The Terrifying Tim Tebow
Dec 13, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
It says a great deal about the depths to which America’s values have fallen that Tim Tebow--who, once upon a time, would have been the wholesome, women-and-mom-respecting, clean-playing, fresh-faced and faithful Hollywood ideal of a football hero—is the target of such deep derision from so many sources, and in an era of such vaunted “tolerance.” 
Although it may seem too easy to some, I blame the baby-boomers—a generation so in love with deconstructing old standards (and so completely neurotic about being perceived as anti-establishment, smart, and most of all, cool) that it only can express full-on admiration for the anti-heroes. Were Tim Tebow using his on-camera time to swagger and preen and lecture the nation on green energy, greedy millionaires, and gun control, his Christ-fixation would not only be permitted, it would be held up as a gaudy rebuke to uncool Christians everywhere, and his pronouncements—as long as he kept his mouth shut on abortion and gay marriage—would never be challenged.
Just as green-grabbing, millionaire musicians are never asked why the masses should give up their meager comforts to save the planet, while they themselves are permitted to grow ever-richer from their energy-hogging concert tours, Tebow could play a brightly-lighted night game every week and take a knee five times a yard to nothing but cheers, if only he embraced this year’s anti-establishment, smart, and cool narrative.
That’s unlikely to happen, partly because Tebow—like many more people of faith than the stereotypes will admit—seems largely uninterested in dictating to others how they must live their lives, but also because the prevailing bureaucratically correct narrative is so convoluted. Apparently it is fine to pursue one’s potential, and even turn a profit, if one is writing autobiographies, doing a little insider trading, cheating on taxes, marrying well, being an athlete, being an artist, exploiting a job created just for oneself, running a federal entity into the ground, or taking a bonus from said grounded entity, as long as one holds the correct views or has curried the correct connections.
Absent those views and connections, one may still pursue one’s potentialities. But the pursuit must be unselfish, co-operative, and not-for-profit if it is to remain above suspicion and go unmolested by a growing resentment—one being cultivated by the dream-deferrals that come with thwarted opportunity, nourished by the red meat of class-war rhetoric and readied-for-combat.
It’s a puzzling thing, though. If unselfishness, co-operation, and bare profits were truly prized by the narrative builders, then monasteries would be heralded as authentic models of the doctrine of “fairness” and practical solutions to our socio-economic dolors; people would be encouraged to dedicate their educations, their talents, and their monies to help grow and sustain them. Ditto for parish outreaches, faith-based job-training programs and soup kitchens; church-administered hospitals, substance abuse programs, and crisis pregnancy centers.
All of these entities pursue justice and fair distribution. All of them serve without seeking profit; they serve without requiring allegiance; they do not require that those they serve conform to their beliefs. All they ask, in return, is the same consideration—that they be permitted to be who and what they are, and not be required to conform to the beliefs of others.
Some believe that is asking too much.
The people who talk a good game about freedom and service and fairness—usually reserving their most ardent rhetoric for the $30,000 per-table fundraisers—never seem willing to promote the monastic ideal though, and they don’t refer to the soup kitchens and outreaches, the church-administered hospitals or training and recovery programs as models of anything except, sometimes, intolerance.
Perhaps they’re afraid that if people became more familiar with (and supportive of) such programs, they would be less ready to look to government for direction, or social engineering, or class co-operation, or any sort of empowerment. Rather they would be finding it within their own communities; they would be actively working with others in building up the whole, rather than preferred portions—in pursuing potentialities both individual and collective.
In such a case, the government of man would necessarily recede into the background, and what is divine might come to the fore.
That would be unacceptable to the people who still believe, by sheer force of fantastic conceit, that they are anti-establishment outsiders—courageous adversaries of conformity who still manage, somehow, to always be in lock step with the message of the day; the people who say all the “smart” things and automatically adopt all the “correct” positions, because they are so terrified of being excluded from that crowd of busy moralizers to whom they are accountable, as they would never deign to be accountable to a Creator.
Tim Tebow, in all of his corn-fed, God-glorifying, prison-preaching, hospital-building, tolerance-defining authenticity models a different way, a different mindset, one that conforms not to times or trends but to testaments and traditions.
How utterly terrifying he is.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
God's Quarterback
Tebow and Culture Wars
What Welfare States Could Learn from Monasteries
Tim Tebow's Vocation
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
12.13.2011 | 7:09am
Lawrence Miller says:
Interesting comment in that rather than reading a short commentary and choosing to think, one's position becomes so threatened as to have to attack immediately. There is no "liberal v conservative" in every part of the piece but rather a very accurate assessment of those judging Tebow for his "faith" and how he lives it. Perhaps, after thought, are the type of person she is talking about, and that sore point caused your immediate reaction. Tolerance? Intolerance? Thoughtful discussion? or possible Over-reaction?
12.13.2011 | 7:19am
Rick,
I'm not sure what essay you read that brought out your diatribe. I don't see the liberal/conservative dichotomy that you felt. I say "felt," because you didn't really explain what in particular offended you: perhaps the distinctions Ms. Scalia made between secular society and what Mr. Tebow sincerely promotes? I thought the essay was a pretty accurate description of our secular society's discomfort with those who practice their faith. Ms. Scalia certainly did not denigrate your Peace Corps coworker, or the gay volunteer -- yet you have taken some offense here. Perhaps she wasn't describing you or your family and friends. Why take this essay so personally? You seem to have a very interesting family and background, that would indicate some tolerance. But alas, despite your upbringing and experiences -- no tolerance for Ms. Scalia? It would seem that this essay doesn't conform to your notion of what an Elizabeth Scalia essay should be. I hope she's not too disappointed in her failure to conform to your expectations.
I'm not sure what essay you read that brought out your diatribe. I don't see the liberal/conservative dichotomy that you felt. I say "felt," because you didn't really explain what in particular offended you: perhaps the distinctions Ms. Scalia made between secular society and what Mr. Tebow sincerely promotes? I thought the essay was a pretty accurate description of our secular society's discomfort with those who practice their faith. Ms. Scalia certainly did not denigrate your Peace Corps coworker, or the gay volunteer -- yet you have taken some offense here. Perhaps she wasn't describing you or your family and friends. Why take this essay so personally? You seem to have a very interesting family and background, that would indicate some tolerance. But alas, despite your upbringing and experiences -- no tolerance for Ms. Scalia? It would seem that this essay doesn't conform to your notion of what an Elizabeth Scalia essay should be. I hope she's not too disappointed in her failure to conform to your expectations.
12.13.2011 | 8:45am
Jim says:
Rick - you poor, put upon liberal! It must be tough being so maligned in the 1's and 0's of this on-line journal. That's not to say Ms Scalia would have any real beef with you, but she obviuosly hit a raw nerve when she attacked the prevailing zeitgeist of the opinion makers - which is clearly, anti-religious, anti-conservative, anti-Catholic, and so forth.
So, what's your explanation for the Tebow obsession???
So, what's your explanation for the Tebow obsession???
12.13.2011 | 9:28am
Siobhan says:
When rationality fails, blame it on the baby boomers. I'm stunned and extremely disappointed that you would take the Tebow phenomenon and turn it into a cheap shot at an entire generation which is just as divided as the rest of America. You're much better than this.
12.13.2011 | 9:31am
patricksarsfield says:
The author writes:
"Although it may seem too easy to some, I blame the baby-boomers—a generation so in love with deconstructing old standards (and so completely neurotic about being perceived as anti-establishment, smart, and most of all, cool) that it only can express full-on admiration for the anti-heroes."
It is too easy...and too hard. Too hard to blame this supposedly single-minded entity called the baby boom. In truth, the baby boom constituted 76 million live births and the great bulk of that number is still alive. There is no credible evidence that all baby boomers think alike and have acted with one purpose to fix a certain value structure on a nation. In truth, the baby boom has been manipulated by all sorts of people ever since they first came on the scene at the same time as television. Vance Pacvkard was not writing about the baby boomers when he started his chronicle of the corruption of our culture with the Hiddeen Persuaders in 1957. The leading edge of the baby boom was only 11 years old when that book came out.
On the other hand, the criticism is too easy. Just like the Wall Street Occupiers dividing the nation into the 1% and the 99%, Ms. Scalia would divide our country into the evil baby boomers and everybody else. In other words, she has been manipulated by the oldest principle in the book used to control a restive population: DIVIDE AND CONQUER. If people are focused on blaming someone else--particularly some nebulous group such as the baby boomers--they will not try to fix the ship of state and will instead leave it in the hands of the political class.
(Full disclosure: I am a baby boomer, but I feel no need to defend the actions of the baby boom because the baby boom is just an agglomeration of 70 Million or so remaining individual actors and it does not itself act).
"Although it may seem too easy to some, I blame the baby-boomers—a generation so in love with deconstructing old standards (and so completely neurotic about being perceived as anti-establishment, smart, and most of all, cool) that it only can express full-on admiration for the anti-heroes."
It is too easy...and too hard. Too hard to blame this supposedly single-minded entity called the baby boom. In truth, the baby boom constituted 76 million live births and the great bulk of that number is still alive. There is no credible evidence that all baby boomers think alike and have acted with one purpose to fix a certain value structure on a nation. In truth, the baby boom has been manipulated by all sorts of people ever since they first came on the scene at the same time as television. Vance Pacvkard was not writing about the baby boomers when he started his chronicle of the corruption of our culture with the Hiddeen Persuaders in 1957. The leading edge of the baby boom was only 11 years old when that book came out.
On the other hand, the criticism is too easy. Just like the Wall Street Occupiers dividing the nation into the 1% and the 99%, Ms. Scalia would divide our country into the evil baby boomers and everybody else. In other words, she has been manipulated by the oldest principle in the book used to control a restive population: DIVIDE AND CONQUER. If people are focused on blaming someone else--particularly some nebulous group such as the baby boomers--they will not try to fix the ship of state and will instead leave it in the hands of the political class.
(Full disclosure: I am a baby boomer, but I feel no need to defend the actions of the baby boom because the baby boom is just an agglomeration of 70 Million or so remaining individual actors and it does not itself act).
