NFL vs. Deaf Christians?

Christians are basically evil con-men themselves, these two should be able to work out a deal to help them both get the last dime out of some poor widows pocket!

Why shouldn't churches be subject to the same practices as other businesses? Anyone that thinks most organized religion isn't a business these days hasn't been paying attention. As Frank Zappa said about 20 years ago, "Tax the churches".

Look at it this way:

Sports bars do a certain amount of social damage through the occasional misserving of alcohol.

But it is minimal compared to the horrendous damage inflicted on society by Christian churches corrupting the minds of the young and the naive, and putting the not-too-bright in anxious fear of hellfire.

Like the Giants yesterday, the NFL wins this one.

The NFL has the right to pick and choose who they give viewing rights. It is called capitalism.

The NFL _is_ a religious organization.

If you don't believe me, make a close observation of its organization and members. It has the same cult-like rituals and intolerances shared by all major religious organizations.

In your own paper, the NFL spokesman suggested that federal law exempts sports bars from this condition:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013103958.html

Ms. Hoffman,

"Now this is about more than just how parsimonious and protective a corporation like the NFL can be. American churches have something even mightier than a trademark: the First Amendment. So the argument could be made that projecting the big game is part of the free exercise of their faith."

Umm...no, they really can't claim that. Unless the Bible somehow makes mention of the Superbowl in it, then it is in no way part of their religious tradition. A church tradition, maybe, but not a religious tradition. And, in that case, it is not subject to the First Amendment. You can't even claim it is a free speech right, since it is not their expression that they'd be arguing for, but the right to project a broadcast put out by another organization, which does have the right to say who can and cannot show their game.

Am I sorry that a Deaf Church couldn't show the game? Sure. Is the NFL completely within their rights to say that anyone showing the game to promote something other than just watching the game can't do so? Yes. Did the NFL specifically target this deaf church? No. It was all churches or other religious sanctuaries that were planning on showing the game. So please, take the chip off your shoulder and stop making this about a deaf church, when that isn't what it's about. It's about a financial organization (the NFL) protecting their property rights, which they are entitled to do however they think they need to.

OH please,

what else can we take aim at today to anger some idiotic branch of the American Psyche...

The NFL does not allow rebroadcasting of the game to anyone who does not have the rights to do so.

I mean, why can Deaf Christians not gather around a smaller television and watch the game with CC like everyone else?

Seriously, between the Presidential race, the war, the economic slump, Chad, Kenya, Russia, China... there must be another story out there that would mean something instead of this joke of a call to arms for those who are easily angered and Jerry Springer addicted...

I cannot figure out why the NFL would care where their TV programs are aired -- be it in a sports bar, a political convention, or a religious service. The NFL is a business that is out to make money, and it's commercial TV sponsors just want people to see their costly advertisements. As long as the promotoers of these re-broadcasts aren't selling seats, the NFL should give their spies a rest.

This is ridiculous. Churches have no First Amendment right to violate intellectual property laws. I see absolutely no justification for your assertion that "projecting the big game is part of the free exercise of their faith." Projecting the SuperBowl is not religious expression by anyone's definition, but rather a social event put on by an organization. Not everything a church does is an "exercise of faith". Much is community building, and has relatively little to do with religious expression. As such, these activities are subject to the rules that every one else is subject to. While I agree that the rules are silly, your argument is even more so. They may (and probably do) have an intellectual property argument that they can make, but a First Amendment argument is beyond a stretch.

The deaf repeatedly claim not to be handicapped, so why the heck are you using "deaf" as if we should pity those poor people?

And Christians should stop stealing, even from the NFL

NFL = No Faith League

I was going to kill you (figuratively) for this article but I can see the other commentators have already done a fine job already.

i don't see why the deaf christians can't watch the big game at a sports bar like everyone else. maybe it is too hard to feel persecuted when mixing socially with the sinners.

Worst. Column. Ever.

1 - the U.S. is a capitalist society. The NFL owns that broadcast and has no obligation to allow any group airing rights.

2 - Claire said - "The NFL is taking aim at a church for deaf Christians while giving a free pass to sports bar." You think the NFL - the biggest sports show on television - is taking aim at one measly little church? Maybe you're being sarcastic or something? The church is in the wrong here, not the NFL. The NFL is protecting its rights, regardless of who violates them.

Seriously - this is the weakest column I've ever read in a major newspaper - not one valid point made.

I have no problem scolding the NFL for coming down on churches, but your logic is faulty. Sports bars pay commercial fees for showing the NFL over the course of the season. The Church was paying only for a residential package and planning on using it for group activities. This is a substantive difference.

Haventyougotanythingbettertodowithyour time message

I certainly agree that the NFL has the right to limit the public showing of their content. However, the churches also have the right to suggest to their member that they not purchase the products advertised during the Super Bowl. For those of you interested, here are some of the companies that advertised:

Planter's Peanuts
Cars.com
Bridgestone Firestone
Volkswagen
Coca-Cola
Pepsi
Under Armor
Bud Light
Sunsilk Shampoo
Tide to Go
Audi
Dell
GM - CHEVROLET/Saturn/GMC
Fed-Ex
Doritos
Salesgenie.com
Godaddy.com
Careerbuilder.com
Garmin
Toyota
T-Mobile
Hyundai
E-trade
Victoria's Secret
Gatorade
HERSHEY - ICE BREAKERS ICE CUBES GUM
Taco Bell

Movies:
Iron Man
Don't Mess with the Zohan
Wanted
10,000 BC or Speed Racer
Chronicles of Narnia Price Caspian
Wall-E

If you decide to not purposefully not buy any of these products, be sure to let the companies know WHY you are not buying their products...the NFL may not fear a higher power, but they certainly fear the power of the Almighty Dollar.

Wow. Never would have expected the one-sided reaction on this. Makes me realize how much damage Big Religion has done to the everyday faithful in this country. The NFL represents some of the most blatant "robber barons" in America today. The fact that so many would side with them over churches is just amazing.

The NFL takes its stance because it's the law. Sports bars have a exception to the copyright rule written into law. Religious institutions do not. If the NFL shows preference to religious groups, they undermine their right to protection from infringement. Because the next time another group infringes they'll say, "The NFL lets churches watch the Superbowl, why not us."

A lot of times disputes like these aren't because a corporation wants to have them. They're bad publicity. Think MS suing "MikeRoweSoft" for trademark infringement. But the companies are obligated under the law to bring suit otherwise they may forfeit any claim to protection in the future.

If churches want to show the Superbowl, they should do the same thing that sports bars did. Get an allowance writen into law. I doubt many politicians would object to that.

Forget all this nonsense about lawsuits and freedom of speech. I was offended by the NFL, so I boycotted them. Refused to watch. That's the American way. Except I watched the last 8 minutes, after my kids tuned it in and told me the Giants were ahead. Isn't that also the American way? ;-)

The perfect battle in my mind - the NFL Pagans vs holier-than-thou Christians.....takes us back to the days of the Roman ampitheater - didn't another poster on another thread mention the ancient Robert Taylor 50's movie 'Quo Vadis'?

Check it out - the Christians lose locally but go on to win the world.......

This new version could be called 'Quid Pro Quo' - and here I thought all NFL owners and Media Moguls were devout Christians that encouraged prayer before battle, etc.?! Hypocrisy how shall we spell thy name?? Perhaps they're praying to different gods........

