Tebow, religion, and eyeblack

[gracelhink]

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

Thanks for caring enough to ask.
Many scholars believe that when kneeling became associated with Christian prayer practice, it was forbidden by the Jewish rabbis. Don't know if there is enough evidence to support that theory, but what we do know is this.
In Matt. 6:5-6, Jesus condemns those who "love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men".
Many scholars think he is referring to a neglected expectation of prayer, i.e. to bow down in humility or submission, some times with partial or full prostration and others after the model of Daniel in 6:10-13. "Now when Daniel knew that the document was signed, he went into his house; Now in his roof chamber he had windows open toward Jerusalem; and he continued kneeling on his knees three times every day, making requests and giving thanks before his God, AS HE HAD BEEN DOING BEFORE..."

It is also explained here.


The Prayer of our Fathers

In our days there are not many Jews who still kneel and bow during regular daily prayer. A noticable number of Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews do bow to the ground during Yom haKipurim and Rosh haShana. Most Jews are not even aware that such is the historical practice of the Jewish people to kneel and prostrate during regular daily prayer. Therefore, be prepared that if you kneel or prostrate in most synagogues, you are sure to get reactions of surprise. They may or may not be encouraging reactions. Nonetheless, so long as you are still able to concentrate properly while praying and are willing to endure the possible consequences of bowing and prostrating in public, I only encourage you to do so. It is a shame to fear men more than the Most High. How can bowing or prostrating be a sign of arrogance, especially when you know people may look upon you negatively for doing so? Rather, it is an expression of humility and submission to the Almighty. The following text of formal Jewish prayer and instruction on how it is done is according to Talmudic law as codified in the Mishneh Torah of Rambam (Maimonides). References to halakha are given in abbreviated form. For example, HT5:4 means "Hilkhoth Tefilah" chapter 5, the fourth halakha. Hilkhoth Tefilah is found in Sefer Ahavah in the Mishneh Torah:

"The mention of bending-down {k'reya} in every place is on the knees.." (HT5:13)

There are 5 places where one "bends-down" during this prayer (HT5:10). Each time one "bends-down," he should arch his back bending over until his backbone pokes out slightly (HT5:12). One need not bow in this manner if he is unable because it causes him pain (HT5:12). There are some additional reasons why a person may not need to fully bow, usually either because of stress of the situation or stress of the body (HT5:1). I will elaborate upon these later. The 5 places where one "bends-down" are highlighted in the text of prayer found in the link below. In the text of prayer found on that link, upon reading a word highlighted in bold letters, "bend-down" and make your body like an arch (qeshet). Afterwards, straighten back up into a standing position upon reading a word that is underlined.

 

[muffler dragon]

That is shown here




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

Thanks. According to the link, this is more the exception than the rule. I have never attended a shul during any of the High Holidays; therefore, I wouldn't have seen it. Nor are most of the buildings that I've been to constructed with a stone floor.

 

[muffler dragon]

Thanks for caring enough to ask.
Many scholars believe that when kneeling became associated with Christian prayer practice, it was forbidden by the Jewish rabbis.

According to the link from Sandgk:

Reasons​

Some say that the reason for the

issur is because this is the way non-Jews bow to their

g-ds.​

​

10 The Chinuch11 says the reason is that one who sees someone kneeling to the stone

would think he is bowing to ​

​

avodah zarah. Some say the reason is that the kneeling should
not be like the bowing in the times of the Bais Hamikdosh.12
​

In Matt. 6:5-6, Jesus condemns those who "love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men".
Many scholars think he is referring to a neglected expectation of prayer, i.e. to bow down in humility or submission, some times with partial or full prostration and others after the model of Daniel in 6:10-13. "Now when Daniel knew that the document was signed, he went into his house; Now in his roof chamber he had windows open toward Jerusalem; and he continued kneeling on his knees three times every day, making requests and giving thanks before his God, AS HE HAD BEEN DOING BEFORE..."

It would be interesting to know what the floor was constructed of.

It is also explained here.

