And just for balance, this seems to be the point most readers want to make which, by the way, I agree with for the most part. From a reader:

Jonah: I get the point about Michael J. Fox, the Parkinson’s victim, versus Jim Caveziel, the ”fake” Jesus, but doesn’t this point obscure the real issue? In my mind, it’s not about who is conveying the Amendment 2 message to voters, but rather the accuracy of the message being conveyed. I believe with all my heart that Michael J. Fox had only the best intentions when he agreed to participate in the Amendment 2 ad. Unfortunately, good intentions don’t relieve him of the responsibility to be fair and accurate. Mr. Fox did not provide full disclosure regarding Amendment 2 nor a fair assessment of the Republican candidate’s position on stem cell research. Mr. Fox did not distinguish between stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, nor did he distinguish between privately funded embryonic stem cell research and taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research. Mr. Fox also failed to disclose certain controversial provisions of the Amendment, i.e., cloning, egg harvesting, etc. Regardless of his good intentions, when Mr. Fox chose to tell potential voters only what he wanted them to know, he ceased to be a victim- advocate and became a political activist. I’m okay with Mr. Fox employing the “shock” factor to facilitate research and, one day, a cure. I’m not okay with allowing his passion for the cause to trump his sensitivity toward other Parkinson’s victims and their families. My father-in-law has suffered from Parkinson’s disease for years and exhibits none of the severe symptoms exhibited by Mr. Fox in the ad. Parkinson’s disease is like any other chronic disease — it impacts different people in different ways. To imply that all Parkinson’s victims will end up like Mr. Fox if Amendment 2 is not passed is irresponsible and untrue.