And? So what? Christ had nothing to say about birth control or homosexuality or abortion or whatever. These simply are not fundamental parts of his teachings.

As interpreted by every major Christian group for 1900 years they were. And this is not stuff that came up in the Middle Ages.

All those behaviors were prevalent in the Roman/Greek classical world, and Christian leaders spoke against them starting in the 1st century.

Of course not, snapper. But American culture (and policy) is not, and was never intended to be, dominated by any religion.

Not dominated by a religion, but informed by a common morality.

When I see debates like this, I always refer to South Park.

First, Father Maxi:

"No I didn't! All that's dead are your stupid laws and rules! You've forgotten what being a Catholic is all about. This... book. You see, these are just stories. Stories that are meant to help people in the right direction. Love your neighbor. Be a good person. That's it! And when you start turning the stories into literal translations of hierarchies and power, well... Well, you end up with this. People are losing faith because they don't see how what you've turned the religion into applies to them! They've lost touch with any idea of any kind of religion, and when they have no mythology to try and live their lives by, well, they just start spewing a bunch of crap out of their mouths!"

and Gary from "All about the Mormons" is a worhtwhile read:

"Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls."

Not dominated by a religion, but informed by a common morality.

This is moving the goalposts, though. The issue that was brought up is with Tebow's religion, not his morality. Many, many, many athletes are moral people, and liked for it, and there's very little backlash for "not being a bad person".

Be a good person.

Well, yeah, but this is where it all breaks down. What does that mean?

If you let people interpret it themselves, they'll say they can cheat on their wife (b/c they "fell in love"), lie, steal, whatever, and still consider themselves a "good person".

This is moving the goalposts, though. The issue that was brought up is with Tebow's religion, not his morality. Many, many, many athletes are moral people, and liked for it, and there's very little backlash for "not being a bad person".

I was talking about the founding of the US, not Tebow. The founding assumed no common religion (i.e. no single Christian state Church), but it did assume a common Christian morality.

OK, snapper. Thanks for the clarification.

If you let people interpret it themselves, they'll say they can cheat on their wife (b/c they "fell in love"), lie, steal, whatever, and still consider themselves a "good person".

Yea, its a good thing religion keeps people from rationalizing away bad behavior.

Focus on the Family is a de facto right wing extremist political organization with a veneer of religion. Some of their focuses are abolishing the right to choose, denying equal rights to gays, outlawing pornography, spending American taxpayer money to prop up the government of Israel, promoting the teaching of creationism in schools, denying global warming, school prayer, and so forth.

Wikipedia says that their founder claimed that Obama's presidency would lead to: "mandated homosexual teachings across all schools; the banning of firearms in entire states; the end of the Boy Scouts, home schooling, Christian school groups, Christian adoption agencies, and talk radio; pornography on prime-time and daytime television; mandatory bonuses for gay soldiers; terrorist attacks across America; the nuclear bombing of Tel Aviv; the conquering of most of Eastern Europe by Russia; the end of health care for Americans over 80; out-of-control gasoline prices; and complete economic disaster in the United States, among other catastrophes."

These are the people who criticize Sponge Bob Square Pants as promoting "the homosexual agenda".

Instead of taking 15 minutes of your life to write that partisan opus, why didn't you simply spend 30 seconds to watch the completely benign ad?

EDIT: And when did decades of bipartisan support for the US-Israel relationship become so outrageous?

It is absurd to describe any aspect of modern culture to be christian-dominated. Absurd.

As evidenced by the lofty percentage of non-Christians who get elected to public office in the United States. Portajohns at Pitchfork are less full of sh1t than you are.

As interpreted by every major Christian group for 1900 years they were.

So what? These "interpretations" have zero backing in the words of Jesus. Zero.

Instead of taking 15 minutes of your life to write that partisan opus, why didn't you simply spend 30 seconds to watch the completely benign ad?

A "completely benign ad" focusing on abortion, which the backers of the ad want to outlaw, is not remotely benign except when viewed through a lens of naivety. But in any case, the claim I was attempting to rebut was that Tim Tebow has not made any political statements. An ad for Focus on the Family is, in and of itself, an extreme political statement. As for the Israel question, same statement, plus the fact that I didn't say it was an "outrage".

As evidenced by the lofty percentage of non-Christians who get elected to public office in the United States. Portajohns at Pitchfork are less full of sh1t than you are.

Except for Jews, who apparently don't count as non-Christians in your view.

