OT America's QB to appear during Super Bowl
Tim Tebow will be featured in a Super Bowl ad for Focus on the Family. I, for one, will have a hard time leaving my couch during breaks for fear of missing the message.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-tebow-superbowlad&pr…
****Obviously, the political tone of this thread is taking a turn for the worst. My point was how lucky we all are that we will get to see Tim before draft day, as I would miss him so if he were to not be in my life until April.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:24 AM ^
I don't know what your problem is but good for you.
EDIT: I apologize for my tone, I just didn't want this to escalate into a divisive subject among ppl. I personally support his faith and works, and I understand some have different ideas. I just hope people do not start making rash offensive comments.
January 16th, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^
Not sure why everyone blasts him for his beliefs... If people don't like the message on his eye black then don't look at it.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:48 AM ^
...might be a polarizing figure? [after all, not "*everyone* blasts him for his beliefs"; a huge portion of the country loves him] Whether you agree with him or not, you certainly understand that someone who is so outspoken about religion, who has become a poster child for the religious right, and who has apparently agreed to be in a pro-life superbowl ad with a group like focus on the family is going to really annoy a lot of people, right? Its not unique to one political view: the same would be true of an athlete who became a poster child for the pro-choice movement, or the pro-gay-marriage movement, or an athlete who appeared in a pro-government-option health care ad or something. A lot of people would love that athlete; a lot would hate him. I'm not saying its good or bad to feel one way or the other about Tebow, but please tell me you do, in fact, understand why he annoys people (again regardless of how you feel about him).
And the whole if-you-don't-like-what-someone-is-saying-don't-listen-to-it logic is ridiculous. Its rare that we are actually *forced* to listen/look at someone. Yet people annoy us all the time. Would you suggest everyone simply ignore, or look away from (rather than get annoyed by), people like Michael Moore, Glen Beck, Al Gore, or Rush Limbaugh?
January 17th, 2010 at 12:57 AM ^
Dude... we live in America. There is something called freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Just because you don't agree with his message you think it's annoying? Say what you want about Tim Tebow, but he is the least threatening of the guys you compared him to (Michael Moore, Glen Beck, Al Gore, or Rush Limbaugh), and he shouldn't stop doing what he's doing just because it "annoys" you.
January 17th, 2010 at 1:06 AM ^
..but:
1. I never (nor would I) suggested he did not have a right to do what he does.
2. I did not say he annoyed me.
3. I never suggested he stop, regardless of what anyone thinks.
I was responding only to the apparent surprise that he irritates people/is controversial. That's all.
January 17th, 2010 at 1:53 AM ^
Goddamn I love it when someone invokes the First Amendment in this context. Way to go, DUDE!
/sarcasm
January 16th, 2010 at 11:49 PM ^
There aren't too many people like him in today's world. I don't think I even need to elaborate on that.
EDIT - since some of you probably need clarification: Just go a few pages back on the MGoBoard, and all you see is
-OMG look what Rosenberg did now
-Kiffin is a douche!!
-MSU players are all thugs!11!
-How many skanks did Tiger bang?
-Did you see what Rosenberg just wrote?!
So then there's Tebow, who is trying to change the world for the better, and in my opinion he's not just putting on an act in an effort to gain sponsers (surely you agree with that?). I understand it's annoying to hear every announcer gush over him for three hours rather than actually trying to objectively announce a game. But explain to me again why anyone would have a problem with Tebow himself?
January 17th, 2010 at 12:28 AM ^
A great many people, myself included, would assert that proselytizing is not changing the world for the better. These people, who believe religion is the scourge of modern society, despise Tim Tebow for increasing the hate, intolerance, and divisiveness that accompany religious dogma.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:56 AM ^
- Would you despise Tim Tebow if he had won 2 National Championships for Michigan?
- Do you despise Darius Morris for writing Bible verses on his shoes?
January 17th, 2010 at 1:19 AM ^
"Despise" may have been too strong a word. But, alas, I used it. If I may refine my terminology, I would use the word "dislike."
To your first question: yes. I don't dislike Tim Tebow because he didn't play for Michigan. I dislike him for, in my view, increasing hatred, intolerance, and divisiveness in our world.
To your second question: no. What Darius Morris chooses to believe in his own mind is of little concern to me. If, however, he became a mouthpiece for the Christian religion--or any religion, for that matter--then, yes, I would dislike him.
January 17th, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^
Tim Tebow is increasing hatred, intolerance, and divisiveness to the world? Really?
I nominate this as the dumbest mgoblog post EVER.
January 17th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
It's all in the eye of the beholder, my friend.
