There’s something else secularists can’t understand. Since they don’t consider the possibility that a faith can be an expression of Truth, they tend to view it as akin to a dirty habit, something that should be practiced discreetly, much like going to a certain kind of bathhouse, but if I didn’t view my faith as true, why would I sacrifice for it? If it is true, why would I not want to proclaim it in all contexts?
As I said about the notion that faith is a private matter in “Faith in the Closet” (Christian Music Perspective, Feb. 2007), “Such an assertion implies that a faith that’s worth embracing, worth depriving oneself for and governing one’s life with, is not worth proclaiming.” To believe this would be stupid, almost as stupid as the assumption that one who thanks Jesus after a victory is thanking Him only for the victory.
As for people of faith, we can learn something here as well. I once wrote a piece titled "What Christians Can Do," wherein I offered practical advice on combating the forces of secularism. I pointed out that we complain when elements of faith are stricken from our schools, courthouses, city seals, and other public institutions and symbols, but we need to look in the mirror. It should surprise us not a whit if we are willing to strike faith from our lips.
Not guilty of this are the Zach Johnsons of the world, who set the right example with their faithful proclamations. We should be mindful of what the word “proclaim” implies, for if it isn’t stated publicly, it’s not a proclamation. It is then little better than a whisper, something only suited to the relation of secrets.
God doesn’t want faith to be kept secret. I’ll let you guess who does.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - diana hartman
Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
Given that you didn’t quote a single secularist’s opposition (by name) to the public thanking of God (the Maher quote is a question, not an opposition,) one wonders if you didn’t make it all up (secular opposition to the public thanking of God) as a way to get your own insecurities about God and your faith into the open.
Rather than assailing those you’re sure take issue with your faith, would it not be more productive to discuss these issues with those who share your faith?
The revelation that God has as much vested interest in your win as your opponent’s could also easily be seen as your having realized the world doesn’t revolve around you. If indeed you are of God, wasn’t this already true " on an emotional as well as intellectual level? The realization was at least slow in coming and at best redundant.
There are many who are both successful and secular. This flies in the face of the assertion that “many in his shoes would have folded…” Maybe those who fold aren’t as dedicated to their goal and don’t invest the time and energy necessary to reach that goal. Maybe they chose a path they aren’t equipped for and would do better at something else.
Would we think more highly of him if he had exalted himself?
Why the implication that if one does not thank God, one automatically thanks himself? For that matter, why would one not revel in one’s own hard work and perseverance? It’s not as if God doesn’t help those who help themselves, yes?
Do we no longer perk our ears when the righteous triumph and reveal their recipe for success simply because we prefer decadently to divinely delicious?
You’re talking about sports, dude, not someone having saved another from harm or curing cancer. A little perspective, please.
If faith and humility are now thought vices, then no further commentary about Western civilization is necessary.
As for those who discard healthful recipes, I’ve heard them say religion doesn’t belong in sports.
Who thinks them vices? You’ve heard who say what? You didn’t name anyone. Again, reflection of your insecurities; projection of your own doubts.
Where does religion belong?
Is your heart not good enough or big enough? If not, that’s your problem, not anyone else’s.
Secularists really need to examine their own consciences and biases and ask themselves why someone's expression of faith offends them so. If they do, I suspect they'll find a certain kind of bigotry in their hearts, one telling them that a certain segment of the population should be seen but not heard, all because of their own fears.
You are assuming offense and fear where none (that you’ve quoted or cited) have been expressed.
If Tiger Woods had prevailed and spoke of how Buddhist beliefs brought him peace down the stretch, would they react the same way? What about if an athlete spoke of the thoughts of his favorite philosopher? What about Muhammad Ali, who always praised Allah after bouts and professes his faith unabashedly to this day?
Perhaps those who would take offense to the public thanking of God would also take offense to any other religious reference on high (although it must be noted that Buddhism does not include a belief in a higher power). What would that prove or mean?
Subscribing to a philosopher’s philosophy is not the same thing as thanking that philosopher outright for his/her direct contributions to one’s life/accomplishments.