12.13.2011 | 9:42am
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Rick, I appreciate your words both kind and critical, but I wasn't going for left vs right here, I was going for the general sense of hypocrisy that will allow anyone to say anything, no matter how stupid, or make any amount of money, no matter how obscene, if only one keeps ones religious beliefs to oneself, and last I checked, the religiously minded contained multitudes, not just the conservatives. My concern is less about left-vs-right these days than about the powerful cherrypicking what rights are defensible and what may be dispensed with -- and clearly the most recent legislative moves in DC demonstrate that that means both sides in Washington, these days. I'm not sure why people feel the need to fill the comboxes with the bona fides describing their fitness to identify with any particular group, but you seem to want to slap me around with the big fish of gay-hate or something. Odd, since I have argued in these pages that the bishops should acknowledge the faithful and obedient gay priests in our midst instead of pretending they don't exist, I think I will reject that slap-around! :-)
12.13.2011 | 9:50am
Ed says:
"There is no more New Frontier, we have got to make it here." The Eagles, "The Last Resort".
Elizabeth's article is brilliant. Baby-boomers embraced the religion of modernism and its concomitant hatred and intolerance of tradition and morality untethered to objective truth. Necessarily, this created a generation of narcissists who proclaim they are superior to all those who fail to recognize their philosophy. Worse, they boast in the most unchristian way to prove that they are morally superior than those who quietly struggle with their service to God. Thus, folks like Rick boast about working in the Peace Corps, protesting the Viet Nam War (he mocks conservatives but fails to mention that the boomers' hero, the first boy president JFK, actually started the Viet Nam War and even ordered the murder of Diem), and, of course, the standard boomer claim that he has a very close friend who is gay. That is quite a resume. It also proves the point Elizabeth makes. There is no courage in the Baby-boomer generation in embracing the tired "ideals" of the 1960s. The 1960s made the world worse in countless ways. One of those ways is that they mock, ridicule and torment a young man who has the temerity to thank God for the gifts he was given.
Elizabeth's article is brilliant. Baby-boomers embraced the religion of modernism and its concomitant hatred and intolerance of tradition and morality untethered to objective truth. Necessarily, this created a generation of narcissists who proclaim they are superior to all those who fail to recognize their philosophy. Worse, they boast in the most unchristian way to prove that they are morally superior than those who quietly struggle with their service to God. Thus, folks like Rick boast about working in the Peace Corps, protesting the Viet Nam War (he mocks conservatives but fails to mention that the boomers' hero, the first boy president JFK, actually started the Viet Nam War and even ordered the murder of Diem), and, of course, the standard boomer claim that he has a very close friend who is gay. That is quite a resume. It also proves the point Elizabeth makes. There is no courage in the Baby-boomer generation in embracing the tired "ideals" of the 1960s. The 1960s made the world worse in countless ways. One of those ways is that they mock, ridicule and torment a young man who has the temerity to thank God for the gifts he was given.
12.13.2011 | 9:51am
Felapton says:
I am uncomfortable with the caricature of "the baby boomers" presented here. I believe the stereotype fits only a small (albeit very visible) fraction of the progeny of that generation. When I was in the Army, the senior NCO's were Baby Boomers who reported for duty when they were drafted, served with honor and often with extraordinary valor, came back, earned an honest living and raised families and worshiped God as best they could. And those were the ones whom came home in one piece. They should not be classified so indiscriminately with their more annoying peers. (But, I do grok that the Anch didn't mean "all baby boomers" but only "the annoying baby boomers.")
As to Tim Tebow, he's a great guy, a great Christian and a great athlete. But one may ask whether sports like football, hockey and boxing can legitimately be considered pro-life. Is it really pro-life to entice young men with the hope of huge sums of money to cripple themselves, bash their brains into oatmeal and risk their lives for the entertainment of their more corpulent peers?
As to Tim Tebow, he's a great guy, a great Christian and a great athlete. But one may ask whether sports like football, hockey and boxing can legitimately be considered pro-life. Is it really pro-life to entice young men with the hope of huge sums of money to cripple themselves, bash their brains into oatmeal and risk their lives for the entertainment of their more corpulent peers?
12.13.2011 | 10:29am
David Nickol says:
First, there are a lot of people who LOVE Tim Tebow. And for those who don't, I don't think they find him terrifying. I think they regard him as a show-off. And as I have said before, other "do-gooders" (including people like Bono) get similar treatment in some quarters. You can buy "I Hate Bono" t-shirts. Justin Bieber is hated by a lot of people.
I have a feeling that if Tebow keeps pulling off "miraculous" wins, he may not become the most beloved figure in the world of sports, but the anti-Tebow faction will dwindle. And if he has a prolonged losing streak and doesn't really make it in professional football, a lot fewer people are going to be declaring what a fine fellow he is. Winners who love Jesus are a lot more popular than losers who love Jesus.
I have a feeling that if Tebow keeps pulling off "miraculous" wins, he may not become the most beloved figure in the world of sports, but the anti-Tebow faction will dwindle. And if he has a prolonged losing streak and doesn't really make it in professional football, a lot fewer people are going to be declaring what a fine fellow he is. Winners who love Jesus are a lot more popular than losers who love Jesus.
12.13.2011 | 10:37am
Elizabeth Scalia says:
I apologize for my general lack of punctuation in the combox a few spaces above. Should never comment before my second cup of coffee.
For those babyboomers offended by my thoughts -- well, I acknowledged at the outset that it was "easy" to go there, but I went there anyway because, easy or not, my de-constructionist generation has always struck me (even when I was very young tail-ender) as neurotic in its obsession with what Flip Wilson used to call "the church of what's-happening-now" and that obsession is what keeps them ever-focused on division -- who is "in" and who is "out" who is "correct" and who is "evil."
Every time I see the Audi commercial with the boomer parents abandoning their just-arrived-for-a-visit son in order to immediately gratify themselves with a ride in his car, I think: "talkin' 'bout my generation..." :-)
For those babyboomers offended by my thoughts -- well, I acknowledged at the outset that it was "easy" to go there, but I went there anyway because, easy or not, my de-constructionist generation has always struck me (even when I was very young tail-ender) as neurotic in its obsession with what Flip Wilson used to call "the church of what's-happening-now" and that obsession is what keeps them ever-focused on division -- who is "in" and who is "out" who is "correct" and who is "evil."
Every time I see the Audi commercial with the boomer parents abandoning their just-arrived-for-a-visit son in order to immediately gratify themselves with a ride in his car, I think: "talkin' 'bout my generation..." :-)
12.13.2011 | 10:47am
The Czar of Muscovy says:
Do you really hear people in the street, in restaurants, at coffee shops, decrying Tim Tebow?
I think this whole thing is largely an invention by the media; specifically, the sports media world. They have exaggerated beyond scale the whole thing into this significant controversy. As the essay above shows, going against Tebow is an ugly thing. And as such, I suspect that only a very small group of the very same people keep this going in the media cycle.
They got us talking about it, but this story has less than two months left before the average person realizes it's just some stunt by the news media to drum up their inflated sense of self-importance. Tebow has been doing it for years, and it was never an issue; now it is, and dammit, you need to choose sides!
I disagree. I think that pratically all of us care not a whit for how Tebow reacts to a play or what his religious expressions are. It succeeds only in showing us how distasteful the sports media world is.
I think this whole thing is largely an invention by the media; specifically, the sports media world. They have exaggerated beyond scale the whole thing into this significant controversy. As the essay above shows, going against Tebow is an ugly thing. And as such, I suspect that only a very small group of the very same people keep this going in the media cycle.
They got us talking about it, but this story has less than two months left before the average person realizes it's just some stunt by the news media to drum up their inflated sense of self-importance. Tebow has been doing it for years, and it was never an issue; now it is, and dammit, you need to choose sides!
I disagree. I think that pratically all of us care not a whit for how Tebow reacts to a play or what his religious expressions are. It succeeds only in showing us how distasteful the sports media world is.
12.13.2011 | 11:18am
Publius says:
Rick can really read between the lines and extract the esoteric meaning that only the really smart can see. Is a Rick a Straussian or something. I hear they have magic powers of discernment too.
12.13.2011 | 11:33am
maineman says:
Boomer here, and guilty as charged. Ms. Scalia is spot on, although we can go back to Rousseau or further if we so choose.
I am striving these days to repent for my past denial of and indifference to Truth, but most of my cohort remains, like Rick above, infected by this latent nihilism. Generalizations are just that, but the fact that we boomers remain in charge of the MSM, academia, and Hollywood means that a significant component of our culture is living in the past, deep in nostalgia for the destructive notions that were swallowed and perpetrated in those undeniably heady and euphoric days.
And make no mistake, liberalism is deeply shaken by its increasingly inconvenient encounter with the broader reality that it has ignored lo these many decades. Try as liberals might to make it seem so, there are not really two differing points of view here, each with some right and some wrong things to say.
A belief system predicated on relativism is one that is built on an erroneous first principle and at cross purposes with reality itself. It is therefore ALWAYS in error.
Tebow's divisiveness derives from his courageous willingness to acknowledge publicly what most Americans recognize, that there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil, true and false and that it emanates from above, not from the earthly or human plane. Liberalism inverts that cosmology and must therefore oppose it to survive. Which is cannot. The death throes are at once pathetic, funny, and terrifying.
At any rate, any article about Tim Tebow is necessarily embedded in the conflict between liberalism/nihilism and Truth/tradition. Specifically, his humility cannot be fathomed by liberals. It is not of their realm and must be seen by them, on pain of no longer being liberals, through the lens of cynicism as manipulative, phony, and/or simplistic.
An optimistic take on the Tebow phenomenon is that it may be an indication that we are undergoing another of our great awakenings and will be much the better for it.
I am striving these days to repent for my past denial of and indifference to Truth, but most of my cohort remains, like Rick above, infected by this latent nihilism. Generalizations are just that, but the fact that we boomers remain in charge of the MSM, academia, and Hollywood means that a significant component of our culture is living in the past, deep in nostalgia for the destructive notions that were swallowed and perpetrated in those undeniably heady and euphoric days.
And make no mistake, liberalism is deeply shaken by its increasingly inconvenient encounter with the broader reality that it has ignored lo these many decades. Try as liberals might to make it seem so, there are not really two differing points of view here, each with some right and some wrong things to say.