To you or me, Tebow is just being a good person, trying to spread a positive message. To many people the world over, his continued "Bible thumping" on a national stage belittles their own beliefs, so Marlon does have a point. No matter how offensive it may be to those here.
Religion should not be forced on anyone.
January 17th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
Religion is not by any means "forced" on anyone by anybody. Religion is only mentioned and people throw a fit. On the other hand polarizing topics such as evolution, big bang, gay rights, etc, etc, ARE forced on the Christian community. I know most gay right activists, pro-choicers, even just those that don't want religion is schools cry foul over their Freedom of Speech being denied. How is this logic: some say "You have to have an open mind about everyone and everything." Yet they have no open mind for Christians or other groups that believe there are moral standards to be upheld. To that I say keep an open mind. So they, like the other side, are not as open minded as they think as they only agree with what they believe in.
I believe I have the right to raise my kids free from the pressures of those that want to step on the bible. I try to keep a level head about these "hot topics" because I know that you will never win an arguement by bashing someone over the head with a bible. I think when you take God out of politics, or schools, you create a lot more problems then you solve. Sceince can only get you so far, if you don't have anything of substance to base logic, thought processes, or beliefs on then what can a person base life on? When ever a person tells me "I believe what I feel is right" I pretty much end the discussion. I you believe something then know why and have a strong reason to do so.
To me it seems there are a lot of empty people out there who try to fill up the void with anything they can. The gay rights battle will always be there and it won't be long until it is forced on us. To me it doesn't matter what the figure heads of this country want to do, I know what I stand for and why. If others deserve the right to flaunt anything they want around corrupting children at younger ages then I feel I should have the right to raise my kids free from the tyranny towards Christ. I know there will never be a true middle ground on this as you either feel one way or the other. As the voters have proven in every state I am acutally in the majority on this. Of course, the squeaky wheel always gets the grease though. And I think it won't be long before the majority opinion is overturned yet again. But thats just my Epinion and I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings I just thought this side of the debate needed to be said.
January 17th, 2010 at 1:06 AM ^
While proselytizing doesn't change the world for the better in and of itself, that is not what TT does. He is extremely charitable, visits sick kids in hospitals, goes to schools to promote the value of education, does mission trips to 3rd world countries, and works to improve the world.
This guy is not a self-indulgent jerk. I can't defend all people who have ever done, said, or thought ridiculous and indefensible things in the name of religion. However, that doesn't mean all believers are phony evil-doers. More people should do as much good work as TT does...regardless of what they believe. TT is someone who makes the world a better place, and simply gives God credit for it.
People, yourself included, attack him and discredit him because of his beliefs. Does that make you intolerant? Isn't your "religion is the scourge of modern society" belief system dogmatic? You seem awfully committed to an "US vs. THEM" position, how could that be anything but divisive?
January 17th, 2010 at 1:19 AM ^
...Tebow does do a lot of good stuff off the field. But its not just his detractors that have strong feelings about him because of his religious beliefs. Just as it is the giving god credit that annoys many of those who dislike him, it is also what makes many of his fans love him. If he did all the charitable things he did without giving god credit for it, I have a feeling he would lose just as many fans as detractors.
Some people view the proselytizing and evangelism as a negative. Some view it as a positive. That's obviously a personal, subjective determination. But don't blame only his detractors for his divisiveness.
January 17th, 2010 at 1:36 AM ^
You hit the nail on the head in terms of his popularity being linked to his outward expressions of faith.
In my experience, divisiveness comes from an "US vs. THEM" distinction. To some extent it is human nature to do that sort of thing. I've seen it with pre-schoolers and even toddlers. However, when that distinction goes as far as to make one group (emphasis on the group) wrong or worse than another group, it is divisive. The way the detractors do that is painfully evident. I don't see the supporters work quite as clearly.
To apply this to the conversation at hand, I'd ask if you think TT himself is divisive, or if his supporters and detractors are the ones who inflame the argument through him? (Real question. No sarcastic or leading tone implied.)
January 17th, 2010 at 1:52 AM ^
...I think his supporters and detractors do so equally (go check out some conservative christian blogs' take on Tebow). And I think he (probably knowingly) invites it. I don't think inviting divisiveness is even necessarily a bad thing. But, if the divisiveness is a bad thing (which I don't necessarily think), then all are to "blame."
BTW, I didn't neg you, not sure why someone would neg your comment.
January 17th, 2010 at 1:50 AM ^
Nobody claimed Tim Tebow himself was divisive. What was written, in essence, was that the practices and policies Tim Tebow's religion are divisive, and that he is furthering the spread of those divisive practices and policies by his work for the church.
