Hey, hey. It's not often that I disagree with what you write, but on this one, I think you missed the mark by feet, not inches. The media is afraid of Tim Tebow because he's filling the arch-type of the holy warrior - in a sexy GQ kind of way. Fear of homeschooling is a symptom, not a cause. Tim Tebow rolled 12 d6 on his Pally Level 1 for Hit Points and Charisma and they all came up 6's.

Home schooled?
Interesting take.  Not sure I can see that as the motivating factor for so many different people from so many different walks of life.  No doubt Tebow is a touchstone.  Peoples comments about him tell us far more about them than what they are trying to say about Tebow.
 
In that vein and in the interest of full disclosure let me say I am a born again Christian.  I like Tebow the man and dislike his game. Give me a drop back passing machine any day.  I think Tebows success is not divine, it's entirely explainable and can be broken down fairly simply. (I might just take a stab at that in a different reply.)
 
So with that out of the way I do agree that we are in a massive culture war.  And like most wars there are leaders and planers, the generals so to speak. On that level, absolutley, Tebow is a threat as a home school product.  But that doesn't explain the visceral reactions you see in the small town beat reporter or the yokel with a blog.  The type of guy who would scoff at the mere idea that there even is such a thing as a culture war.  I don't even see most of the former player, analysts on the cable chanels to be "in" on the culture war.  They are more along the lines of what Lenin called the useful idiots.  In some of these people, what I've seen in the eyes and on the face when talking about Tebow I can only call rage.
You correctly pointed out that sports are filled with athletes who cross themselves before an at bat or kneel in the corner of the ring before the bell.  Those guys aren't hated because nobody really believes them.  The reporters with locker room access know better.  They hear the guys profanity laced tirade after a loss.  They hear him crowing about his "ho's".  They see the mistress slinking around out back.  They see the little baggy he's trying to hide in the back of his locker.  They know the strip joints he can be found at on the night before. Or maybe it's as little as seeing insanely selfish spending.  There's always something that can easily discount the pious behavior.  And in the internet age, EVERYONE is privy to the inside dope, the gossip and the rumors.
 
The religous statements and actions are written off as rituals at best and self serving at worst.  The eyes roll and life goes on without further comment.
 
Tebow, however, is walking the walk.  He has made it his entire identity and he can't be written off as a faker or hypocrite.  There are no drugs, no bimbos, no profane meltdowns.  Everyone knows he "blew" his signing bonus on charity.  Everybody knows he gave his playoff check to a foreign hospital.  People have to come to terms with the fact that he really is that righteous of a man. 
 
[edited by permission]
 

It's not that complicated. Though martyrdom is appealing to some, for sure. Tewbow's belief system is just silly superstition to many, MANY people. So his incessant thanking of god for every thing that happens his beyond obnoxious.

Your site, your rules.
This place is one of my favorite places on the web.  Part of the attraction is your quirky sense of humor but a bigger part is the way discussions are kept in respectful tones.  Depressingly uncommon in sports chat and almost unheard of with politics or religion.  Sorry if I put that in jeopardy.

As I said Doc, people's comments about Tebow often tell us more about themselves than about Tebow.  :-)

the reason he boils it down to the version suitable for a 6 year old, is because thats how many christians in the world view the religion. he is one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world, and time after time, he has to correct a christian apologist over a simple error that said christian apologist is either completely ignorant of, or doesnt want to face. just a quick perusal of his youtube videos and you can find exactly the types of things im talking about.
when he and other atheists are constantly faced with grade school depictions of the stuff he has spent his life discovering and championing, and only by those of a religios persepective, of course he is going to give a grade school level explanation for things. and a lot of the religios dogma does sound like things a grade schooler would believe.
i dont want to start a holy war, but i think you can understand why maybe he attacks the way he does. and if you have read any of his or christopher hitchens or sam harris books, you will see he isnt only attacking religions on a grade school level. these are some of the brightest minds on the planet, in hitchens case was, as he just recently passed away. these guys arent only out there looking for easy sucker punches. these guys go toe to toe with the biggest christian debaters out there; william lane craig, john lennox, alister mcgrath.
and to address that many many people believe christianity to be a superstition, that is true. to use just the % of people in this county is quite misleading, as we are the highest % christian nation in the world. look all around europe, specifically the norwegian countries. asia is dominated by a different religion. it is true to say that the majority of the planet believes christianity to be untrue. maybe i misread his post, but you quoted him as saying "many MANY people", not many americans.