In this, it is most curious, as Maher noted, that one would thank God for a good thing but not also for a bad thing. No one thanked God (other than Fred Phelps) for Hurricane Katrina " although everyone agrees it was an act of God and a catastrophic event. Given the number of cameras and microphones available at a given sporting event, is it unreasonable to think someone who would thank God for a win would not also seek to be heard thanking God for a loss? Do only winners have time for God?
There’s something else secularists can’t understand. Since they don’t consider the possibility that a faith can be an expression of Truth, they tend to view it as akin to a dirty habit, something that should be practiced discreetly, much like going to a certain kind of bathhouse, but if I didn’t view my faith as true, why would I sacrifice for it? If it is true, why would I not want to proclaim it in all contexts?
I, nor anyone else, can answer your questions because they are of you and originate internally. These are questions that need be answered by you, not anyone else " secular or religious. That you would feel compelled to bring these kinds of questions to the table suggests a weakness within.
Not guilty of this are the Zach Johnsons of the world, who set the right example with their faithful proclamations. We should be mindful of what the word “proclaim” implies, for if it isn’t stated publicly, it’s not a proclamation. It is then little better than a whisper, something only suited to the relation of secrets.
There is a world of difference between public proclamation of faith and insisting one’s faith into every facet of everyone else’s life.
God doesn’t want faith to be kept secret. I’ll let you guess who does.
If it were a secret, neither of us would be talking about it. If you made your assertions weightier, they wouldn’t fly out the window so easily.
2 - Baronius
Very good article, Selwyn. (Much better than the one that Diana seems to have read.)
3 - Baronius
Diana, you wanted Selwyn to back up his claims. I hope this will suffice.
Robert Philip, The Telegraph:
I am reliably informed that it was the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who offered the comment: "After coming into contact with a religious man, I always feel I must wash my hands." I felt similarly in need of a good scrub down after listening to Zach Johnson's sermon on the mount behind the 18th green at Augusta when he revealed that Jesus had been "looking after me today" and that the thought which had been foremost in his mind throughout the final round was "regardless of what happened, my responsibility was to glorify God. Hopefully, I did".
SportsColumn blog:
Even though we root for Tiger Woods for every tournament, as soon as Tiger hit the drink on 15, we accepted and were almost happy that Zach Johnson, underdog, was going to win the thing. But then a funny thing happened: Zach Johnson pulled out his Jesus card.
Tom Witosky, The Des Moines Register:
Johnson's mention of his Christian faith after winning the Masters on Easter Sunday has stirred discomfort among some believing the separation between church and sport should be as strong as between church and state. "Religion and sport today has become a mutual exploitation society," said Ray Higgs, professor emeritus of English at East Tennessee State University.
4 - diana hartman
Mabye next time the substantiation will come with the article.
Three secular comments doesn't substantiate the sweeping generalizations. I could pick three Christians out of the crowd and question all Christians based on the actions and words of those three, and it would get me where?
If all secularists are responsible for what each and every secularist does, it's high time Christianity did something about Fred Phelps.
5 - Another Old Guy
Bill Maher has a popular television show on HBO and has had a long successful career, all along professing his secularism and disdain for all religions. You would think God would have punished him and wrecked his career.
6 - Baronius
Diana, I found those three quotes in less than 13 minutes online. They struck me because the first one is from a major UK paper, the second one is an anti-religious tirade on a sports blog, and the third addresses the same subject as Selwyn.
Oldguy, I kinda thought that Maher wrecked his career on his own, but maybe God was behind it.
7 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I read this article and while on the one hand, I was agreeing with most of the points of the article, I found myself wanting to throw up at the author's exclusive use of Christianity as representing all religion, as though any others had no legitimacy.
In the final years before leaving the States, I noticed lots of athletes making a cross on the field after making a touchdown and other symbols of religious gratitude. But I always had the sense that if the athlete wasn't a Christian, he didn't quite belong on a team that thanked G-d for its victories.
That may have not have been the intent of the athletes - but that is what came across on the screen. Similarly, that may not have been Selwyn Duke's intent here, but that is also what comes across in the article above.
