant and misleading.
He’s comparing the activity in his ad to what goes on in the world. And the world is a poor excuse for a moral standard. Yet it is the very standard that most people seem to apply to their lives. That kind of argument goes like this:
“I don’t swear as bad as you do, so I’m not so bad.”
or
“I’m just reading Playboy, not downloading pornography from the Internet.”
or
“This outfit doesn’t show any more of my skin than her outfit does, so it’s okay to wear.”
That kind of an argument takes God completely out of the equation, and that’s the problem with it. When you base your own moral standards on the world, you’re chasing a moving target. Fifty years ago, the world was a much different place than it was today. Nearly everyone dressed much more conservatively. Nearly everyone demonstrated better respect for other people. The basic level of civility to one another was much higher than it is today.
In other words, what was considered appropriate in the 1950s is much different than what is considered that way today. So if you base what you believe is acceptable and proper on the world, you’ve got a much different view today than your grandparents did back then.
Even so, Mr. Parsons makes one statement that particularly stands out to me. In his weblog article, he said this:
There is nothing in our commercial inappropriate for a child to see.
This crosses another boundary. With this, he’s telling me that the direction my wife and I set for our children doesn’t matter one bit and that his values are all that matter. Mr. Parsons believes that his values are what should set the standard for my children.
He couldn’t be more wrong.
There might not be anything in his commercial that he considers inappropriate for his children (or grandchildren, as the case may be). But that speaks not at all to what my wife and I consider to be appropriate for our children.
And that would be the case even if Mr. Parsons’ world view was Biblically-based, which it clearly is not, this despite his considering himself to be a Christian, “[t]o this day”. The Bible speaks to that rather clearly.
Matthew 7:21 – NASB: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Just like Mr. Parsons, many people claim to be Christian, but base their decisions upon the standards of the world, rather than those of Jesus Christ. And many people interpret the Bible based on what they see in the world, rather than evaluating what they see in the world based on the Bible.
The world changes, but God does not. The Bible speaks rather clearly to that, as well.
Malachi 3:6 – NASB: “For I, the LORD, do not change;
No, Mr. Parsons, you don’t get to decide what is right for my children. And it is wrong for you to believe that you speak for anyone’s children other than your own.
But you kind of need to think that way to believe that your ad was appropriate. I just don’t agree with you.
20-Jan-2009 Update: I’ve been getting spam comments from .ru addresses specifically on this post for several weeks, so I’m turning off comments on it.
Filed under: General
Well said, Gary. Keep fighting the good fight for your family. It pays off. My daughter is 19 now and a fine, moral, Christian young woman who knows right from wrong, good from bad, and what to take in stride.
She can’t be bamboozled by the likes of the man you cite because she sees clearly how selfishness makes people give in to sin.
Personally I don’t let my son watch violent games that have no point to society.
Why are you even watching this crud? How is football “godly” but the advertising isn’t?
I have to agree with Scoble – you want to let your kids grown men smash into each other for no reason, along with cheerleaders et al.but yet balk at the GoDaddy ad. When did violence become more ‘godly’ than sex
I’m sorry, but how did you become the benchmark for all things godly and right? Now you’re talking for Mr. Parsons’ kids, which by your standards is just as wrong.
Advertising in the US has a history of implying sexual activity, is often based on men’s attraction to (very) young women and, thank god, is protected under the first amendment. That means, that a) I have the right to watch it and b) you have the right to not let your children see the advertisments, just like I do. I’m glad that there’s Tivo now. But one thing that you should think about is this: censorship for religious reasons is one of the major properties of every dictatorship that we call the axis of evil.
Thanks for the comments and traffic, Robert. The difference is sin. Not all violence is sinful. Probably the most violent act ever committed against one man was Jesus’ scourging, beating, and crucifixion.
Here’s part of what I said in a comment on your weblog regarding the difference, as I believe it exists:
“Football is violent in that you (generally) have two groups of people struggling physically with one another, making deliberate contact with one another, but not trying to kill one another. A desire to excel and succeed is behind football players’ actions.”
“Much of other television is violent in that there is hate behind the violence. People are trying to kill one another.”