A quick Google search suggests there are 13 Jewish Senators and 27 Representatives. Given that Jews are <3% of the population, it certainly doesn't seem like Americans have any issue voting for non-Christians.

So what? These "interpretations" have zero backing in the words of Jesus. Zero.

How do you know? All his direct disciples seemed to think they did. Apostles and people who were taught directly by the Apostles.

The Didache, which dates from the late 1st century or early 2nd:

contains the commandments against murder, adultery, corrupting boys, sexual promiscuity, theft, magic, sorcery, abortion, infanticide, coveting, perjury, false testimony, speaking evil, holding grudges, being double-minded, not acting as you speak, greed, avarice, hypocrisy, maliciousness, arrogance, plotting evil against neighbors, hate, narcissism and expansions on these generally, with references to the words of Jesus.

LOL. The Didache? You're seriously bringing up non-canon fanfic? Come on, you should at least bring up Paul, and try to ignore the fact that he never even met Jesus.

But in any case, the claim I was attempting to rebut was that Tim Tebow has not made any political statements.

Barely. In any event, it's child's play compared to this.
By the way, I am pro-choice but have no problem with Tebow and his mom embracing life as they see it.

2) Contraception is immoral

This is considered a fringe, almost illogical belief.

3) Homosexual sex is immoral

Viewed as tantamount to bigotry and racism in the popular culture

You were using this to make a different point, but those two current stances by the culture are to be celebrated.

it certainly doesn't seem like Americans have any issue voting for non-Christians.

Wait a minute, isn't the problem with Mitt Romney that he's not Christian enough?

If you let people interpret it themselves, they'll say they can cheat on their wife (b/c they "fell in love"), lie, steal, whatever, and still consider themselves a "good person".

This is baloney. There's an extensive secular literature that deals with issues of morality and the social contract (like, the US Constitution, for instance). You don't need to invoke the supernatural to convince people to teat each other fairly and honorably.

Focus on the Family is a de facto right wing extremist political organization with a veneer of religion. Some of their focuses are abolishing the right to choose, denying equal rights to gays, outlawing pornography, spending American taxpayer money to prop up the government of Israel, promoting the teaching of creationism in schools, denying global warming, school prayer, and so forth.

Wikipedia says that their founder claimed that Obama's presidency would lead to: "mandated homosexual teachings across all schools; the banning of firearms in entire states; the end of the Boy Scouts, home schooling, Christian school groups, Christian adoption agencies, and talk radio; pornography on prime-time and daytime television; mandatory bonuses for gay soldiers; terrorist attacks across America; the nuclear bombing of Tel Aviv; the conquering of most of Eastern Europe by Russia; the end of health care for Americans over 80; out-of-control gasoline prices; and complete economic disaster in the United States, among other catastrophes."

These are the people who criticize Sponge Bob Square Pants as promoting "the homosexual agenda".

Instead of taking 15 minutes of your life to write that partisan opus, why didn't you simply spend 30 seconds to watch the completely benign ad?

I watched the Focus on the Family ad, and I can't see what the fuss is about, either, but OTOH I'm sure that the Nation of Islam or what's left of the Communist Party could produce an equally bland and inoffensive ad if they ever decided it was in their interest to do so.

Which would prove exactly what about the Nation of Islam or the Communist Party, other than that they hired a good PR and Marketing specialist? Wingnuts don't always put their game face on when they're presenting themselves outside the wingnut community, but that doesn't mean that they're not still wingnuts.

Oh, and I don't have anything against Tim Tebow, and if he wants to make a public show of his religious beliefs he's no better or no worse than the hundreds of other athletes I've seen make similar gestures over the past 40-odd years. Ain't no big thing one way or the other----but just win, baby.

Not dominated by a religion, but informed by a common morality.

Yes. The common morality was based on ideas that sprang from The Enlightenment, leavened with, at that time, a uniquely American independent spirit. The Enlightenment, as you will recall, was highly dubious of organized religion, as were most of the intellectual wing of the founding fathers. Thomas Paine was basically an atheist. Being scientists, Franklin and Jefferson, if they were alive today, would probably be atheists or agnostics like most of their present day brethren. Adams ascribed to no particular established religion but was nominally a Christian, and open to contrary evidence. Here's some quotes:

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." Thomas Paine

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."
John Admas

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication ."
Thomas Jefferson

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison

The founding Fathers, if you had to describe them as a group, were deists in the sense that they could not imagine the origins of the universe without invoking god, but were also much more trustful of reason than faith, and if they were alive today, knowing what we know now we didn't know then, most of them would be atheists and agnostics.

