Why Does Tim Tebow Get to Send Religious Messages in the NFL?

Why is the NFL letting Tebow’s violation slide? Who knows.

I would bet you, though, they would immediately fine a player who wrote on his wristband: “There is no god.”

Why is there a double-standard when it comes to openly Christian athletes?

Wait.. first you say you don’t know why they let it happen, then you just assume that an atheistic slogan would be immediately fined, and then, apparently on that basis declare there to be a double-standard?

For the same reason there is a double-standard any time Christianity is involved: Christian privilege. And once again, we will be seen as the enemy simply for suggesting the the policy be fairly applied.

I could be wrong, but I think players writing things on their wristbands ( especially QB’s, because that is where many of them write down their plays ) doesn’t violate the NFL dress code, so he might be able to circumvent the rules on this one.

But since what he has written there isn’t football related, maybe they’ll ask him to knock off writing out personal messages for future games?

The man has been hit in the head to often. He can not remember his locker sorry Luke combination.

I’ll add this to my list of counterexamples for the next time someone asks why atheists have to be so “in your face.” Along with the twits buying endzone seats so they can unfurl their John 3:16 banners at every field goal or extra point.

I don’t think you can declare a “double standard” in terms of active discrimination against atheists. The existence of fines for other messages would indicate at the most the existence of positive discrimination in favor of Christians.

I say “at the most” because on the basis of this information it’s not possible to know whether Tebow is getting special treatment or not. For that I would need to know how strictly this rule is enforced and how many documented cases of violation go without fines. If it turns out that enforcement is very strict and every documented case results in fines except for this one, I’d be suspicious, especially if the incident is repeated with similar results.

On the basis of what we know now it seems premature to cry special treatment. In any event, count me as sort of uninterested. This is a minor rule in a massive corporation. I can’t say I’d be happy that they enforce different rules for different religions, but given that it’s on barely visible writing on uniforms instead of, say, employment, I can’t get really riled up about it.

I looked up Luke 2:10-11 and can conclude that Tebow is afraid to play, the big Jesse. He’s using his faith an a crutch to bolster his courage for the game.

Is there another way to interpret this message in this context?

Okay, I really don’t get why everyone’s saying a double standard hasn’t been shown when the dude who wrote the thing about Vince Whoever (some other football player, I guess?) did get fined. Double standard right there. While we have no example of someone writing there is no god, we do have a fine example of Christian privilege. Why are we afraid to admit that? (I’m getting glader and glader all the time that I’m no football fan and those of you who are have my empathy; I kind of dread when my grandson actually starts getting wise enough to ask to watch games because he is interested in the sport.)

That said, it’s a good thing you included the close-up because at the first picture I was going what? I don’t see anything.

Simon, regarding the Jefferson quotes — it doesn’t really apply here. The NFL (and players’ association) is a “club”, and they have a dress code. They don’t want players doing that kind of stuff, even if only for the simple fact that it would open the players up to additional advertising. To everyone else, the NFL will likely hand out a fine or request that he stop. They usually do it mid-/late-week. It may have slipped the notice of or otherwise been ignored by the refs, but I’m sure the NFL will catch up with him later this week.

All this guy is doing is perpetuating a reputation of a creepy religious fanatic.
http://deadspin.com/5719307/26-seconds-of-tim-tebow-charming-the-pants-off-everyone
Check the comments.

Beyond any double-standard in evidence, it’s another example of spamming the Jesus button. (For you non-gamers out there, ‘spamming’ is either repetitive firing of a weapon, or ‘button mashing’ – executing simple attacks without style or grace or thought.)

As the controversy about Tebow’s mom thanking Jesus for her choosing not to abort little Timmy (and then Sarah and Bristol Palin being featured on a magazine cover crowing about how they ‘chose life’) … if Tebow’s prowess is wholly due to the blessings of Christ Jesus, then how do you explain other, talented players? (Does anyone know Tebow’s record? Is he undefeated? If not, is his loss because he forgot his magic eyepaint or wristband?)

Ultimately, it’s a horrible practice to allow PLAYERS to bear proselytizing messages on their gear, because it injects religion into a blatantly non-religious event. “Oh, Lord, give me the power to make this field goal.”

Bull. Okay, so the Lord God hears your prayer and *bam*, you lay down the best kick or pass in NFL history.

