Tim Tebow as Muslim: A Hypothetical
First I'd like to start out by thanking Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and asking that peace and blessing be descended upon the Seal of the Prophets, Father of Qasim, Muhammad, and upon the pristine People of his Household.
I should start a radio interview like that next time, for fun. I say "Good Morning" and I get questions about what "shari'a law" has to say about cutting off people's noses when you don't like what they say (actual question once not long ago), it would be interesting to see the reaction in this case.
What spurred these musings was a program yesterday on the local NPR radio station here in Pittsburgh, on a national show called The Takeaway, where the question was posed as to America's likely reaction if Denver Broncos quarterback star Tim Tebow was a committed Muslim as he is a committed evangelist. For those who don't know, he routinely opens interviews by thanking his lord and savior Jesus Christ, and is known for this kneeling prayerful stance he takes quite often after scoring a touchdown and the like. He's also led his team to an improbable six wins in a row, one more improbable than the last, causing some fascination among evangelists. (Though careful, my friends in faith, careful. We were told by the imam at our mosque growing up that Muhammad Ali had two angels fighting with him. You can imagine our reaction as little children when Ali lost to Larry Holmes, it was as if the devil himself had come to kill the Prophet. I love Ali, but surely one's faith must run deeper than the performance of any mortal on a sporting field).
In any event, I was amused by the program, asking a question that anyone with sense would know the answer to, though it did to me raise the matter that should cause the most consternation. Taken as a bare and naked expressions of faith, it is difficult to see the problem with what Tebow might do. I don't agree with Frank Bruni who I think said what Tebow does isn't as bad as others have done, Michael Vick and Ben Roethlisburger among them. True, but irrelevant. They did what they did, everyone regarded it as bad, and if they hadn't expressed contrition they wouldn't be revered. The revernce is on the basis of their having moved beyond it, that's the assumption. By contrast, Tebow isn't exactly contrite. But then it is fair to ask why should he be, being a person of faith is not bad, any other person of faith me included would agree.
And as a committed believer in the First Amendment, I don't think there is any possible way one could sensibly legally restrict what a private individual wishes to say when given a forum on national television. To do so would be to grant the state authority over particular expressions that should trouble anyone.
Yet if we concede no legal issue is raised, and we concede that in the end he isn't seeking to alienate, only to testify, are we done? To me, no, because all of that ignores the deeper concern. As one commentator put it, "America isn't ready" for a Muslim who would do the same thing. First, we once were (I could love Ali in the 70's at least), and are no longer, which suggests serious slipping, a problem on its own. Though Ali compared to Tebow is positively ecumenical come to think of it. Second, I hate that phrasing, though it demonstrates something as well. Like "America isn't ready for a woman president", this is supposed to be the nice way to put "there's a lot of bigots in our country and those jackasses would never vote for a woman for no reason than their own bigotry." That you cannot say this in this fashion, as it is considered rude, demonstrates some level of license for sexism, or Islamophobia, as the case may be. It is legitimate not to be "ready" for something (I'm not ready for lunch, for example, as it's only 9:30 in the morning), it is not legitimate to be a racist, sexist or bigot . So we put it the former way, which to my mind legitimizes it.
So because of such lack of readiness, in a world in which a television show about Muslims being normal Muslims is considered offensive because the Muslims don't actually speak about jihad at the coffee shop (we don't, we truly honestly don't. We talk about college football), you can imagine the reaction if a player began every interview as I started this post. I just don't think it would be an option for a player wishing to remain in the league. The distraction for a team would be so immense I cannot imagine it could work. The only choice for a Muslim player would be not to hide their faith so much as make absolutely no issue of it at any time during actual playing, interviewing, etc. They could do interviews with magazines for the faith community (Olajuan did that as a committed Muslim) and of course participate and lend their name to faith activities elsewhere (again, Olajuan did that) but the times I remember him talking about his religion are when it was brought up, in particular in defense, as in "do you stand when the national anthem is played?" (The answer was yes.) And that's pre 9/11 and Victory Mosques and Obama is a Muslim and all the rest of it that's only gotten worse with time.
Now to me those rules are fine, and defensible, when applied to everyone. I am perfectly comfortable knowing I do not and should not open a Contracts class by offering all praise to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and peace and blessings to Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets and Apostles. My class isn't Muslim, it's a liberal society, faith is faith and Contracts is Contracts. Likewise, I know when I sit in a Contracts class, I am not going to be subject to someone else opening by thanking their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. These are rules I not only live by but internalize as normatively proper as an American. Naturally, in a religious sermon, the matter is altogether different but I fervently believe religion has no place in my Contracts class.
My concern, as a Muslim, is that when particular public displays of faith are rendered normatively acceptable (they are and must be clearly legally protected, again that's obvious), and when the faiths of some may be professed while the faiths of others may not be so professed unless one wants to become a social pariah, that necessarily will lead to alienation and frustration on the part of excluded communities, and the only normatively proper way to handle this would be to ask all to limit particularist expressions of faith in settings where general audiences are targeted, because the field isn't exactly level and otherwise the airwaves will be filled solely with appeals solely to Christianity, and that, to me, is decidedly illiberal.
So yes, in the end, I'd like to see Tim Tebow tone it down.
HAH
I should start a radio interview like that next time, for fun. I say "Good Morning" and I get questions about what "shari'a law" has to say about cutting off people's noses when you don't like what they say (actual question once not long ago), it would be interesting to see the reaction in this case.
