Tebow, religion, and eyeblack

[ORD_Buckeye]

Ord, you use public university topics to shove your beliefs down our throats virtually every day. This crusade of yours is quite inconsistent.

How does this in any way relate to my views on the higher education system in Ohio or the role of Ohio State within that system? If I was on the football team and wanted to paint OSU=FLAGSHIP on my face for the cameras to see, I guess I could see a connection.

And virtually every day? You're a moderator, so it shouldn't be too hard for you but check when the last post I made was regarding higher education policy, Ohio State admissions or anything else that could be construed as "shoving my beliefs down your throats."

 

[jwinslow]

George Carlin said it best...

"What can we do to silence these Christian atheltes?!? - Who, thank god when they win, but never mention him when they lose"

"God made me fumble the ball" or "The good lord tripped me up behind the line of scrimage"

Tebow did, but he is admittedly the best humanity has to offer :p

Your religious values and your devotion to god should not, in turn, bring glory unto yourself, more or less that too is a sin. I'm fine with the eye blacks, and some pointing - but sometimes it gets to be a bit much.

Absolutely.

 

[GomerBucks]

Lets say Tebow had another year of eligibility... and he didn't change a thing except no Eye Black.... Would you be ok with him then? (other than the sin of playing for Fla)

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Lets say Tebow had another year of eligibility... and he didn't change a thing except no Eye Black.... Would you be ok with him then? (other than the sin of playing for Fla)

Decent question. I think I would respect him a lot more for quietly maintaining his faith, whether through a quick finger point, or sideline prayer on the field and being as open and loud as he wanted to be off the field than I do his trying to use Gator games to witness for the cameras.

 

[jwinslow]

If this is a 1st amendment issue, which it's not, then the content of Pryor's speech doesn't mean a thing. He has the same alleged right to praise Michael Vick on his eyeshadow as Tebow does to praise Jesus Christ. In fact, the 1st amendment was written precisely to protect unpopular content such as Pryor's rather than merely allow what the majority believes in the first place.

And free speech protects a conversation about bologna sandwiches. Its protection doesn't make it a good comparison.

If it's a team rule issue, which it is

No it's not, but you keep confusing yourself with Jim Tressel. Tressel's choice is a team rule. Your crusade in this thread against religious messages is personal. If it were about the complications of individualism & sending messages, than there would have been a thread long before Tebow's bible verses.

then for consistency sake how do you police what is acceptable and unacceptable messages for one's face during a game.

It does open a can of worms. But I don't remember your complaints on the subject until they included one you didn't like. Did you complain about cushing's 'feel me' or lamaar thomas' boastful eyeblack about speed?

Jesus is ok as is CHOOSE LIFE, but what about "NO GOD" or PRO CHOICE? How about pro or anti Obama messages?

Right, because America is clearly in support of one over the other. Again this is becoming personal (faith vs atheism, pro-life vs choice) rather than the general topic.

Tressel was right, in the wake of the Pryor fiasco, to institute a blanket ban on players using the game to get their "message" out via painting their face. I fully expect him to be consistent in his application of this rule.

If you want to keep bringing up tressel, then why didn't he ban custom eyeblack when it was just bible verses or other non-faith phrases?

 

[jwinslow]

How does this in any way relate to my views on the higher education system in Ohio or the role of Ohio State within that system? If I was on the football team and wanted to paint OSU=FLAGSHIP on my face for the cameras to see, I guess I could see a connection.

The point is the hypocrisy of taking issue with someone "shoving their beliefs down your throat" (when 99% of the time you aren't shown any actual words unless you look them up) when you routinely scold other fans & schools and tell them how they should behave. Which one is more preachy? Aggressive? Demeaning?

And virtually every day? You're a moderator, so it shouldn't be too hard for you but check when the last post I made was regarding higher education policy, Ohio State admissions or anything else that could be construed as "shoving my beliefs down your throats."