I read a quote about religious faith, that the invocation of an almighty and merciful god, and the prospect of an afterlife, springs from man's fear of death. I agree with that.

Wait a minute, isn't the problem with Mitt Romney that he's not Christian enough?

Well, they elected Obama and he's a muslim.

snapper, your argument is more that modern culture is far from being religion-dominated. And you're absolutely right. But framing it as "not Christian-dominated" is a bit misleading. If you were to look at the subset of American culture that includes only the religious parts, it is decidedly Christian-dominated.

I don't see how his statement is "misleading." If modern culture is secular, then by definition it isn't Christian-dominated. The argument that Christianity is the dominant religion (or set of religions) among people who take religion seriously seems pretty obviously true, but I don't see how it's remotely responsive.

Indeed, if this culture were really "Christian dominated," then Tebow's overt Christianity wouldn't be so notable.

I don't see how his statement is "misleading." If modern culture is secular, then by definition it isn't Christian-dominated. The argument that Christianity is the dominant religion (or set of religions) among people who take religion seriously seems pretty obviously true, but I don't see how it's remotely responsive.

Indeed, if this culture were really "Christian dominated," then Tebow's overt Christianity wouldn't be so notable.

It's misleading in that you could use any religion in place of Christianity in snapper's statement, and it would be true. It's subtly implying that poor Christianity is not dominant, in favor of some other lesser religion, when snapper's arguments were much more telling of a culture that isn't overtly controlled by any religion.

And you'll note I even said that our culture is not Christian-dominated.

If modern culture is secular, then by definition it isn't Christian-dominated. The argument that Christianity is the dominant religion (or set of religions) among people who take religion seriously seems pretty obviously true, but I don't see how it's remotely responsive.

Indeed, if this culture were really "Christian dominated," then Tebow's overt Christianity wouldn't be so notable.

Maybe a better way of putting it would be to say that the official face of American culture pays superficial homage to religion in general and to Christianity more than any other religion, but when you get below the surface and see how our institutions act in real life, our everyday culture as reflected in government, business and media is overwhelmingly secular. There are a few exceptions to this, but they're mostly fighting an uphill battle and winning victories that are likely to prove temporary at best.

The problem facing serious Christians** and other people with devout religious faith is that the secular world's many temptations are usually just too damn much fun to resist, and all the marketing's on the side of the Devil.*** The best that they can really hope for in the long run is that the mainstream secular culture leaves them alone in places like Utah, rural Pennsylvania, Brooklyn, etc.

**Meaning people whose professed religious beliefs shape the way they actually live their everyday lives---I'm not talking about the infinite variants of Reverend Ike and Bruce Barton.

***So to speak; snapper may sound a bit apocalyptic about this, but there's a fair amount of objective truth in his observations about the trend lines

2) Contraception is immoral

This is considered a fringe, almost illogical belief.

As it should be.

3) Homosexual sex is immoral

Viewed as tantamount to bigotry and racism in the popular culture

As it should be.

The only traditional view that's clinging to life is opposition to abortion. And that's barely half the allegedly overwhelmingly Christian population that holds to a view that was undisputed for 1950 years of Christianity.

Someone could use a history lesson.

3) Homosexual sex is immoral

Viewed as tantamount to bigotry and racism in the popular culture



As it should be.

No one is so intolerant as the proponents of "tolerance". Pretty soon you'll have an inquisition of your very own to root out heretical ideas.

Someone could use a history lesson.

So, you want to name one Christian denomination that held abortion was not a sin prior to the 1960's?

3) Homosexual sex is immoral

Viewed as tantamount to bigotry and racism in the popular culture

Oh snapper. You're so wrong.

It IS bigotry.

Oh snapper. You're so wrong.

It IS bigotry.

No, it's not.

It is no different than saying that unmarried heterosexual sex is sinful. Is that bigotry? Or saying polygamy is sinful. Is that bigotry?

Bigotry is a condemnation of a person, not a condemnation of an action.

But in any case, my original argument was not over specific issues of morality, but over the lack of Christian dominance in our culture.

I would think that the fact that a holding what has been a core tenet of Christianity for two millenia is considered bigotry by some, proves my point.