Who shall prevail? Money vs God?? - or the more desirable all-American outcome ... God + Money???

It's shocking in some sense to hear of this as an issue for churches or even the general public. Surely there are more important areas of life for Christians to be concerned about than having Super Bowl parties in their church buildings. Poverty, warfare, homelessness, you name it exists in our world. While Jesus never mentioned the Super Bowl or First Admendment rights, he did share the need of each one of us as human beings to be compassionate and loving to one another.

Many churches are large financial institutions and are capable of and should pay any commercial fees to use the SuperBowl as some recruiting tool. And those that may not have the capabilities to afford such fees, shoudl consider obeying the law as is preached. However, it does concern me that the NFL is putting money ahead of their customer's religions...business or not. If the NFL has no problem suing your church, they will have no problem suing you if they feel you are doing something that affects their bottomline, however outrageously large that bottomline may be. I mean, are they going to start trying to send spies to folks homes that have these home theaters?

I was dismayed when my church cancelled its Superbowl party. Even so, I find this article hard to follow and the logic faulty.

Why the anger on either side of this issue? People that express such hatred for religion might want to consider something - you don't have to hold a religious belief. That's your right. But you must tolerate others who hold religious beliefs. That's their right.

I certainly do not agree that the NFL has the (apparently unlimited) right to limit the public showing of their content -- not if it is broadcast on the public airwaves.

What if the NFL said people could only watch the game while standing on their heads? Would all you folks put your pillows on the floor and do headstands on them?

I can understand the NFL having the right to prevent people from charging money to see a game, for example at a sports bar. But as long as a church isn't charging admission or aggressively fundraising, I don't see any reason why they can't put an off-the-air TV signal, broadcast onto their property, into any kind of device they choose: 55 inch TV or 5500 inch TV.

Will the excuses Christians find to prove to themselves that they're "oppressed" have no end? "Deaf Christians" yet -- my heart bleeds. The author should be ashamed of herself for stooping to such transparently manipulative selectivity.

What about the multi-million dollar mega-churches whose pastors live in mansions, fly in private jets, and drive Bentleys? No mention of them at all: just the poor deaf Christians who evidently can't afford a TV under 55 inches.

This is sick. Grow up: the NFL is a business, just like the church. The church is still tax exempt despite its outrageous excesses plundering a poor widow's last dollar. You should count your blessings for that, not complain about this nonsense.

Certainly the NFL has the right to do what it did. However, they must have better things to do than threaten churches that get some people together to watch their game. Legal or not, it was a poor decision by NFL management to go after churches. It will cost them in the long run, but as arrogant as the NFL is, they probably won't care.

"But you must tolerate others who hold religious beliefs. That's their right."

And the NFL should respect their belief that copyright and trademark laws do not apply to them?

The response to this column shows just how arrogant and gulible the public has become in terms of understanding what the vast majority of Christians believe and how they practice their faith. The big money church scandals have been a contributor to this anti-church attitude but the media shares a lot of blame too.
The problem with the NFL stance is that it assumes that ANYONE who wants to show the Superbowl on a big screen TV is doing so for a profit.
In the case of churches I would like to see anyone prove that any church actually sought charge admission or even 'push' their faith on anyone who came to their superbowl parties. A lot of talk showing up here but lets see some documentation to back up your bluster folks. Otherwise we can safely assume that the string of posts here are nothing more than mob mentality on the web.

It's time to reassess the way churches are treated in this country. They are more like social clubs than anything else, and the last time I checked, social clubs don't get any special tax treatment. Enough is enough, the sooner the US becomes a truly secular nation, the better.

The NFL has, for years, been highly protective of their trademarks, copyrights, and broadcast rules, which is their legal right. The popularity of the league (ratings, attendance, franchise values, revenues, etc.) indicates that these policies work and protects their business partners, franchise owners, etc. The NFL does not want to be associated with any group (that group being faith-based, secular, conservative, liberal, whatever...) that is not a sponsor; it's not that the NFL is 'anti- (your group's name/affiliation here)', it's simply trying to protect the companies with which it does business. The Olympics do the same thing, as does soccer's World Cup.

As to the comments about sports bars, keep in mind that these bars (the ones that project sound) must purchase a broadcast package from the league in order to show games which runs thousands of dollars (they have, for years, attempted to go after bars that do not subscribe to this, even if only showing local games).

BTW, the game was on free-to-air television (and if one was to press the 'closed captioning' button, they'd be able to watch with closed captioning in the privacy of their own homes); so couldn't they just watch it at their homes or go to a sports bar (at worst)?

Look, the Super Bowl is a trademarked name. They don't even allow casinos to list the game by it's name; they have to list the game as 'Professional Football Championship', and it's why non-NFL advertisers have to call it 'The Big Game' or 'Football Championship' or some other non-trademarked name.

Man...the hippies that read the Washington Post are terrible. It's amazing you tolerant people have so much hatred for people you don't even know. Suddenly someone that wants to watch the Super Bowl at a church becomes some kind of crazy person picketing an abortion clinic. Aren't you granolas forgetting you are supposed to hate corporations more than you hate religion?

"Intellectual dishonesty" is the phrase that comes to mind.

1) The NFL's position has nothing to do with deaf people. However, Ms. Hoffman, you are clearly going for a "bully stealing lunch money from cripples" type of analogy. Any deaf people out there that would care to weigh in on how Ms. Hoffman is using deafness to trump her cause?

2) The NFL's position also has nothing to do with Christians. Its stance applies to any religious group (and most non-religious groups as well). Somehow, I don't expect you'll be writing about deaf Jews being denied their TV football games.

3) From your point of view, bars are dens of immorality, and therefore the "evil" counterpoint to the "holy" church venue with its disadvantaged denizens. Nevermind that huge amounts of advertizing revenue during NFL games come from alcohol which is sold at bars.

4) Ms. Hoffman, you do realize that "civil rights" (of which the First Amendment is a part) have to do with government conduct and not with the conduct of entirely private actors?

5) Do we even need to discuss your unfamiliarity with IP law? Betcha if someone started stealing your articles and making money off of them, you'd wise up in a hurry.

Ms. Hoffman, your article isn't just wrong. It's a delibrate and unfair manipulation of the story. It relies on misrepresentation of issues and unearned sentimentality (of a group that probably doesn't appreciate unearned sentimentality).

Thoughtful commentary on issues that affect religious groups benenfits both the religious and non-religious public. This article, however, is typical of unproductive and destructive spin-doctoring. Bravo, Ms. Hoffman. Bravo.

Austin:

"Why the anger on either side of this issue? People that express such hatred for religion might want to consider something - you don't have to hold a religious belief. That's your right. But you must tolerate others who hold religious beliefs. That's their right."

Yes, it is their right. However, the Super Bowl is not part of any religion, unless you're part of some weird NFL cult. Saying that the Super Bowl is part of a Christian's fundamental belief, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, is just absurd.

Have your religious beliefs. That's perfectly fine. But they don't include the Super Bowl. and trying to say that they are just makes you seem silly, if not downright ridiculous.