Would you prefer I didn't tell you the sky is blue? I'm not saying that my view is so pointed, I'm saying that is the view people have of Tebow.
 
 

How "free" would we be if the people that believe like the Tebow's do, ran the show and made the rules? I highly doubt my freedom of self expression would remain as it is now. I'm not about to veto his ability to express himself, I do think he makes himself look rediculous, though.
Two Questions: Does he kneel down when there arent cameras around? Why doesn't he thank jesus for his interceptions, too?
 

Not how many people in the world are Christian. You don't have to be a Christian to not think the religion is silly superstition.
How many billion Muslims are there in the world? They dont view Christianity as a silly superstition. They call Christians people of the book. Viewing them as incompleted Muslims so to speak. They don't think of Jesus as a silly superstitious myth either. They don't accept him as the son of God but they do accept him as a prophet of high regard. In the Muslim version of Armageddon guess who is coming back with Muhammad to kick butt and take names? His name starts with J and ends in S.
Most Buddhists also don't think of Jesus as a superstition or a myth. They don't accept him but do acknowledge him as a real historical spiritual teacher. And most agree that he touched on many of the spiritual truths they hold. You reap what you sow = karma.
Steen's comment is still inaccurate when applied globally and not just to the US.

The "martyr" was in reference to anyone complaining about the mainstream media. I don't think Timmy views himself as a martyr.

Just ridiculous...

The Christian far-right basis their governing on their religion. Atheism was a means to an end, not the goal for the Marxist. Conversion and the rule of law based on the bible would be the goal of the 'thumpers.  And, I'll bet they'd base large parts of their "law" on the sociopathic old testament. 
Would we just murder gays outright in this Christian utopia, or try to "cure" them first? Mind you, this thinking is happening right now in a modern democracy, with a educated populous,  not 50 years ago in a largely third world country.
(You have a handful of examples to cite of abuses by a Communists, whereas history is awash with genocide by theocracy.)
Yes, we never had gulags or "re-education" in America, that is a good thing, but I think that had more to do with capitalism than any Christian charity.  Our expansion, and thirst for labor made that any reduction in the labor supply untenable.
I think you are becoming (and by extension this blog) too much the minority amongst believers Doc, the increasing disdain, if not contempt, the religious right views logic and rational thought is getting in the way of real debate on serious issues.
 

There is no extra ire for Christianity, only what familiarity might breed.

Have you seen my spelling?   Remember incompetence is usually the culprit, not vindicates... writing from my phone doesn't help, either.
And, your daughter is in the secular socialist corner of the country... She won in a pitchers duel, 1-0. ; )
 
Steen

If Tebow really believes he is being helped by supernatural extra-terrestrial powers during a game, then he is complicit in cheating.

muslims call christians people of the book, or people of faith, or what have you. thats the same thing a respectful atheist or a hindu or a jew would call a christian. if you were to ask a muslim if they thought a christian was wrong about their beliefs, would the muslim not answer yes? sure some/most muslims would still have respect for a christians beliefs, like many atheists have a respect for a persons religion. that doesnt mean the muslim doesnt think that person to be delusional.
do you think a person that believes in zues is delusional? how about the sun god ra? how about the prophet joseph smith? do you think he found those golded plates because god told him where they were? of course you dont, you would characterize those beliefs as delusional and superstitious. you might not want to use that word to their face out of respect, but thats exactly what it is.
jesus as a historical figure is almost undisputed in the historical community. nobody is disputing that he lived and taught virtuous, and spiritual things. but a muslim or a buddhist would disagree with his claim that he was the son of god, put on our planet to be killed for the sake of mankind. and if you wanted to get into the strict definition of the word delusion "a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence", then wouldnt that fit too a tee what a person of a different religion would think of someone elses religion?
they might say exactly "i respect your belief, i think you believe it whole heartedly, but i think it is false , and i think evidence of my religion is stronger."
so in regards to the planet, the majority of which is not christian, i would say that yes, they would think that christianity is a delusion or superstitious. it sounds rude to say when put bluntly, but if we are using the definition of the word, i think the arguement holds up just fine.