A lot of hostility to religion is hostility to one religion seeming to shove itself down everyone else's throat. In America, that religion is Christianity generally.
Just something to think about.
And yes, Diana. If Christians are responsible for one another's behavior as Christians it is high time that people did something about Fred Phelps and the many people like him...
8 - Michael J. West
God doesn't want faith to be kept secret. I'll let you guess who does.
Jesus does!
He said so! In the Sermon on the Mount!
(Matthew 6:5-6)
Did I win the guessing game?
9 - Michael J. West
Now that I think about it, that brings up another question.
Selwyn says that God doesn't want faith to be kept secret.
Jesus says that God PREFERS faith to be kept secret.
Geez! In this theological debate, who do I believe? Selwyn Duke or Jesus Christ? They completely disagree on this issue...man, I'm stuck. Whose side do I take?
10 - Christopher Rose
One of the main reasons for seperating the beliefs of the members of these faithist cults from any access to governance or education is that they simply can't be trusted.
When any serious decisions are to be made, they aren't going to do the right thing on the merits of the situation, they are going to do what their creed tells them to do.
There were many offensive and frankly unthinking remarks in the article above and here are a few of the most inane:-
"But in their effort to demean people of faith and paint them as simpletons, their own lack of depth is betrayed."
Setting aside the sheer arrogance and conceit of the remark, how exactly does pointing out the simplistic nature of faithists' views have anything to do with a lack of depth?
"there's quite a difference between a cold, cerebral understanding and feeling something on an emotional level."
Here we see the presumption that using one's intelligence is somehow a cold thing, complete with the implicit assumption that that is in someway bad. Personally, I find the use of intelligence to be passionate and exciting and the use of faith in lieu of intelligence to be entirely dispiriting.
"If faith and humility are now thought vices" - What does faith have to do with humility? It is quite easy to be free of dogma and humble.
"are you saying that Christianity is now tantamount to what prostitution was years ago" - this is frankly baffling. Christianity does all humanity a disservice because it is based upon the entirely fanciful and unsupported notion that there is an entity responsible for all creation. Prostitution is a situational response to a basic human need.
"Secularists really need to examine their own consciences and biases and ask themselves why someone's expression of faith offends them so."
That's easy; apart from blind faith, there is no basis for believing in the existence of gods and therefore these empty cults deceive and mislead, to the detriment of us all and our shared humanity.
"I suspect they'll find a certain kind of bigotry in their hearts, one telling them that a certain segment of the population should be seen but not heard, all because of their own fears."
Say what? The only bigotry I see is that of the deluded refusing to let go of what they find makes them feel so special, as opposed to taking their share of responsibility for what we as a species do here on this planet.
The very notion of an afterlife, common to most of the world's largest cults, is far too often used as a copout or excuse for entirely inexcusable behaviour right here on planet Earth, the one and only possible paradise, at least until it becomes possible to establish colonies on other worlds.
11 - Michael J. West
Atheistic proselytizing: As obnoxious and self-righteous as theistic proselytizing since 3000 B.C.!
12 - Christopher Rose
There are a few inaccuracies in your remark, Mr West, which is pretty impressive in barely a dozen words.
Firstly, I'm not an atheist, which is in itself a religious term which seeks to explain away people who don't suffer from the god delusion. I'm actually quite willing to believe that gods do exist, but not on the basis of accepting blind faith or unthinking tradition.
Moving on, my remarks weren't proselytizing, which means seeking to convert somone to another religious belief. Furthermore, responding to someone else's remarks, or in this case Mr Duke's article, isn't obnoxious, it's simply a response.
Similarly, self-righteous means "excessively or hypocritically pious" so I struggle to see how that would apply either.
Finally, theistic proselytizing has been going on an awful lot longer than 5007 years, so once again I can do nothing but disagree.
13 - Michael J. West
Well, Mr. Rose, perhaps your dictionary is excessively thin or reductive.
An "atheist," in the sense that I used it, is a dictionary term that means "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." This I used based on your statement regarding "the entirely fanciful and unsupported notion that there is an entity responsible for all creation."
Your phrasing certainly suggests that you disbelieve in the existence of a god or god; if your thinking is not so simple, maybe the word "skeptic" would be better. This I will grant you.