The NFL may have the right to prohibit broadcast of it's precious Super Bowl in churches, while allowing it in sports bars, but people of faith can certainly respond by boycotting the game (and all of its high-priced commercials) next year. If the NFL wants a self-induced black eye, it should continue its current course. This issue won't go away, and there will be fewer viewers of this event next year as a result. Lower ad dollars will soon follow. Hit the NFL where they apparently feel it most - right in their pocketbooks.

Churches have no authority to organize social events, while individual christians do.

So the premise of the entire article that churches should be allowed to use superbowl or any other source of entertainment for spiritual purposes is fundamentally against what the Bible authorizes churches to do.

Irrespective of whether churches break the laws regarding copyright, they have already broken out of the narrow way that was intended for Christ's church.

However, if individual christians wish to organize parties in their homes, I am sure NFL will have no problems with that.

The moment churches start using such non-Biblical practices, they ought to be treated no differently than any other business.

It sounds like a violation of FCC rules for a program owner to dictate on what size television an event can be viewed. Broadcasters are in the business of broadcasting entertainment with commercial embedded in the programming. They completely over-step their rights when they attempt to specify what type of television set can be used to legally view the commercials. Why not make the Super Bowl pay-per-view? That's perfectly legal.

Today, they're battling with right-wing fundamentalists over the size of the screen. Tomorrow, they will be telling you that you cannot use TiVo to block their commercials. This is so Orwellian.

I've got a crazy idea. Why don't those churches fellowship around something else...perhaps a common set of religious and spiritual values. That's what my church does. It's just crazy enough to work.

Churches in this country get a free tax ride, even though many have become more political than religious over the past generation. Additionally, they run very profitable businesses which not subject to the same regulations as privately run businesses of the same nature. And profits from these businesses and other investments often go to support political candidates who spread hate messages against people who don't share their doctrine or adhere to their lifestyle (which often has very little to do with Jesus or the Bible).

I don't think I'll cry a tear because they can't broadcast the Superbowl. My opinion is that our government needs to take the same hard line on the tax-exempt status of churches that preach more politics than religion. Good for the NFL.

Well, Jesus did say render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, such as intellectual property law.

First off, I see that most people see the issue as BIG church as a business versus NFL. What's lost in the discussion is that most churches are smaller churches that don't have "pastors [who] live in mansions, fly in private jets, and drive Bentleys" as Trippen stated.
Others have suggested that this is simply capitalism. Well, the NFL recieves substantial tax and corporate advantages.
Herein, a modest two-part proposal:
1. strip the NFL of its anti-trust exemptions and make them pay for their own stadiums; and
2. tax churches.
That would be capitalism, rather than worship at the sport Shrine of the Immaculate Interception.

Most of the posts here are from people that are full of hate and have absolutly no idea what 99% of Christian Churches attempt to accomplish. Look within yourselves at what in your life, or what is lacking in your life, causes such bitter, resentful, and uninformed venom to spew forth. Better yet, visit a good local Christian Church.

It is fascinating the number of seculars and people of faith who respect freedom have merged in their response to the column. I am privately religious but loath the control-freak evangelizers of hypocrisy who will stop at no end to shove their religion down the throats of others. I am not saying the columnist does that here, I am just saying her column struck a nerve. Maybe the majority of Americans (those who have some belief but who also place a high value on individual freedom and resent religious oppression) are finding a voice.

As for the NFL’s decision, it is neither irrational or biased toward religion. It is about capitalism and the rule of law. It is not about selling seats, it is about advertising revenues. It is difficult for the media survey companies to measure an audience congregated in large numbers in unlicensed venues and it is also hard to capture licensing fees from those audiences. Keep in mind that the NFL’s real life blood doesn’t come from ticket prices. It comes from advertising revenue and licensing fees. As for the apparent bias favoring the sports bar establishments, blame Congress. The copyright laws exempt certain establishments broadcasting on smaller sets (alas, the reason why most bars and restaurants comply with the law by showing the game on multiple small screen sets instead of a Giant (te he) screen). The NFL can’t prohibit the bars from showing the game. It can prohibit the churches from showing it and it makes perfect economic sense to do so unless the public backlash changes the calculus.

I don’t personally think that the copyright laws are fair or reasonable and I don’t think they always do a very good job fulfilling the core purpose (balancing the public’s interest in access while promoting innovation and creation through protection of intellectual property through exclusive rights for a limited period). However, to call this religious bias just perpetuates the dangerous myth that religious institutions should be exempt from the laws that regulate society as a whole.

What's it say about Christianity in this country when churches opt to show sporting events to lasso in believers? One would think that they'd offer free screenings of Biblically based shows to achieve their purposes. Oh, that's right - they want people to actually show up.

Can Nickel Beer Night be the next hook for the churches? How do you charge 5¢ for a beer when you give away free wine on Sunday?

BTW - why is it that Xians always whine "persecution" when they break the law? There are many protections in the law for intellectual copyright, and the NFL has every right to protect their copyrighted broadcasts.

Further BTW - churches aren't the only ones who get a free tax ride. The NFL does as well, through massive government subsidies to build their stadiums. Without these subsidies, the NFL would be broke.

Final BTW - let's face it, for all the noise the Xians in this country make, football is America's true religion. Compare the average American's passion for football with their mile-wide, inch-deep passion for religion. Most Americans can name every player on their favorite team but would have a hard time naming 5 of the 12 disciples. Most Americans can rattle off statistics concerning their team by rote, while their knowledge of Bible verses is limited to the ONE verse that regularly appears on banners at NFL games (John 3:16).

Beyond that, the Bible is useful to Americans only in its role as a metaphoric reference - as in the David of the NY Giants defeating the Goliath of the NE Patriots.

PS BTW - GO GIANTS!

Jim:

"Most of the posts here are from people that are full of hate and have absolutly no idea what 99% of Christian Churches attempt to accomplish. Look within yourselves at what in your life, or what is lacking in your life, causes such bitter, resentful, and uninformed venom to spew forth. Better yet, visit a good local Christian Church."

Actually, I see very little hate being shared here, except by the anti-NFL crowd. Most of the people here seem to be saying that the NFL was within their rights to do what they did, whether they agree with that stance or not.

This isn't a Christian issue, since it affects Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, or any other religious gathering place violating the rules that the NFL has set up for its own broadcast, which it is allowed to do.

And again, like others have said, if these local churches are so good, why are they complaining about watching a football game at the church instead of going out and doing good deeds?

JAMES D JENKINS writes:
"Christians are basically evil con-men themselves."

As an atheist, I find that statement a bit broad, that is, if you're saying that "all" Xians are con men.

A more-accurate statement would be that only the smart ones are con men. ;)

Stupidest column ever published by the WP!

Someday watching the Super Bowl in your own home with a device that blocks the commericals will also be illegal. Then they will add an additional thing for the Mattress Tag Police to check on when you're on vacation. Remember that in America it is a federal offense to remove the tag from a mattress, and soon it will be illegal to attach a TiVo to your television.

Just for the NFL's info, we showed the broadcast of the game on tv's much larger than 55 inches, at moe than 250 of our organization's fellowship superbowl gatherings around the country. And we announced it in local papers and on the web. No NFL contacted us. They are messing with the deaf to get some notice and make everyone think they are god and instill fear. The teams are great. The NFL is just a big blowhard. Who cares about their proclamations.