A belief system predicated on relativism is one that is built on an erroneous first principle and at cross purposes with reality itself. It is therefore ALWAYS in error.
Tebow's divisiveness derives from his courageous willingness to acknowledge publicly what most Americans recognize, that there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil, true and false and that it emanates from above, not from the earthly or human plane. Liberalism inverts that cosmology and must therefore oppose it to survive. Which is cannot. The death throes are at once pathetic, funny, and terrifying.
At any rate, any article about Tim Tebow is necessarily embedded in the conflict between liberalism/nihilism and Truth/tradition. Specifically, his humility cannot be fathomed by liberals. It is not of their realm and must be seen by them, on pain of no longer being liberals, through the lens of cynicism as manipulative, phony, and/or simplistic.
An optimistic take on the Tebow phenomenon is that it may be an indication that we are undergoing another of our great awakenings and will be much the better for it.
12.13.2011 | 11:39am
Matt says:
Tim Tebow is undoubtedly a fine young man. Is it really fair to him, though, to try to use and abuse him as a vehicle for expressing this senseless, neurotic, demented malice and hatred toward anyone who might be in favor of views the author perceives as liberal? What happened to "love thy neighbor" and "judge not that ye be not judged"? Sadly, this piece relates more to football than simply corrupting the image of a football player to justify venom and vitriol would suggest. It makes an attempt to set up politics as a football game of "Us" versus "Them," the "Good Guys" versus the "Bad Guys", "Good" versus "Evil." "THEY", the evil other, must of necessity represent all that is bad. Politics (not to mention people!) are not so simplistic. Personally, I'm conservative in some ways, liberal in others -- as is the Roman Catholic Church, as are most of us. Some people have a deep-seated psychological need to have someone or something to hate and to vent their frustrations upon. Can't we all just recognize that we're all much the same, and we're all trying to do our best? Can't we all "just get along" and find a way to love and care for one another -- even those who disagree with us politically or religiously?
12.13.2011 | 11:54am
jfm says:
I see TT as a 60s throwback. Taking a knee so visibly is transgressive to the boomer culture. (It's a kneel-in, like a sit-in.) His eye-black gospel verses coopt free TV time to preach a different message. His post game interviews are filled with an advocy of his cause. Pointing to the heavens is the Christian black-power fist salute. He's a counter-culture rebel, only the culture now is a consumerist boomer culture. He's aggressive and powerful in his own way. There is a confidence and a willingness (desire?) to place himself as the center of attention to get his message across. I cannot help but think that Martin Luther King would have been proud of his methods.
He is also a child of the 00s - the ultimate reality TV star, placing himself at the center of attention. He says the message is about Christ, but all talk is about TT. Next chapter: His embracing the role of the public Christian will make it likely that he will have a huge, public failing. (He's human, after all.) How he gets up from that will be the real lesson for all.
He is also a child of the 00s - the ultimate reality TV star, placing himself at the center of attention. He says the message is about Christ, but all talk is about TT. Next chapter: His embracing the role of the public Christian will make it likely that he will have a huge, public failing. (He's human, after all.) How he gets up from that will be the real lesson for all.
12.13.2011 | 12:00pm
bill bannon says:
Hmm....the Audi commercial and boomers are not alone in the selfish niche. Infiniti uses the selfish theme for the generation in their forties or early fifties in the snow ball series wherein a husband sets in downhill motion an increasingly growing snowball that eventually devours and removes his wife's car from a parking spot in town that the husband then parks in. Obviously there is a major new theme of the year at ad agencies catering to more affluent car buyers....selfishness.....communal selfishness in the older Audi couple and non-communal in the Infiniti 40ish couple.
Thanks to the economy, the youngest adults face starker problems....college loans and no jobs.
Thanks to the economy, the youngest adults face starker problems....college loans and no jobs.
12.13.2011 | 12:01pm
patricksarsfield says:
The author wrote in a reply:
"For those babyboomers offended by my thoughts -- well, I acknowledged at the outset that it was "easy" to go there, but I went there anyway because, easy or not, my de-constructionist generation has always struck me (even when I was very young tail-ender) as neurotic in its obsession with what Flip Wilson used to call "the church of what's-happening-now" and that obsession is what keeps them ever-focused on division -- who is "in" and who is "out" who is "correct" and who is "evil." "
This represents very sloppy analysis. Even when it is pointed out by more than one commentor that the "generation" cannot be talked about as a single entity, Ms. Scalia insists on doing so. I looked at the CBS 2010 exit polling data. they show that the cohort at the heart of the baby boom (Ages 45-64) voted 53-45 Republican in the House races. While not as "Red" as those 65+, the baby boomers' choices were more Republican than those of younger cohorts and slightly more favorable thanthe national average of 52-45.
[Now I realize that Republicans can be as narcissistic as Democrats of a certain age, but most republicans do not consider themselves as anti-establishment, at least not if they haven't been trapped by someone like Ron Paul. ALSO, I hate the way that Republicans have allowed their party to be represented by the media as "red." In truth, the Democrats are a lot closer to being Reds than the Republicans; but that ship has apparently sailed].
"For those babyboomers offended by my thoughts -- well, I acknowledged at the outset that it was "easy" to go there, but I went there anyway because, easy or not, my de-constructionist generation has always struck me (even when I was very young tail-ender) as neurotic in its obsession with what Flip Wilson used to call "the church of what's-happening-now" and that obsession is what keeps them ever-focused on division -- who is "in" and who is "out" who is "correct" and who is "evil." "
This represents very sloppy analysis. Even when it is pointed out by more than one commentor that the "generation" cannot be talked about as a single entity, Ms. Scalia insists on doing so. I looked at the CBS 2010 exit polling data. they show that the cohort at the heart of the baby boom (Ages 45-64) voted 53-45 Republican in the House races. While not as "Red" as those 65+, the baby boomers' choices were more Republican than those of younger cohorts and slightly more favorable thanthe national average of 52-45.
[Now I realize that Republicans can be as narcissistic as Democrats of a certain age, but most republicans do not consider themselves as anti-establishment, at least not if they haven't been trapped by someone like Ron Paul. ALSO, I hate the way that Republicans have allowed their party to be represented by the media as "red." In truth, the Democrats are a lot closer to being Reds than the Republicans; but that ship has apparently sailed].
12.13.2011 | 12:09pm
Ed says:
Publius is quite right that other quarterbacks, like Boomer Esiason, have been publicly criticized, sometimes in vicious ways. I remember Giants fans revolting when the Giants picked Phil Simms. NFL history is littered with similar examples. The difference with the public lynching of Tim Tebow, however, is that it is not only Tebow's abilities that are criticized. The criticism of Tebow, which resembles the fear of the state in Stalin's Russia when the Boss perceived someone threatened his omnipotence, includes a demonization of his unembarrassed adoration of God. No one ever criticized Esiason's or Simms' religious beliefs.
The writers here are correct that all Baby Boomers do not reject Truth. And, as Maineman suggests, some of us even got better. But it is irrefutable that those Boomers who have succeeded to positions of power and influence have, in large part, demanded tolerance of everything that is at war with Truth and tradition. The one thing they cannot countenance is those who acknowledge God created us in His image and, as a consequence, must (or at least should) act according to that nature.
The Left constantly tells us things like "God doesn't care who wins football games", and, therefore, they ferociously object to high school students praying before games. Of course, that never was the point. But it raises a fascinating question. If the Tebow-haters are correct that God does not care who wins football games, how do they explain the fact that Tim Tebow has led the Broncos to seven straight wins when he is so patently lacking in the qualities necessary to be an NFL quarterback?
The writers here are correct that all Baby Boomers do not reject Truth. And, as Maineman suggests, some of us even got better. But it is irrefutable that those Boomers who have succeeded to positions of power and influence have, in large part, demanded tolerance of everything that is at war with Truth and tradition. The one thing they cannot countenance is those who acknowledge God created us in His image and, as a consequence, must (or at least should) act according to that nature.
The Left constantly tells us things like "God doesn't care who wins football games", and, therefore, they ferociously object to high school students praying before games. Of course, that never was the point. But it raises a fascinating question. If the Tebow-haters are correct that God does not care who wins football games, how do they explain the fact that Tim Tebow has led the Broncos to seven straight wins when he is so patently lacking in the qualities necessary to be an NFL quarterback?
12.13.2011 | 12:22pm
David Nickol says:
There are Tebow lovers and Tebow haters. I wonder if Tebow were a Muslim, with all the same athletic skills (and weak areas), with the same personal qualities, and with all the same religious outspokenness—except for Mohammed, Islam, and the Koran instead of Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible—if there would be anywhere near as many Tebow lovers. How would the country have reacted to a Muslim athlete who used his eye black to display references to the Koran?
12.13.2011 | 12:40pm
Richard says:
I went to a prominent Catholic university where football was supreme. But the players NEVER prayed on the field or pointed to the heavens after a touchdown. There is something about football, though, that draws people that tend to lean in a religious direction. There should be a study. Many men who have sinned and caroused like many star football players, see the light and reform. Some men use religion to mask their deeds. The "Second Mile" founded by Jerry Sandusky at Penn State is named for a bible verse. But whatever, just like politics, many of us out here are offended by anyone that injects religion into the public dialogue. It seems phony and superficial.
Now Tebow seems like a refreshing young man that is sincere in his beliefs. And, as has been noted, does not really taut his beliefs obnoxiously. Yet this is a society that has clearly headed in a secular, and worldly direction since WW II. Often the '60's is blamed by conservatives. Yet that time is only a blip on the screen of unprecedented wealth and prosperity for this country that is the real culprit. So now we are swimming in porn, narcissistic behaviors, gaudy spending and all the things that affect a poor young man that suddenly becomes obscenely rich as a pro football player. In this vein Tebow stands for change and a refreshing one at that.
As for me.....I just don't think, as a Broncos fan, that Tebow is the guy that will get our team a Super Bowl championship. I could be wrong.
Boy there sure are a few here that were laughingly threatened by the first comments by "Rick."