Really? You're going to feign innocence regarding scolding other schools & people?

When you've spent the past month plus talking down to Cincinnati and are infamous for your rants about the peon Ohio schools falling into line?

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

And free speech protects a conversation about bologna sandwiches. Its protection doesn't make it a good comparison.

Again, I'm not the one who brought up Tebow's alleged 1st Amendment right to paint his face during games. I specifically said that it is in no way a first amendment right.

No it's not, but you keep confusing yourself with Jim Tressel. Tressel's choice is a team rule. Your crusade in this thread against religious messages is personal.

How am I confusing myself with Tressel by referencing his rule. Yes team rules are his choice. He made a choice to impose this rule, which I agree with. I just expect him to enforce it consistently.

It does open a can of worms. But I don't remember your complaints on the subject until they included one you didn't like. Did you complain about cushing's 'feel me' or lamaar thomas' boastful eyeblack about speed?

Honestly, I have no idea what those references are to, as I would to 99.99 of things football players choose to write on their face. This is a thread about Tebow using his face during football games to spout bible verses. That's the issue I'm addressing.

Right, because America is clearly in support of one over the other. Again this is becoming personal (faith vs atheism, pro-life vs choice) rather than the general topic.

That's the crux of the issue. Tebow should be allowed to paint up his face and proselytize during games because he's doing so in the context of the cultural majority in this country. Heaven forbid, someone be allowed to do so if they are swimming against the dominant cultural currents. Like I said, I can't wait for the people who praise Tebow's courage for witnessing to attack the first prominent athlete who tries to paint Koran verses on his face.

 

[jwinslow]

I'm not against banning them altogether to close pandora's box and other individualism, but I think it's very interesting that it became a problem when it involved religion.

How am I confusing myself with Tressel by referencing his rule.

Because you continue to use a coaches choice (representing less than 1% of CFB) to limit personal messages as justification for why they should not be allowed period. Those are two radically different discussions.

Yes team rules are his choice. He made a choice to impose this rule, which I agree with. I just expect him to enforce it consistently.

You still haven't addressed why personalized, in-your-face (or theirs) messages weren't worthy of a soapbox before they were religious.

Ever since Reggie Bush put his zipcode up there on national TV a few dozen times, players have found new ways to rep their home, family, greatness or beliefs. Most of it is flashy and in your face, someone of it even a bit suggestive. But it didn't become a problem until it included references to the bible.

Tebow should be allowed to paint up his face and proselytize during games because he's doing so in the context of the cultural majority in this country.

Not sure what rock you've been living under, as seen by your the quote in this sub-exchange, but open Christianity is not much of a majority anymore.

Like I said, I can't wait for the people who praise Tebow's courage for witnessing to attack the first prominent athlete who tries to paint Koran verses on his face.

And once more you carry on arguments with strawmen, whose shallow straw brains possess viewpoints that neither Gomer nor I possess.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Those are two radically different discussions.
You still haven't addressed why personalized, in-your-face (or theirs) messages weren't worthy of a soapbox before they were religious.

Ever since Reggie Bush put his zipcode up there on national TV a few dozen times, players have found new ways to rep their home, family, greatness or beliefs. Most of it is flashy and in your face, someone of it even a bit suggestive. But it didn't become a problem until it included references to the bible.

That's a fair question. I would say that a player's zip code is utterly non controversial. I don't know about some of the more racy examples, but I doubt I'd like to see those on players' faces either. Religion, politics or one's support for a convicted felon are most definitely controversial. Tebow's verses are there for a reason--to stir the pot and get people talking about his religion. Otherwise, why not just say a prayer.

My honest feeling is that players putting anything on their face to stir up controversy is not a good thing and in the service of fairness and consistency, the best policy is a blanket ban on any personal messages during games. I bring Tressel up because I think he made a wise rule and one worthy of consideration by coaches elsewhere.