I would think that the fact that a holding what has been a core tenet of Christianity for two millenia is considered bigotry by some, proves my point.

By that standard, wouldn't your earlier contention that, "[o]ur current culture emphasizes materialism, consumerism, and sex, anytime anyway you want it" be refuted by the existence of Tebow-mania?

I would think that the fact that a holding what has been a core tenet of Christianity for two millenia is considered bigotry by some, proves my point.

I was in the catholic church for 18 years. We were taught the core tenets. No one taught us "NO GAY SEX". That they were against it doesn't make it a core tenet. Neither does how badly you want it to be make it so either.

Oh, the offseason.

I can't wait until actual baseball starts up again.

3) Homosexual sex is immoral

Viewed as tantamount to bigotry and racism in the popular culture

As it should be.

No one is so intolerant as the proponents of "tolerance".

What, exactly, is "intolerant" in the post you're responding to?

It is no different than saying that unmarried heterosexual sex is sinful. Is that bigotry?

No, provided you're not focusing solely on unmarried sex by heterosexuals. And indeed, you're just as opposed to unmarried sex by heterosexuals as you are to unmarried sex by gays. So, let the gays marry, and sex in the confines of their relationships will cease to be sinful.

Wait--what's that you say? Gays marrying is sinful in and of itself? Gee, I'd never have guessed you felt that way, given your principled, non-bigoted opposition to all extramarital fornication. Guess it's just their tough $hit there's no path to salvation for them.

I mean, this argument's been had 12 billion times on this site, but bigotry is what it is. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, dude.

Pretty soon you'll have an inquisition of your very own to root out heretical ideas.

No, we'll leave that to certain religious institutions, which are much better at it.

A quick Google search suggests there are 13 Jewish Senators and 27 Representatives. Given that Jews are <3% of the population, it certainly doesn't seem like Americans have any issue voting for non-Christians.

Sure, Americans in certain parts of the country. And I'd say Judaism is rather unique in what inroads it's made; how many Muslims are in Congress? (Believe the answer's "one," and he's been the subject of all sorts of smears from the far right merely by virtue of his faith.) How many out-and-proud atheists or agnostics?

In any case, there is virtually no place in this country where merely *being* a Christian is a disqualifier for elected office. The same cannot be said of, well, pretty much any other faith (or absence of faith).

Lots of anger and hatred on this thread.

I'm a boring moderate, and find it creepy.

Snapper, are you familiar with the work of John Boswell? Any comment?

What, exactly, is "intolerant" in the post you're responding to?

I think the point snapper is making is that, by calling him a bigot for disapproving of homosexuality, that constitutes a form of bigotry in itself.

What I find ironic about snapper is his stance on homosexuality, which abides by current Catholic doctrine, and the Catholic church's own tolerance of some very virulent homosexual practices, like the homosexual rape of young boys by members of the clergy. This tolerance went all the way up the ladder, to bishops, some cardinals, even the current day pope.

Snapper, are you aware that a lot of Catholic clergy are practicing homosexuals?

1) Sex outside of marriage is immoral

No one's brought it up but this one I'd dispute depending on what is meant by "outside of marriage".

In many places in early modern Europe sex before marriage was perfectly acceptable (for both society at large and ecclesiastical courts that dealt with sexual infractions and how to deal with children born to unmarried mothers...not to mention what to do about the mother).

Of course that's not to say attitudes towards pre-marital sex were similar to today's. But in many communities parents, society, and the church had no problem with young people having sex before they were married, or even formally engaged. So long as there was a reasonable expectation that marriage was in the cards.

Jerry Sandusky was a fine,upstanding man in the public eye for 35 years, then poof! Not saying Tebow has any skeletons, just that let's not make a 23 yo our moral icon.

Agree 100%. If people want to admire Tebow's ability (or luck) to rattle off comeback wins, fine, but its a bit premature to be holding up a 23 year old millionaire as a paragon of virtue.

And I agree with Gaelan, we do not live in a Christian-dominated culture at all. Whether the vast majority of us self-identify as Christians doesn't really factor into it.

My problem with Tebow isn't his religious beliefs, nor the way he expresses them (though I am somebody that believes you shouldn't put your religious beliefs in somebody else's face). My problem with him is that I think he is not a good pro QB, and that people are taking a small sample size (about 2/3 if a season), including an unusual number of narrow victories and an extremely weak division, and thinking that this is evidence that he is a good QB. Denver is not a very good team, and he is not a legitimate starting QB in the NFL.