Now Tebow seems like a refreshing young man that is sincere in his beliefs. And, as has been noted, does not really taut his beliefs obnoxiously. Yet this is a society that has clearly headed in a secular, and worldly direction since WW II. Often the '60's is blamed by conservatives. Yet that time is only a blip on the screen of unprecedented wealth and prosperity for this country that is the real culprit. So now we are swimming in porn, narcissistic behaviors, gaudy spending and all the things that affect a poor young man that suddenly becomes obscenely rich as a pro football player. In this vein Tebow stands for change and a refreshing one at that.
As for me.....I just don't think, as a Broncos fan, that Tebow is the guy that will get our team a Super Bowl championship. I could be wrong.
Boy there sure are a few here that were laughingly threatened by the first comments by "Rick."
12.13.2011 | 12:40pm
The Moz says:
Bang on! People can't stand Tebow because they think he's judging them when in actuality it is they who are judging themselves...and that makes people angry and irrational (well it does now because the only rule is the rule against rules). They are so insecure so deluded in their thinking that they simply don't know how to react and instead just rant and rave. America is at a cross roads, the world it seems is at a cross roads. Plunge head first into the modus operandi of the day, into the new, the trendy, the satisfying and hope you don't end up hitting bottom or stop, think and stick to the things that have made America a beacon of hope, justice and prosperity for the world.
BUT, and I am sure this was not your intention here but have to mention this anyway: we Catholics must try our best NOT to POLITICIZE the faith - not be PHONEYS.
BUT, and I am sure this was not your intention here but have to mention this anyway: we Catholics must try our best NOT to POLITICIZE the faith - not be PHONEYS.
12.13.2011 | 12:41pm
Ed says:
David Nickol has it backwards. If Tebow were a Muslim, the real question is how many people would criticize him. The answer is none. The Left's assault on religion stops at the doors of Christianity. They are anti-Semitic apologists for Islamists, just as they were anti-Semitic apologists for Stalin and the Soviet Union.
12.13.2011 | 12:58pm
Ed says:
Rick, I too went to a "prominent Catholic university where football was supreme." I went for seven years. I suspect it is the same place you went. I do not know when you attended, but when I attended all players prayed before each game, including on the field for al to see. The "team priest" was a regular on the sideline. Many players offered thanks to God after a good play. I knew many players during that time, and all of them, including non-Catholics, took great comfort in knowing that God (and His Mother) was with them during games.
Your point about the pre-1960s is true. The 1960s, however, institutionalized all that was bad even before that horrible time.
Your point about the pre-1960s is true. The 1960s, however, institutionalized all that was bad even before that horrible time.
12.13.2011 | 1:00pm
The Moz says:
Oooh have to add that Ed is 100% correct. Let's all be honest here for a second: if he were a proud Muslim the media would be in total love with him and would fete him will only the most positive spin...ooh the love fest that would ensue. Now, imagine if he said he was gay!!!! OMG media love fest overload, fireworks, fireworks, OMG I am overloading, an orgy of love for a brave soul who somehow found the courage to overcome...OMG I am starting to cry :)...all kididng aside, Ed is 100% right and I think we all know it. Christians and that makes nearly 100% of Americans really, are embarrased and ashamed of their faith because it bumps into the one thing that is today above all others, is the peak of the mountain, the pinnacle of pinnacles, the secular grail of meaning, the end and the beginning of secular life and the source of all...and that is...any guesses? That one thing is...Sex.
12.13.2011 | 1:31pm
Rick says:
Elizabeth:
Thank you for tolerating my own diatribe. It seems we both did it, and mine can be criticized just as well as yours. I still look forward to your essays.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though, that some of the commentators here have immediately pigeonholed me as a "liberal". I tried to give some sense that this pigeonholing is simplistic and misplaced by giving the extreme variety in my background. But the conservative, traditional, and patriotic side was simply ignored. It doesn't matter if I ran an NRA rifle club or served my country as a B-52 crewmember. (Sorry...no...I'm afraid I can't field dress a moose, though.) All these people can see is my opposition to the war in Vietnam and my Peace Corps service!
But people will see what they need to see, and that often leads to simplistic caricatures. Matt made that point very well, above, and that was the same point I was trying to make. I just find it hard to think of our government and political elites as being as irreligious as they portrayed here, but maybe my perceptions were skewed by my time working in the Soviet Union. (No, I wasn't a defector. I was helping with earthquake reconstruction.) Now THAT was a government hostile to religion! I still remember the members of the League of the Militant Godless that I ran into. There were a few of them left at that time. I didn't hide my religious persuasions, and in their view, of course, I was a wildly irrational, superstitious Christian fanatic.
Thank you for tolerating my own diatribe. It seems we both did it, and mine can be criticized just as well as yours. I still look forward to your essays.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though, that some of the commentators here have immediately pigeonholed me as a "liberal". I tried to give some sense that this pigeonholing is simplistic and misplaced by giving the extreme variety in my background. But the conservative, traditional, and patriotic side was simply ignored. It doesn't matter if I ran an NRA rifle club or served my country as a B-52 crewmember. (Sorry...no...I'm afraid I can't field dress a moose, though.) All these people can see is my opposition to the war in Vietnam and my Peace Corps service!
But people will see what they need to see, and that often leads to simplistic caricatures. Matt made that point very well, above, and that was the same point I was trying to make. I just find it hard to think of our government and political elites as being as irreligious as they portrayed here, but maybe my perceptions were skewed by my time working in the Soviet Union. (No, I wasn't a defector. I was helping with earthquake reconstruction.) Now THAT was a government hostile to religion! I still remember the members of the League of the Militant Godless that I ran into. There were a few of them left at that time. I didn't hide my religious persuasions, and in their view, of course, I was a wildly irrational, superstitious Christian fanatic.
12.13.2011 | 1:37pm
MST says:
I am a boomer who actually went to school with Bobby Tebow (Tim's father) in the Bible Belt, and am a Catholic progressive, so maybe this is aimed at me? I have no problem with Tim, per se, but I do have a problem with those who thank their "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" for personal accomplishments or (especially) team victories. Does that mean that those on the OTHER team are being condemned by God? Does God really care if the Broncos, or the Gators, or whoever, win a football game? That is my problem. What about the faithful Christians (or Jews, or Muslims, or whatever) who play their hearts out for losing teams?
12.13.2011 | 2:03pm
AKO says:
"The people who talk a good game about freedom and service and fairness—usually reserving their most ardent rhetoric for the $30,000 per-table fundraisers—never seem willing to promote the monastic ideal though, and they don’t refer to the soup kitchens and outreaches, the church-administered hospitals or training and recovery programs as models of anything except, sometimes, intolerance."
It's interesting that those who are considered "poor" are often willing to donate to their church or charities, while those considered rich, may be hesitant. Does Tebow fall in the same category?
It's interesting that those who are considered "poor" are often willing to donate to their church or charities, while those considered rich, may be hesitant. Does Tebow fall in the same category?
12.13.2011 | 2:05pm
Ed says:
Using one's resume to support a philosophical argument is worse than sophistry; it is a cheap and common trick. Alleged heroic experiences are simply irrelevant to whether one's argument is sound or rational. Boasting about them is a red flag that the argument itself is wholly lacking in merit.
Rick finds it hard to believe that our government and "political elites" are irreligious. He cites a trip to the Soviet Union as proof. The latter has nothing to do with the former, except that the former desperately wishes the United States were as irreligious as the Soviet Union. In all events, and at the risk of offending or shocking Rick, it is beyond serious dispute that Barack Hussein Obama is at war with Christianity. His Field Marshals in that war, like Kathleen Sebelius, are as ruthless in there assault on Christianity as Yezhov, Yagoda and Beria were. Equally undeniable is the fact that the secular Left wants to evict Christianity from the public square, and then to remove it from the home. Many books document the Left's anti-Christian agenda. See, e.g., "The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice", by Philip Jenkins, and "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity", by David Limbaugh. There are many more.
MST raises an interesting issue. I don't know if God cares about football. But, if Tim Tebow has so little talent (as all the irreligious folks at ESPN tell us), why does he keep winning? Perhaps God does not care if the Broncos win (or if Florida won). But, do you hold out the possibility that God rewards those who are faithful to him, and unembarrassed to show their gratitude to God?
Rick finds it hard to believe that our government and "political elites" are irreligious. He cites a trip to the Soviet Union as proof. The latter has nothing to do with the former, except that the former desperately wishes the United States were as irreligious as the Soviet Union. In all events, and at the risk of offending or shocking Rick, it is beyond serious dispute that Barack Hussein Obama is at war with Christianity. His Field Marshals in that war, like Kathleen Sebelius, are as ruthless in there assault on Christianity as Yezhov, Yagoda and Beria were. Equally undeniable is the fact that the secular Left wants to evict Christianity from the public square, and then to remove it from the home. Many books document the Left's anti-Christian agenda. See, e.g., "The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice", by Philip Jenkins, and "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity", by David Limbaugh. There are many more.
MST raises an interesting issue. I don't know if God cares about football. But, if Tim Tebow has so little talent (as all the irreligious folks at ESPN tell us), why does he keep winning? Perhaps God does not care if the Broncos win (or if Florida won). But, do you hold out the possibility that God rewards those who are faithful to him, and unembarrassed to show their gratitude to God?
12.13.2011 | 2:20pm
pentamom says:
David, why do you wonder that? Of course more people like Tebow because he's a Christian, because more people are Christians.
Is there something wrong, unnatural, or hypocritical about being more positive toward someone who displays your own beliefs, than someone who displays different ones?
Is there something wrong, unnatural, or hypocritical about being more positive toward someone who displays your own beliefs, than someone who displays different ones?
12.13.2011 | 2:22pm
pentamom says:
"Does that mean that those on the OTHER team are being condemned by God?"
No, it means that everything good comes from God. Why does saying "Thank you" for something good imply some sort of condemnation to those who don't have the same fortune? Used to be that gratitude, and public displays of gratitude, were a virtue.
No, it means that everything good comes from God. Why does saying "Thank you" for something good imply some sort of condemnation to those who don't have the same fortune? Used to be that gratitude, and public displays of gratitude, were a virtue.
