A Stitch in Haste

Sundays are for church. Or football. Or both.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill [S. 2591] this week that would allow houses of worship to show football games on big-screen televisions.

The legislation was among a flurry of action taken this week as the result of an article Friday in The Washington Post reporting that churches were canceling Super Bowl parties out of fear of lawsuits from the NFL if they showed the game on jumbo TV screens.
...
Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), a former Redskins quarterback and evangelical Christian who has spoken at church Super Bowl parties, plans to introduce legislation similar to Specter's in the House by the end of the week, a Shuler spokesman said yesterday.

As prologue, I think it is obnoxious that the NFL would harass churches in this manner. I think it is obnoxious that the NFL is exempt from federal antitrust laws. I think it is obnoxious that we have antitrust laws.

But four wrongs don't make a right. Churches deserve no special treatment, none whatsoever, for any activity other than bona fide worship in a bona fide church. No property tax exemptions, no charitable donation privileges, no regulatory exemptions, nothing.

Unanswered, meanwhile, is the pesky question of why only churches? Why can't any tax-exempt organization enjoy the same privilege? (Or at least those rich enough to build 2,000-square-foot auditoriums with 55-inch televisions — God bless Evangelical austerity!)

Remember, the excuse for this theocratic pandering is that these post-sermon shindigs are family-friendly and alcohol-free (a requirement not in Specter's bill, incidentally). So if a university, Elks lodge or VFW post wants to have a similar free-and-dry event, then why shouldn't they be extended the same opportunity?

Oh right — theocratic pandering. Sorry, I forgot.

As for the Establishment Clause issue, the long-standing guidance comes from Everson v. Board of Education*:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. ... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. ... In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

(Remember, this is not a religious school, so the less restrictive Lemon v. Kurtzman** test would not apply. See also Walz v. Tax Commission***, upholding a state property tax exemption "given equally to all churches, along with nonprofit hospitals, art galleries, and libraries receiving the same tax exemption.")

So I ask again: Why does Specter's bill apply only to churches?

Bottom line: God loves a level playing field — even a level football field.

---

*330 U.S. 1 (1947)
**403 U.S. 602 (1971)
***397 U.S. 664 (1970)