OR: Are Sports More Important Than Faith?
Published on August 17, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
(This article reflects my sense of anxiety over what is a religious issue in a sense. However, I decided to put on the Politics Forum because it is about using laws to promote values in society.)

Recently a long time friend invited me to a meeting of the education committee at my church. I no longer have children (well, she's 25, so, sort of, but not really) and spend most of my time in trying to encourage young families whom are seeking God to come and see what our church is all about. But I agreed because I believe in education (was a teacher once upon a time) and was interested in how the Sunday School was doing.

It was quite surprising to me that the Sunday School Committee was actually suggesting that perhaps Sunday School was going to be cancelled in the fall because it wasn't felt that there was enough interest from the kids to make it worthwhile to have. So, in an effort to see if the kids and parents would be too disappointed by this (churches hate to lose anyone through "disappointment") they held a "fun night" to see how the kids felt about this.

Perhaps in the interest of fairness I should say that I don't believe kids should have a say in whether they go to Sunday School. That is, to me, a parental responsibility. When my daughter became 2 years old she began Christian education and her mother and I attended every week also. It's part of what some people call "family values" as opposed to the parent who says "this looks Christian, kid, you go while Mom and Dad sit and read the paper Sunday mornings." That teaches values also, just not very good ones.

What I found out quickly was that the kids were so involved in sports programs on Sunday morning that they had no time for Sunday School. There were 16 kids at the meeting ranging from 8 to 15 years in age. 10 of them had at least a 6 week commitment to either junior football (Pop Warner) or cheerleading for junior football or were involved in youth basketball or volleyball programs during the winter. 2 of the others were involved in bowling leagues that ran from October to March that met Sunday mornings.

I was outraged by this. Obviously there is no sense among parents that faith requires participation in Christian education and it's much easier to get Jane and Johnny to go to sports programs than church. The kids were ambivalent about their faith with a very poor understanding of the role of worship, Bible study, or even fellowship in their lives.

Now I understand proposing to the local government that sports programs not be allowed to operate on Sunday morning (except the Summer) is going to meet with both skepticism and derision. Those on the liberal side will say that we don't need a law to accomplish the purpose of getting kids into christian education programs. It should be up to the parents a liberal will say and suggest an education program for the adults to show them the benefits and joy of Bible study. Conservatives will say this is meddling intrusively into families when there are much worse problems that need dealing with.

But, before you scoff so quickly, consider the use of law in society. It is not simply a device for stating what is wrong. True, saying that stealing, murder, blackmail is not actually promoting good behavior. However, what about laws which promote having children? We certainly do that by the tax breaks we give. It is, at least in part, promoting the social value of a family by agreeing as a government to provide some support.

The thing is, while I might have been a flack-jacketed parent whipping my child daily, forcing her to attend Sunday School, most parents today aren't. They might wish Jane or Johnny wanted to go to church but sports are, believe it or not, more fun. Shameful but true. But we don't give up teaching science or math to kids because it isn't fun. We recognize the value of education and promote the concept by forcing kids to attend schools.

I'm not suggesting we do that with Christian Education. I'm suggesting we level the playing field between a society that says it has values (you do have values, don't you?) and the ability of someone to run youth sports on Sunday mornings.

Do you really think that is asking for too much?


Comments (Page 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Aug 18, 2004
How could you posibly propse a law to force people to not participate in organized sports on sundays? How would you feel if the organizations propsed a law to ban sunday school because it interfered with their enrollment. The job of enrolment and attendence is not one that should be taken on by the country but rather by the parents and the church. Many people dont participate in sunday school, and you would be forcing your beliefs on them. Also, the idea of creating a law to allow people to go to sunday school by preventing organized sports would be illegal, unconstitutional and unethical. For example, allthough there are christian ideals that work shouldn't be done on a sunday, there is no law against business operating on sundays. Think of all the problems that would be asosicated with such a law. Also, if the reason of the law is specifially related to christian or other church based sunday schools, and not mandatory public schools, then it is unconstitutional on the basis of speration of the church and the state and the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
on Aug 18, 2004
exactly. this proposal is just stupid. you dont want to play organized sports, or dont want your kids to, fine. you want to believe in god. fine. but let people do what they want
on Aug 18, 2004
Aaron Shepard:

I'm not sure I could make a point to you. You think government should make no laws. Control pornography? Not for you. Control alcohol consumption? Not for you. Control immoral behavior? Not for you.

