Amazon.com Widgets

 

Katie van Schaijik

What about God offends?

Dec. 6 at 2:33pm

Over at the Corner today, Shannen Coffin has a post about the Tim Tebow phenomenon: about what it is that so aggravates liberals about this openly, ardently Christian athlete.

Tebow’s open display of faith offends many on the left because, unlike so many athletes who start press conferences with “First, I just want to thank God” for whatever it is that they have just accomplished, Tebow actually means it. And it drives many on the left — especially the sports media, which is rife with liberals — batty.

The media’s view of the acceptable role of religion was best summed up by David Gregory recently, when, in an interview with Michele Bachmann, he drew a distinction between “God as a sense of comfort, and safe harbor and inspiration” and a Bachmann actually taking her cues from God. The former, God as New Age guru, is just fine, but if you really start believing that hokum, we have a problem with you. 

Secular elites can live with "ceremonial deism," Coffin says.  But real religion with real content, really believed and put into action, is beyond the pale.

He's right, but I think the point can be taken a step further.  I think what secularists really cannot abide is the thought of a personal God and the possibility of our having a personal relationship with Him.  The vague notion of a "higher power" is fine, even reassuring.  Following precepts and traditions—provided you make no truth claims—is respectable, even admirable.  But the idea of God who knows us as distinct individuals, loves us, makes definite demands on us, and interacts with us personally, even intimately, is intolerable to the prevailing mindset among our society's elites.

Why is that, do you think?


 

Laurence

A personal relationship demands personal responsibility and obligation. The liberal/libertarian/libertine soceity is all about freedom (their conception of freedom). This means you should never be beholden or bound to anyone or anything any farther than personal enjoyment necessitates.

Being bound to a God? A perfect being with moral requirements? We don't want friends and relationships with scruples, we want unanimous acceptance for any and all behavior. The moralist is not the kind of person you want to invite to parties, or take out to dinner. Acknowledging a real God brings guilt. It requires sacrifice. Sacrifice and guilt are seldom pleasurable, so God is seldom desirable, until you need something from Him.

The God-Association applies to those faithful as well. We don't want to share their company, because they'll judge us just like He does, and they always bring their scruple with them, uggg.

#1 - Dec. 6 at 5:57pm | quote

 

To comment, please sign in or register first. (It's free and easy, and helps us prevent spam.)

 

Stay informed

Latest comments

  • Re: Is all confusion evil? A Socratic thought.
  • By: Jules van Schaijik
  • Re: Is all confusion evil? A Socratic thought.
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Merry Christmas, You Miserable Pagan!
  • By: Devra Torres
  • Re: Merry Christmas, You Miserable Pagan!
  • By: Gary Gibson
  • Re: Factions
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter

Latest active posts

Reading circles

Lectures