The Prayer of our Fathers

Hmmm...
​

 

[NateG]

Grace... right on point. I dislike Florida athletics, but I find it hard to dislike the sincerity that players like Tim, Colt, JL, MF, Malcolm have and show. I am sure that if a rule was instituted at the colleges or pro teams of said players that they would abide to those rules. But seeing that their decisions are based more on the fact that it is who they are and less about how they hope people see them as a certain way, it makes it more commendable than normal. Those that have met those individuals can feel that it is who they are and not a show they are putting on. If Tim wasn't the great football player he was, no one would care. But the fact that he is a high profile player makes the argument much more polarizing. If I told you that a player at Ohio University did the same thing... no one cares(or at least doesn't voice their concern). But because it is happening during a game that millions watch the likelihood that someone would dislike it skyrockets. It seems it is more an issue with Tebow's position than his stance.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Grace... right on point. I dislike Florida athletics, but I find it hard to dislike the sincerity that players like Tim, Colt, JL, MF, Malcolm have and show. I am sure that if a rule was instituted at the colleges or pro teams of said players that they would abide to those rules. But seeing that their decisions are based more on the fact that it is who they are and less about how they hope people see them as a certain way, it makes it more commendable than normal. Those that have met those individuals can feel that it is who they are and not a show they are putting on. If Tim wasn't the great football player he was, no one would care. But the fact that he is a high profile player makes the argument much more polarizing. If I told you that a player at Ohio University did the same thing... no one cares(or at least doesn't voice their concern). But because it is happening during a game that millions watch the likelihood that someone would dislike it skyrockets. It seems it is more an issue with Tebow's position than his stance.

A well thought out point and one I respect. My feelings are that I separate Tebow from the others. Limiting it to current players, McCoy and Bradford don't take it to the level of Tebow--i.e. the painted on bible verses. Yes, they are very upfront about their religious beliefs, point at the sky and bring it up in interviews. I don't have a problem with any of that in their case or in the case of Tebow.

The fact is that all of three have opporutunties to be public spokesmen for Christianity that few normal Christian students could dream of. And I don't have a problem with any of their off field activities. I don't have a problem with them bringing it up in interviews either. As Grace has repeatedly said, I can simply turn the interview off or stop reading it.

My problem is that Tebow can't let it rest for three hours to play a football game. During those three hours, he is wearing the uniform of a large and diverse university and representing it on national television, and he just can't resist shoving it in all of our faces. In doing so he has displayed either an ignorance or disdain for the great many constituents of that university--alumni, students, faculty and for a secular public university like Florida, the taxpayers who help support it-- who might not agree with Tebow's message or any other controversial religious or political message that a player might choose to paint on his body during a game. I think Tebow's insistence to ignore those people while representing his university on the field is selfish and egotistical and as Steve pointed out an indication of someone for whom it is all about, "look at ME--Tebow The Great Proselytizer!"

 

[NateG]

Have those people you speak for(UF admins, boosters, fans etc.) brought this up as a major problem? If so I have never heard it. And to be honest I never saw him "shove" it in anyone's face.

I think the main reason they even put the verse on their eyeblack is so if someone is watching that doesn't normally read the Bible sees it, they may wonder what the verse says and go check it out on their own. If i put Micah 3:6 here, without looking it up most wouldn't know what that verse says. We don't even know if Tim has inquired if it was ok or not. Just assuming that he did it, never inquired, and that others are upset about it, and he still does it? Even if the case, I believe he does it more because of who he is through and through and not because of a thought of "man people will think I am holy"


BTW Micah 3:6(NIV)- Therefore night will come over you, without visions, and darkness, without divination. The sun will set for the prophets, and the day will go dark for them.( no specific purpose for the verse, I just picked one.)

 

[Gatorubet]

I think Tebow's insistence to ignore those people while representing his university on the field is selfish and egotistical and as Steve pointed out an indication of someone for whom it is all about, "look at ME--Tebow The Great Proselytizer!"

ORD, that looks very much like you saying that everyone should think like you do or they are selfish and egotistical. The point is that many, many people have their religion at the very center of their lives in a way that you do not. And they are not "right" and they are not "better" and they do not have more rights than you....but they have a right to think what they think. But because you cannot see where they are coming from does not mean that they have to fit within your mental construct of why they do what they do. They can feel the need to witness to others and not do so out of egotism or selfishness, but out of their belief that they are following the tenets of their religion - which can be read as demanding one to go out and witness about the Good News. "Gospel" means "Good News" after all, and they are trying to let people know about it.