12.13.2011 | 2:27pm
Richard says:
AKO
As a man of charity and faith, Tim Tebow is almost ludicrously prolific, particularly considering his youth. He does charity and church work all the time and has since he was a kid. Check out his foundation:
http://www.timtebowfoundation.org/
I don't think that there is a hypocritical bone in his body. I wonder how many of us have done more for those who have less. I haven't.
Best,
Richard
As a man of charity and faith, Tim Tebow is almost ludicrously prolific, particularly considering his youth. He does charity and church work all the time and has since he was a kid. Check out his foundation:
http://www.timtebowfoundation.org/
I don't think that there is a hypocritical bone in his body. I wonder how many of us have done more for those who have less. I haven't.
Best,
Richard
12.13.2011 | 2:29pm
Nicole says:
I have to echo jfm's words. I think they are spot-on. The roles have reversed; today's Archie Bunker is shouting down pro-lifers, priests, the home-schooled, and the public prayers. Tim Tebow is Mike Stivic, showing "free love" for his Creator and his Savior.
12.13.2011 | 2:52pm
Nathan says:
MST,
Luke 12:7 might shine some light on your question, it says "Even the hairs of your head have all been counted (by God)" Does God root for one team over another? Of course not. Does he "really care" OF COURSE He does, b/c He cares about us and we care. My 3 yr old loves Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, do I care what Donald said to Mickey, objectively No, but b/c my son cares and I love him, I care. If I (a mere human father) care about the things that matter to my child, how much more does Our Heavenly Father care about the things that matter to us (no matter how insignificant)? It is a sad modern malady that we think God just doesn't care about us and our lives. He created us and died for us and our salvation, seems like He cares an awful lot to me.
BTW, there is no such thing as a "Progressive Catholic" or a "Traditional Catholic"; a "Liberal Catholic" or a "Conservative Catholic" - there are only "Catholics" and "Dissenters." The first group submits to the Church's teaching magisterium, the second chooses to believe for oneself - there is a word for this second group that, etymologically, simply means "to choose for oneself" but, due to the connotations associated with this historical term, I seem to find "Dissenters" to be a more useful term. Can I suggest stating outright that you are a "Dissenting Catholic" might provide more truth-in-advertising that is if you don't confess and believe all the Church confesses and believes.
Yours in Christ,
Nathan
Luke 12:7 might shine some light on your question, it says "Even the hairs of your head have all been counted (by God)" Does God root for one team over another? Of course not. Does he "really care" OF COURSE He does, b/c He cares about us and we care. My 3 yr old loves Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, do I care what Donald said to Mickey, objectively No, but b/c my son cares and I love him, I care. If I (a mere human father) care about the things that matter to my child, how much more does Our Heavenly Father care about the things that matter to us (no matter how insignificant)? It is a sad modern malady that we think God just doesn't care about us and our lives. He created us and died for us and our salvation, seems like He cares an awful lot to me.
BTW, there is no such thing as a "Progressive Catholic" or a "Traditional Catholic"; a "Liberal Catholic" or a "Conservative Catholic" - there are only "Catholics" and "Dissenters." The first group submits to the Church's teaching magisterium, the second chooses to believe for oneself - there is a word for this second group that, etymologically, simply means "to choose for oneself" but, due to the connotations associated with this historical term, I seem to find "Dissenters" to be a more useful term. Can I suggest stating outright that you are a "Dissenting Catholic" might provide more truth-in-advertising that is if you don't confess and believe all the Church confesses and believes.
Yours in Christ,
Nathan
12.13.2011 | 2:55pm
David Nickol says:
pentamom,
You ask: "Is there something wrong, unnatural, or hypocritical about being more positive toward someone who displays your own beliefs, than someone who displays different ones?"
Absolutely not. My point is that one of the major reasons Tim Tebow is popular is not because of all the charity work he does, or because he fearlessly expresses his religious views, or because he is a humble person with great leadership skills. It's because he's a Christian and, I think, a certain TYPE of Christian. If he were a Catholic and constantly made the sign of the cross on camera, encouraged people to attend mass on Sundays, and to pray the rosary frequently, I doubt that he would be so popular. People who identify with Tim Tebow's brand of religion have a perfect right to be enthusiastic fans. What I am saying is that I don't think Tebow is such a phenomenon because he appeals to people who approve of religious belief in general (as in PS announcements urging people to attend the church, synagogue, or mosque of their choice).
You ask: "Is there something wrong, unnatural, or hypocritical about being more positive toward someone who displays your own beliefs, than someone who displays different ones?"
Absolutely not. My point is that one of the major reasons Tim Tebow is popular is not because of all the charity work he does, or because he fearlessly expresses his religious views, or because he is a humble person with great leadership skills. It's because he's a Christian and, I think, a certain TYPE of Christian. If he were a Catholic and constantly made the sign of the cross on camera, encouraged people to attend mass on Sundays, and to pray the rosary frequently, I doubt that he would be so popular. People who identify with Tim Tebow's brand of religion have a perfect right to be enthusiastic fans. What I am saying is that I don't think Tebow is such a phenomenon because he appeals to people who approve of religious belief in general (as in PS announcements urging people to attend the church, synagogue, or mosque of their choice).
12.13.2011 | 2:55pm
Carol says:
A few thoughts:
Scalia's piece was thought-provoking, but as others have said before, painted Boomers with a broad brush. I do not know if others discuss Tebow very much, but my husband and I do. We are both tail-end Boomers, born in 62 and 63. He is an athiest and I a Catholic. He's socially liberal and I'm socially conservative. We give to charities and want the government out of our wallets as much as possible. Obviously we can't both be Boomers as Scalia describes them...
Anyway, we are Patriots fans and are eagerly looking forward to seeing Tom Brady and the boys whip Tim Tebow's butt next weekend. I don't believe God particularly cares who wins football games, not do I believe that God always rewards in THIS life those who are faithful to him. Our Lady certainly suffered, as did countless other holy men and women who followed Jesus Christ to the end of their lives. Maybe next Sunday will be Tim's day of suffering. Regardless, the Colts' winning streak has made for some fun discussions in our household.
Regarding how Americans would react if Tebow was a Muslim, just see how "Christians" reacted to Lowe's Home Improvement's sponsorship of the TV show "All-American Muslim". There's a whole lot of hate out there in the USA.
Scalia's piece was thought-provoking, but as others have said before, painted Boomers with a broad brush. I do not know if others discuss Tebow very much, but my husband and I do. We are both tail-end Boomers, born in 62 and 63. He is an athiest and I a Catholic. He's socially liberal and I'm socially conservative. We give to charities and want the government out of our wallets as much as possible. Obviously we can't both be Boomers as Scalia describes them...
Anyway, we are Patriots fans and are eagerly looking forward to seeing Tom Brady and the boys whip Tim Tebow's butt next weekend. I don't believe God particularly cares who wins football games, not do I believe that God always rewards in THIS life those who are faithful to him. Our Lady certainly suffered, as did countless other holy men and women who followed Jesus Christ to the end of their lives. Maybe next Sunday will be Tim's day of suffering. Regardless, the Colts' winning streak has made for some fun discussions in our household.
Regarding how Americans would react if Tebow was a Muslim, just see how "Christians" reacted to Lowe's Home Improvement's sponsorship of the TV show "All-American Muslim". There's a whole lot of hate out there in the USA.
12.13.2011 | 4:17pm
Rick says:
Ed:
Hi. Thank you for your critique of my postings. Actually, I thought it was obvious that I wasn't presenting a "philosophical argument". I was trading perspectives and experiences.
I would have to disagree that relating personal, real-life experiences or telling stories is an invalid way of making a point, though. Experience is reality, and I'm just a natural storyteller. (Sometimes, in this forum, I feel like I've been trapped in a room full of ecclesial lawyers.) Now, without in any way attempting to compare myself to Jesus, how often did you see Jesus in the Gospels making his points with philosophical argumentation? And how often did he make points by telling stories, in the traditional rabbinical way?
So, you think the Obama administration is as ruthless in its assault on Christianity as Beria or Stalin. Concentration camps filling up with pastors, priests, and bishops...churches being turned into storehouses and stables, etc. (Or maybe parking garages today.) You might want to think twice before you trivialize Stalin's "holocaust" against the Church that way. I know better than to try to change your mind, but it does remind me of my brother. He retreated to the woods, where he sees black helicopters circling around, and is convinced that there is a network of secret detention camps around the country that will soon be filled with the True Patriots on the President's command. I long ago gave up trying to change his mind!
Hi. Thank you for your critique of my postings. Actually, I thought it was obvious that I wasn't presenting a "philosophical argument". I was trading perspectives and experiences.
I would have to disagree that relating personal, real-life experiences or telling stories is an invalid way of making a point, though. Experience is reality, and I'm just a natural storyteller. (Sometimes, in this forum, I feel like I've been trapped in a room full of ecclesial lawyers.) Now, without in any way attempting to compare myself to Jesus, how often did you see Jesus in the Gospels making his points with philosophical argumentation? And how often did he make points by telling stories, in the traditional rabbinical way?
So, you think the Obama administration is as ruthless in its assault on Christianity as Beria or Stalin. Concentration camps filling up with pastors, priests, and bishops...churches being turned into storehouses and stables, etc. (Or maybe parking garages today.) You might want to think twice before you trivialize Stalin's "holocaust" against the Church that way. I know better than to try to change your mind, but it does remind me of my brother. He retreated to the woods, where he sees black helicopters circling around, and is convinced that there is a network of secret detention camps around the country that will soon be filled with the True Patriots on the President's command. I long ago gave up trying to change his mind!
12.13.2011 | 4:54pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
I like Tim Tebow a lot. I like watching him play football. I have no problem with his on-the-field expressions of his faith.
There was, however, a time when I would have been put off by his constant evangelizing. A time when I was uncomfortable with, and resentful towards, my own Christian upbringing. I was brought back around, but not by people like Tim Tebow - rather, I was brought back around by a more quiet, modest form of Christianity that I saw expressed in the way people who I admired lived, without making a show of it. When I got to know them and discovered that the source of their strength was their faith, I gave it a second look.
