Comments (183)

I don't believe in football OR religion, but if it was up to me to enforce NFL policy, I think I would have "forgot" to send the lawyers to the "deaf church'.

WILL writes:
"Hmmm....lengthy historical quotes, entered into a google search and coming up from atheist websites."

Hmmm...a short (to the point of being inconsequential) reply offered without a scintilla of evidence to counter the claims made in the post undergoing Will's ad hominem attack.

Your response is lukewarm, so I spit you out.

And BTW, organized religion(s) is not off the hook. They too are another group of grifting grotesquities that has robbed, raped, looted, misinformed, disinformed, and kept factually uninformed, the overwhelming portion of humanity for millennia.

So ingrained has the fallacy/myth/fraud of corporate "personhood" engendered by a corporate bought and paid for Supreme Court in 1886 become, that those real persons for whom the Bill of Rights was adopted willing feed the monster that had robbed, raped, looted, misinformed, disinformed, and kept factually uninformed, the overwhelming majority of Americans.
The Government of which Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, i.e., "that government of the people, by the people, for the people...," perished by insidious lethal poisoning begun six score and two years ago.

Too Easy writes:

"I strongly suspect a single atheist is having a fun time creating the impression that there's an army of people out there opposed to churches and Christianity in general."

If setting that delusion next to your god delusion is what you need to get you through the day, well then, have at it. ;)

IMO, the screen size restriction does make sense. Think about it - 55 inches is almost 6 feet. It's a reasonable assumption that any place with a screen that big is going to be a business of some sort - and legally, churchres are basically not-for-profit businesses. The holder of a copyright has the right to decide under what conditions their property can be shared, and especially what other businesses can use it. You may not like who they decide is and isn't allowed to use it, but it is their right, nonetheless. And they disallow ALL organizations with a specific social agenda/message, not just religious ones. So they aren't picking on Christians in particular or even on religion in general.
There are restrictions on the conditions under which you can show pre-recorded dvd's to large groups of people, even if you own the dvd. Take your child's school picture to Kinko's and ask them to make copies of it for you - they can't, because the picture is copyrighted by the photography studio, even though it's an image of your child. Copyright law allows me to hand-copy passages from a textbook into my notebook, but not to photocopy those same passages, even if all I plan to do with them is paste them into that same notebook, and even if I own the textbook. I do community theater, and we recently had to cancel a planned production of the stage version of "Sleuth" because the company that holds the rights to the script for the stage play would not release them due to the recent release of the movie. We had copies of the script, we had a cast, but we could not legally go forward with the production because we would have been in violation of copyright law, which could have shut the theater down.

Fred Evil says, "Anonymous - You're right, one of the things they cannot do is participate in politics, and many routinely ignore that. Therefore they SHOULD be taxed, but are not."

As with many other non-profits, there are some churches that "skirt the line" and come up with clever tricks to get around this, just as some other non-profits do. But if a church does not fall in line with US laws, they will lost their non-profit status, plain and simple.

But your mistake is saying that "most" churches do this. Most specifically do not. Some do - primarily some Baptist churches, which are independent bodies, and not really a centralized structure like, say, the Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian branches of Christianity (all three of which specifically prohibit endorsing particular candidates as an official church body). In fact, a brief perusal of a number of mainstream Christian denominations (just try, for example, googling YourFavoriteDenomination + political + endorse) show this.

Churches aren't some boogeyman, they are a collection of folks who share some (non-political) beliefs and values. But it seems quite apparent from reading a lot of the posts here that many posters have never set foot inside a church to see that, for most church denominations, there is a wide spread of political views held by its members, from arch-conservatives to ultra-liberals. This should surprise no one, really.

Hijack:

I am myself, and no one else. Take that as you will, but I represent only myself, and only have this one alter-ego.

And, in counter to your own claim, couldn't there only be one Christian on here, promoting their own agenda? I find that just as spurious a notion, and tend to take people on their words.

Freestinker: well done!

I play the role of about 30 characters on this site... actually I have a life and don't.

But your are right Hijack, anybody could be everybody. That is why one can't take a board like this too seriously.

Anonymous - You're right, one of the things they cannot do is participate in politics, and many routinely ignore that. Therefore they SHOULD be taxed, but are not.