I think that Ms Hoffman should put her money where her mouth is and inform the owners of the WaPo, NY Times, LA Times and Condé Nast that any and all of her articles that appear in their publications may be reprinted and distributed by churches on on a royalty free basis. And not only royalty free, but as part of said churches' efforts to grow their own "customer base" with the goal of filling THEIR coffers with money gained through the free distribution of her copyrighted materials.

Fair enough?

So many reactions to this article are at least as inane than the NFL's over-reach in policing questionable copyright/trademark claims, which reminds me of the RIAA lawsuits going after people for simply copying their own CDs onto their computers for private use. Where is the NFL being harmed by churchgoers, or anyone, congregating to watch their broadcast? Who is unfairly profiting? Is someone charging admission? The commercials are embedded in the broadcast!

Using this as an issue to rail against religion misses the point: Moneyed corporations are increasingly encroaching on the rights of individuals and groups under the guise of copyright protection. In fact, these are just mercenary attempts to shrink the public domain for the purpose of squeezing out additional profits. Whatever your views on religion, you should be concerned about that.

LORENZO SONOBUONO writes:
"Just for the NFL's info, we showed the broadcast of the game on tv's much larger than 55 inches, at moe than 250 of our organization's fellowship superbowl gatherings around the country."

You seem proud of your lawbreaking, smug, in fact.

Why is that?

Kacoo:

"Remember that in America it is a federal offense to remove the tag from a mattress, and soon it will be illegal to attach a TiVo to your television."

The buyer of the mattress, once it is in their own home, can remove the tag at will. It is illegal for the distributor or seller to remove the tag.

P.S. I would be smarter for recent posts to appear at the top of this list of comments rather than at the bottom... Duh.

Thank goodness most the ones posting here seem to have more sense than the person who wrote this article. The churches have quite enough advantages as it is. I am surprised to find this article on the front page fo the online Washington Post edition. It deserves to be erased online, and shredded offline.

Out of 50 comments I just read, only 4 expressed derision or contempt or anything approaching hatred towards Christianity or religion. Yes, most posts are on the NFL's side of this issue - and they give logic-based reasons for their position. Yet people like Jim and Austin, apparently religious, see the posts as seething with hatred and anger towards religion. Fascinating. I guess they were surprised not to see folks rising to defend the churches' position, and this to them constitutes hatred of religion.

I cannot even begin to fathom how it is remotely possible for a producer of an FCC public-airwaves, free broadcast show to limit the size of a viewing screen in this way.

Whether the venue is a church, a bar, or a garage, unless the show is the sole means of income-generation for the event, it should only take a vaguely-competent lawyer and an aggrieved client to successfully sue for access. Once the owner of intellectual property allows its distribution over an unencrypted, non-targeted media, I can't see how they can claim any further control on that particular viewing of their event (though, of course, private tapings and re-broadcasts clearly fall within the scope of intellectual property rights).

The other issue here is the availablity of closed caption. Many sports bars do not turn on their captioning for consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Many events/shows are broadcasted without the benefit of captioning.

The other issue here is the availablity of closed caption. Many sports bars do not turn on their captioning for consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Many events/shows are broadcasted without the benefit of captioning.

GOD bless you all

"no matters what mans do, what man try to find, to create, to make or think..." sooner or later, need help, from GOD, time is over ....for each one of us...at the end...what's really matter in a life? ...
think twice...! but take care on what desition you make,...always a bad path travels you to a bad place..., a good path always get you , where you really need to go...
"GOD is the path"

sincerely
Carl B Jr.

Hmmm..the cries of "dem law breaking Christians deserve getting sued!" over watching a football game. A football game.

The Romans who persecuted Christians for "breaking the law" by being Christian would be oh so proud of the posters here.

The Arabs who persecuted Christians for not paying the jizya poll tax for being a Non-Muslim would also be quite fond of most of the above comments.

Here's the Catch-22: The more persecuted Christians are, the stronger we are. So fire away, please!

So, the church should be allowed to violate the NFL's rights....why...because they're a church? Churches are the most profitable non-profit organizations in the world, and have allowed themselves to deviate as far as possible from the founding fundamentals of churches. I dont blame the NFL at all for putting them in their place by not allowing it.

A few people here are using the incorrect "Intellectual Property" to describe "IP".

In fact, IP refers to "Imaginary Property".

This is well known within legal and computing circles.

Wolfcastle --

Best / Most sane and on-topic post I've seen.

To All: Thanks for the lesson in irony.

NFL teams receive massive public subsidies - they don't pay the full cost of their fancy stadiums. The NFL has a significant waiver from anti-monopoly laws. Since the NFL has little to do with capitalism, they should pay attention to their public service obligations. Laws and tax payer attitudes can change quickly.

Perhaps next year, churches should ignore the NFL en masse, show the Super Bowl on big screens (don't charge) and let the NFL decide if they want the publicity associated with suing churches. That might be interesteing.

CREESE:
P.S. I would be smarter for recent posts to appear at the top of this list of comments rather than at the bottom... Duh."

Disagree strongly.

There's a dialogue on this blog. Posters respond to posts by others. One reads these posts from top to bottom. It makes sense to scroll down the page to read original comments at the top of the page and responses to said comments underneath said comments.

Occasionally, this blog does as you request and adds the newer comments to the top. I find that annoying. One reads the post at the top, then needs to scroll down to find a post that's being commented on. If one starts halfway down the thread, you're forced to read each post from top to bottom, then scroll UP to read the next post that's sitting atop the post you just finished. You're making directional changes every few seconds.

That's annoying, counter-intuitive AND inefficient...Duh!

The only reason the NFL cares that churches, or any other organization, have been airing the broadcast of the Super Bowl is that it harms their profits.
Sports bars and other commercial venues pay big money for the cable or satellite packages that allow them to air sporting events in their businesses to paying customers. They aren't allowed to purchase a cable or satellite plan designed for homes -- there are business subscriptions that cost a lot more and that take into consideration the for-profit nature of the subscriber.
If a church, or any organization, is providing that same product without the beer and food, then that means less people in the sports bars, meaning less money to the sports bars, which means less of an incentive to pay for the expensive cable or satellite sports package.
The NFL is protecting its bottom line -- understandable since they're a corporation and the purpose is to make money. Their stance, however, is shortsighted -- like many other entities, the powers that be at the NFL are alienating millions of fans to protect short-term dollars, and have failed to grasp that the negative PR of their position will do them more damage in the long-run.

Bobby writes:

"The Romans who persecuted Christians for "breaking the law" by being Christian would be oh so proud of the posters here."

More imaginary history from Bobby.

The Xians WERE prosecuted for breaking the law by the Romans, but being Xian wasn't part of it. The law demanded that Xians render unto Caesar just like everyone else, and they didn't. The law demanded that revolutionaries of any and no religion be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly. To the Romans, the Xians were just another trouble-making Jewish sect.

Do you believe the Romans invented crucifixion and immolation specifically to deal with Jesus and his followers? Give me a break! Those "legal remedies" were around for centuries before the godman and his adherents showed up.

Check the history books (and I don't mean the Bible).

I wonder if the NFL has games in hell? It's where big corporations and big religion are both headed.