Compare Tim Tebow's approach with the approach of another NFL QB, Aaron Rodgers:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/tim-tebow-and-christianism-ctd.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Again, I admire Tim Tebow. He is so sincere that it is impossible for me to begrudge him anything. But the only reason I am so open to him now is because I encountered people who took the Aaron Rodgers approach. They are the ones who made me take a new look at faith. Tim Tebow's approach would never have worked.
There was, however, a time when I would have been put off by his constant evangelizing. A time when I was uncomfortable with, and resentful towards, my own Christian upbringing. I was brought back around, but not by people like Tim Tebow - rather, I was brought back around by a more quiet, modest form of Christianity that I saw expressed in the way people who I admired lived, without making a show of it. When I got to know them and discovered that the source of their strength was their faith, I gave it a second look.
Compare Tim Tebow's approach with the approach of another NFL QB, Aaron Rodgers:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/tim-tebow-and-christianism-ctd.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Again, I admire Tim Tebow. He is so sincere that it is impossible for me to begrudge him anything. But the only reason I am so open to him now is because I encountered people who took the Aaron Rodgers approach. They are the ones who made me take a new look at faith. Tim Tebow's approach would never have worked.
12.13.2011 | 5:05pm
60s child says:
Re: 12.13.2011 | 8:54am jfm says:
I see TT as a 60s throwback. Taking a knee so visibly is transgressive to the boomer culture. (It's a kneel-in, like a sit-in.) His eye-black gospel verses coopt free TV time to preach a different message. His post game interviews are filled with an advocy of his cause. Pointing to the heavens is the Christian black-power fist salute. He's a counter-culture rebel, only the culture now is a consumerist boomer culture. He's aggressive and powerful in his own way. There is a confidence and a willingness (desire?) to place himself as the center of attention to get his message across. I cannot help but think that Martin Luther King would have been proud of his methods.
Think of the news footage of Sunday's quarterbacks. Tim Tebow on his knee and pointing to the sky. Tom Brady throwing a tantrum at a coach. Which one pushed your buttons? Few people are writing bout Brady's tantrum. First Things is generating a great discussion on Tebow. Tebow is a counter-culture rebel!
BTW...let's see how they do next Sunday.
I see TT as a 60s throwback. Taking a knee so visibly is transgressive to the boomer culture. (It's a kneel-in, like a sit-in.) His eye-black gospel verses coopt free TV time to preach a different message. His post game interviews are filled with an advocy of his cause. Pointing to the heavens is the Christian black-power fist salute. He's a counter-culture rebel, only the culture now is a consumerist boomer culture. He's aggressive and powerful in his own way. There is a confidence and a willingness (desire?) to place himself as the center of attention to get his message across. I cannot help but think that Martin Luther King would have been proud of his methods.
Think of the news footage of Sunday's quarterbacks. Tim Tebow on his knee and pointing to the sky. Tom Brady throwing a tantrum at a coach. Which one pushed your buttons? Few people are writing bout Brady's tantrum. First Things is generating a great discussion on Tebow. Tebow is a counter-culture rebel!
BTW...let's see how they do next Sunday.
12.13.2011 | 5:45pm
AKO says:
Richard
It's good to hear that he has his own foundation, I didn't know about that before. Thanks for pointing out the web address.
It's good to hear that he has his own foundation, I didn't know about that before. Thanks for pointing out the web address.
12.13.2011 | 6:04pm
Mark says:
I am a Baby Boomer. I never felt a part of my generation, and I am still bitter about that tired nonsense we peddled. You folks who tell us that the above article paints our generation with a broad brush remind me of that old joke. Those who remember the 60's weren't there. It is obvious to me that many of you Boomers still don't remember.
12.13.2011 | 6:27pm
LisaB says:
Like Nathan said - God does care about football games and every hair on our head. There is nothing wrong with losing - it's how you respond that counts - did you become a better, holier person? If not, why not.
I thought of this passage for MST since it was the second reading at this Sunday's Mass:
Thessalonians 5: 16 - 18
*Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. *
Elizabeth you struck the nail on the head! As someone who was born the very last year of the baby boom generation and who has had to grow up in the shadow of my older "peers" I couldn't agree more with what you wrote here. Sure, not all boomers are "like that" - just the "cool" ones (snark on) from what they tell me.
Tim Tebow is a child of baby boomers and so are the OccupyWS kids (Yuck). Sadly, its Tebow who considered divisive and the anomaly - that is indicative of some serious flaws in our generation!!
I thought of this passage for MST since it was the second reading at this Sunday's Mass:
Thessalonians 5: 16 - 18
*Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. *
Elizabeth you struck the nail on the head! As someone who was born the very last year of the baby boom generation and who has had to grow up in the shadow of my older "peers" I couldn't agree more with what you wrote here. Sure, not all boomers are "like that" - just the "cool" ones (snark on) from what they tell me.
Tim Tebow is a child of baby boomers and so are the OccupyWS kids (Yuck). Sadly, its Tebow who considered divisive and the anomaly - that is indicative of some serious flaws in our generation!!
12.13.2011 | 7:53pm
maineman says:
Rick, you're right that it is a tad intemperate to compare the Obama administration to Stalin, but the thread connecting them is not to be lightly dismissed. Think of it as a contagion that, once treated, comes back in a less virulent form. That is the case with most pathologies, psychological and psychosocial ones as well as biological.
The point has been made repeatedly as of late that we are likely seeing the onset of a new age of religious persecution. The liberal (progressive) project of promoting such abominations as same-sex marriage, fabricating a crisis of bullying, forbidding the exercise of religious conscience in the murder of the most innocent, all of this is clearly an arrow directed at the heart of religious freedom. These things have been front and center for Obama, whose chief legislative accomplishment prior to achieving the Presidency was to protect the right of nurses and doctors to let babies die in trash cans. His presidency, for what it is worth, is the crowning achievement of the liberal/progressive project, and it is just as hostile to belief in God as were the more overt and violent nihilists of the last century.
Not to have at least an inkling of that seems woefully naive, at best. Jesus, after all, said this is what would happen.
And I'm sorry. If you voted for Obama, you're a liberal, no matter how many traditional or so-called conservative opinions you harbor. Either that or you knew nothing about him at the time.
The point has been made repeatedly as of late that we are likely seeing the onset of a new age of religious persecution. The liberal (progressive) project of promoting such abominations as same-sex marriage, fabricating a crisis of bullying, forbidding the exercise of religious conscience in the murder of the most innocent, all of this is clearly an arrow directed at the heart of religious freedom. These things have been front and center for Obama, whose chief legislative accomplishment prior to achieving the Presidency was to protect the right of nurses and doctors to let babies die in trash cans. His presidency, for what it is worth, is the crowning achievement of the liberal/progressive project, and it is just as hostile to belief in God as were the more overt and violent nihilists of the last century.
Not to have at least an inkling of that seems woefully naive, at best. Jesus, after all, said this is what would happen.
And I'm sorry. If you voted for Obama, you're a liberal, no matter how many traditional or so-called conservative opinions you harbor. Either that or you knew nothing about him at the time.
12.13.2011 | 8:06pm
Anne says:
Tim Tebow would most likely thank his Lord and Saviour whether he wins or loses. He does not impose his religion on anybody, he just says thanks to God, and immediately says thanks to his teammates and coaches. He's been criticized by Jake Plummer and by Kurt Warner (who also thanked Jesus after games) and he's been criticized as a player by Merrill Hoge and a good number of other sportscasters. The kid gets out there, plays his heart out, inspires his teammates, and delights the fans. Why can't we leave it at that? If he wasn't Christian, he'd be feted. Look at how sportscasters treat Ben Rothlesberger, Michael Vick, and Ray Lewis. They are tremendously admired in the sports world regardless of their personal lives. Tim Tebow will rise or fall on his skills and the skills of his team. Either ignore him or enjoy the ride.
12.13.2011 | 10:56pm
jfxgillis says:
Elizabeth:
Maybe you weren't going for left vs. right, but that's what you got.
Pretty much anything the starts off "I blame the baby boomers" is going for left vs. right.
You don't think a lefty NFL athlete would get challenged? If you knew anything about the NFL, which a shocking number of Tebowists don't, you'd know that Rashard Mendehall got crucified--pun intended--for a bunch of 9/11 Truther tweets last May.
There's at least a dozen Tebowist essays from big websites on the right in the last couple of weeks, NRO, AmSpec, Town Hall, now First Things and it's all the same nasty, digging, resentful, smug, combative swirl of the same emnities they always have. As Erik Erikson so aptly put it in a different context, it's all about hating the same institutions and people.
What's odd is that Tebow himself isn't like that. I'm a lefty atheist and I adore the man. When the NFL Network switches to a Tebow press conference, I switch to it too, even at the expense of a concurrent game.
And I hope you're right about Tebow's style and bearing because it's vastly superior to yours and the other high clerics of Tebowism.
Maybe you weren't going for left vs. right, but that's what you got.
Pretty much anything the starts off "I blame the baby boomers" is going for left vs. right.
You don't think a lefty NFL athlete would get challenged? If you knew anything about the NFL, which a shocking number of Tebowists don't, you'd know that Rashard Mendehall got crucified--pun intended--for a bunch of 9/11 Truther tweets last May.
There's at least a dozen Tebowist essays from big websites on the right in the last couple of weeks, NRO, AmSpec, Town Hall, now First Things and it's all the same nasty, digging, resentful, smug, combative swirl of the same emnities they always have. As Erik Erikson so aptly put it in a different context, it's all about hating the same institutions and people.
What's odd is that Tebow himself isn't like that. I'm a lefty atheist and I adore the man. When the NFL Network switches to a Tebow press conference, I switch to it too, even at the expense of a concurrent game.
And I hope you're right about Tebow's style and bearing because it's vastly superior to yours and the other high clerics of Tebowism.
12.13.2011 | 11:28pm
Don Roberto says:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." (Matthew 6:5) Hopefully he also prays to his "Father who is in secret."
I'd like to think his example will spread. Certainly, people should not be ashamed of Jesus, lest he remember on the day of judgment. And it's great that he reminds people "it's just a game." But he is sticking his head above the transom, and the devil has certainly taken note. So he needs our prayers, as do many football fans. (Football is a prominent American idol. We spend more time and money on it than we do for the One True God. Players, even in highschool, risk their health on it. One can't help but recall the savage, pagan Roman "games.")