You greatly oversimplify the meaning of the word "proselytize." It actually means "to espouse, in attempt to induce another to join, one's doctrine, philosophy, cause, or belief." Religion is merely one possible outlet; one can also proselytize about politics, social issues, workplace etiquette, hobbies, and personal systems of thinking (which absolutely includes atheism). You were certainly espousing; if you were not, in fact, hoping on some level to win someone (an third-party observer if not Selwyn Duke) over to your viewpoints, one wonders why you would take the trouble to craft such a long and detailed response in Comment 10.
You do the same with the term "self-righteous": "confident of one's own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others." E.g., "The only bigotry I see is that of the deluded refusing to let go of what they find makes them feel so special, as opposed to taking their share of responsibility for what we as a species do here on this planet." That comment certainly suggests that you feel confident of your moral superiority to those to whom you refer as "the deluded."
Finally, my choice of 3,000 B.C. - the approximate time around which Hinduism, the world's oldest extant organized religion, began - was figurative, as you well know. The basic point was that atheistic and theistic proselytizing have been around, and roughly equal in temperament, for the same amount of time.
14 - Michael J. West
Now, if you wanted to say that I was equally guilty of proselytizing in comments 8 and 9, you might have a valid argument.
But it did seem reasonable to point out that Mr. Duke, who proudly considers himself a Christian, is baldly opposed, both in thought and behavior, to the doctrines of Christ--that the entire point of this essay, in fact, is to directly contradict Jesus' biblical teaching that one SHOULD, in fact, keep his/her faith private and closeted.
15 - duane
Definitely a thought-provoking piece of writing, Selwyn. Juicy arguments in the comments, as well.
I found myself watching the final round of the Masters (an impossibly difficult course), and I caught the baby kissing and the Jesus thanking, and my eyes went to rolling. But after reading your piece, I remembered my 'philosophy' that says (I'm paraphrasing myself), "If I were a believer (assuming Christianity here), I would want to share my beliefs with everyone. If I thought there was an Eternity of either total joy or interminable suffering, all worldly affairs would pale into insignificance, and I would feel compelled to convey this overarching reality to everyone who hadn't adopted it. I would pray in private, in accordance to Jesus's teachings, but I would not keep my beliefs a secret. I would 'witness' for all I was worth."
So, given that, at least I find Johnson acting in a manner consistent (by my 'philosophy') with his professed beliefs. I can respect that. But I would tend to side with Rose, and say that I still think his beliefs are misguided. But that's somewhat beside the point. Moreover, if I was 'on fire' with religion, I don't see that I would have time to practice my chip shot four hours a day.
16 - Christopher Rose
Mr West, sorry but I must maintain my position. Those definitions are the results that come up when using the define:xxx function of Google, though of course there are other meanings by extension, such as those you quote.
I don't feel any superiority to anybody, I just follow the evidence, regardless of where it may lead, but I do feel great sorrow for all the harm done in the name of god. I believe in ethical behaviour not morality, which may be somewhat of a fine distinction but an important one nevertheless.
Whilst Hinduism may or may not be the oldest extant religion, the suggestion that we as humans should be personally and directly responsible for our actions is not the same as the god doctrines, for the simple reason that there is zero evidence for the existence of gods at all.
In the context of the earlier remarks you made, I take your point, although I can't actually see the benefit of debating whether one should keep one's faith private or not. I do however see a strong case for keeping such faithist mysticism out of political life.
17 - Michael J. West
Reasonable enough, Mr. Rose. We need not nitpick over semantics any longer, and I apologize to you: My accusation that you were being obnoxious was, in fact, quite obnoxious of me.
The reason I chose to introduce the subject of whether one should keep one's faith private was to counter Mr. Duke's insinuations about the "secularists": that they regard religion as "akin to a dirty habit," that they really only have a grudge against Christianity, and that they are opposed to God in that God doesn't want faith to be kept private.
So I pointed out that Jesus teaches in the Sermon on the Mount that God actually likes it better when you keep faith private, and that thus it is those who DO publicly express their beliefs that are going against the will of God.
