Tebow, religion, and eyeblack

[gracelhink]

Quote:14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. (King James Bible, Romans)
Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools.

14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.

(King James Bible, Romans)


2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

(King James Bible, Colossians)


9:13 This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it seemed great unto me: There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it: Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man. Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard. The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools.

(King James Bible, Ecclesiastes)
Again, I do not think it is fair to criticize Tim Tebow exclusively. Many people, such as me, find his religious values commendable. Still, I do not feel that this behavior is appropriate, practically or in Scripture.

Steve if you are trying to argue that these verses require or even recommend Tebow or any practicing Christian repress or stifle an expression of testimony or witness, I think you need to read the context of each, expecially Romans 14:22, which is dealing with eating food sacrificed to idols, and not really pertinent to a believer's personal testimony of faith.
The final two scriptures are describing how believers are effective in witness. I think eye black and silent prayer would be more equivalent to "quiet", than be construed as shouting, screaming, crying out, etc.
Re. Tebow, Lauranitis, Tressell, Jenkins, and Kurt Warner, they also have embraced the instructions found in Matt. 28:16-20, Acts 1:8, I Peter 3:15, etc. which are clear expectations for faithfully living out their Christian faith.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

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.

Message boards don't forget. your credibility is on a steep decline.

Whatever, my credibility may or may not be, you have a ridiculously mistaken and simplisitc view of the first amendment.

The first amendment protects speech and religious expression from censorship and criminalization by the government. It does not give someone a blank check to proselytize anywhere they choose. There is absolutely NOTHING in the first amendment or over two centuries of case law since its passage that gives somenone a right to express their religious, political or any other beliefs at any time of their choosing.

I have no first amendment right to wear religious slogans at work if my boss forbids it. I have no first amendment rights to proselytize at the mall, if mall management forbids it. And a football player has no first amendment right to paint his face with religious slogans should his coach or university choose to forbid it.

Tebow is allowed to wear his religious slogans because his coach and university choose to allow it, but he has NO first amendment right to do so.

 

[Gatorubet]

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.

To be fair, a major thrust of that teaching was that those who pray so that others will see them praying are not really seeking communion with God, but merely doing it for selfish, non-spiritual "look at me" reasons.

One cannot say that Tim is insincere about his beliefs, or that he is not really religious, and only putting on an act to gain favor in the eyes of other people.

 

[gracelhink]

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.

Thanks for the information about conflation of a government protection with an institutions sovereignty. I learned something today.
So for example if UF imposed a uniform or body code prohibiting personal message displays, a SA could not claim exemption from the requirement based on 1st ammendment law, and if pursued he would be committing an act of institutional disobedience.
Question is somewhat OT, but if the university would pursue criminal or other civil charges, could he be convicted or punished by the state?

 

[gracelhink]

Whatever, my credibility may or may not be, you have a ridiculously mistaken and simplisitc view of the first amendment.

The first amendment protects speech and religious expression from censorship and criminalization by the government. It does not give someone a blank check to proselytize anywhere they choose. There is absolutely NOTHING in the first amendment or over two centuries of case law since its passage that gives somenone a right to express their religious, political or any other beliefs at any time of their choosing.

I have no first amendment right to wear religious slogans at work if my boss forbids it. I have no first amendment rights to proselytize at the mall, if mall management forbids it. And a football player has no first amendment right to paint his face with religious slogans should his coach or university choose to forbid it.

Tebow is allowed to wear his religious slogans because his coach and university choose to allow it, but he has NO first amendment right to do so.

I am not an attorney, with case law knowledge, and I apologize for simplistic and misconstrued applications of legal principles.
It seems like this matter is a free speech issue, however.
As you say "unless and until" the institution, employer, or property owner forbids the message on its property, Tebow's religious expression is still a protected and prevailing principle and the burden is on the institution to stifle it rather than the individual or the dissent of those claiming to be harmed or offended by it.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I am not an attorney, with case law knowledge, and I apologize for simplistic and misconstrued applications of legal principles.
It seems like this matter is a free speech issue, however.
As you say "unless and until" the institution, employer, or property owner forbids the message on its property, Tebow's religious expression is still a protected and prevailing principle and the burden is on the institution to stifle it rather than the individual or the dissent of those claiming to be harmed or offended by it.

I shouldn't have used the term simplistic. Upon rereading, it sounds a lot worse than what I meant, and I was about to edit it before seeing your response. My apologies.