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. I do understand why HBO banned Soprano parties at bars/restaurants since HBO is a private subscriber service and those businesses were not only profitting from showing it but possibly discouraging potential HBO subscribers by letting them watch for free. But the Superbowl is broadcast on public airwaves.

Seems to me the NFL has unreasonable expectations for governing use of a public broadcast, and I wonder if they really have legal grounds to demand what size television is used to watch the game.

Wow, the vitriol with which so many of you attack Christianity and Christians is amazing! You generalize so carelessly, and heap your contempt upon a religion that, when it is doing what it should be doing, promotes love for one's fellows. If more and more people were to become as you haters are, we would eventually reach a tipping point and this nation and indeed the world would descend into hell-like chaos. I'm sure some of you have had bad experiences with "religion," and others are just idly venting their ill-will through the "safe" medium of the internet, but still ideas have consequences, and you should be more careful of the ones you spew. I'm a Christian who can be just as irritated with the Christian activism of some in this country as some of you are. So be careful of your overgeneralizations. Also, unless you have decided that you're an avowed enemy of the continuance of human life on earth, please do not persecute a religion that promotes peace on earth, good will to humankind. Yes, I know there are lapses, but do not condemn the religion because of the shortcomings of its professed adherents.

I don't understand how the NFL can restrict either the location or the size of screens used to show a free over-the-airwaves program. If it were pay-per-view I suppose they could. But beyond that, how is it their business on what size screen I watch, with what friends? If a church wants to have a social occasion and show the game in their church social hall, as long as they're not charging admission how is that any business of the NFL? Does that mean my neighbor, who has an open house for the whole neighborhood to come watch on his 60" tv in the rec room, also needs to clear it with the NFL first? Far as I know, neither Neilson nor any of the other polling organizations is counting the nearly 100 folks gathered in his basement, either.

Ridiculous. The FCC allows for broadcasting; as long as the NFL is showing its programs for free, it's outrageous that they should attempt to brow-beat churches or any other institution for actually watching the program that they're showing.

The biggest question, in my mind, is why the NFL has the legal right to define what size screen that I can watch its product on, especially given its anti-trust status. As another poster put it, as long as admission is not being charged and as long as the public is not being harmed in any measurable way, then private citizens should be able to exercise their First Amendment right to assembly, whether it be at a church, bar, or out in an open field.

I think the strict scrutiny test should apply to the NFL. The NFL should not be able to burden the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment without 1) proving it has compelling interest and 2) proving its methods for restricting such rights are the least restrictive means.

What I find most hilarious about this whiny column is that real "Christians" supposedly hold up that Bronze Age tribal artifact called "the Bible". And in its most artifactual half, the so-called Old Testament, it explicitly and repeatedly creates sanctions against the touching of... pigskin. In case you'd forgotten, that's what they make footballs out of.

So I have to ask: How can you with a straight face attempt to "build community" for your cult by gathering people to watch a bunch of grown men fight over who gets to touch the abominable object more? Why, if your kids were stubborn in insisting to watch this game, you'd need to lead the rest of the village in STONING THEM TO DEATH (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). How then can you encourage people by example to participate in this filthy practice? You must leave it to the heathens to enjoy, I'm afraid. (Or join the modern world and leave your tribal superstitions behind - but I understand that isn't a realistic option.)

Sounds like another attempt to latch onto something the secular community has found pleasing, ignore its hypocritical aspects, and exploit it to try to sucker in more cult victims.

A word of caution to the community of Christians:
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own council..."
Proverbs 26:5

A word of caution to the community of Christians:
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own council..."
Proverbs 26:5

Are you people serious? The NFL has a right to pick and choose who can view their programs??? You can't be serious. So this means that we as Americans have a right to pick and choose if we are going to support those rip off tickets and jerseys and spend our hundreds of dollars elsewhere. So 55" screen and larger are excluded so if I used a 54.99" screen it would be ok? How stupid is that. That be the case my church could have showed the game last night because we have several screens that aren't large and it would have been "legal". Also the Christian church as it was supposed to be isn't evil, it's the bigots and liars who, in the name of Jesus did things that were against His teachings. So don't go pointing fingers at all Christians because Jesus is who HE says HE is and He will never change no matter what man may say or what the world may do to us Christians who are living and walking by the Faith that we are commanded.

Y NOT writes:
"Perhaps next year, churches should ignore the NFL en masse, show the Super Bowl on big screens (don't charge) and let the NFL decide if they want the publicity associated with suing churches. That might be interesting."

Indeed.

The NFL could REALLY make it interesting by scheduling the Super Bowl to run on Sunday MORNING, putting it in direct competition with the worship services of most churches in the country. I'd imagine that there would be an across-the-board increase of churchgoers who reported coming down with a bad cold on that Sunday, and who were forced - FORCED! - to miss church and stay home.

Of course, the churches would counter by suddenly realizing the wisdom of the Catholics, and would offer their Protestant congregations a one-time option of attending a Saturday service in lieu of the normal Sunday. As long as the collection plates are full, what care have they about which day is designated as the sabbath?

OR, the NFL could break ground by petitioning the government to allow them to air near-pornographic ads during the broadcast. Such ads would sell a helluva lot of beer and ladies underwear while giving the churchgoing viewers palpitations. Perhaps the half-time show would skip the stale rock show and feature Christopher Hitchens demolishing Dinesh D'Souza in a debate on the topic: God is Not Great?

Interesting times!

Ms. Hoffman,

Given their extreme attitudes and recent activism, somehow I don't think the deaf community would welcome your "poor little deaf Christians" characterization. And why would you single them out from any other Christians refused permission to raise money and proselytise using a corporate product they neither own nor hold rights in?

Why should religious organizations get exemptions from rules that the rest of us have to follow??? I live in the city right down the block from a small church whose parishioners double-park on the street in front of it every Sunday morning -- I have yet to see any of these cars ticketed. But you can be sure that if I double-parked anywhere else in the city, I'd be slapped with a fine immediately. I'm sick of the unequal treatment.

Dear Silver Spring -

Can FOX be tuned in using "only an antenna?" I thought that they were purely a cable-dish network. Unlike NBC, CBS and others, I don't think you can pull in Fox with just an antenna.

I could be wrong. Anyone know?

And by the way, my church never charges people anything when we have functions. And some of your understandings of a Church or Christian church for that matter are all wrong. Where do you people get your information from? Have you actually been to a Non-Denominational Christian Church in the last 20 years? A lot has changed and IMO it's for the better.

"Old Testament, it explicitly and repeatedly creates sanctions against the touching of... pigskin. In case you'd forgotten, that's what they make footballs out of."

Footballs are made of cowhide leather.

man, their are some bitter people blogging today, i only read about 25 of the responses and i'd say 99% were from some very bitter people that have much bigger issues they need to deal with, so they should stop blogging and go see a therapist.

As a christian, i have to say that christians do not deserve special treatment and i must say that there are much bigger problems in this world than the NFL completing whoring itself out to marketers (which is their right!), but come on guys, deaf christians, i don't care if they are deaf or christians, did the church make money off of this or did they just want a place where deaf people could watch the game and read (which would require a huge TV if a large audience was READING)the commentary? why doesn't the church sue for discrimination towards group gatherings of deaf people? Yes, that sounds ridiculous, but so has been 99% of the commentary above. The church or christian part shouldn't matter if they are not making money off of it, they are just offering a place for deaf people to hang out and watch (and read) all of the happenings of the superbowl.

i wonder how bitter and different the responses would have been if this was a gathering of anything, but deaf christians.