How fooish of us to want our own countries laws enforced.....

For all those complaining about a church's tax-exempt status - churches are non profits. Non profits are not taxed. In order to maintain that non profit status, there are a number of things that a church cannot do, making them no different from any other non profit.

If the US changed its law to tax non-profits, then I imagine that churches would be taxed.

Too Easy,

You're on to my game! I'm the one-person atheist army!

Damn you're smart.

Too Easy to Hijack Comments

This posting system needs work.

Unlike washingtonpost.com, on this site it's entirely possible for one person with an agenda to enter numerous posts with numerous names simply by putting in different names in the "name" box.

I strongly suspect a single atheist is having a fun time creating the impression that there's an army of people out there opposed to churches and Christianity in general.

Will,

Is your inability to answer a direct question typical of church goers?

My opinion of the NFL just went up.

You don't like church. We GET it.

How does the NFL stand to benefit from letting churches broadcast their content for free?!

Bars PAY for content to display on those screens. Churches pay nothing. Churches already get out of paying taxes on their income, what more do they need for free?!

It's high time we start expecting some accountability from churches. Put up or shut up, WHEN is Jesus coming?

Will,

It's not about liking church or not, it's about historical accuracy and Alexandria provided the original sources for us/you.

Do you doubt the authenticity of Alexandria's quotes or do you just not trust the sources you found?

Use thomas.gov or look up the original sources if you prefer, but the quotes are accurate by all accounts.

Shocking, aren't they?

Hmmm....lengthy historical quotes, entered into a google search and coming up from atheist websites.

We got your number: you don't like church, okay?

I wonder how the churches would feel if the NFL decided to hold their practice sessions on their front yards, to use their church kitchens to cook lunch and encouraged their fans to tailgate pre-game in church parking lots, all without a penny in compensation for the chruches?

Alexandria:

Please don't confuse Anonymous with facts.

Great quotes, btw.

Anonymous:

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

"Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice."
-- Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572. (Asa Green "was probably the Reverend Ashbel Green, who was chaplain to congress during Washington's administration." -- Farrell Till in "The Christian Nation Myth.")

And one of my favorites:

As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), the English version of which was carried unanimously by the Senate, signed into law by John Adams, and translated into Arabic (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)

RE: "Sorry Dil but our forefathers were not all 'very devout Christians," and the "short list of non-Christians"

The banality factor is high and I'm out of it after one more reply:

Washington established Christian churches and spent hours traveling to them to attend whenever possible, Adams and Jefferson both espoused strong devotion to Christian principles. This country was created by believers in Judeo-Christian principles and by those heavily influenced by them.

And regarding the comparison to slavery in Greece: slavery in the United States was never the accepted norm and lasted less than 100 years after the country's creation, due in no small part to the segment of the populace that believed in Christ.

Looks like some of you are enjoying your first taste of "civil discouse" of "On Faith". hahaha

This is an interesting topic though, I actually visited a very large church yesterday that was having a huge SB party. They were charging about $10 for a family and a couple bucks for individuals. They had several high def TV in the building that were certainly larger than than 55". I don't know if they had special permission from the NFL or if they even used the big screens. I didn't go to the big party. I thought the idea of being charged any $$$ to go watch a football game at a church was absolutely pathetic. I won't be visiting there again.

My own take on the overall issue is this; I'd like to see any non-profit challenge the NFL in court on this policy.

Bobby:

Think of any modern day Christians who have been persecuted in the U.S. for their religious beliefs yet?

I'm at a complete loss for examples myself.

A cold frosty pint is all yours if you can document just one ...

Jim said: "...There is no difference between a church group getting together to watch the game, while they eat pizza and drink Coke, than there is for a group of friends to gather in a home together, while they drink beer and eat pizza. In both cases, there is a multiple number of people watching one screen -- which adversely affects the NFL's arbitron rating. That is their real concern. It is skewered during the Super Bowl anyway, so why pick on churches?"

Not true at all, Jim. There is a huge difference between an organized religious group airing the Superbowl for people of its congregation and a private citizen airing the Superbowl for friends. The religious group (intentionally or not) is using the Superbowl (which is not their property) to attract people to the church...like advertising they didn't pay for.