i mean, where i am from, my wife goes church, her mom is christian, i have had debates on end with the christians i am in contact with.  many of them simply choose to ignore the things i say and counter with things like "i just believe what i believe" or, "i know its true because its true." im not cherry picking here, ive heard it many times from many different people.
my challenge still stands, go to youtube, watch some dawkins videos where he debates people or answers questions from believers. look at his exchange with wendy wright. look at some of his documentaries where he talks to religious people.
i wish it didnt come off as condescending to characterize christian arguements as though it were grade school level, but too often it is. im not saying your knowledge or d'souzas or others is grade school level. if i have offended you personally, i didnt mean to. clearly you and many others are capable of thinking and reasoning like adult. but so many of the faith arent. if all we have to testify to this is personal experience and what weve watched, then thats what i have to go by.
and if im not mistaken, dawkins has debated some of the big names toe to toe in the arena. maybe not the names youve mentioned, but i know hitchens has taken on d'souza. im not sure about the other two, but i dont think sam harris or daniel dennett are afraid to debate anybody.
dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and i think hes aware of his strengths and weaknesses. hes not an expert on physics, or philosphy, and he has had to take his fair share of abuse for those shortcomings. but when he argues from strictly a scientific viewpiont about evolution, he gets things thrown at him like "the banana arguement." im sure youre aware of ray comfort, if not, quickly familiarize yourself. youre in for a real treat. just youtube ray comfort banana video, and tell me that thats not a 6 year olds way of looking at the world. and that guy is offering money to dawkins to debate him. dawkins said no. so hes not just ducking the big names.
to wrap it up, im not characterizing all christian arguements as childish. there are some strong arguements that need to be taken seriously. but too often i see the practicers of the faith dont have a reasonable approach to the question. and i think dawkins is inundated with those types of questions and attacks. the 6000 year old earth question, the flat out rejection by some of evolution. the literal word for word belief in the bible and all of its stories, even when confronted by massive scientific evidence to the contrary. if you were constantly burdened by those types of questions and sneers, how do you think you would react?

if a person said unequivocally, "jeff francoeur is better than nick swisher" and you showed him evidence that suggests otherwise, strong compelling evidence, and he still maintained that jeff is better, would you not consider that to be a delusional stance? im not trying to dance around the word. he would be in error, and his belief would be delusional. right?? if not, then what does it take for something to be delusional?
to give the obvious and overused example, in 1200 AD, 99.99% of the people on this planet believed that the earth was flat and that one would simply fall off the edge if he or she went far enough. we now know that to be incorrect. overwhelming mainstream belief doesnt automatically grant that belief validity.
when copernicus tried to explain that the sun was the center of the cosmos, 99.99% of people thought that was absurd, and he even had to hide his identity when proposing such a heretical claim. now these people didnt have scientific evidence to tell them that they were wrong, so they were not delusional. they werent ignoring obvious facts. they just didnt have them yet. im just trying to set a precedent for the 90% arguement.
im not saying that the evidence of some kind of creator is completely meritless, and that people are delusional for believing some of it. there are some good points to be made on both sides of the aisle. but people often go to delusional lengths to ignore or deface those counter arguements that have merit. that sir, is where the delusion comes in.
if you dont believe me, read the figures. 40% of americans reject evolution. and that is almost solely because of religios belief. a new poll just came out, stating something like 73% of us pastors reject evolution, and they are roughly split on the age of the earth, either being 6000 years old, or 4.6 billion years old. not too trivial a gap. if that is not the exact definition of delusion, then what is? we can debate what we consider to be compelling pieces of evidence, and we should do so respectfully. but when nearly half of my country figuratively and sometimes literally plugs its ears to scientific facts, what other conclusion am i to draw?
where does this come from that i am trying to position myself to laugh at others? or trying to talk down to people? im certainly not doing it to you, and i didnt do it to mojician. i enjoy a healthy debate, not trashing people or laughing at them. that serves no purpose. im sorry if trying to be literal about the definition of delusion has offended you in any way, im just trying to speak directly.
and yes, i do think that people who, for motives of fear and rejection and just sometimes flatout stupidity, reject undisputable scientific claims are in some ways inferior, but not because i think im the greatest thing since sliced bread. should we as a nation, and to a larger extent planet, tolerate those that want to think and believe things that we KNOW to be false. sure, tolerance of people that are different than yourself is necessary. but education and discussion are far more important and worthwhile endeavors than just simple tolerance. but tolerating a belief only because we dont want to be disrespectful isnt serving the greater good of our civilization. thats why these atheist types come off as inferior know it alls.
bottom line is this: if someone holds a belief, and does so because of evidence, not in spite of it, then they should have respect for such belief from everyone, including me, whether we agree with that belief or not. but when people hold beliefs in spite of evidence, they are opening themselves and their ideology up to scrutiny, as well should be the case.