Okay, so maybe footballs aren't made out of pigskin anymore (convenient dodge to help the Christianists stay in business in an increasingly football-crazed culture). But I still have some other questions.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness - Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of
mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10-, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev. 24:10-16.

Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Claire,

You stated, "American churches have something even mightier than a trademark: the First Amendment" That right isn't limited to just churches. It is also given to the NFL, which is allowed to choose the manner and extent of its speech. You are allowed to hold a political rally and allow in only your supporters. Plus, in addition to the first amendment, there are pesky little things called copyright laws.

I don't understand how you can assume that encouraging Christianity somehow produces an exemption from copyright statutes. It seems to me that, if someone IS going to be using the NFL's name and broadcast to advance its own ends (financial), it might as well be the tax-paying sports bars instead of the tax-exempt churches.

First: If stadiums are paid for and financed by tax dollars then anyone who pays taxes should be allowed to watch what goes on in the stadium.

Second: If a game is broadcast on Public Airwaves then you sould be able to watch it on any TV set anywhere you want to watch it. If it is so private, then it should not be broadcast.

Third: Whoever made these rules needs their head examined. Have you ever heard of common sense?

Fourth: Did the NFL lose any money because someone showed this in a church and last, my guess is that it is not shown in the church proper but in a community room at the church facility.

I'm with Sue, "lesson in irony." This discussion has been ridiculously hilarious. The passionate of both sides, displayed here, amaze me.

Please, all of you, take a deep breath.... :)

"Why should religious organizations get exemptions from rules that the rest of us have to follow???"

Religious organizations should always get preferential treatment because god wants it that way. If you atheists want preferential treatment, then join a freaking church. Otherwise quit your whining.

Amen to comment from concerned!
But you also have to remeber that a fool has no
concept of the things of God, for he is God!
It's a shame the church has to be blamed for the
brunt of the worlds problems! First let me apologize to those who have been hurt by the church! But the message of the church still doesn't change "Repent of Your Sins! In order to
do this we have come outside of the chruch to reach the lost! If God can use the idolistic super bowl, I say idol because it's first in the lives of sports fans? Then I'm for it! In all of this I see no Compassion at all for deaf community but this just goes along with the rest of the hate in this society! Ask yourself this question why do we give so much time to entertainment and not enough time on our own lives? If this game didn't come on yesterday, some people would have been lost! The NFL needs to require some of their players to maybe go to church? since they are the ones being worshiped!
There a lot of athletes that are Christian, they need to stand up but when you sell your soul, it's out of the question! When you're not of the positive then you're the negative! We have bigger problems than this and they can only be resolved the help of GOD! I'm not perfect, I choose to look at myself and become a better person!

Amen to comment from concerned!
But you also have to remeber that a fool has no
concept of the things of God, for he is God!
It's a shame the church has to be blamed for the
brunt of the worlds problems! First let me apologize to those who have been hurt by the church! But the message of the church still doesn't change "Repent of Your Sins! In order to
do this we have come outside of the chruch to reach the lost! If God can use the idolistic super bowl, I say idol because it's first in the lives of sports fans? Then I'm for it! In all of this I see no Compassion at all for deaf community but this just goes along with the rest of the hate in this society! Ask yourself this question why do we give so much time to entertainment and not enough time on our own lives? If this game didn't come on yesterday, some people would have been lost! The NFL needs to require some of their players to maybe go to church? since they are the ones being worshiped!
There a lot of athletes that are Christian, they need to stand up but when you sell your soul, it's out of the question! When you're not of the positive then you're the negative! We have bigger problems than this and they can only be resolved the help of GOD! I'm not perfect, I choose to look at myself and become a better person!

The average football game of 3 hours, or more, contains about 12 minutes of actual action. The rest of the time is consumed by offenses and defenses switching sides; officials (too many) running around, waving their arms, or talking at length among themselves, or with overstaffed coaching cadres; mindless TV announcers gabbing ad nauseum; endless commercials before, during and after the game. And for the vast majority of a game the players are standing around, doing nothing, while viewers are dealt a mind-numbing avalanche of drivel by a greed-grubbing NFL and corporate monsters. When broadcast by Fox the whole inane mess can be multiplied by ten. People who are football crazy should seriously consider what is happening inside their own brains. They have been convinced that they must watch 180 minutes or more of commercials.

Deaf people should consider themselves lucky to not have to listen. Blind people are equally fortunate that they do not have to look at the gaudy spectacle. Wise people would do neither.

Want to watch a football game that is largely uninterrupted for two forty minute halves? A game with a five minute halftime? A game where players have the stamina to play offense and defense, and can transition in a second? A game where the players are on the run for most of the game? A game where one on-field official is in control? A game where coaches keep quiet and do not argue with the official? A game that requires intelligence, skill, quick thinking, speed and power?
The game is Rugby Football.

What would Jesus do?

He's obey the law and stop churches from stealing the NFL broadcast.

He'd obey the law and stop churches from endorsing political candidates.

He'd go hang out at the bar with the football fans and meet them on their own turf and would win them over with his goodness - not prosteletizing and annoying everyone by claiming moral authority.

He'd stop people like Schuller from wasting money that coulds be feeding the the poor on a crystal palace to themselves and lavish stage performances in the dead of winter.

To Mr. Mark - yes, you can watch Fox, as well as ABC, NBC, and PBS by antenna alone. I have a high-def tv, an antenna in the attic, a high-def converter box on top of the TV, and watch all the major networks by antenna. No cable or dish is needed. That's one of the beauties of high-def tv, actually - no cable required.

Only thing I miss is CNN, and I've decided I can live without it. It wasn't worth $100 a month or whatever it is the cable company would charge me.

7SNIDER7 - You wrote, "You generalize so carelessly, and heap your contempt upon a religion that, when it is doing what it should be doing, promotes love for one's fellows. If more and more people were to become as you haters are, we would eventually reach a tipping point and this nation and indeed the world would descend into hell-like chaos."

So it's the Christians who are keeping us in a civilized, law-abiding society? Which Christians are those exactly? The ones who shoot doctors providing family health services? The ones who drag gay men behind trucks? How about the ones who promote the death penalty for minors and the mentally handicapped? Or the ones who start pre-emptive war with other countries, believe that God is on our side?

Sorry, it is the Christians who impose irrationality into public discourse, scorn upon individual choices and hypocrisy into our daily lives.

Why is it that whenever one reads something like this on On Faith:

"man, their are some bitter people blogging today, i only read about 25 of the responses and i'd say 99% were from some very bitter people that have much bigger issues they need to deal with, so they should stop blogging and go see a therapist..."

...that you know without even looking that the next sentence will start with the words,

"As a christian..."?

;)

Such divisiveness! I think a little respect is due those who choose to worship an invisible giant being that lives in the sky and speaks in English directly to televangelists and Republican congressmen. It's not like they're promoting something nasty like reality.

Further, it's only fair to use our tax dollars to subsidize these tax-exempt organizations. After all, they're only concerned with our.... well, never mind.

Go NFL!

Claire Hoffman is ridiculous.