I'm sure the authorities of the church in question were only trying to provide a safe and closed-captioned Superbowl experience to their congregation...but the rule is there for a reason - to protect the legally obtained income of the NFL and to prevent anyone from using its private property as an advertizing tool. Once the NFL is aware of an infraction like this, they have no choice but to act on it, regardless of who is responsible.

Dear Bobby -

One more thing.

You'll notice in my post above that Pliny punished and executed Xians not because they were Xians, but because, in his words, "...I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished."

"Whatever the nature of their creed." Roman law in all its harshness was NOT limited to Xians.

People were being punished because, "[their] stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished."

While the Xian may well have believed they were being punished for being Xians, the Romans saw it as punishing people for resisting their rule, regardless of their beliefs. In fact, the Romans allowed local populations to keep their native beliefs on a parallel course with worshipping the Roman gods. It wasn't until Constantine that conquered populations were converted wholesale to the Roman State Religion, and that religion was Christianity.

Let's say I'm throwing a political fundraiser. Do I get a local politician to speak? No, too difficult, I have a better idea - I'll show a DVD of a movie on a GIANT SCREEN. The size of a theater screen, in fact. And I'll sell popcorn and sodas and candy at the door. At the end of the movie I'll pass around a "collection plate" making sure everyone feels guilty if they don't give at least $5 to the righteous cause. Then, when Paramount Pictures sues me for showing their movie to a crowd of hundreds of people for profit, without paying them like other movie theaters do, I'll scream free speech and the 1st Amendment.

How is that different from what the churches are doing? Sorry, but evoking God does not give you a free pass on copyright law and the Super Bowl is NOT a religious event!

BOBBY writes:
"MrMArk,

I read your entire post re: Nero and taxation. Nowhere does it say that Christians were persecuted for their lack of tax paying."

My fault. I should have been clearer.

Jesus' words were, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." These words were made in reference to giving tribute.

Historically, the Great Revolt of 66CE was largely a reaction to what the Jews saw as unfair taxation. The Jews were also appalled when Caligula decided that rendering unto him meant erecting his statue in every temple. This, the Jews refused to do. Caligula was Nero's uncle.

The historian Suetonius reports that Claudius expelled the Xian Jews from Rome in 49 CE because they, "constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus."

The historian Pliny the Younger wrote to the Emperor Trajan in 112CE:

"Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

"Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine TO YOUR IMAGE (emphasis added), which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your (Trajan's) image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ."

Pliny's job was to see that the people paid their taxes, recognized the Emperor as the head of the government, and worshiped the state gods. Some Christians refused to honor the Roman gods and thus they were charged with crimes.

Obviously, "Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's" went beyond taxation and could also mean refusing to worship the gods of the Roman state, which the die-hard Xians clearly refused to do, even as many other Xians had no problem renouncing Christ to save their skins.

It was in this light - not taxation - that I said Nero persecuted Xians for not rendering unto Caesar.

Roy:

Gotcha!!

Freestinker says "...because god wants it that way"

I say God wants Freestinker and his ilk to save their posturing and pretending to be holy for their own kind on Sunday and leave the rest of us alone (including going to hell if that is what they think we are doing) If they can't do that, I say God wants them to go soak their heads in a bucket of Holy water. But who am I or Freestinker, for that matter, to say want god wants?

Oh, please. I am so tired of churches thinking they should get a special pass because they bring a deity into the equation. Copyright law is copyright law. Besides, Christians are always squawking about their exclusive rights to heaven, so they can watch the game from there. Meanwhile, the NFL can have exclusive rights over its product of the mind.

" ... persecution of Christians ..."

I'll buy you the pint of your choice if you can name one instance of persecution of a Christian for in this country in the last 50 years.

"

I find it more of a sad commentary on these churches that they have to use gimmicks to get people to attend.

What would Jesus watch? The Superbowl, or the CBS Reports program on the soliders and their families and how they are dealing with deployments to Iraq?
"

Oh give me a break. Now Christians are hypocritical because they get together and watch the Superbowl???

What civilized discourse indeed.