I've never claimed to be harmed by Tebow's eyeshadow....annoyed certainly. I agree with you that he certainly has a right to do it, so long as the powers that be at U of F are willing to allow it, and at the same time are not using their institutional authority to censor or stifle competing expressions of religious faith should another SA desire to make those.

My underlying point has been that I think it's bad university policy to let any SA use his body during games to convey religious, political or any other message that might be deemed as controversial. I don't think U of F's decision to allow it is unconstitutional, just bad judgment.

 

[muffler dragon]

I googled "kurt warner god favor", and this was the second link that came up.

In a word, "Wow!": Republican Christian Kurt Warner is goin' all the way! - The Landover Baptist Church Forums

 

[Buckeye513]

I googled "kurt warner god favor", and this was the second link that came up.

In a word, "Wow!": Republican Christian Kurt Warner is goin' all the way! - The Landover Baptist Church Forums

Landover Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gatorubet]

I googled "kurt warner god favor", and this was the second link that came up.

In a word, "Wow!": Republican Christian Kurt Warner is goin' all the way! - The Landover Baptist Church Forums

Whitehouse.org was in full gear during the Bush II years, and Betty Bowers, "America's Best Christian" was a regular topic of the satire site.

She went to Landover Baptist.

If I remember, she was head of W's Department of Faith. They also sold posters and coffee cups, a la -

 

[muffler dragon]

Landover Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:sheepish:

Thanks. Should've done more searching.

 

[gracelhink]

To be fair, a major thrust of that teaching was that those who pray so that others will see them praying are not really seeking communion with God, but merely doing it for selfish, non-spiritual "look at me" reasons.

One cannot say that Tim is insincere about his beliefs, or that he is not really religious, and only putting on an act to gain favor in the eyes of other people.

Gaturubet, Well stated and relevant exposition of Jesus teaching in Matt. 6.
To further explain the context of what Jesus is condemning, praying in order to be esteemed and rewarded by people, he had previously condemned the giving of money and after would condemn the practice of fasting in order to be praised by people (the "reward").
In Matt. 6:6, Jesus teaches how disciples are to do it when they pray.
"Go into your closets. close the door, pray in secret."
In the Jewish culture, men wore prayer shawls. Instead of public babbling to be heard by people, the prayer shawl was to be used to be heard by God.
The prayer shawl was worn by the Jewish people around the shoulders. During the appointed time for prayer, the faithful man would lift the shawl over his head (the prayer closet), cover his face and head (close the door), kneel in humility, and silently pray (pray in secret).

I am not the judge of Tebow's intents by his prayer actions, but on the surface, they are not as great a violation of Matt. 6 as some might interpret.

 

[muffler dragon]

In the Jewish culture, men wore prayer shawls. Instead of public babbling to be heard by people, the prayer shawl was to be used to be heard by God.
The prayer shawl was worn by the Jewish people around the shoulders. During the appointed time for prayer, the faithful man would lift the shawl over his head (the prayer closet), cover his face and head (close the door), kneel in humility, and silently pray (pray in secret).

While there may be certain moments, I'm not aware of kneeling when Jews daven. Do you have a source/link?

 

[sandgk]

While there may be certain moments, I'm not aware of kneeling when Jews daven. Do you have a source/link?

That is shown here

On​

​

​

​

Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur we kneel on the floor during davening at oleinu and while saying v?kohanim. In addition, many times we wish to kneel on the ground to give a child a bath, exercise, or to put something away. Are the above permitted and if they are not what is the correct way to kneel?​

Kneeling without spreading one?s hands and feet on a non-stone floor is permitted.​

​

​

​

7​

The cite is to this:
7. Mishnah Berurah 40.

 

[Jagdaddy]

He was raised by Missionaries to believe what he believes. He was home schooled. So just like fundamentalist kids who believe in fundamentalism, or Catholics or Mormons or Atheists raised that way, he is doing what his evangelist parents taught him. They believe that they are supposed to go out and talk about their faith, that they are required to do so.

So when I go to the door and I see a Jehovah's Witness, I thank them for caring for me, tell them that I am pretty solid in my personal beliefs, but thank you for coming and have a nice day. I do this instead of slamming the door on them. So just ignore it. At least he is not going around saying how others are doing everything wrong- he is merely saying what works for him.

The one time they knocked on my door I was in a kind of odd mood so I invited them in and tried to convert them to Judaism just for shits and giggles. It was all very polite on both sides. Pleasant enough folks, but not my cup of tea.