Churches get a free pass for so much outrageous, destructive power plays in this country. They write public school sex ed programs, they have dismantled scientific thought as the basis for understanding the world (go evolution too!), they have carved out market share in the health care industry, controlling hospitals and thereby having authority over individuals' personal decisions in a way that is at the very least inappropriate. Religious forces now influence US aid programs - leading to the closure of health care clinics that performed abortions in some of the poorest and more underserved areas in the world. Its criminal!

Any institution that goes after organized religion legally and without personally demonizing its followers gets a pass in my book.

And I'm not even an athiest!

I am saddened that we seem to hold a double-standard for tolerance of religions.

Jesus Christ saved my life and my soul. The Bible is the most incredible book I have ever studied in my life. Just think about giving it a try... You will not be sorry if you truly seek to understand it and who Jesus Christ is. We all love fairy tales and "happy ever after." We want to believe there is something real about that. We want to believe a team like the Giants can win against the odds! I have found through Jesus Christ that happy endings are real.

i mean, atheist.

Sir:

Religion is truely the opiate of the masses. How else can "churches" take money from the sick of mind and continue to survive? I do not fault so much the scam artists(they are, indeed, charlantans) as I do those lemmings who willingly follow the others off the cliff---they listen and continue, beyond belief (pun intended) to raise their hands into God's submission and go on their ways into divisness and hatred for those who do not agree. Some religion. I do think these idiots will find peace and joy---it will come for them when they are is HELL---with all their friends.

"Do you believe the Romans invented crucifixion and immolation specifically to deal with Jesus and his followers? Give me a break! Those "legal remedies" were around for centuries before the godman and his adherents showed up."

Um, the answer to the first question is No. Actually nowhere did I imply that. But Christians were killed for being Christian. Most of the persecution was minor but then Nero and especially Diocletian upped the ante immensely.

You need to check a real history book. Authored by respected historians not Hitchens or Dawkins.

Having read the article and many responses I feel it all a bit absurd. Yes laws are laws, and some say "to be broken". I agree with the few who brought up the point that it mostly about the almighty dollar. The more people who view the game or only the adds as many do, the better chances of the dollar going just where the advertisers wanted, in their own pockets. Little TV, big-screen TV, big hall, little living room? Who cares?

Here, let me take your hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution

Nero and the Great Fire:
A Rumor of Arson and the Persecution of Christians
The Torches of Nero, by Henryk Siemiradzki. According to Tacitus, Nero targeted Christians as those responsible for the fire.
The Torches of Nero, by Henryk Siemiradzki. According to Tacitus, Nero targeted Christians as those responsible for the fire.

It is uncertain who or what actually caused the fire— whether accident or arson. According to Tacitus, some in the population held Nero responsible.[18] To diffuse blame, Nero targeted the Christians.[18] Christians confessed to the crime, but it is unknown if these were false confessions induced by torture.[18] Also, the passage is unclear what the Christians confessed to— whether arson or being Christians. Suetonius and Cassius Dio favor Nero as the arsonist with an insane desire to destroy the city as his motive.[19] However, major accidentally started fires were common in ancient Rome. In fact, Rome burned again under Vitellius in 69[20] and under Titus in 80.[21].

Nero ordered Christians to be thrown to dogs, while others were crucified or burned to serve as lights.[18]

Tacitus described the event:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_early_Christians_by_the_Romans

Im gonna assume you will actually read these before making an audacious claim that taxation was the reason for Christian persecution.

Being Christian means get everything free and criticize everybody?

If you want game free then why do sell bible stuff for a price? Why you need "Funds" to convert Christians in other countries?

I never made an argument for or against watching the Super Bowl, or for churches to receive special treatment. Observe itellectual property, copyright laws, etc.

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.

So much hate and evil in this forum.....capitalism, money, entertainment, vice, spiritual corruption. Words come out wrapped with venom and vomit.

Yeah, this is today's America and then we sing "God bless America"?...what a joke this nation has become!!!!

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

Without the Christian influence on all the various major Western civilizations, do you think there would be an NFL? Hospitals as we know them? A right to free speech?

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.

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

Without the Christian influence on all the various major Western civilizations, do you think there would be an NFL? Hospitals as we know them? A right to free speech?

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.

Like many stories in the WaPo, this is a total NON-STORY!

i notice where some of the posters defend the nfl's piggishness on the ground that it is 'capitalism.' maybe. that has become a form of religion in and of itself. pardon me, but i can't subscribe to or admire a religion whose cardinal virtue is greed. but, there is another consideration. either these posters are ignorant of or have chosen to ignore the nfl's well documented history of feeding at the public trough. from anti-trust exemptions to publicly financed stadiums, its mantra has been anything but capitalism. i would suggest that the churches which have been threatened by this collection of well heeled egotists lay their complaints before their congressmen. their claim to integrity certainly exceeds that of the nfl.

i notice where some of the posters defend the nfl's piggishness on the ground that it is 'capitalism.' maybe. that has become a form of religion in and of itself. pardon me, but i can't subscribe to or admire a religion whose cardinal virtue is greed. but, there is another consideration. either these posters are ignorant of or have chosen to ignore the nfl's well documented history of feeding at the public trough. from anti-trust exemptions to publicly financed stadiums, its mantra has been anything but capitalism. i would suggest that the churches which have been threatened by this collection of well heeled egotists lay their complaints before their congressmen. their claim to integrity certainly exceeds that of the nfl.

According to the Star Tribune, the NFL has only weighed in against super size screen showings of the game. If a church, a collection of hearing people, deaf people, Deaf people, tall people, little people, or purple people want to gather around a collection of home size TVs in a church or someone's living room, all is well.

So who is mis reading the ban?
http://pd.startribune.com/sp?aff=3&keywords=
church+super+bowl+large+screen&x=0&y=0

sorry about that URL. YOu'll have to wrap it yourself.

Dear Bobby -

As long as you're citing Wikipedia, here's this:

:Great Fire of Rome
Main article: Great Fire of Rome
The Great Fire of Rome erupted on the night of July 18 to July 19, 64. The fire started at the southeastern end of the Circus Maximus in shops selling flammable goods.[111]

Ancient graffiti portrait of Nero found at the Domus Tiberiana.
How large the fire was is up for debate. According to Tacitus, who was nine at the time of the fire, it spread quickly and burnt for five days.[112] It completely destroyed four of fourteen Roman districts and severely damaged seven.[112] The only other historian who lived through the period and mentioned the fire is Pliny the Elder who wrote about it in passing.[113] Other historians who lived through the period (including Josephus, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and Epictetus) make no mention of it.
It is uncertain who or what actually caused the fire—whether accident or arson.[111] Suetonius and Cassius Dio favor Nero as the arsonist.[114] Tacitus mentions that Christians confessed to the crime, but it is not known whether these were false confessions induced by torture.[115] However, accidentally started fires were common in ancient Rome.[116] In fact, Rome burned significantly again under Vitellius in 69[110] and under Titus in 80.[117]

It was said by Suetonius and Cassius Dio that Nero sang the "Sack of Ilium" in stage costume while the city burned.[118] However, Tacitus' account has Nero in Antium at the time of the fire.[119] Tacitus said that Nero playing his lyre and singing while the city burned was only rumor.[119] Popular legend remembers Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned, but this is an anachronism as the instrument had not yet been invented, and would not be for over 1,000 years.[5]

According to Tacitus, upon hearing news of the fire, Nero rushed back to Rome to organize a relief effort, which he paid for from his own funds.[119] After the fire, Nero opened his palaces to provide shelter for the homeless, and arranged for food supplies to be delivered in order to prevent starvation among the survivors.[119] In the wake of the fire, he made a new urban development plan. Houses after the fire were spaced out, built in brick, and faced by porticos on wide roads.[120] Nero also built a new palace complex known as the Domus Aurea in an area cleared by the fire.[121] The size of this complex is debated (from 100 to 300 acres).[122][123][124] To find the necessary funds for the reconstruction, tributes were imposed on the provinces of the empire.[125]

According to Tacitus, the population searched for a scapegoat and rumors held Nero responsible.[115] To diffuse blame, Nero targeted a sect called the Christians."