FWIW, I would consider a player putting PUBLIC OPTION or SUPPORT OBAMA or any other controversial, attention grabbing message of a position, philosophy or policy that I support on their face during games, just as wrong and as much of a distraction as I do Tebow's.

Regarding Tebow, Laurinitis and specifically religious messages, I also guess what I find it particularly troublesome that it's being done in the context of secular public universities. I would have less of a problem with religious messages if they were at BYU or Notre Dame or even a secular private institution such as USC.

 

[jwinslow]

Only one minor quibble at this point:

Regarding Tebow, Laurinitis and specifically religious messages, I also guess what I find it particularly troublesome that it's being done in the context of secular public universities.

Public institutions don't expect or require students to express only the school's viewpoints on economics, politics, religion or sexuality. Why would it be any different for football players?

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Only one minor quibble at this point:Public institutions don't expect or require students to express only the school's viewpoints on economics, politics, religion or sexuality. Why would it be any different for football players?

I wouldn't expect or require that students express the school's viewpoint on religion etc. My position is that they should not use a university forum or event, in this case a football game, to express a controversial opinion. There are numerous forums, both on campus and off campus, for Tebow to witness and proselytize. I just happen to think he crossed a line when he chose football games for that activity. I liken it to a hypothetical student who when given an award hijacks the presentation ceremony to go off on a political rant that no one in the room came to hear.

You may not believe me, but I would be just as troubled by the football player who chose to use the game to paint his face with anti-religious messages as I would Tebow.

Granted, these players are not robots. There is going to be some individual expression. That being said, there's a wide spectrum between a quiet, private prayer on the sideline and wanting to put a cross on the helmet and bible verse on the back of the jersey. I think almost everyone would agree that the former is perfectly acceptable and the latter absurd. The issue of where in the middle does a coach, an athletic department and ultimately a university draw the line is the heart of the matter. I happen to think that Tebow's messages, while not absurd, still fall on the wrong side of that line. That's all.

 

[sandgk]

If Urban Meyer's cool with Spikes putting "iGouge" "4Food" under the windows to his soul then Tebow can put the winning lottery numbers if he pleases. (And we can make as much fun of it as we wish round here, that is clear).

 

[gracelhink]

No one is saying that UF should suppress his faith, nor that Ohio State should have done similarly to Laurinitis.

The issue is whether an athlete should be able to use his position on the team--particularly at a secular, public university--to flaunt and parade his particular chosen sectarian faith. .

First Ammendment is the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
First ammendment guarantees the right of speech, but not the right to an audience.
As others have said, if you don't like his message, you can choose to not be his audience.
While I disagree with many of your statements of personal beliefs, you character attacks, and excessive criticisms, I cannot censure your opinion. That is a liberty our founding patriots deemed valuable enough to died for even if they are proved by history to be less pragmatic than others.

We are still waiting for that link to the Warner quote where you claim he "clearly stated" that God favored him above all others.

My opinion, he never stated that, you either made it up or shaped what he actually said to suit your own argument and then characterized him as driven by narcissism.
Message boards don't forget. your credibility is on a steep decline.

 

[cincibuck]

I'd love to see Tebow come out with Matthew 6:5 on his eyeblack.

Guess that will never happen.

Matthew 6:5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

 

[sandgk]

First ammendment guarantees the right of speech, but not the right to an audience.

1st amendment should not be conflated with an institution adopting a stance of permitting the free and open expression, or exchange of ideas or convictions. I say this because the 1st amendment's intent on speech is to preclude constraint by a branch of the government. The policies and philosophy of the University of Florida toward its employees or student-athletes may be consistent with that amendment, but the amendment is not truly germane to this discussion. As an example, UF could impose a rule precluding any adornment by their student-athletes tomorrow. Offended student-athletes would be bound by that policy as de facto representatives of the institution. If they did not like the policy they might simply leave. Appealing the policy on 1st amendment grounds would likely see the courts turn a deaf ear, for UF is not the government.