God, may I never be ashamed of my faith, nor use it for base purposes.
†
I'd like to think his example will spread. Certainly, people should not be ashamed of Jesus, lest he remember on the day of judgment. And it's great that he reminds people "it's just a game." But he is sticking his head above the transom, and the devil has certainly taken note. So he needs our prayers, as do many football fans. (Football is a prominent American idol. We spend more time and money on it than we do for the One True God. Players, even in highschool, risk their health on it. One can't help but recall the savage, pagan Roman "games.")
God, may I never be ashamed of my faith, nor use it for base purposes.
†
12.14.2011 | 12:01am
JWB says:
I agree with Rick (above). This piece is an exercise in attacking a straw man.
I am a devout Catholic who is anti-abortion and in favor of social justice. My views don't fit on the Left-Right false dichotomy of America today.
But this article shows a troubling tendency: American Catholicism is flirting with becoming what Protestantism in this country has long since been: a civil religion.
To align Christianity fully with one cultural/political mode is to have created a false idol. Ms. Scalia comes very close to this when she writes: "the government of man would necessarily recede into the background, and what is divine might come to the fore."
The Gospel challenge us all, if only we listen. Contrary to the Christian Right, it ought not simply be a way of baptizing the political status quo.
the government of man would necessarily recede into the background, and what is divine might come to the fore.
I am a devout Catholic who is anti-abortion and in favor of social justice. My views don't fit on the Left-Right false dichotomy of America today.
But this article shows a troubling tendency: American Catholicism is flirting with becoming what Protestantism in this country has long since been: a civil religion.
To align Christianity fully with one cultural/political mode is to have created a false idol. Ms. Scalia comes very close to this when she writes: "the government of man would necessarily recede into the background, and what is divine might come to the fore."
The Gospel challenge us all, if only we listen. Contrary to the Christian Right, it ought not simply be a way of baptizing the political status quo.
the government of man would necessarily recede into the background, and what is divine might come to the fore.
12.14.2011 | 10:12am
pdn Michael says:
Well, I think I agree with Mark.
I am a chronological boomer, born in 1953. Remember the 60's? It was something talked about by Walter Cronkite but not necessarily something I participated in, other than a vague uneasiness when I met, say, a cousin from California. It was clear, on her telling, that I was supposed to understand that "my generation" placed me on the cutting edge of some nebulous "change" that was called "the movement." I confess that I was never able to get it. Nonetheless, the broad brushstrokes get it just about right; like the "progressive" Catholic, I always feel compelled to say, "but I'm not THAT kind of baby boomer."
David Brooks had it about right in "Bobos in Paradise." We might have Peace Corped, but it was as much to be seen a-Peace Corping as it was altruism or charity, for ours is a generation that is very much about "being seen as," because of our habit of "speaking as:" a black male, a transgendered, an ethnic this or that, a child of a midwestern farming community (that would be me), a "jewish lesbian poet environmentalist" (naturally heard that one on NPR). In an earlier time Americans volunteered for what needed doing, we volunteer to be seen volunteering because of "who I (we) am (are)." That is the public face of the baby boomers, and it is a little disingenuous to deny that we've earned it.
C'mon, age-mates! Let's own up to it: We have been, on the whole, a narcissistic zit on the nose of an entire half-century. Let's "pop it," squeeze out the entitled, "I-need-to-be-understood" pus, stop with the self justifications, and try to do better. There's room for it.
I am a chronological boomer, born in 1953. Remember the 60's? It was something talked about by Walter Cronkite but not necessarily something I participated in, other than a vague uneasiness when I met, say, a cousin from California. It was clear, on her telling, that I was supposed to understand that "my generation" placed me on the cutting edge of some nebulous "change" that was called "the movement." I confess that I was never able to get it. Nonetheless, the broad brushstrokes get it just about right; like the "progressive" Catholic, I always feel compelled to say, "but I'm not THAT kind of baby boomer."
David Brooks had it about right in "Bobos in Paradise." We might have Peace Corped, but it was as much to be seen a-Peace Corping as it was altruism or charity, for ours is a generation that is very much about "being seen as," because of our habit of "speaking as:" a black male, a transgendered, an ethnic this or that, a child of a midwestern farming community (that would be me), a "jewish lesbian poet environmentalist" (naturally heard that one on NPR). In an earlier time Americans volunteered for what needed doing, we volunteer to be seen volunteering because of "who I (we) am (are)." That is the public face of the baby boomers, and it is a little disingenuous to deny that we've earned it.
C'mon, age-mates! Let's own up to it: We have been, on the whole, a narcissistic zit on the nose of an entire half-century. Let's "pop it," squeeze out the entitled, "I-need-to-be-understood" pus, stop with the self justifications, and try to do better. There's room for it.
12.14.2011 | 10:16am
I R A Darth Aggie says:
Here's a small test for the Ricks of the world:
If Tim Tebow where a devout Muslim, and bowed toward Mecca, and took time outs so he could say his prayers during a game, would any of his current detractors say boo about his religion?
Some might. Most? would STFU. And you know it.
If Tim Tebow where a devout Muslim, and bowed toward Mecca, and took time outs so he could say his prayers during a game, would any of his current detractors say boo about his religion?
Some might. Most? would STFU. And you know it.
12.14.2011 | 11:55am
Brian English says:
"There's a whole lot of hate out there in the USA. "
Oh please. I remember a boxer named Muhammad Ali who was pretty popular in the USA, despite his obnoxious personality.
"C'mon, age-mates! Let's own up to it: We have been, on the whole, a narcissistic zit on the nose of an entire half-century. Let's "pop it," squeeze out the entitled, "I-need-to-be-understood" pus, stop with the self justifications, and try to do better. There's room for it."
Right. And for all those complaining about the Boomers being unfairly maligned (I am a tail-end one myself), it is indisputable that the overall Boomer impact on society has been an extremely negative one. Relating anecdotal tales of noble individual Boomers really misses the point.
Oh please. I remember a boxer named Muhammad Ali who was pretty popular in the USA, despite his obnoxious personality.
"C'mon, age-mates! Let's own up to it: We have been, on the whole, a narcissistic zit on the nose of an entire half-century. Let's "pop it," squeeze out the entitled, "I-need-to-be-understood" pus, stop with the self justifications, and try to do better. There's room for it."
Right. And for all those complaining about the Boomers being unfairly maligned (I am a tail-end one myself), it is indisputable that the overall Boomer impact on society has been an extremely negative one. Relating anecdotal tales of noble individual Boomers really misses the point.
12.14.2011 | 12:23pm
JWB says:
What is troubling about this article is at once spiritual and historical. And the two are related.
Spiritually troubling is its readiness to identify a scapegoat in the Baby Boomer generation. Yes, it was a generation of undoubted intemperance and excesses. But is it plausible to place the brunt of the blame for the current state of culture on their generation alone?
This brings us to the historical problem. The Baby Boomers were not a spontaneous, self-generated phenomenon. They were raised by an unusually permissive set of parents who had returned from WWII war efforts to an unparalleled growth in American wealth and power. This wealth and power fueled the spiritually suspect consumerism of the 1950s in which the Boomers came of age.
America power and wealth had the unintended consequence of creating social situations in which there was much greater opportunity for individual freedom and consumerism. These were some of the conditions that the prior generation gave to the Boomers, encouraging them to self-express in shallow consumerist ways.
American wealth and power had as much to do with the rise of the Boomers as other factors. My point is not to identify a further scapegoat. My point is that we need to complicate our understanding of history if we are to grasp what really happened and how we got here.
The problem with this article is that it completely buys into the same tired cast of characters set up by the religious Right for whipping.
To be clear: I am glad Tebow is vocal and visible about his faith in God. But the Protestant Right in this country has long morphed the Gospel into a way of baptizing American power. This is unacceptable and probably has as much to do with the decline of Chirstianity as does the assaults of the Left and its counter culture.
Complicate your narrative, please, Ms. Scalia. It will help you historically and spiritually. More is expected of us as Catholics than this parochial Kulturkampf....
Spiritually troubling is its readiness to identify a scapegoat in the Baby Boomer generation. Yes, it was a generation of undoubted intemperance and excesses. But is it plausible to place the brunt of the blame for the current state of culture on their generation alone?
This brings us to the historical problem. The Baby Boomers were not a spontaneous, self-generated phenomenon. They were raised by an unusually permissive set of parents who had returned from WWII war efforts to an unparalleled growth in American wealth and power. This wealth and power fueled the spiritually suspect consumerism of the 1950s in which the Boomers came of age.
America power and wealth had the unintended consequence of creating social situations in which there was much greater opportunity for individual freedom and consumerism. These were some of the conditions that the prior generation gave to the Boomers, encouraging them to self-express in shallow consumerist ways.
American wealth and power had as much to do with the rise of the Boomers as other factors. My point is not to identify a further scapegoat. My point is that we need to complicate our understanding of history if we are to grasp what really happened and how we got here.
The problem with this article is that it completely buys into the same tired cast of characters set up by the religious Right for whipping.
To be clear: I am glad Tebow is vocal and visible about his faith in God. But the Protestant Right in this country has long morphed the Gospel into a way of baptizing American power. This is unacceptable and probably has as much to do with the decline of Chirstianity as does the assaults of the Left and its counter culture.
Complicate your narrative, please, Ms. Scalia. It will help you historically and spiritually. More is expected of us as Catholics than this parochial Kulturkampf....
12.14.2011 | 2:24pm
Brian English says:
"More is expected of us as Catholics than this parochial Kulturkampf...."
Classic. Do you happen to know who the original Kulturkampf was waged against?
Classic. Do you happen to know who the original Kulturkampf was waged against?
12.14.2011 | 3:39pm
Rick says:
Maineman:
Thank you for your thoughtful and obviously sincere comments. I'll confess to not doing intensive homework on the Obama medical issues. However, I had heard that the new medical bill included a provision that federal monies could not be used for abortion procedures. That was the only way it could pass Congress, and it supposedly made it MORE difficult for our taxes to be used for abortions. Is that incorrect? Could anyone send me links to info that would demonstrate that the Obama administration has removed the right of medical personnel to opt out of participation in abortion-related procedures? (And I don't just mean the opinions of people who hate Obama—I mean evidence.)