So tell me - are the Buckeye players commonly seen on TV participating in the FOCA post-game prayer selfish and egotistical also? I mean, they can't let it rest for three freaking hours...

I agree with you that it might be better left off the field. Much like politics. But I think that your portryal of Tim and others as selfish egotists is rooted in your lack of understanding of why they do what they do.

And as for Steve - until he gets that cocaine and heroin problem licked - it's just one crazy post after another! Hell, look at when he posts, it's at all hours of the day or night. Is he on meth? I'm not accusing, just sayin'

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

ORD, that looks very much like you saying that everyone should think like you do or they are selfish and egotistical.

Absolutely not. It means that I think when someone is representing a diverse, multi-cultural and secular university at a highly public function, they should not use it as a vehicle to paint religious or political slogans on their body. To think that their personal choice and need to proselytize supercedes all else is selfish and egotistical.

Again, I'd feel the exact same way about an athlete who chose to hijack his participation in a university sponsored event to scream his particular message through painting SUPPORT OBAMA or PUBLIC OPTION on his face during a game. I might like to buy him a beer and discuss his political views with him, but I would be embarrassed that he chose to shove them down everyone's throat during a football game.

As I've said throughout this thread there seems to be an undercurrent of, "hey I'm cool with Tebow because...well...it's my message too."

 

[NateG]

I am still wondering if you had heard that any of these Universities or Admins or Boosters have stated that they were against players doing any of the such outside of Tressel telling his guys not to do any of it due to the media distraction it brings?

 

[NateG]

And also what if a guy has a tattoo that is plainly visible that "screams" what he believes? Should he need to get permission to have it uncovered?

 

[gracelhink]

And also what if a guy has a tattoo that is plainly visible that "screams" what he believes? Should he need to get permission to have it uncovered?

Good question, Nate.
I remember Jwins had an awesome picture of Larry Grant's bicep with an impressive tatoo.
Don't think you can say the tat can "scream" Psalm 23, but wondered about how Tressell would handle that situation if Grant played in '09.
In the NBA, the arm sleeves have become a popular uniform fashion accessory.
They are used to keep the shooting arm warm but also protect players from being fined by the association for tatoos the league might find offensive.

 

[MaxBuck]

As I've said throughout this thread there seems to be an undercurrent of, "hey I'm cool with Tebow because...well...it's my message too."

Allen Iverson's message has never been my message, but I'm cool with it nonetheless.

Secondly, I have never perceived Tebow as being the proselytizer that so many others seem to regard him as. I think to the extent he is perceived that way, the media have constructed most of that image. JMO.

 

[scarletmike]

I hate Florida, and I hate what the media has made out of Tebow. However, I find nothing wrong with writing your favorite/life verse in silver Sharpie on your eye black.

ORD, you use the argument that he is representing a multi-cultural, diverse state university. If I recall correctly, the commonly accepted "wall of separation of church and state" is such that the state (and any agents thereof or sponsored by) cannot endorse one particular religion. Is allowing Tebow to wear eye black with a verse written on them really UF endorsing Protestant Christianity? The state does not have the responsibility (or the power, for that matter) to protect you FROM religion, which I think is where you are really heading. I know you will say that you are not, but I can find no other end besides your "freedom from religion." You can justify it however you like, but freedom from religion is not something prescribed by the documents of our national government (or the states thereof), however, freedom of religion is.

I can almost understand the view of treating the football (and other sports) team at a state college differently, but it is still for intents and as a result of state funding, a state matter that is subject to freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Would a player take heat and draw media attention for putting a Koran or atheist reference on his eye black? I don't doubt they would. However that is by no fault of their own or the school/university. The fault lies in large part with how we as a majority in society view these instances. Unfortunately the majority would likely view the Koran verse instance in particular with much more negativity. Though this in no way invalidates the right to freedom of religion. Do players that hold Muslim/atheistic/etc. beliefs not put these on eye black because they think it would be wrong, or because they know the reaction would be strongly negative? I would be willing to bet that 9/10 times it is because they know they will face strong negative reaction.

