Friday, February 17, 2012


These two posts (the second via) do a nice job of making clear how little David Brooks knows about the ubiquity of athletes as aggressive Christians. There something else that bothers me. Brooks goes on about how
[f]or many religious teachers, humility is the primary virtue.
And he seems to think that Jeremy Lin is trying to be authentically humble and live for God. Humility in action:

The fact of the matter is that no athlete is living for god or asking themselves What Would Jesus Do because if they did they would listen to Jesus and follow his advice for the riches of the world:
21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
 It's just not that hard. Take care of the poor and work to create a world in that cares for the poor and the downtrodden regardless that's WJWD.


  1. I was wondering if you were going to comment on that column, brooks is almost unreadable. You really have to wonder hwhy the times keeps him around, I guess they have affirmative action for idiots or something

  2. You know it makes no sense. There have to be intelligent thoughtful conservatives out in the world and yet the NYT had Safire and the Kristol and now Douthat and Brooks. Not one of the four is cleaver or interesting or accurate.

  3. I don't think you can be clever, interesting or accurate and stay within the bounds of conservative dogma, so you get things like this David brooks column where he try's to latch on to something interesting, Jeremy Lin, and tie it it to to the conservative view that Christians are persecuted in thie U.S. in the case of this David brooks column he really put his foot in it because he obviously knows knotting about sports

  4. And apparently I know nothing about proof reading

  5. Maybe so; given the Poulos and Cowen abominations it may well be the case that to be conservative it to be an idiot.