What did God get out of the deal? About as many seconds of thanks as you’d spend saying, “I’M GOIN’ TO DISNEYLAND!”?!?!?

I agree with Simon. Who cares?

This isn’t giving money to faith-based charities or Islamic type religious laws. SO it really sholudn’t matter to atheists.

It really just seems like Hemant wants to complain about any religious aspect of society.

As for Tebow, he seems like a genuinely good guy, despite his fervent religiosity.

David Says:
December 28th, 2010 at 7:40 am

The man has been hit in the head to often. He can not remember his locker sorry Luke combination.

I lol’d!

OT: Who cares?

It’s entirely possible it was just missed. Ben Roethlisberger was ordered to stop writing PFJ (Play For Jesus) on his shoes a couple years back. Out of curiosity, has anybody tried to bring this to the NFL’s attention, or was it just assumed they had looked the other way?

Posts like this provide evidence of how stupid evangelic atheists are and how they lack the critical processes to even form a coherent argument.

Unless the league explicitly CONDONES christian versus on wristbands there is no double standard. Else lex parsimoniae, which undereducated posers like you love to refer to as Occam’s razor would suggest that the league simply did not notice the writing on the inside of player’s wristband. In other words, an oversight.

It’s simple logic, which seems to escape you in your hypersensitivity. You seem to fail comprehend the basic definition of “double standard.” For there to be a “double standard” there would have to be different policies towards Christians and atheist messages on uniforms. Read the rules noobs… there are no separate policies.

What you’re talking about is SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT. But you provided no evidence of any such systemic selective enforcement. In fact the history of the NFL with Big Ben and others shows that the league has been consistent with Christian messages as with any other writing on the uniform. They are not permitted when they are identified.

For what it’s worth I’m an agnostic. But diehard evangelical atheists are akin to racist Zionist Jews or die hard Christians… definitely on the low end of the IQ distribution spectrum with a stick up your asses about perceived slights.

I was just starting to admire the guy (he’s pretty good for a rookie), until this childishness. At least we had the Buffalo Bill guy a few weeks back who dropped a would-have-been game-winning pass, then tweeted his disappointment at Jesus for letting him down. That was great!

Tim Tebow < Pat Tillman.

Yes, Tim Tebow is less then Pat Tillman even with his stupid armband "statement".

Personally, it’s a silly trend sending message to people like this. Are you playing football or preaching about Jesus? I think it takes away the focus from the game. He’s worried about sending the message and people are watching for a message.

Well as dumbass as his last paragraph was and despite being a ‘diehard atheist’ I have to agree with the initial assessment of lolnoobs. I wouldn’t say there is enough here to be convinced the NFL is giving special privilege here. That said there certainly can be implicit double standards as well as explicit ones.

In any event I don’t see why they should monitor such things anyways (at least to that degree), if someone wants to literally wear their hearts on their sleeves then so be it in my opinion.

Simon wrote:

From my point of view, these are all unnecessary restrictions. To quote Thomas Jefferson, if somebody wants to have bible verses (or whatever) on their own body it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg-as long as everybody else has the same privilege of course. IMO this rule should be scrapped entirely.

That sums up my feelings as well.

As long as the rule is truly applied equally, then I don’t give a rat’s patootie what athletes scribble on their bodies or uniforms.

Our (meaning atheists’ and believers’) scrutiny would be better aimed at the dubious phenomenon of athletes being ‘revered’ in the first place.

Claudia;

There aren’t many commentators that I’d trust enough to click on random linkages for, but that was well worth it 🙂

It may not seem like a big thing, but I’d rather have this conversation now than after the evangelicals filtering into government (or did y’all miss last year’s ‘Resolution on the Importance of Christmas & Christianity’?).

There is an increasing show of ‘Christianity’ in the public square, and to dismiss objections as atheists getting their panties in a bunch, or Hemant being the Whiny Atheist is to miss the point entirely.

To use a football metaphor, the opposing team is advancing the ball. Are you gonna just sit there and say, ‘no big deal’?

Should have posted this picture of St. Timothy. Go Dawgs.

http://www.outdoorsportsaddict.com/football/tim-tebow-crying-picture/

What principle do you think is at work here? The restrictions that some atheists (including, it would seem, Hemant) are arguing for here seem to me to be excessive and irrelevant. This is not a government endorsement of religion; it is not (as per the Jefferson quote) actually harming anyone financially or physically.