So with that said, does that make Tim wearing his Bible eye black wrong, or does it make the view currently held by society wrong? I believe the overwhelmingly obvious answer is that we as a society are to blame here. Obviously, tolerance on a balanced level is something I think we all can agree just will not happen due to basic human nature. The majority holding a certain view does not change the tenets of our founding documents as far as natural and necessary rights are concerned (and freedom of religion is most definitely one of those).

I believe that in the matter, the most reasonable conclusion is that Tebow's actions and attire are not wrong, and that the UF is not endorsing Christianity by allowing Tebow to wear said eye black and perform said actions. As it currently stands, other student athletes are free to display their beliefs on their eye black. Their decision to not do so because of the expected reaction by the majority and/or media does not make what Tebow and others (Jenkins and JL) do/wear wrong, and certainly in no way changes the meaning of the basic right of freedom of religion.

*I would like to note that I am in most cases a strong opponent of the "Wall of Separation of Church and State" and what it stands for, but felt that it clarified my position on the issue. I am also a very open and accommodating person who looks extremely critically at what I believe and previously believed. I've been going through quite a long period of questioning my faith, but it does not change my view on freedom OF religion. I will always feel that freedom FROM religion is the absolute wrong approach to the issue.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I hate Florida, and I hate what the media has made out of Tebow. However, I find nothing wrong with writing your favorite/life verse in silver Sharpie on your eye black.

ORD, you use the argument that he is representing a multi-cultural, diverse state university. If I recall correctly, the commonly accepted "wall of separation of church and state" is such that the state (and any agents thereof or sponsored by) cannot endorse one particular religion. Is allowing Tebow to wear eye black with a verse written on them really UF endorsing Protestant Christianity? The state does not have the responsibility (or the power, for that matter) to protect you FROM religion, which I think is where you are really heading. I know you will say that you are not, but I can find no other end besides your "freedom from religion." You can justify it however you like, but freedom from religion is not something prescribed by the documents of our national government (or the states thereof), however, freedom of religion is.

I don't think that it's Florida's, or any other university's, duty to protect me from religion, nor do I think they are violating the constitution in letting Tebow have his eyeshadow sideshow. I don't think it's a constitutional issue unless UF is, at the same time they're letting Tebow use university events to endorse his particular brand of sectarian religion, not allowing other student athletes who might want, in a highly visible manner, to endorse a competing view of faith and religion in a manner similar to Tebow's method.

I stated earlier that I don't think it's unconstitutional, just poor judgment and bad university policy because a) it opens up a whole can of worms for athletes to use their bodies as billboards during football games for their personal causes (i.e. Mika Vick) and b) is divisive by being dismissive of and contemptuous towards any of the university's constituents who might not endorse Tim Tebow's chosen faith.

 

[gracelhink]

I don't think that it's Florida's, or any other university's, duty to protect me from religion,
I stated earlier that I don't think it's unconstitutional, just poor judgment and bad university policy because a) it opens up a whole can of worms for athletes to use their bodies as billboards during football games for their personal causes (i.e. Mika Vick) and b) is divisive by being dismissive of and contemptuous towards any of the university's constituents who might not endorse Tim Tebow's chosen faith.

Well thought out post ORD, agree with you about the role or duty of the university. OTOH, I;
a) Have to think the can of worms is already opened; the decision to "billboard" with pink ribbons on helmets, symbolic arm bands, patches etc. has set a non profit "billboard" precedent.
The NCAA also billboards corporate logos (for university profit) on shoes, jerseys, pants, socks, helmets, wrist bands, etc. and mandates players and coaches only wear those corporate logos or face consequences.
b) Have to disagree with you about the levels of divisiveness caused by an individual's witness of personal beliefs. Earlier you stated that eyeblack messages were only personally "annoying." Now you excalate the charge that they are "dismissive of and contemptuous towards constituents."
Legislation to ban speech based on the potential victimization of hypothetical offendees offers little gain and as others have stated chips away at te virtues of individual liberty.
Sadly and predictably, however that victimization appeal will prevail and require University Trustees to do their duty, ban all personal displays, and protect its constituents from religion.