I like the column. I agree. Besides, the 55-inch TV limit is completely outdated. You can purchase home TVs now as large oas 100 inches. There is no difference between a church group getting together to watch the game, while they eat pizza and drink Coke, than there is for a group of friends to gather in a home together, while they drink beer and eat pizza. In both cases, there is a multiple number of people watching one screen -- which adversely affects the NFL's arbitron rating. That is their real concern. It is skewered during the Super Bowl anyway, so why pick on churches?

"Nor should belief in Christianity preclude you from admitting that Christians killed a whole heck of people for NOT believing in Jesus, and doing nothing else wrong.

I mean, if we're going to go that route, we should make sure we include both sides of this sword, right?"

Im sorry but are we going off on a tangent? Nowhere did I make and then deny that point. My point was that persecution of Christians makes us stronger in our faith.

I find it more of a sad commentary on these churches that they have to use gimmicks to get people to attend.

What would Jesus watch? The Superbowl, or the CBS Reports program on the soliders and their families and how they are dealing with deployments to Iraq?

How misleading. NFL rights prevent public use for anyone -n not just the poor deaf white Christians. But that is what the headline says and what the story is about. You think a Buddhist church could legally offer a public event but Christians can't because they are Christians and sooo mistreated by "non-believers" and secularists? Another example of neochrisians crying that their overbearing political movement is being picked on.

The NFL has been working to control the branding and usage of the term "Super Bowl" for years and recently started suing radio stations for promoting Super Bowl parties which is why you now often hear stations promote their big party for the game in Pig Latin like "Upersay Owlbay" just to get around the legal issues.

Obviously they have taken this too far overall, but I don't think it is fair to only focus on the religious side of these stupid limitations in order to make the point.

DIL says:
"People are so spoiled by the life they owe to a country created by very devout Christians."

Hey DIL,

FYI. Here's a short list of a few of our NON-Christian founders:

George Washington (Deist)
John Adams (Unitarian)
Thomas Jefferson (Deist/Unitarian)
James Madison (Deist)
James Monroe (Deist)
John Quincy Adams (Unitarian)
Ben Franklin (Deist)
Thomas Paine (Deist)
Ethan Allen (Deist)

Don't you think we also owe our Deist founders for our country?

"Dil:
People are so spoiled by the life they owe to a country created by very devout Christians"

Sorry Dil but our forefathers were not all "very devout Christians". Jefferson made comments (in writing) about how destructive religion, namely Christianity, is. You'd probably be horrified to know that several leaned more towards atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, etc. (Even Lincoln although he wasn't a forefather). There are even plenty of rumors Ben Franklin dabbled in Satanism. Why do you think there is no mention of god in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence? Maybe because they firmly believed religion had no place in government.

And frankly aren't monarchies reliant on the belief that they are ruling countries because it's god's will? What kind of "very devout christians" would've rebelled against a monarchy in that case?

Bobby:

"Lets be honest. Just because you dont agree with Christianity should not preclude you from admitting that Christians died for their belief in Jesus. Not everything is a conspiracy designed to win sympathy for Christians."

Nor should belief in Christianity preclude you from admitting that Christians killed a whole heck of people for NOT believing in Jesus, and doing nothing else wrong.

I mean, if we're going to go that route, we should make sure we include both sides of this sword, right?

Austin:

"Mark, you don't even know me. You came to a religion-themed section of the Post and somehow I am the over-zealous preacher forcing God and Jesus down people's throats? I think you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself who is in need of healing. I don't care if you have a faith. I just want there to be some civility on this site."

I'm usually a lurker around here, posting only when I really have time to get into things. But I constantly see Pagans and Atheists being the friendlier people on this forum, with Christians throwing around the 'sinner' and 'heathen' comments pretty readily. They don't come here to discuss and share, but to chastise those who believe in something different than what they believe in.

I have read this entire thread a few times, and nowhere did I see people attacking Christianity, nor a Christian's right to believe whatever they want. Yet, I see us being yelled at for doing so. So please, tell me where this civility is from the Christians here that you want us to emulate.

While the Christians in this thread haven't been that bad (just come in with a chip on their shoulder, from appearances), in other threads, I don't see you berating Christians for engaging in exactly the type of behavior you seem to be criticizing us for having.

MrMArk,

I read your entire post re: Nero and taxation. Nowhere does it say that Christians were persecuted for their lack of tax paying.

