Saturday, December 31, 2011


Football is a major draw for most Americans. This year's season has led to an all too familiar SEC athlete emerge as a contending Quarterback. I am talking of course about the Denver Broncos' own Tim Tebow. Tebow is no stranger to religious controversy with his pro-life superbowl commercial and what some deem as an overzealous approach to Christianity. This outlook on Tebow's persona has sparked some rather snarky and humorous satire as created by Saturday Night Live. As these perceptions trickle down and new catchphrases emerge such as "Tebowing," Tim is constantly scrutinized. For some this scrutiny is merely because of his stance as a Christian and for others it is merely the perception of Tebow being a crybaby. In connection with the belief that Tebow's observance of Christianity is what draws scrutiny, certain pictures have begun to emerge across the web such as this one on Facebook.

Another meme floating around. Credit goes to the internet.

I find this picture truly fascinating. What is it trying to say, demonstrate, comment on, etc.? I guess to answer the question, according to the U.S. Constitution there is nothing wrong with either of them. I don't think a rational person can actually argue against that. What I am curious about is the meaning behind the picture. Why choose Muslims over Jews or Zoroasters? Some questions to ponder and I've love to see your feedback.


  1. Even more questions arise I think. In this day and age, it's amazing not only for someone to become a celebrity but also stick to ANY religious beliefs (I use religious sparingly). The fact is not so much that he is an outspoken Christian I think but rather that he is outspoken regardless of scrutiny. Even while being a Christan myself, I can appreciate the idea that at least SOMEONE is actually standing out for what they belief, regardless of the media. Like a newscaster said a few years ago, it's as rare as news stations reporting good uplifting events over the terrible ones.

  2. Well, Daniel I am of a different perspective.

    To the question presented, I think that Muslim's were used because it would be the easiest way to rally the faithful (meaning Tebow fans and evangelicals behind him). From the looks of the picture of the Muslims they are in an actual prayer service probably in a mosque not out in the middle of a football field. Also, Tebow's defenders tend to ridicule the public scrutiny over Tebow's public prayer. But it is disingenuous for him to have public prayer and not expect public scrutiny. It's a bit like a politician (i.e. Sarah Palin) using her family in a public forum for political gain then getting mad at the media when they scrutinize her daughter for getting pregnant out of wedlock.

    However, being out in a football field does not make his prayer less genuine. I am of the belief that Tebow is, what I call "laundering his arrogance". Lets look at the situation. He is knelling down in an all but patented position he came up with (Tebowing) usually in an area easily viewed by the public if not in the endzone itself. He does it after making a touchdown when thousands of fans are singing his praises (or he expounds on it when he's miced at practice, its really obnoxious).

    Also, without his very obnoxious, and overdone Christianity he is nothing more than a mediocre quarterback at best. If I may expound on a quote I heard (regarding someone else but it is applicable here)the Muslims on the left believe in the prophets blessings and peace be upon them. Tebow believes in the profits and how to make them.

  3. I can understand that this will be a tug of war over whether or not Tebow is sincere or annoying in his approach. My main concern is the portrayal of him vs praying Muslims. Why make the comparison? Is the creator of the picture trying to affix some sort of xenophobia where we shouldn't be worried about Tebow but about Muslims?

  4. Rob, while it's possible that the creator of the image may be prejudiced against islam, I believe the intended effect is to attempt to rally evangelical christians to excercise their 1st amendment rights. While the vast majority of people in the US have never and probably will never have these rights infringed upon, when talks show mega-hosts such as Beck and Limbaugh get involved in minor controversies, they can be blown out of proportion by their largely evangelical audiences who rarely seem to seek out balanced coverage of events. Just google Beck and Tebow's names together and you'll see how "devastating" the Tebowing controversy is to our country.
    Regardelss, I dont' feel it's necessary to question Tebow's sincerity. I think he genuinely acts out of the belief that he is giving credit to his god, but has the tact of... well a man that gets paid to play a game for a living. Compared to some of his colleagues who favor rape and propositioning massage therapists as ways of gaining notoriety, he's hardly causing anyone any real problems.

  5. Yet they are rallying support yet again by demonizing another. Assuming you are correct, unification against a common enemy seems to be the desired alternate to harmony.

  6. (This is Scott speaking) If I am correct this was made controversial by neo-con news media and talk radio. Who are constantly trying to rally the faithful into believing they are under attack. Right now Muslims are the Ace of Spades in their terrorist deck of cards. Tebow is a conduit to propagate this. Given the comparison it is likely that this would be one who would listen to such media outlets and would likely feel threatened by the muslim community. I think this is a sort of call to action and can be dangerous. While this is overblown, I agree, the fact that people want to overblow it makes it more dangerous. It only takes one nut.

  7. Rob, I'm now seeing my above post where I said that I don't feel Tebow is doing any damage wasn't really on topic with your question. I'll have to start reading a little more carefully.
    One thing I am wondering is, had this image been promoted by FOX (or MSNBC, or CNN for that matter) would the desired audience be excited or disturbed? Would they (relatively) silently agree/disagree or be compelled to speak and act violently against said "common enemy"?

  8. I do think it is an interesting aspect to examine. Is the poster of said image trying to get the point across that political correctness is coming at the cost of certain perceived principles of which the country was founded. Of course it could also be a neautrality argument pointing out that the same people that are defending rights of other religions, in this case Islam, are also those scrutinizing him. I am inclined to believe the former. This seems like the same sort of rhetoric one might often see before the building of a Mosque, or at a Quran burning rally. It seems, to me anyways, that said poster of this picture might be in the same mindset of David Barton at That is a somewhat morbid view of humanity but given the recent vocal resistance against anything middle eastern it seems logical.


Blog Archive

You May Also Like