if he didnt believe in ra because he wasnt delusional, then what does it say about his non belief in the christian jesus?
the whole transcendent mind belief and the specific belief in one religion being right and all the rest being wrong are two quite separate things. if you are using einstein as a beacon for christianity, then you are misleading. im not quite sure if you are.
so by saying that muslims arent delusional, you are saying that their belief is correct? or may be correct? what % chance do you think of muslims having the right religion? what of the extreme sect of islam that wants to blow itself up so that it can go to heaven with all of the virgins? is that delusional in your opinion?

i dont have enough time to write, i have to go to work. i will get back later. but let me just say you havent addressed my points in the manner in which i presented them. you are misrepresenting my ideas, and then fighting against them. you are straw manning me to death. i will write more later, i promise.

ok, theres a lot to digest, so bear with me
first of all, your definition of delusion is untrue. you stated that "It carries the idea that a person will not give up an idea that 99.99% of people can see is incorrect." again, the % of people that agree with a conclusion has no effect whatsoever on delusional status. ive tried to give examples of this, and you have ignored them. i can go find 100 people that think im an alien, leaving you to be the 1 guy left in the room that thinks im a human. does that make you delusional? let me give you the dictionary definition of delusion again. this isnt mine, im copy/pasting it. "a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence." now using the definition of the word, lets try to figure this swisher/francouer example out.
 
if i asked you the question, "who throughout their career has been a better baseball player, (which is what im assuming you meant when you first used this example) nick swisher or jeff francouer" and you answered jeff francouer, i would say, "i respectfully disagree, i think you have come to a false conclusion."
i would ask you why you believed that to be true, and you rattled off a list of some observations you made from watching the two players play throughout their careers. you thought jeff had a better throwing arm, maybe was a better defender, just as much power, etc. then i would say, thats all very nice, but let me show you why i think swisher is better. i could show the gaps between the twos isop, their career walk rate, obp, slg, woba, uzr, you could throw in other fielding metrics, things of that nature. things that we can define. and i said, look here, per these calculations, which everyone in the world of baseball uses and trusts for the most part, swisher has about double the career WAR of jeff over almost the same amount of plate appearances. i would tell you, i can surely tell you who billy beane would rather have payed 400k or 3 million or 6 million per year for. i can tell you who jack z, or any competent gm or internet gm or anybody who knows how to analyze baseball players would rather have had for those 4k plate appearances.
now if you listened to all of that, and still came away thinking, i dont know, i still like jeff better, WOULD THAT NOT MAKE YOU DELUSIONAL? by the exact definition of the word? if not, what exactly is the definition of delusional? does one have to be delusional about everything to be delusional about one thing? if not, then why are we so careful with what kinds of thinking we call delusional?
 
and i never once used the word insanity. i said delusional, or superstitious. not the same thing. thats what i mean about the strawman. "you work diligently to classify 80-90% of the world as insane." i never once said that, if you would refer to my arguement and then argue against it, we can get this discussion back on track.
i referred to evolution as an example of delusion. thats it. and the figures i gave were 40% of americans, 75% or pastors. you either dont agree with those numbers, or you happen to be one of the 40% (which i highly doubt), or you simply ignored that section of my arguement.
i mean, if the byproduct of believing in scientific evidence and arguing on its side comes off as arrogance, i cant help that. im not coming in here to walk on egg shells, im giving my opinion. thats what discussion is about. i havent called you or any of your readers names, ive tried to be polite and state my case. and in return, you have mischaracterized my comments and railed against me and classified my stance as one of hatred. its ridiculous, really.
unless you can try to argue against or agree with the points as i have made them, i feel like this discussion is over. i understand you are a christian, which is fine. i know there are some very intelligent people that are theists, and many who are deists, and many who are atheists. if there were an obvious slam dunk answer, we wouldnt have such a divide. but you are confusing my arguements with hate speech apparently, and with ridicule. you completely skipped over the parts where i said things like...
"there are some good points to be made on both sides of the aisle", or
"if someone holds a belief, and does so because of evidence, not in spite of it, then they should have respect for such belief from everyone, including me, whether we agree with that belief or not"
does that sound hateful? or like im characterizing 90% of people as insane?