True, it is an expression of a general societal preference for Christian over non-Christian sentiments. But is it therefore unfair? Is it something that ought not to be allowed? Is it, in fact, any different in kind from the various atheist billboards that have gone up recently?

I wonder if some people have missed the connection between “liberal” and “liberty”.

By all means, point out how silly it is for Tebow to express his religious convictions this way. Make fun of him. But take away his ability to express himself in this ridiculous way? How is that anything but actual suppression of his free speech – something that can legitimately be called persecution?

Hover,
Luke 2:10 – 11 are about the birth of Christ – my guess is that he probably chose these particular verses for the Christmas season.
(it says “Don’t be afraid” because the shepherds were terrified by the power of the angel).

If something helps or empowers, why is that a crutch? If that’s true, I also use food, friends, sleep, music, and water as crutches!

Without getting caught uo in words I would agree – adherents do see faith as a crutch, but not in a negative way at all. It’s a crutch for comfort, strength, and peace. Faith provides very real comfort for millions of believers, myself included. As far as weak or worthless, that’s a one sided way of looking at it. I would say that we feel completely NOT weak and worthless because of our faith – and that we get moral strength from our faith because faith is the seat of morality. We believe that we are getting moral strength from the creator of morality. And on the contrary, we see faith as the very essence of lifes purpose, along with the other habits that go along with it like love and justice. I know MANY more faithful people who have deep satisfaction in what they believe their life’s purpose is (and that includes preachers, surfers, artists, you name it) than non believers (who I know, many of them close friends). We see faith as a condition in which one’s life purpose becomes clearer and more satisfying. If our faith is a myth, there’s something powerful going on, because it sure is a good crutch!

You used the word crutch first, and I said “without getting caught up in words…” From your response it’s clear that you didn’t consider what I wrote at all! We both know what I mean by “crutch” and we both know that you want it have a negative meaning. We’re not conversing about a word, hopefully.

I still maintain that in this context, a “crutch” is a good thing. A crutch assists those who need help. I guess you haven’t looked at the state of the world we live in – but believe me – lots of people need help.

The healthiest thing for an adult is to align their beliefs with the true nature of the universe. I at least believe that that’s what you and I are both trying to do, so in that way we’re no different.
“Growing up”, to us, is accepting that there is a higher power. We believe that only children think they are the center of the universe.

And from what I’ve seen, (and I could make lists), faith is extremely healthy for adults. (spend time with a group of people who look to a higher power for strength and then spend time with a group of people who use psychotherapy for peace of mind – the contrast is stark).

Imaginary? Not to us. To us it’s quite real, (with some doubts mixed in), and no more imaginary than the love I feel for my friends and loved ones.

Hover,

I don’t know how to do the copy / box thing that would make this easier, (I’ll figure it out)…

2. You use the word “prayers” as a dirty word – People use prayers because they actually do help, to bring about strength, joy, and peace. So the prayers are not “instead of help,” the prayers do help.
I’m presuming that Tebow has the verse on his sleeve because it actually helps him.

3. Nothing has ever shaken my faith enough to choose against it. My faith has been severely shaken in secularism, from my own and others experiences. So to your point, I have altered my beliefs based on what has shaken me. I agree that we should alter our beliefs based on experience, etc. (And it’s not a rickety crutch at all – it feels very un-rickety!)

4. Christians are human beings and as such act like idiots sometimes just like we all do. One of the tenets of our belief is that we need God because we are so fallible.

5. My assertation that faith is healthy for adults is based only in personal experience. I encounter so many people who experience life with genuine joy and energy on a daily basis whose faith is an active part of their lives. And I encounter so many people who are negative, unhappy, and tired who believe that faith is silly.

6. You’re right, I guess that is the point. (And the one we’ll maybe never agree on). My evidence for God is entirely based on a feeling of “knowing” that God is real, as strongly as “knowing” that I love someone (Whether they reciprocate or not). My evidence is also based on a lifetime of observation of radical change and healing that has come from faith, and also from what can best be described as a “bouancy of spirit” that I experience in direct proportion to my closeness to God (Through prayer, etc.).
And I also believe that we have a deep sense of “knowing” that is just as powerful as hard evidence.

I could be completely wrong – I suppose all of those feelings could be a chemical response to an intricate web of experiences, rewards, memories, group support, etc. But if that’s the case, the trigger for all of those good things is my Christian faith – so for that reason it’s my path.