As for the lust on display during the games via mostly the cheerleaders, that is more of an issue than the violence. We react to it by changing the channel. But it is certainly becoming more prevalent in the game these days. And if it continues to worsen, we’ll end up not watching.
Joh, I don’t claim to the a benchmark for anyone – including myself or my own children. Certainly not for Bob Parsons’ children, if he has any.
The benchmark that I choose is God. That’s really the point I was trying to make.
Thanks for the comments everyone.
Let’s see now. Jesus didn’t have TV, Football, or the Internet.
If you really want to follow the bible, why don’t you remove all of those aspects from your life. Move somewhere far away so you and your children can live a more simple life away from these ’subversions’.
Do you think Jesus would want your children watching muscular grown men in tight pants grappling and tackling each other.
I think that you would believe that the world should live in a bible based vacuum.
Would you think that crucifixion is an appropriate punishment now? It certainly was back two thousand years ago. Should we move back to punishing people that way? Instead of having changed our levels of what is appropriate or not?
Nice strawman.
I think this interesting, because it highlights a problem. A world without ideals is not exactly a place I’d want to live in. However, figuring out what those ideals are is tricky at best.
Basing your ideals on an exteremely naive view of the 1950’s or a old piece of fiction (yes, the bible) filtered through someone own personal prejudices, is not appropriate either.
Frankly, when one examines your comments, what you see is not god-given word, but your own opinions and blind prejudice masked behind ambiguous translated text.
It’s stupid, basically.
Brian, living a life founded upon God’s word doesn’t mean living isolated from the rest of the world. In fact, we’re called to be in the world to share God’s message with others.
The fact that there are things that exist today, but that didn’t exist 2000 years ago is my point exactly. The world changes. It has always changed and will always change. But God does not change.
And that means that a life based upon God’s word has a solid foundation. A person so founded doesn’t drift with the winds as they change, but remains solid on the foundation.
The Internet is neither good nor evil. I use the Internet as do my children, though their use is restricted to a handful of sites we’ve previously approved.
Athiest, why do you believe the Bible is fiction? And what of my opinions and blind prejudice do you see in my article? Please elaborate.
Wow, everyone but Gary Peterson is going to hell. I hate his holier than thou attitude. He may a good point but I stopped respecting his opinion when he brought God into his argument. Since when has Christian doctrine been a valid foundation for *any* moral discussion?
Gary, it seems a few people posting here failed to read your post. It seems pretty clear to me that you’re simply saying that Parsons isn’t the judge of what’s right or wrong for your children, and it’s also pretty clear that you’re not imposing your standards on him and his children/grandchildren. Amazing how a simple post with a couple verses attracts the flamers. I agree with your post, I don’t want my kids watching it. Scoble’s post also has some validity, but ignores the fact that its a game with penalties for what many people would consider violence (though certainly not all). I tend to set a standard in my TV watching by saying that if its something I don’t want my kids watching, regardless of the reason why, I don’t watch it. Scoble’s post tends to return right back to where the discussion started, telling people what is right for their kids. I’m not going to stop people from letting their kids watch certain garbage, but I am going to keep my kids from it, and I’ll do it by example as much as anything else.
I deleted one comment that was nothing more than a vulgarity. And from an anonymous poster at that. I have but two ground rules for my site that I’d ask you to follow.
First, you don’t have to provide your name or email address to post comments here. I’d prefer that you did so I can adequately follow up with you, but that’s your choice.
Second, I will delete foul language, so please don’t use it. And I’m the final arbiter of what is foul, since this is my weblog.
Thanks.
To the person from Illuninati (comment 10) (they post as Lord Naff on their own site), did you actually read my article? I never stated that what I decide is good for my family is good for anyone else. And I never spoke about salvation, mine or anyone else’s, at all.
So please read the article again and let me know what your concern is and I’ll try to answer it. Thanks.
But this is precisely the language involved in Federal decenecy standards and law. Typically for content to be considered offensive it must have no artistic merit, and be complete offensive to the “average” member of a contemporary community. Naturally, this varies over time, so content today that may be considered decent could, conceivably, in the future be considered indecent and illegal.
In America, if you have significantly more conservative standards than your community, then you bear the duty of isolating yourself from content which offends you. You can turn away from the television, and keep your children in bed.