The best thing you can say about Tebow during the team's successful run for about eight weeks is that Tebow doesn't turn the ball over. He has no margin for error - if he throws a pick, he is incapable of turning it around. The Patriots exposed him in their regular season game in Denver. In the final three regular-season games, and the two playoff games, his record: 1-4, 49-120, 3 TDs, 4 INTs. He's terrible, can't throw, doesn't read defenses well, doesn't make good decisions. I'm not sure he's any better than Kyle Orton. Or Matt Cassel. Or Ryan Kirkpatrick.

If Snapper's list in #39 are the core tenets of Christianity, then I feel pretty confident that religion will slowly become less important in our lives. As it is now, while religion does not dominate every facet of culture, it does dominate some. For instance, a majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president, more than any other category (woman, black, gay, other religions). Poor Mr. Tebow is not being persecuted because he's a devout Christian. He's being attacked because he doesn't realize many people find it rude to evangelize when he's on a national stage for a different purpose, and because he's an overhyped, shitty quarterback.

The best thing you can say about Tebow during the team's successful run for about eight weeks is that Tebow doesn't turn the ball over. He has no margin for error - if he throws a pick, he is incapable of turning it around. The Patriots exposed him in their regular season game in Denver. In the final three regular-season games, and the two playoff games, his record: 1-4, 49-120, 3 TDs, 4 INTs. He's terrible, can't throw, doesn't read defenses well, doesn't make good decisions. I'm not sure he's any better than Kyle Orton. Or Matt Cassel. Or Ryan Kirkpatrick.

All of which probably means that the Broncos can get the Redskins' next two #1 draft picks for him. He'd be a perfect fit for Snyder and the Shanahans.

Agree 100%. If people want to admire Tebow's ability (or luck) to rattle off comeback wins, fine, but its a bit premature to be holding up a 23 year old millionaire as a paragon of virtue.

Remember that one time when that one guy who we thought was good did something bad. Yeah, that must mean all people who do good things are, at heart, ####### evil.

You guys want to pride yourself on your cynicism, fine, though I hope you don't criticize Joey B's attitude when some guy suddenly starts hitting the ball with more authority. Me, I see a kid who works his ass off, is respected by his teammates, turns the other cheek when criticized, spends his time and his money on charitiable endeavors and brings in terminally ill people to spend each weekend of the football season with him. And I'm not going to reserve judgment because, ineveitably, his true demonic nature has got to surface.

None of this makes him perfect. It does give him a pretty good head start on the NFLer whose main offseason contributions to the population are additions to it.

Tim Tebow seems like a nice young man. I'm sure he'll make a fine tight end someday.

Also, preachy Catholics, you and your ilk would do better to obsess more over the altar boy your priest just sodomized than what two consenting adults do. The Catholic Church is the Super Adventure Club of religions.

Remember that one time when that one guy who we thought was good did something bad. Yeah, that must mean all people who do good things are, at heart, ####### evil.

Sally Jenkins' interview with Joe Paterno

Remember that one time when that one guy who we thought was good did something bad. Yeah, that must mean all people who do good things are, at heart, ####### evil.

All I'm saying is that he's human, and I have a problem "worshipping" any human. He certainly does seem like a sincerely decent person, but the overt religiosity turns me off. The concept of a hero is deeply flawed IMHO.

and brings in terminally ill people to spend each weekend ...with him

Agreed. The comparisons to Michael Jackson are uncanny.

The best part of this thread is that a majority of posters are correct and disagree.

Relatively Christianity is dominant in the US and it is not even close to what is next (unless I suppose consumerism counts, then Christianity is second). At the height of the anti-Muslim post 9/11 craze a survey was done where almost no one wanted their daughter to marry a Muslim, and even then fewer wanted her to marry an Atheist.

In absolute terms however Christianty's role is shrinking in the US, with its dominance fading slowly but surely. It is happening world wide (with the occasional swing the other way). You can't tredline the future, so I doubt it goes to zero (or near there), but it seems to be heading down for the near future.

Teebow seems like a fine young man (who I disagree with on many things, but I suspect I also agree with on some things), a great athelete, and a so-so QB. he is not my role model, because I don't think any athelete should be anyone's role model, Charles B and I agree on that. I am amused by the fervor about him, and can see both sides. I don't care for open displays of religion (or many things I guess), but he is not real onnoxious about it so whatever.