Believe it or not, I support your right to say that and call me all sorts of names even though you don't have a clue about who I am or what I represent. Why? Because freedom of speech doesn't mean just freedom for me to speak but rather every person.

So, regardless of my ideas you will argue I am wrong. I accept that. Sorry for any inconvenience.
on Aug 18, 2004
The beginning of thought is in disagreement, so I am glad that we are having this discusion. No, I don't believe that the government should control pornography. Nor should they control alcohol consumption. Not even immoral behavior. They should control these things when there is the posibility it could lead to the rights of others being taken away (i.e. in the case where one is being abusive, driving while drunk, or for example pornography being viewed in government institutions). Government has the responsibility to make laws when these laws are 1) legal, 2) Nesecary 3) wanted by the legislature and 5) when they prevent peoples rights (like the right to life) from being taken away.
Thanks for your thoughts.
on Aug 19, 2004
i agree sandy, although your math is a bit off (4 comes after 3)

however, crispe, i am not arguing just to argue. i take it to heart however that you think the government should impose a certain set of morals on its citizens. i bet you think sodomy should be illegal. but in the end, who does it hurt if people do that in the privacy of their own home? likewise, who does it hurt if no one goes to church. does it make your religion less viable? if you think so, then I put into question your conviction. if no one goes to church, that is because they dont value it. if you value it, then go. a true believer, like i am guessing you are, should have no problem with going to an empty church.
on Aug 19, 2004
Aaron Shepard:

Government does impose a set of morals on society. Sometimes it does this by making certain acts illegal. So, theft is considered wrong by government and outlawed. Sometimes it encourages with the law. Join the army, the government helps pay for your education. The incentive to "serve" your country (considered a good thing) is moral and considered "good". Put money in a 401(k) at work and the government rewards you by not taxing the money up front so that you can make more money now for retirement when you need it. Savings is good. Encouraged by government. By law.

The church issue in terms of "encouraging" comes down to three options, the invitation, the nudge, and the hammer. A law setting aside Sunday mornings without sporting activities for kids is a nudge. It is not a hammer and does not violate freedoms because we do set aside times in other activities (for example buying alcohol and cigarettes in many communities). Is this against the "separation of church and state" amendment to the Constitution? The courts have ruled it is not. This proposal is no more restrictive than that. It is a social "nudge" by government that family activity (including church) might be a consideration.

As for empty churches...God brings people to church, not people. As God's hands on earth I work in a food pantry, do debt counseling and try to help people wherever there is a need. If they find God because of that, it is because God sent me.
on Aug 19, 2004
I hear every week about how little time there is to be a family but no one seems interested in doing anything about it. So I suggest a way and some people think I am the scum of the earth.

Which I suppose is why no one even tries to help. Who needs the agony?


The problem is, legislation isn't the road to fixing these things. And it's not just you; I have equal problems with people who want mandatory changes in the minimum wage to allow the return of the single income family. The problem is, we have to stop trusting in the government to fix our problems.

If not a single family took part in Sunday AM sports, guess what? There wouldn't BE Sunday AM sports. The league is around because the demand for it is there.

I'm all for getting kids back into Sunday School (or whatever equivalent their own faith has), but we have to be careful in not trusting the government to be our "benevolent caretakers", or the laws we force them to enact could come back and bite us on the heinie.

It wasn't too long there actually WERE "blue laws" (restricting what businesses could/couldn't be open on Sundays) on the books; there still are remnants of them in some areas. They didn't work, frankly, and they created a climate of religious oppression.
on Aug 19, 2004
Gideon:

Well, there are 2 questions in play here. One is whether you can promote a slower pace of life by limiting sports activities for kids on Sunday morning? The second one is what the kids and parents would do with the free time. I'm just looking for a level playing field where the choice for the kids is something other than sports that seems to be "round the clock" anyway by taking a timeout for something else.

I believe that parents should make the choice for the kids, BUT that is not the reality I see. I see parents who have a choice between church and sports (one which kids like, the other they don't) and they make an easy decision. Now, you could argue maybe church should be more "fun" but sooner or later we ask kids to think in church. Yikes! Thinking? Where's my volleyball, football, hockey stick, basketball, badminton racquet, tennis balls, etc.???!!!
on Aug 19, 2004
I'm just looking for a level playing field where the choice for the kids is something other than sports that seems to be "round the clock" anyway by taking a timeout for something else.


Which is fine, just don't look to the government to do it.