Atheist, your comments are comical at best, sad at worst. I too use to be an atheist and I, like you, based my ideals on something. Everyone does. Be it the Bible if you’re a Christian, or writings of “great thinkers” of our time if you’re an atheist. But fact is, you have based your ideals on a foundation that may be built on sand and when the storm comes, will you be realizing that it is *your* ideals that are based on fiction as I did 15 years ago? I’ve read them all, Atheist; Plato, Nietzsche, Freud, and on and on, and in the end it was I that realized that they are dead and so are their words.
Back to Gary’s point, yes, we do need to protect what our children see. Just because one man sees moral decay as acceptable does not mean the rest of the apples in the barrel wish to go rotten with him. If you live where people run naked in the streets, that doesn’t mean the rest of America does, so why make that comparison to a format that comes into all of America’s homes? And while we have the option of turning off our TV during commercials (I do this), it’s not a proper fix to the problem. It’s a childish argument that needs to be left in the books of these great thinkers, Atheist.
Mr. Peterson,
First of all, I’d like to say right up front that I couldn’t disagree with you more. I am an agnostic and don’t agree with your religious interpretation of the world in general, but that’s a discussion for another day.
I believe in (and this country was founded upon) the separation of church and state as well as every person’s right to the freedom of religion (or lack thereof), speech, etc. Therefore, I cannot take exception to your belief that the GoDaddy ad was inappropriate – for your children. I have 3 young children myself (ages 2-7) and don’t feel that there was anything terribly wrong with the commercial. This begs the question: where to draw the line?
I submit that we must choose the least restictive of standards in these cases. Nudity, cursing, graphic violence, and material which would be offensive to a LARGE MAJORITY of the population should be kept from the public airwaves. Most everything else should be permissible to be broadcast.
Why do I hold this position? Because it is a very slippery slope that we risk sliding down once we begin to censor “questionable” material. Today, groups of people such as yourself will be able to stop ads such as the GoDaddy Super Bowl ad. Tomorrow you could take exception to shows like Survivor (and most reality series), NYPD Blue, ER, any “beach based” show…you see my point.
I emphasized “large majority” because I think that there should be an overall concensus in the country in order to take another step down the censorship path simply because of the ramifications of taking such a step. It’s not inconceivable that, once we allow a religious moral code to be applied to society in general, my daughters will be forbidden from wearing a bikini to the beach or a skirt to school (not that either of those ideas is particularly appealing to me as a father).
In the end, we should all still have our rights as guaranteed by the constitution. GoDaddy has a right to produce “suggestive” commercials, Fox has the right to air them, I have the right to watch them, and you have the right to change the channel.
The standard suggested by Tom for “least restrictive” is reckless. Do we really have the “right to change the channel” if we never know what will show up in the next moment? Put another way, do I need to constantly watch a program with some sort of 5-second delay so I can catch “inappropriate” material before my child ingests it? What about me, I’m 43 years old but have no desire to watch a family show and be ambushed by “suggestive” material. Hey, just as we demand accuracy in labeling contents of food products, we need accuracy in labeling of media products and associated advertising. If a program is labeled as a sporting event or given a theme (such as family show) or genre (such as kids cartoons) then we should be able to ingest it without being ambushed (as we were by last year’s “wardrobe malfunction”). For GoDaddy to make fun of our desire for programs/advertising to be audience-appropriate is just sick. Would you want me to stride by your front window allofasudden, flash my genitals and then move on? Hey, you might have been looking out the window just expecting a pleasant view, and you would think it criminal for me to expose myself. The same principle applies to media: content for programs and advertising should be restricted to its intended audience and should err on the side of caution. Want provocative material? There are a great many ways for adults to obtain it upon request, just don’t dump it into everyone’s living room and call it “freedom” because I define freedom as the ability to screen out garbage by requiring media to accurately label their material.
be what is appropriate for the audience of a TV program. For example, audiences for sports events include children. Sexualizing them is inappropriate (sorry all atheists, if you want to line up with the pro-kiddie sex group, go ahead, but expect opposition). How many “family” shows now foist “free love” sex of hetero and homo varieties on their audiences?