Actually, I think Obama bashing is the only growth industry left in this country. Of course, there is plenty of room for serious criticism, but it can be wearying to wade through all the hysterical rants. Rush Limbaugh just charged that the Obama administration is supporting attacks on Christian groups in Africa. His evidence? The Administration just approved money to help the government of Uganda fight the Lord's Resistance Army. Since it has the word "Lord" in it, Limbaugh concluded that it must be a Christian organization! (The LRA is one of the most bloodthirsty, raping, mutilating, child-kidnapping groups on the planet today.)
Interesting that you have to apologize before breaking the news to me that I am a "liberal". Of course, through this whole thread, I've been trying to lobby against the use of simplistic caricatures to label people, and you will note that I have not applied ANY labels to the good people in this forum. But it's the way the word is used that is so revealing. It's as though you had to tell a person to brace themselves before you break the news that they are a Nazi or a pedophile.
Brian:
The original "Kulturkampf" was a series of laws enacted by Bismarck to supress the influence of the Catholic Church in Prussia. Late 19th century.
Thank you for your thoughtful and obviously sincere comments. I'll confess to not doing intensive homework on the Obama medical issues. However, I had heard that the new medical bill included a provision that federal monies could not be used for abortion procedures. That was the only way it could pass Congress, and it supposedly made it MORE difficult for our taxes to be used for abortions. Is that incorrect? Could anyone send me links to info that would demonstrate that the Obama administration has removed the right of medical personnel to opt out of participation in abortion-related procedures? (And I don't just mean the opinions of people who hate Obama—I mean evidence.)
Actually, I think Obama bashing is the only growth industry left in this country. Of course, there is plenty of room for serious criticism, but it can be wearying to wade through all the hysterical rants. Rush Limbaugh just charged that the Obama administration is supporting attacks on Christian groups in Africa. His evidence? The Administration just approved money to help the government of Uganda fight the Lord's Resistance Army. Since it has the word "Lord" in it, Limbaugh concluded that it must be a Christian organization! (The LRA is one of the most bloodthirsty, raping, mutilating, child-kidnapping groups on the planet today.)
Interesting that you have to apologize before breaking the news to me that I am a "liberal". Of course, through this whole thread, I've been trying to lobby against the use of simplistic caricatures to label people, and you will note that I have not applied ANY labels to the good people in this forum. But it's the way the word is used that is so revealing. It's as though you had to tell a person to brace themselves before you break the news that they are a Nazi or a pedophile.
Brian:
The original "Kulturkampf" was a series of laws enacted by Bismarck to supress the influence of the Catholic Church in Prussia. Late 19th century.
12.14.2011 | 4:46pm
Brian English says:
"The original "Kulturkampf" was a series of laws enacted by Bismarck to supress the influence of the Catholic Church in Prussia. Late 19th century. "
And how was Mrs. Scalia engaging in a Kulturkampf?
And how was Mrs. Scalia engaging in a Kulturkampf?
12.14.2011 | 4:56pm
JWB says:
@ Brian:
Of course I know who the original Kulturkampf was waged against. It was waged by a largely Protestant Prussian culture against the fear of Catholic influence.
That's precisely the irony of conservative American Catholics rushing to join the cultural crusade of the Protestant Right. American Protestants only recently dropped Catholics from the list of the culturally suspect.
Catholic Christianity is at its best not tied parochially to a single political form (democracy plus the market). It is bigger than that. If the Protestant Right wants to tie Jesus Christ to Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Ronald Regan, American Catholics should not follow. This is a grave mistake that has already turned hundreds of those who "hunger and thirst for justice" from the true path of Christ.
My advice to American Christians: quit making Grand Inquisitor deals with the prevailing superpower of the day.
Of course I know who the original Kulturkampf was waged against. It was waged by a largely Protestant Prussian culture against the fear of Catholic influence.
That's precisely the irony of conservative American Catholics rushing to join the cultural crusade of the Protestant Right. American Protestants only recently dropped Catholics from the list of the culturally suspect.
Catholic Christianity is at its best not tied parochially to a single political form (democracy plus the market). It is bigger than that. If the Protestant Right wants to tie Jesus Christ to Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Ronald Regan, American Catholics should not follow. This is a grave mistake that has already turned hundreds of those who "hunger and thirst for justice" from the true path of Christ.
My advice to American Christians: quit making Grand Inquisitor deals with the prevailing superpower of the day.
12.14.2011 | 4:59pm
Pr. Dan Biles says:
Tim Tebow is our time's version of Conrad's "Billy Budd." The cynicism of our age cannot accept that a person could be this good, this sincere, this virtuous. So there is a campaign to find something, anything, wrong with him.
12.14.2011 | 8:36pm
jfxgillis says:
I R A Darth Aggie:
"If Tim Tebow were a devout Muslim, and bowed toward Mecca, and took time outs so he could say his prayers during a game, would any of his current detractors say boo about his religion?"
No.
He'd have an entirely different set of detractors. Frontpagemag, Pam Geller, the Florida Family Association.
"If Tim Tebow were a devout Muslim, and bowed toward Mecca, and took time outs so he could say his prayers during a game, would any of his current detractors say boo about his religion?"
No.
He'd have an entirely different set of detractors. Frontpagemag, Pam Geller, the Florida Family Association.
12.15.2011 | 9:01am
Brian English says:
"Of course I know who the original Kulturkampf was waged against. It was waged by a largely Protestant Prussian culture against the fear of Catholic influence."
No, it was a secular offensive against Christianity in general, with the Church being the primary target because of its transnational character.
"That's precisely the irony of conservative American Catholics rushing to join the cultural crusade of the Protestant Right. American Protestants only recently dropped Catholics from the list of the culturally suspect."
This is what is most ironic about you referring to the Kulturkampf. There is a real Kulturkampf being waged by this Administration (made up of typical high-profile Baby Boomers to circle back to the subject of this article) against the Church, and your big concern is Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Wake up.
"Catholic Christianity is at its best not tied parochially to a single political form (democracy plus the market)."
Agreed, but there are certain political forms and philosophies that are intrinsically hostile to the Church. The Church has to oppose those with all its strength, and should be glad to get the help of other Christians in that battle.
No, it was a secular offensive against Christianity in general, with the Church being the primary target because of its transnational character.
"That's precisely the irony of conservative American Catholics rushing to join the cultural crusade of the Protestant Right. American Protestants only recently dropped Catholics from the list of the culturally suspect."
This is what is most ironic about you referring to the Kulturkampf. There is a real Kulturkampf being waged by this Administration (made up of typical high-profile Baby Boomers to circle back to the subject of this article) against the Church, and your big concern is Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Wake up.
"Catholic Christianity is at its best not tied parochially to a single political form (democracy plus the market)."
Agreed, but there are certain political forms and philosophies that are intrinsically hostile to the Church. The Church has to oppose those with all its strength, and should be glad to get the help of other Christians in that battle.
12.15.2011 | 2:13pm
SJC Puma says:
The whole Tim Tebow phenomenom has been fasccinating to watch this season. Of course the media is fascinated with the guy because he is winning. If he had started and lost three straight games and gone back to being a third-stringer, no one would even be talking about him. But that is not the point I wish to make. The fact is, people are talking about him. And the talk, as Ms Scalia indicates, is less about his passing form (ill-suited for the NFL) and more about his overt expressions of faith, for which he draws scorn typically reserved for the likes of Pope Benedict XVI. I can make a guess as to why non-religious persons get so bent out of shape. They don't like having Jesus shoved in their face by some chawbacon. But why are people of faith also put out by him? This guy is in his mid-20s. Let's keep that in perspective. He is not a wisdom figure (at least as within a traditional understanding). He may have never thought out why God seemingly helps him in the games but not the players on the other side of the ball (we don't know that, though - we've never asked him). We don't know if he thanks God and his teammates following a loss (he might - we don't know). But hold his life in its context - his parents, his upbringing, his church, his age and maturity. I was in my mid-20s almost 20 years ago. I am still a man of faith, and I believe a stronger one at that. But my faith, like my waistline, has expanded since then. I have grown in wisdom, courage, understanding, knowledge, and reverence. As I think about Mr. Tebow, I am simply grateful that a young man with a lot of media attention is using the spotlight to bless and not to curse, to thank and not to demand entitlement. He is a jewel in a culture like the NFL's. Keep going Tim. I hope you continue to do well. I believe that you are doing good.
12.15.2011 | 10:46pm
Carol K. says:
The media are waiting patiently for TT to make a huge blunder of some sort so they can crow - see Christians are hypocrites.
12.18.2011 | 5:30pm
Nancy D. says:
While it may be true that there are those who would take delight if Tim Tebow was to make a huge blunder, for those who can persevere in good times and bad while finishing The Race in the Hope that through God's Grace and Mercy they will be transformed in Christ, Victory is theirs, for there are no losers in The Body of Christ.
Now let's see...where do I fit in here? I voted for Obama and I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Africa, and I participated in protests against the war in Vietnam when I was young. Uh-oh, that's too trendy, liberal, and cool, so I must be on the evil side.
But then, I also have impeccable redneck credentials. my mother was a dirt okie who migrated out to California during the dust bowl era, and my father was a working class Navy enlisted man who rose to be a senior officer. Not only that, but I have an uncle who was almost killed by a torpedo during the attack on Pearl Harbor, and I was president of an NRA junior rifle club in Texas while I was in high school. (I'm still a pretty good shot.) Now I'm getting confused...which side am I on? It has to be one or the other, doesn't it?
But maybe it doesn't. Maybe the Dominican sister who served in the Peace Corps with me and became a lifelong friend, or the gay volunteer I knew who entered a monastery after he left the Peace Corps couldn't fit into the convenient pigeon holes that Ms. Scalia creates here. Come to think of it, maybe this manichean dichotomy really doesn't exist!
As for being anti-establishment, the smug pride that comes from that is enjoyed by both liberals and conservatives. Everyone likes to think they are a lone voice of morality and sanity crying in the wilderness, and there is no shortage of anti-establishment attitude at FT.