I assume your silence on Diocletian renders your acceptance of the historical fact regarding the millions of Christians he slaughtered for their faith.

Lets be honest. Just because you dont agree with Christianity should not preclude you from admitting that Christians died for their belief in Jesus. Not everything is a conspiracy designed to win sympathy for Christians.

Dil writes:

"Greek democracy, where slavery was an accepted norm, is a red herring."

As - apparently - is American-style democracy where slavery was the norm.

Do you guys ever think these things through before writing?

Dear Austin -

You're right, I don't know you. Perhaps you could give us some background:

1. Are you a Christian?

2. Do you take to heart Jesus' admonition to go and make disciples of the world?

3. Are you willing to forsake that admonition in an effort to lay off the rest of us?

As far as anybody not being civil, could you cite something I've written that is on par with the incivility inherent in the belief that non-believers are going to hell?

Thanx.

Actually I seem to think that this type of issue, from the standpoint of the NFL, is to ensure that they don't ally themselves with an organization that they don't wish to be allied with. It's not an anti-christian ploy, it's a blanket rule utilized by their attorneys to make sure that they aren't associated with any deviant groups.

Is it unfair that churches are being persecuted? Not really. It's not an anti-christian or anti-religious stance, it's merely an example of the NFL treating every group equally; churches can't organize an event around the Super Bowl just the same way that the KKK can't organize an event around the superbowl. The funny thing is, I don't hear the Jews or Muslims or anybody else, for that matter, whining about it so much.

Mr. mark, thanks for discrediting my response because i put, "as a christian." No argument or statement on my observation, you start and stop with the fact that i proclaimed faith in Jesus Christ and you do not look past what i wrote. That seems to be a common thread in this whole ridiculous stream. Sadly, a lot of the ridiculousness has come from people proclaiming faith in Christ.

By the way, i think a lot of people, christian and non christian, need therapy, it just seems evident from the tone and content of several of these blogs that whomever is writing them (christian or non christian) seem to have some bitterness and anger issues. And no, i'm not a counselor.

one last thing, i agree with whoever said not having to listen to the commentator isn't necessarily a bad thing. Fox destroys sporting events with all of the peripheral crap they do.

RE: "tell me how good Christianity was when it was promoting the right of Kings to stay kings"
and "Greeks had democracy B.C."

Plenty of people called themselves Christians, but those who ARE would have no part of ordering the Crusades, corrupting churches, etc.

Greek democracy, where slavery was an accepted norm, is a red herring.

Doesn't this actually make sense? After all, the "message" a sports bar sends is "beer and football are both good." That's very different than a church which might badmouth other faiths during the broadcast, complain about cheerleaders, trash advertisers, etc.

Dil writes:

"[without Christianity] there would never have been democracy. It would always have remained kings, lords, serfs and slaves."

Er, what is the governing model of the Biblical heaven? Is it a democracy? Last I looked, there are no votes in heaven. Neither do the Rights of Man hold any power. Where in the Bible is the model of a democracy laid out? Who are the democratic leaders/people esteemed by the Bible? Where are presidents David and Solomon? Where is a Senate made up of citizens? Oh, right, in Rome.

Unless I'm mistaken, heaven is a kingdom, ruled by the Lord of Lords and King of Kings himself. Heaven is the ultimate dictatorship, where you either worship Jesus 24/7 for eternity, or you burn for eternity. At least when the earthly kings lop of your head, that's it. The suffering of that kingdom ends.

I'm always amazed that citizens of a democracy can't wait to die to spend eternity as serfs in a heavenly kingdom.

Ron K:

"The NFL always bows to the Almighty, the Almighty dollar that is. The NFL wouldn't dare apply the same restrictions to bars, that would hurt their bottomline by alienating one of their biggest corporate sponsors, Anheuser-Busch. Until churches start selling beer and NFL gear, they are always going to get the cold shoulder from the NFL."

Until those churches start paying the same fees as the bars do, you're right, they are going to keep getting the cold shoulder. If the Churches want to play by different rules from everyone else, they're going to need a better reason than 'we just want to.' Until they can, then they need to play by the rules set up, and that means paying the fees if they want to set up a display like this.