More about Nero from the same source you cited:

"Administrative policies

Over the course of his reign, Nero often made rulings that pleased the lower class. Nero was criticised as being obsessed with being popular.[67]

Nero began his reign in 54 by promising the Senate more autonomy.[68] In this first year, he forbade others to refer to him with regard to enactments, for which he was praised by the Senate.[69] Nero was known for being hands-off and spending his time visiting brothels and taverns during this period.[69]
In 55, Nero began taking on a more active role as an administrator. He was consul four times between 55 and 60. During this period, some ancient historians speak fairly well of Nero and contrast it with his later rule.[70]

Under Nero, restrictions were put on the amount of bail and fines.[71] Also, fees for lawyers were limited.[72] There was a discussion in the Senate on the misconduct of the freedmen class, and a strong demand was made that patrons should have the right of revoking freedom.[73] Nero supported the freedmen and ruled that patrons had no such right.[74] The Senate tried to pass a law in which the crimes of one slave applied to all slaves within a household which Nero vetoed.[75]

Nero transferred collection authority to lower commissioners of competency.[71] Nero banned any magistrate or procurator from exhibiting public entertainment for fear that the venue was being used as a method to sway the populace.[76] Additionally, there were many impeachments and removals of government officials along with arrests for extortion and corruption.[77]
Nero’s actions attempted to the help the poor’s economic situation. When further complaints arose that the poor were being overly taxed, Nero attempted to repeal all indirect taxes.[78] The Senate convinced him this action would be too extreme.[78] As a compromise, taxes were cut from 4.5% to 2.5%.[79] Additionally, secret government tax records were ordered to become public.[79] To lower the cost of food imports, merchant ships were declared tax-exempt.[79]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

As far as I can tell, no one here -- not even the reporter who wrote the article -- understands that the First Amendment applies only to the federal and state governments, not private parties. So, the churchs cannot claim that the NFL infringes on their freedom of religion on right to free speech. The NFL's decision is a business decision, not a constitutional one. It is sad that this distinction gets lost so often.

Whether the NFL is wise in administrating its copyright rights, and whether there are ways to improve the distribution of NFL programs to people who don't want to go to a sports bar but want some other venue, that is a different matter, and I would support a change in policy there.

One final point -- why doesn't every one just stop hating and ranting on these posts. It is so tiresome, and predictable and frankly not working anyway. No one has read a hateful post (pro or anti religion) and said, "Gee, now I am going to change my mind."

Why is it so hard to comprehend that the NFL doesn't want their product used to promote other organizations' special interests?

You're just sensationalizing this because you think the idea of the NFL favoring bar owners over deaf Christians sounds so juicy. It isn't. No one said they can't watch the game.

If Deaf Christians want to watch the SuperBowl they can do it just like the rest of us. Either at home or in a bar.

From what I understand many churches actually cut out the halftime show and commercials, to show their own religous programming or to promote their church in other ways.

This is clearly a violation of NFL copyright.

I'm no fan of the NFL, as I think pro football has become ridiculous, as the players by and large are whiney babies, many promote a thug lifestyle, etc.

But that's how copyright material works - the person that produces it gets to make the rules.

Just a few things to help folks out:

1) The league's own legal disclaimer talks about 'private, non-commerical' audience. So if you're in your residential home, you're okay even with some gigantic 100-inch tv set.

2) Scooter- the NFL doesn't care if you're a church, social club, or whatever. The rules don't say "unless you're a church" because they are non-discriminatory in nature. And the league could care less about a cover charge/admission fee, because the issue isn't a church, it's the slippery slope. The NFL's stance makes sense; it protects establishments who have purchased the bar/restaurant broadcast package; in essence, a church/social club sets up a "party" which could potentially 'steal' revenues from a neighboring establishment. It's not about charging/not charging. The league is simply setting a standard and upholding it. If they let Deaf Christians Who Are Nice People violate the law, then they have to let everyone do it.

3) If I own a bar and purchase this broadcast package (which costs thousands), then on the biggest game of the year, all these private clubs (churches, social clubs, etc.) have 'parties' which hurts me in that it keeps people out of my bar, and hurts my revenues on one of the biggest days of the year (see #6 below).

4) Ocouha: Actually, the NFL has the right for public displays; they also have an anti-trust exemption. They have sued people and won. Remember...what you do at your residence isn't an issue. Here's the deal- ifthey let a church do this, then every social club known to man will do the same thing claiming bias.

5) Whether or not you happen to like the NFL enforcing their rights, the simple fact is that the game draws the highest tv rating every year, and costs more to advertise on than any other tv show.

6) As stated earlier, the NFL is not giving bars a free pass; that bar has paid thousands to be able to rebroadcast at their bar, and counts on food/drink revenues to recoup that expense. The WSJ article should have made that clear. And the NFL has gone after bars/restaurants that don't buy the package hard.

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 of Fallwell and Co, who blame atheists and pagans for things like 9/11, I think it's perfectly justifiable for people to complain about a large portion of Christians. Mainly because it seems like you guys take offense to anything that seems like it might be persecuting you, but are nowhere to be found when Christians persecute members of other religions.

But I'm not laying into you in this thread because you are Christian, but I am laying into the OP here for thinking that the NFL is specifically targeting Deaf Christians, or any Christians really, when their restrictions are against any religious group showing of the event. The NFL can literally say that nobody can watch the game unless they stand on their heads. You can either not watch the game, watch the game while standing on your head, or watch the game normally and hope you don't get caught. But the NFL and Fox, with existing laws, are well within their right to enforce any rule that they put on the broadcast.

So again, I say to remove the chip on your shoulders, and see this from another point of view. The rule that was put out affects members of every religion who want to gather to watch the game, not just yours. Trying to make it as if it specifically targets Christians is disingenuous at best. This really has little to do with Christianity at all, and many of us that you say have so much hate for Christians have nothing of the sort. We just realize that Christians shouldn't be afforded any special rights in this case.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

??? 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

"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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

"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 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?

"

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.

" ... 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.

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.

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?

Roy:

Gotcha!!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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)

Alexandria:

Please don't confuse Anonymous with facts.

Great quotes, btw.

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?

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?

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?

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?

You don't like church. We GET it.

My opinion of the NFL just went up.

Will,

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

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.

Too Easy,

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

Damn you're smart.

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.

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.....

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.

Freestinker: well done!

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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'.