What spurred these musings was a program yesterday on the local NPR radio station here in Pittsburgh, on a national show called The Takeaway, where the question was posed as to America's likely reaction if Denver Broncos quarterback star Tim Tebow was a committed Muslim as he is a committed evangelist. For those who don't know, he routinely opens interviews by thanking his lord and savior Jesus Christ, and is known for this kneeling prayerful stance he takes quite often after scoring a touchdown and the like. He's also led his team to an improbable six wins in a row, one more improbable than the last, causing some fascination among evangelists. (Though careful, my friends in faith, careful. We were told by the imam at our mosque growing up that Muhammad Ali had two angels fighting with him. You can imagine our reaction as little children when Ali lost to Larry Holmes, it was as if the devil himself had come to kill the Prophet. I love Ali, but surely one's faith must run deeper than the performance of any mortal on a sporting field).
In any event, I was amused by the program, asking a question that anyone with sense would know the answer to, though it did to me raise the matter that should cause the most consternation. Taken as a bare and naked expressions of faith, it is difficult to see the problem with what Tebow might do. I don't agree with Frank Bruni who I think said what Tebow does isn't as bad as others have done, Michael Vick and Ben Roethlisburger among them. True, but irrelevant. They did what they did, everyone regarded it as bad, and if they hadn't expressed contrition they wouldn't be revered. The revernce is on the basis of their having moved beyond it, that's the assumption. By contrast, Tebow isn't exactly contrite. But then it is fair to ask why should he be, being a person of faith is not bad, any other person of faith me included would agree.
And as a committed believer in the First Amendment, I don't think there is any possible way one could sensibly legally restrict what a private individual wishes to say when given a forum on national television. To do so would be to grant the state authority over particular expressions that should trouble anyone.
Yet if we concede no legal issue is raised, and we concede that in the end he isn't seeking to alienate, only to testify, are we done? To me, no, because all of that ignores the deeper concern. As one commentator put it, "America isn't ready" for a Muslim who would do the same thing. First, we once were (I could love Ali in the 70's at least), and are no longer, which suggests serious slipping, a problem on its own. Though Ali compared to Tebow is positively ecumenical come to think of it. Second, I hate that phrasing, though it demonstrates something as well. Like "America isn't ready for a woman president", this is supposed to be the nice way to put "there's a lot of bigots in our country and those jackasses would never vote for a woman for no reason than their own bigotry." That you cannot say this in this fashion, as it is considered rude, demonstrates some level of license for sexism, or Islamophobia, as the case may be. It is legitimate not to be "ready" for something (I'm not ready for lunch, for example, as it's only 9:30 in the morning), it is not legitimate to be a racist, sexist or bigot . So we put it the former way, which to my mind legitimizes it.
So because of such lack of readiness, in a world in which a television show about Muslims being normal Muslims is considered offensive because the Muslims don't actually speak about jihad at the coffee shop (we don't, we truly honestly don't. We talk about college football), you can imagine the reaction if a player began every interview as I started this post. I just don't think it would be an option for a player wishing to remain in the league. The distraction for a team would be so immense I cannot imagine it could work. The only choice for a Muslim player would be not to hide their faith so much as make absolutely no issue of it at any time during actual playing, interviewing, etc. They could do interviews with magazines for the faith community (Olajuan did that as a committed Muslim) and of course participate and lend their name to faith activities elsewhere (again, Olajuan did that) but the times I remember him talking about his religion are when it was brought up, in particular in defense, as in "do you stand when the national anthem is played?" (The answer was yes.) And that's pre 9/11 and Victory Mosques and Obama is a Muslim and all the rest of it that's only gotten worse with time.
Now to me those rules are fine, and defensible, when applied to everyone. I am perfectly comfortable knowing I do not and should not open a Contracts class by offering all praise to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and peace and blessings to Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets and Apostles. My class isn't Muslim, it's a liberal society, faith is faith and Contracts is Contracts. Likewise, I know when I sit in a Contracts class, I am not going to be subject to someone else opening by thanking their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. These are rules I not only live by but internalize as normatively proper as an American. Naturally, in a religious sermon, the matter is altogether different but I fervently believe religion has no place in my Contracts class.
My concern, as a Muslim, is that when particular public displays of faith are rendered normatively acceptable (they are and must be clearly legally protected, again that's obvious), and when the faiths of some may be professed while the faiths of others may not be so professed unless one wants to become a social pariah, that necessarily will lead to alienation and frustration on the part of excluded communities, and the only normatively proper way to handle this would be to ask all to limit particularist expressions of faith in settings where general audiences are targeted, because the field isn't exactly level and otherwise the airwaves will be filled solely with appeals solely to Christianity, and that, to me, is decidedly illiberal.
So yes, in the end, I'd like to see Tim Tebow tone it down.
HAH
I disagree with you. I think a Muslim acknowledging Allah would get much less flak than Tebow does. Except that what you said is really long and would get boring.
It is terribly un-PC to criticize Muslims as individuals, but perfectly fine to paint evangelical Christians as bigoted jerks who want to control the universe. That is how I read things--your mileage may differ.
I for one wish more people of honest faith of any kind--Christian, Jew, Muslim--would acknowledge the Divine publicly. We have altogether too many people mistaking themselves for God.
Reply to this
What I find appalling about Tebow is that he seems, like not a few other contemporary Christians, to have failed to read and understand the passages in the Gospels about "praying in secret" (Matt. 6:6; Luke 6:12) and not making a "show" (or spectacle) of one's religion: "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."
Reply to this
Sorry Patrick for again taking so long to post your comment. I've been off the blog a while as no doubt my recent lack of posting demonstrates.
HAH
Reply to this