Hover,

(Thanks for the box respose instructions).

1. On whether or not prayers work, we’ll not agree on that one. We’ll each have our studies that counter each other.

2. You don’t know me, but I’m with you – I treat everything skeptically and I will never stop questioning. Doubts are always part of my faith – just not nearly enough to cancel it out.

3. I don’t think we “need Gods to fix it” – I think God is real so it’s the only real way to fix it.

4. I have no doubt that we each have our own anecdotes – I do trust my experiences.

5. We simply disagree – or we’re looking at this point differently. I’m not trying to change reality, I’m trying to align with it.

6. There we disagree again – I’m willing to accept that my faith just might be that – but not enough to follow a different path. This is based on everything I see, feel, and experience.

I’m sure we will meet again!

Hover,

1. I’m confident that it will too.

2.Now your’re just being a ball buster – I said, “…doubts are always part of my faith…” We’re not playing a word game, we’re having a discussion.

3. God fixes things because he exists – unlike Gandalf. You refuse to accept that I believe that God is real – if I didn’t believe that we wouldn’t be debating. I believe that I do live in the real world.

4. Not a distorted lens at all. It’s plain and obvious to me when people are joyful and content vs people who are unhappy. I’m not referring to personal testimony or to casual observation, but to engaged, deep, life experiences – to messed up lives vs fulfilled lives.

5. I know that a sense of knowing is not as powerful as “hard evidence” – and you know that there will never be the kind of “hard evidence” that you are looking for to prove the existance of God. I can’t prove to you that I love my family. I can only tell you how I feel about them, what I do for them. how they make me feel. But I believe that it is a reality that I love them.

6. I guess you don’t believe me when I say I treat everything skeptically. My faith is richer and deeper for having treated it skeptically over the years. Like you said, one’s senses can be tricked – by a few simple methods – and if that’s true it works both ways (or not at all).

I plan to keep questioning my faith. I feel that conversations like this are opportunities to do that. Neither of us would be wasting time on a website if we didn’t get something out of it! I like to think I’m honest with myself in the long run. I think that having open dialogue is a good way to foster that – partly because one is forced to put one’s beliefs into words, and also because I now have your opinion to consider alongside others and my own.

Hover,
Sorry for the delayed response, travel and snow shoveling.

1. I don’t need to prove it, I’m convinced enough to follow this path. besides, I have nothing to lose especially since I see so many tangible benifits in my life. And maybe heaven awaits!

2. I know you think I’m wrong – that’s pretty clear!

3. Sorry, no time to do homework for you. 🙂 You’re smart enough to know that we could both produce opposing studies to “prove” our points of view, and it wouldn’t change anything.

4. I’m glad you are pleased. (I also think you know what I meant) I do believe that we have a deep sense of knowing that is powerful. For example I’m having this conversation with you because I have a “deep sense of knowing” that you are a divinely created being. If I thought your words were just the result of random atoms smashing together I really wouldn’t need to listen or acknowledge because ultimately it would be meaningless, because there would be nothing really at stake.

5. I’m talking about the God of the Bible. And we both know that the evidence for the existence of that God begins and ends with faith. What is evidence for me would not pass as evidence for you. For me, the solar system, our planet, the complexity of life, the origin of life, (for me it is more reasonable to believe in a divine creator than in random accident), the idea of right and wrong that is planted in our hearts, human discontent that is satisfied by closeness to God through prayer and reading the Bible. I believe that we live in a broken world – and the Bible is the only book that says, “Yes, it’s broken, and this is why, and here’s the solution.”

This is a different kind of path, and a different kind of knowing. As it says in my religon,
“We fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”

6. I can equally cite what I have done for God and what God has done for me.

7, I agree, it would be interesting to see which parts of the brain “light up” during particular activities.

8. I have always maintained that I have doubt mixed with my faith. From our discussion it seams that your faith is unassailable.

9. “Good for you” is kind of condescending, no?

Hover,

Not pascals wager, just the truth of my statement. (“Maybe heaven awaits”) no bet, just a key part of my faith,

Never said it was a substitute. I said it was powerful.

I can’t answer that. Maybe our imperfections are part of our journey – also, the Bible teaches that mankind is in a fallen, imperfect state.

Things in between, yes, but when it comes to our existence aren’t we here either on purpose (created) or by chance?