I actually have no personal objection to anyone in sports or anywhere else (independent of government function) mentioning Jesus or God. It doesn't harm anyone, and it's not against the law or regulations or even common etiquette.
It is, however, against their religion.
In other words, the benefit of the debate is in pointing out that Mr. Duke's credibility in this matter is in serious jeopardy, as he disobeys the Christian God, then castigates the "secularists" for, in effect, endorsing obedience to the Christian God.
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Mr. West, you give up too easily. While Mr. Rose is certainly entitled to his views, and certainly has the right to propagate them (within the limits of civility, of course), attempting to bury words like "atheist" and "atheism" as though he himself were an English language academy and label all believers with the term "faithist," a term dished out with a certain amount of contempt, is the height of arrogance.
I must congratulate you on this sentence, "Well, Mr. Rose, perhaps your dictionary is excessively thin or reductive." You have done better than I in your description, and you did so with an understatement I could not achieve.
As for your debates whether faith should be kept private or not, I would suggest that this observation in the Christian book, "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you,"[Matthew 6:5-6] which targets Jews standing and saying the Amida, and suggesting that by doing so in a minyán they are being hypocrites, is, at best, akin to the condemnations by the Hebrew prophets of sacrifices that were offered impurely. I'm being charitable in that description.
As for myself, I would be overjoyed if the sports teams in Israel did not play on the Sabbath and thanked G-d for their victories as do so many Christian athletes in America. It is sickening to see yet another example of "Hillúl hashém" (cursing G-d) perpetrated here in an empty imitation of the Europeans.
19 - Christopher Rose
I'm glad we've managed to clear away some unfortunate misunderstanding there, Mr West, and I appreciate your calm and measured thoughtfulness.
Ruvy, using words with care isn't arrogance, it's intelligence. Your intelligence is partially disabled because you believe blindly. It has nothing to do with being an academic, it has to do with a respect for words and the truth.
I'm sorry if I came across as arrogant or contemptuous but your constant and undiscriminating abuse and hatred towards parts of the human race with whom you disagree, mostly based around your zealous belief in the dogma of your faith, are actually deeply offensive. I would imagine even your own god, if it existed and deigned to interact with you, would be disappointed...
20 - Jet in Columbus
Oddly enough, I posted this editorial in the Culture section of the BC forum on the 16th, one day before this article was published...
I hope it wasn't something I said?
Editorial:
By praying to god, you are saying he has the power to change things, to create things at his whim, at your request and behest, in order to transform things per your idea of what they should be, over his wishes..
That means he had the power to create and stop Katrina-That means that by praying to him, you're defying and questioning his very decision to allow it to happen and its aftermath.
That means that you're saying he had the power to smite the hijackers before they plowed into the World Trade Center killing thousands of good christian souls... but God didn't... it was God's decision to allow it to happen.
God had the power... He is God... isn't he?
That means that all good christians that prayed for the safety of their loved ones that day were wasting their time... If God could really hear them and act on those prayers, he would've stopped it... Right?
God had the power to stop the gunman from killing the students at Virginia Tech.
He is God... How could he not?
God oversaw the creation rather than abortion of the life of that gunman-knowing what direction and course that life would unavoidably take.
God knew the aftermath of the killings of those students, knowing who would die and who would be spared.
He is God... How could he not?
By praying to him, aren't you asking him to change his mind, concerning his created, designed and wise outcome of the event?
Aren't you questioning his sacred wisdom that he chose even to allow the event to occur?
President Bush and others have said that an all-loving God will be looking after the families of the victims... This is the very same all-knowing, all seeing and loving God that allowed the events to take place as they had!
This is the same God the president prayed to, to spare the miners from being killed, and the same one in the shuttle disaster above Texas... the same God who has allowed the taking of thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every time Bush offers prayers for someone or for our nation I want to wretch knowing Bush's past track record and outcomes of his apparently trivial and useless prayers.
I sometimes question the feeble sanity of people who refer to petitioning a "loving God" to help victims of disasters that the almighty allowed to happen - indeed created in the first place.