January 17th, 2010 at 2:33 AM ^
What specific aspects of Tim Tebow's (not his follwers and fans)religion are divisive?
January 17th, 2010 at 4:56 AM ^
...the part that says homosexuals have an anti-family agenda, or the part that says that abortion is murder, perhaps?
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/bioethics/abortion/
(Focus on the Family links)
January 17th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^
I too dream of a world without religion. And to those who are down-voting marlon: why? If you and your big buddy in the sky are on such good terms it shouldn't matter that some internet dude is anti-religion. Have some confidence in your superstitions.
January 16th, 2010 at 11:48 PM ^
Glued to my T.V. to hear the messiah's message of hope. That is what Focus on the Family does right?
January 16th, 2010 at 11:51 PM ^
Focus on the Family is "dedicated to nurturing and defending families worldwide" and protecting family values.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:30 AM ^
As long as your values are anti-gay and anti-abortion, your "family values" are being "protected" (*cough*interferred with*cough*) by focus on the family.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:35 AM ^
How can they protect values if they are relative to each family? My family consists of my fern named "Droopy Greenhands" and myself. Our values: clock, smooth skin, and spiderman preservation. Will this organization fight for that? If so, with what? Words or weapons or money or weaponized wordmoney? I hope so. I would love to call them when Droopy and I see an unwound clock or tattered and bleeding spidey. This organization must be like santa, they must keep a detailed list of what every family needs protecting,
January 16th, 2010 at 11:50 PM ^
I always had a hard time blaming him because the media had such a crush on him. I've always appreciated his desire to stand for what he believes in and his overall integrity.
Just glad he isn't a gator any more.
January 16th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^
So I see that Michigan fans are reduced to scrutinizing other players' personal lives now that the football team ceases to exist anymore... Hilarious.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^
Go back to RCMB
January 16th, 2010 at 11:58 PM ^
The family values they preach are not the ones that my family has.
Though I would rather have Tim Tebow bible thumping like he is than having seeing another "star" involved in a gun scandal like Plax or Arenas.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:00 AM ^
Tebow's religion doesn't matter to me but when he becomes a mouthpiece for a hateful bastard like James Dobson, Tebow deserves all the criticism he gets.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:09 AM ^
Dobson is on his way out of that particular organization.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:48 AM ^
Dobson may have retired from the presidency of Focus on the Family, but he founded it and served as it's primary spokesperson and figurehead for over 30 years. It's not like his stamp isn't very much still on the organization. To say that doing a commercial for Focus on the Family is aligning yourself with James Dobson is really not inaccurate.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:53 AM ^
According to this article, it sounds like the organization is heading in a bit of a different direction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/business/media/17dobson.html
So I guess not inaccurate =/= accurate.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:59 AM ^
I had not seen that article, though I stand by my point. Dobson and Focus on the Family have been pretty much synonymous for three decades. Time will tell if they truly do go in different directions.
January 17th, 2010 at 5:07 AM ^
It doesn't seem to indicate much except that he is now competing for donors and that it probably has to do with FOtF's board not approving Dobson's divorced son Ryan as a successor. As for "a different direction," I don't know.
I can't believe his kid wrote a book called "Be Intolerant."
January 17th, 2010 at 12:13 AM ^
just curious... what makes James Dobson a hateful bastard?
January 17th, 2010 at 12:33 AM ^
You forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end of your post. When you don't include it, people sometimes don't realize that you're kidding.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:39 AM ^
it was just a question. I didn't know what the basis was for calling the guy a hateful bastard.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:55 AM ^
...some people like him, some don't, but you understand why someone might call him hateful, right? You just disagree? If you really have no idea, go to his wikipedia page and look at all the entries entitled "views on ____." I'm not taking a position on the guy's views, but its pretty obvious why *some* (not everyone) would consider the guy hateful.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:53 AM ^
There are the Gay Agenda videos that he put out in the 90's
"Patrick Leahy is a God's people hater. I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people."
"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth."
“Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other…the intention here is to destroy marriage altogether”
January 17th, 2010 at 1:07 AM ^
yeah I recall many of the videos. they were poorly done.
I don't see how any of those statements make him a hateful bastard though.
"Patrick Leahy is a God's people hater..." that's judgemental by Dodson.
"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage..." that's a generalization on his part.
"Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other but intend to destroy marriage." also a generalization and over the top statement on his part.
I don't know why he chooses to always say what he says but I can't say he comes across as a hater and the bastard thing just seemed a bit much.
I'm not trying to defend him or act like I understand it all. Your original post on this just caught me off guard. Hope you don't take that wrong.