Gary,
Great post, well thought out. I didn’t really want to comment on it until I read some of the comments. Pretty amazing how a post can get all kinds of negative feedback that really doesn’t have anything to do with said post. For example; “Wow, everyone but Gary Peterson is going to hell. I hate his holier than thou attitude. He may a good point but I stopped respecting his opinion when he brought God into his argument. Since when has Christian doctrine been a valid foundation for *any* moral discussion?”
I don’t recall you bringing hell into the discussion.
I really find it troubling that critical thinking is such a rare commodity. If one thinks that a commercial is innapropriate for a show that should be a family show then Tom thinks they are being a censor and wants to control all speech. Gary didn’t want NYPD Blues et al taken off of the air, if he doesn’t like the content of those shows he doesn’t watch them. His suggestion would be put the racy commercials on during those shows and not during shows that a family might watch. The problem with all of these “tolerant free thinker” types is that they think we should shut up about our faith and never subject them to even the mention of God. However, if we don’t want to hear or see things they support, well tough, we are going to hear them whether we like it or not. If we complain we are branded bigots, censors, stupid, intolerant, etc.
I find it hard to believe some can’t tell the difference between violence and sporting events. When Paul made numerous references to “fighting the good fight”, “running the race” and “wrestling against”; contextual study reveals he was making reference to wrestling, “boxing” and track sporting events of his time. I don’t think Paul thought he was advocating violence.
Good post. I am going to link to it.
> In fact, we’re called to be in the world to share God’s message with others.
Who decided that? Have God spoken to you? You are taking the words of an old piece if fiction to be the ultimate truth. It indicates lack of maturity of the brain.
This very particular trait of certain christians make them so unbearable. Believe in your christ as much as you want or believe in a piece of wood or some stale water for all I care. But don’t try to impose upon you naive beliefs forcefully on the rest of the world.
It is very foolish to even imagine that certain sects have only access to the truth and no other. Truth is universal and it should be accessible irrespective of your faith in christ or not. In fact blind faith in christ is actually hindering.
You question why do some people call bible a fiction. It is a fiction because there is no proof to its authenticaty that can be traced to within hundred years of purported birth of christ. In fact christ is most likely a fiction too.
Any authentic historical figure has been mentioned in his time-period by friends or foes. christ wasn’t within 100 years or more beyond his purported lifetime. For alll I knowhe was created in crete as an imaginary person with good ideals by therapeut tribes to spread their ideals.
First off, its difficult to take you too seriously, “Believe in God not Christ”, as you’re not willing to stand behind what you say. You posted anonomously, so I have no way to follow up with you other than by commenting here.
Christians are called to share God’s message by His Word. So in a manner of speaking, yes, He did speak to me (as well as every other believer).
Matthew 28:19-20 – NASB
19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20: teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
If you don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the risen Son of God, or you don’t believe in God Himself, then this commandment isn’t for you. Going into the world and sharing is what Christians are called to do, not those who do not believe.
I will admit that some try to force their beliefs on others forcefully. I’ve never believed that standing on a street corner, shouting at the top of your lungs was a reasonable means of evangelizing. Being obnoxious isn’t what God asked us to do.
Rather, we are called to invest ourselves in to the lives of those around us. We are to share our faith with people in a way that they are likely to listen to. You would be much more likely to listen carefully to me if we were friends than if you just bumped into me on a street corner.
The Internet makes that a bit different, but even so, I’m not forcing my beliefs upon you. You read this article and chose to respond. It wasn’t “required reading” for you, at least not in any way that I can imagine.
Truth is universal, as you say. But I believe the truth is that God exists, that Jesus Christ was and is His Son, that Jesus fully as God came to earth in the form of a man and lived among us, that He died on the cross, and that He rose again to life then returned to Heaven where He lives with God the Father.
If that is the truth, it remains the truth whether you or anyone else believes it or not.
This truth is what I am striving to found my life upon. I say striving, because I sometimes act in a way that would not demonstrate that belief. You can choose to reject that truth if you wish, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is the truth.
Regarding whether the Bible is fiction, I don’t recall writing about that, but that doesn’t mean much. As for non-Biblical writings about the facts of Jesus’ life, here are a couple of resources that might be helpful.
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html