My God is a uniter of families and people, not a Santa Clause, or a parent you run to for solice when the other won't cooperate.
As if God would wave his mighty hand and turn back time and undo his own decisions, and admit he was wrong at the pleadings of us mere mortals who judge what he'd done wrong, and then demand he set them right again.
My faith isn't weakening by the acts God chooses to create, or allow to happen.
My faith is shaken by the pious morons, who claim to speak for God and claim to know and speak for his motives.
and
who claim that they can change God's mind, to bend to their wishes.
It was god's decision to allow those students to die at Virginia Tech, he knew well in advance of these events....
He is God... How could he not?
It was god's decision not to strike down the killer before he killed them even though he knew what was about to happen...
He is God... How could he not?
It was god's decision to knowingly allow all of those families to suffer, aware of how much and for how long...
He is God... How could he not?
Who are we to question that?
Who do those who do question our diety think they are?
He is God... isn't he?
21 - Michael J. West
Ruvy, my friend, I gave up easily because I genuinely don't care all that much. My primary beef was with the article itself, and I didn't want to get bogged down into a tangential-at-best argument. Besides, I was rather obnoxious, which is a problem when calling someone else out for being obnoxious.
I'm not sure I understand your point in the second paragraph. Is it a suggestion that Jesus (a Jew) was anti-Semitic? If so, that makes little sense. Unless he was afflicted with intense self-loathing.
Either way, however, if Christianity is a religion founded on the teachings of Jesus, it does seem rather heretical to ignore one of these lessons and to chastise those who advocate its implementation, does it not?
I don't personally share your wish for a more religious homeland, but then, your homeland is not mine, so it's of little consequence.
22 - zingzing
you know, i despise christianity at some level (and, ruvy, judaism--not forgetting to hate your religion!), but i really could care less if some fucking golfer named zach thanked god after winning some tournament. i'd bet 99% of the "secularists" out there had no fucking clue, and that 99% of those that did have a clue had no fucking opinion on the matter.
i've read some of the comments here, including diana's and baronius' and the mjw vs cr argument... (cr is on a anti-crusade today, eh?) i know this comment is rather shallow.
but, i must ask... duke, where in the hell did you pick up the idea that anyone would be offended by an athlete thanking god for his victory? have you never seen a basketball game? a football game, a baseball game, a snooker tournament? is this zach guy white? is that where this comes from? because a white guy thanked god after winning something? THIS HAPPENS ALL OF THE TIME AND IT NEVER MATTERS ONE BIT. what's up?
i don't get it.
23 - SHARK
"Secularlists" are trying to wipe out Christianity. That's why they're in such a majority in this country. Christianity is under attack.
Wait. [Shark spits out window, hits Christian fanatic.]
Gotta run! President of US is on TV praying at Virginia Tech post-Second Amendment celebration/consolation party!
PS: [yall miss me? "Fuck you, yer wrong!" ...there, ya feel better?]
Been missing in action since the editor DaveNalle/VOX POPULI fake name fiasco. I left the Politics section on principle and because, unlike Davey, I have personal integrity -- meanwhile, found out Blogcritics is a sick, life-wasting addiction.
PPS: Also found out I have cancer. I'm in the fight of my life. No time for Blogcritics. This shit is all meaningless. Love you all.
Fuck "God". Fuck "prayer". Fuck "petitioning the Lord". Fuck you if you think He had, has, or WILL HAVE anything to do with my illness. Seriously. And fuck yer limp "There are no atheists in foxholes" bullshit. This athiest is in a foxhole up to his philosophically consistent ass.
And somebody tell D'oh (gonzo marx), Troll, Duane, Eric O, and all of my past readers and cultural/political allies I send my love.
Send good vibes or cash. I still believe in them.
24 - SHARK
BTW: "God and Gratitude" -- I thought this a highly appropriate place to make my little announcement. ahahaha.
Picture me like Beethoven on his deathbed: lightning strikes outside his window; he lifts himself up and waves his fist at the heavens.
Yep. That's me.
25 - zingzing
shark, i'll pray to the clouds for you. woop. i think i see the face of jesus in that one over there. he shaved! it's beautiful...