When we dismantled the Taliban government in Afghanistan, we were going after a regime that had destroyed ancient and irreplacable religious artifacts in the name of Allah. They were religious zealots, and all but those in power suffered greatly from the atrocities committed under their regime. This is not in dispute; many organiuzations, from the "liberal" (Amnesty International), to the "conservative" (voice of the martyrs) consistently and credibly chronicled these atrocities. This is, unfortunately, what happens when we set the precedent of allowing religion to dictate our legislation.

To those who don't realize it, this HAS happened in our own country as well. The Salem witch trials are an oft-quoted example, but few realize the segregation laws of the south were rooted in an equally fallacious understanding of scripture (as were the miscegenation [racial intermarriage] laws).

We have come a long way in the last 100 or so years. Let's not go backwards by forcing religion into legislation. The desire to do right should come from the heart, never from the law books.
on Aug 19, 2004
We could call it "National Break Time" and leave it at that, making the purpose our improved health instead of solely to respect and promote Christian times of worship.


While that is certainly a much more reasonable suggestion, I for one think it's still too much of a "Let's force people to do warm and fuzzy things on 'the proper schedule'," sort of law. Frankly, I don't want more limits on when are where things can be done.

I am annoyed that so few stores and restaurants are open 24 hours, I am annoyed that if I want to do certain things, I have to do them in a specific limited timeframe. Some stores of services are only available until about 6:00 PM, for instance. Most car mechanics are like that where I live, it's often like that with technical support phone numbers, it's like that with some stores.

Well, currently, most days I work until about 6:00. So if my car breaks down, how am I supposed to take care of it in a convenient manner? No matter what, I probably have to skip some time off work, and miss out on a small, but significant part of my paycheck.

Plus, I'm mostly a night person, I like the night far more than the day. Given the option I would do most of my shopping after 9:00, when a lot of stores close, I would eat dinner at a restaurant at 2:00 AM rather than 7:00 PM.

If I want to sleep until 5:00 PM on Saturday or Sunday, I should be allowed to do that, but if I do I'm almost guaranteed to be unable to get anything done once I get up. And here's a proposition where even if I do get up at 8:00 AM or so on Sunday, I can't go and buy what I may need or want, I can't take care of any business I have, because the government tells me I have to spend time with my family (which I may or may not even have), and I have to go to a park, or a church, or whatever.
on Aug 19, 2004
Well, there are 2 questions in play here. One is whether you can promote a slower pace of life by limiting sports activities for kids on Sunday morning? The second one is what the kids and parents would do with the free time. I'm just looking for a level playing field where the choice for the kids is something other than sports that seems to be "round the clock" anyway by taking a timeout for something else.


Actually there are more questions, like:
Should you promote a slower pace of life?

And besides that, as far as I understand it, sports are very much a family activity in this country. I wouldn't really know since I've no interest in sports myself, but it seems many parents get very involved in their children over sports activities.
on Aug 19, 2004
People have the right to pursuit of happiness, and if this to them means participating in sports, than it is neither the place of the government nor you to tell people when they can and can not pursue such happiness. I take problem with the propsal even when religion is removed from the context, as it is a violation of the individual and civil rights of people. Again, I don't see how people participating in sports can be linked in any way to health concerns. Thanks.
on Aug 19, 2004
Lord Shitzu:

For the most part parents drop off their kids (much as the same as Sunday School). The idea is to get away from the kids, not spend time with them. They attend some games but even then they are observers of the games, not Johnny or Jane.

As for the pace of life, I don't hear many people say it is too slow...
on Aug 19, 2004
As for the pace of life, I don't hear many people say it is too slow...


Well no, I for one don't think it's too slow, just too limited in schedule per my response above. >8)

At the same time, I don't think it's too fast, either.
on Aug 19, 2004
ok, first to gideon: bravo. excellent post

now, to whippy, ugh. like, there is twisting words, and then there is what you do. israel has elections yes, but it was founded as a religious state. and it snot as bad as you say either. but the fact of the matter, it was created as a JEWISH STATE. to say i have a chip on my shoulder is bull. i dont care, sabbath was just an example. good god

as for this national break time, what if i want to play sports, or do something "loud" with my family. you have no right to restrict that. thankfully, right wing conservatives such as yourself dont have control of this country, or at least now dont have the power to institute their religious rules. if you want to do have quiet hour, then do it yourself. there are plenty of communities that share your beliefs. but to suggest a national law is just beyond ludicrous, in the fact that #1, it will never happen, and #2, it is a blatant violation of seperation of church and state
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5