You can disagree with that position, but it won't change the fact that just because you're a church you get to ignore the fees.

??? Mark, you don't even know me. You came to a religion-themed section of the Post and somehow I am the over-zealous preacher forcing God and Jesus down people's throats? I think you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself who is in need of healing. I don't care if you have a faith. I just want there to be some civility on this site.

Silver Spring wrote: "I don't understand. If the church is not charging admission or using the game in a commercial manner (as sports bars are), and if they are showing the game live as it is broadcast on public airways (not recorded), how can they demand that churches or anyone else not show the game? If using a cable connection, I can see where the cable company (not the NFL) might insist a church purchase a business rather than residential package, if just an antenna is used, I don't see where anyone can complain."

The NFL owns the broadcast, regardless of what type of airwaves it is shown on. That broadcast is their product. If their product is used for purposes other than those approved by the NFL, then legal action is not only possible, but necessary. As another poster pointed out, if this type of copyright violation is not legally challenged, the NFL would have a hard time stopping it from happening again.

This isn't an anti-religion strategy or bias...it's just business. Don't like it? Don't view the product.

The NFL always bows to the Almighty, the Almighty dollar that is. The NFL wouldn't dare apply the same restrictions to bars, that would hurt their bottomline by alienating one of their biggest corporate sponsors, Anheuser-Busch. Until churches start selling beer and NFL gear, they are always going to get the cold shoulder from the NFL.

I made a post, above. My point is that the sad and infirm continue to BELIEVE in something they cannot explain. Very sad, this Religion thing is, and those who follow--- you know, those individuals who hate gambling, but drive in droves to the Casinoes; the ones who stand in line playing their numbers at Shop and Save, or Giant Eagle; the ones who are pro-life but chant the glory of GOD but celebrate the State of Texas which puts more individuals to DEATH than the entire country---you know, those real good Christians my Grandmother would never embrace.

I am glad I AM A CHRISTIAN. I am glad I am not a charlatan as so many self-professed heitics have been. Shame!

Austin sez:

"I was merely pointing out the hostility towards religion on this board. You want to be an atheist, fine. Just lay off people who want to believe."

Fine, as soon as you quit bothering the rest of us by acting upon your Great Commission. The rest of us don't want to hear about Jesus, or fire and brimstone, or the glorious dictatorship of Jesus' heaven or why yours is the only true religion. I'd like to open the door just once and not be confronted with a Xian insulting my intelligence by saying they'll pray for me.

What's that you say? That you were ordered by Jesus to get out there and bother everybody in the world who's never heard of him? What, does that give you some kind of special carve-out when it comes to not "laying off people" who don't think like you?

Self-serving, isn't it, to not practice what you preach?

Yeah, we're hostile towards Bronze-Aged barbarism and the belief that the ancient idiocies not only pass for wisdom, but that those idiocies are to be foisted on the rest of us with impunity.

Physician, heal thyself.

Also, as a general comment, stadiums being paid for supplementally by taxpayer dollars is true. However, without mentioning how much the stadium brings in in tax revenues (both direct and indirect), you are only giving half of the picture. Stadiums and their surroundings bring in a lot of tax revenue back to the local populations, as well as providing a lot of local jobs. Generally, the tax income from stadiums pays off the stadium's cost within a few years.

Dil:

"There would never have been democracy. It would always have remained kings, lords, serfs and slaves. Why would it not? A rich few and the rest providing entertainment by fighting lions or each other in coliseums."

Actually, Christianity was used as a basis for keeping Kings in power for a long, long time. The Greeks had democracy well before Christianity, but I see you don't mention that. Yes, a nation that had a large Christian population eventually created a form of government that was used over 1,700 years before, but not because they were necessarily Christian, but because they had just rebelled against a King, and didn't want that same type of government.

So please, tell me how good Christianity was when it was promoting the right of Kings to stay kings, and wage war on it's own serfs if they acted out of line.

We have democracy in this country despite the founders' general beliefs in a single deity, not because of it.

Austin:

"I was merely pointing out the hostility towards religion on this board. You want to be an atheist, fine. Just lay off people who want to believe."

It's fine if you want to believe. Just lay off the people who don't. Until I see a bunch of Christians stand up to the likes o