(Stupid computers don't translate tone properly.)
January 17th, 2010 at 1:11 AM ^
I +1'd you but you don't think that accusing an entire subsection of people of wanting solely to destroy marriage and working actively to deny them their civil rights is hateful?
January 17th, 2010 at 1:20 AM ^
I think it's stupid - that's for sure.
I'm not sure why the guy does the things he does. I know that the concept of Christianity is not one of hating others. If he is "hating" on the gay community then it is wrong.
I don't truly know/understand his heart, I can't say he is hateful but some of the things he does sure do lend one to wonder what he is thinking. I hope that makes sense.
I do wish he would shut up and think about what he is doing - it obviously is perceived as hateful.
EDIT: thanks for the +1'd. I wouldn't neg you in a conversation like this. I never intended for this to be "heated." I hope you don't think I was wanting to go there.
January 17th, 2010 at 1:24 AM ^
"I do wish he would shut up and think about what he is doing - it obviously is perceived as hateful."
That's largely the problem. It's perceived as hateful when in actuality it really isn't. The view of Christianity that he holds doesn't hate homosexuals, but rather it is perceived as hating homosexuals by people who do not understand it.
January 17th, 2010 at 2:32 AM ^
...understanding of "hateful" would include comments that negatively stereotype, even if they are made (at least allegedly) with the targeted group's best interest in mind or something (this is the argument right?).
For example, many would likely consider the following statement "hateful" (and obviously I do not endorse it):
"Going to church rots one's brain and makes one a lesser person. We should keep our children away from all people who go to church, because they will probably try to recruit our children towards their lifestyle, thereby ruining their brains and character. All people who currently go to church should stop their mind-rotting ways immediately, and their brains and character will recover."
But someone making that comment could use the same logic to claim it is not hateful, right?
January 17th, 2010 at 2:16 AM ^
I guess it depends on how you define hate. Whatever it is hiding behind Christianity as a means to deny homosexuals equal rights is something I would never associate myself with.
January 17th, 2010 at 9:52 AM ^
That's a fair decision for you to make. Obviously he has a different opinion. The dude's a smart guy; I'm sure he understand that people like you aren't going to like him for doing it.
January 17th, 2010 at 2:43 AM ^
Yep, saying an entire group of people wants to destroy the institution of marriage doesn't sound like hateful, bigoted ignorance at all.
January 17th, 2010 at 9:53 AM ^
My comment was about his view of Christianity; not the views of Focus on the Family.
January 17th, 2010 at 2:43 AM ^
But I didn't open it.
Dobson's wordview is probably very similar to that of any number of truck drivers or non-union meat-packing plant operators; what makes him different is the level of influence he exercises. That is why civilized humans can't give him the same pass they give their plumber or their taxi driver. Those who give him aid and comfort share, to some variable extent, in the responsibility for what he causes to happen.
First, people expressing opinions of what they didn't like about the "better world" FOCUS ON THE FAMILY [FOTF] has identified itself with for 30 years (link):
i was taught women didn't deserve the same respect as men because they were not equal to them. this and other "values" were ingrained into my young, absorbant mind from the nursery to youth group. As a female, this contributed to my low self-esteem. my selfesteem, in turn, led to my silence after my rapes (my youth pastor convinced me it was my fault and that i was "ruined") and a relationship with an abusive boyfriend. my experiances drove me to reject christianity as a whole. i would like to give my life back to christ, but i cant let go of my haunting memories.
I am a gay man. Many years ago, I listened to Focus on the Family. They had a news show called 'Family News in Focus.' It was the only thing that I found that addressed homosexuality..albeit in a negative light. Their radio program really worked on me. I nearly killed myself before finally accepting myself as I am. A friend of mine was less fortunate and became obsessed with Bob Larson's 'Talk Back' program and later committed suicide.More specifically, FOTF is remembered, among other things, for its ongoing support for efforts to criminalize homosexuality. If you have any gay friends, and you don't believe they should be deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness on account of their orientation, then 30 years of FOTF activity is an affront to your world-view. One example among many is that of FOTF support for Oregon's "Amendment 2." Per quotation from SCOTUS case, here,
"Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause..." Justice Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court writing for the majority in the Romer v. Evans case of (1996).In short, Tebow's "religious" thoughts have political consequences. You cannot use the argument that people should turn the other cheek because Tebow is "just being himself" when that involves people being deprived of their basic human rights. If "Focus" has changed its "focus," it will still take a long while to overcome the product brand it has established with dogged support for efforts such as Oregon's "Amendment 2."