The first definition of “evidence” in Webster’s is “an outward sign: Indication.” That definition perfectly fits my use of the word. I didn’t say that faith was my evidence, I cited several things that are evidence for me.

It would be interesting, but I would expect brain activity to occur and “light up” in both mine and your views of the world.

May I say that you have a position which is unassailable?

I suppose you’re right about the condescending bit.

Hover,

Not sure why you’re trying to label my comment as Pascals wager, whether it is or isn’t doesn’t change its authenticity for me.

I didn’t say that imperfections were the mark of a creator, you said that imperfections were a sign that there is no creator. I said “I can’t answer that, maybe…”

I’m confused about the random comments – and curious about your position. It sounds like you’re saying that while you don’t believe in a creator, you do believe that things (Laws of physics, etc) came about not be random chance?

So you don’t like the definition of “evidence” that I cited? I know there are other definitions, but that’s the first one listed and I believe it is an accurate definition for the way I am using it.

I think our brains learn – for example if one teenager told another that he “loved” her, her brain might “lght up” in a pleasurable way. If it turned out that he was lying, her brain would “light up” less the next time, and so on. I agree that our brains can be fooled, but hopefully we learn from experience to seperate what works from what doesn’t.

I may be unique in this position, but for me Christianity is an “uncomfortable truth.” I don’t believe it because I like all of it, I believe it because I think it’s true – and I love it because I think it’s true. I would find it much more comfortable if all religion were false, for many reasons. To me, it is atheism that is the “comfortable lie.”

In that way, we’re the same – we both believe what we think is true, regardless of how comfortable it is.

I’m not sure if I agree that going through life believing something were true when it is false is “very dangerous” – life is pretty short, and if there are no eternal consequences, (A part of Christianity, by the way, that to me would qualify as “uncomfortable”) how “dangerous” can it be? Great progress has been made by believers and non believers, and both believers and non believers have been “hurt” throughout history – and hurt others around them.

Blacksheep

I’m confused about the random comments – and curious about your position. It sounds like you’re saying that while you don’t believe in a creator, you do believe that things (Laws of physics, etc) came about not be random chance?

I understand. You’ve no doubt been told that either gods created the laws governing the universe or they are completely random. This is false. While some chaotic factors are unavoidable order also exists is nature. Take evolution as a fine example. In layman’s terms and at a high level evolution is made up of two big ideas:
1) Descent with modifications. The offspring of an organism may differ from the parent. One of the reasons for this among many is random mutation. This is not the only cause.
2) Natural selection. Organisms produce more offspring than can survive. Those that do survive to reproduce are selected for survival. Something of a tautology but there you have it.

A typical creationist characterisation of evolution is that it is entirely random. Only one contributing element could be said to be random and that isn’t even necessary.

So you don’t like the definition of “evidence” that I cited? I know there are other definitions, but that’s the first one listed and I believe it is an accurate definition for the way I am using it.

OK why not follow that train of thought for a bit? If you experience something and believe it to be true then it is evidence for you? Have you ever seen a card trick? Has an uncle made a coin appear from behind your ear? (all uncles can do magic) Have you ever experienced deja vu? Did you once believe in Santa Claus? Has a horoscope ever been accurate for you? Have you ever been shown to be wrong or learnt that something that you believed was false?

Is magic real? Is foresight real? Is Santa real? Is the future held in the stars? The “evidence” says so. It must be true. Right?

hopefully we learn from experience to seperate what works from what doesn’t.

Indeed but only if we recognise when we are in error.

To me, it is atheism that is the “comfortable lie.”

That is interesting given that atheism is only defined by what it isn’t.

In that way, we’re the same – we both believe what we think is true, regardless of how comfortable it is.

Sorry but no. I believe what the evidence suggests. Whether it is comforting or not is irrelevant.

I’m not sure if I agree that going through life believing something were true when it is false is “very dangerous” – life is pretty short, and if there are no eternal consequences, (A part of Christianity, by the way, that to me would qualify as “uncomfortable”) how “dangerous” can it be?

How dangerous indeed? Take a look at a few of Hemant’s reports on children abused or killed by sincere Christian belief. Take a look at how learning and science is impeded by sincere Christian belief. Not just Christian of course. All kinds of sincere belief can hold back or harm people.

Great progress has been made by believers and non believers, and both believers and non believers have been “hurt” throughout history – and hurt others around them.

Indeed. No doubt you have already heard the words of Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”