Comments on: The Church of Football http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2007/02/04/the-church-of-football/ let's activate something Sun, 20 May 2012 21:28:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: eric http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2007/02/04/the-church-of-football/#comment-685 eric Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:45:36 +0000 http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2007/02/04/the-church-of-football/#comment-685 I'm more interested in the Jesus sissy bit. I couldn't care less about football. It's so similar, and yet so different, from everything I've been saying about Jesus lately. I think the clues point to a somewhat small and unhandsome little Jesus. I think it's not very likely he'd even hit you on the football field (for reasons not limited to culture and chronology). And yet, the man had some verbal bite, and a lot of insults to throw around. Jesus probably was a sissy, but Jesus was one bad-ass sissy. (Just like Luke Skywalker?) I’m more interested in the Jesus sissy bit. I couldn’t care less about football. It’s so similar, and yet so different, from everything I’ve been saying about Jesus lately.

I think the clues point to a somewhat small and unhandsome little Jesus. I think it’s not very likely he’d even hit you on the football field (for reasons not limited to culture and chronology). And yet, the man had some verbal bite, and a lot of insults to throw around.

Jesus probably was a sissy, but Jesus was one bad-ass sissy.

(Just like Luke Skywalker?)

]]> By: carl http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2007/02/04/the-church-of-football/#comment-679 carl Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:55:23 +0000 http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2007/02/04/the-church-of-football/#comment-679 As a football fan (and more particularly, a still-somewhat-giddy-from-our-first-Super-Bowl-win lifelong Indianapolis Colts fan), I feel a slightly guilty sense of responsibility to comment on this post :-) Thanks for bringing up the topic, Lora. So here's my thing. There's no question that at one level (probably the dominant level) football is just what Falwell thinks it is: a violent, male, macho, win-or-die-trying stand-in for war. At the same time, of all the major team sports football is by leaps and bounds the most complex in terms of strategy and coordination, by far the most intellectually difficult to coach or play. It's the only major team sport where the phrase "chess match" really is a legitimate description of the kind of strategic thinking and counter-moving both the coaches and players have to be able to do on every single play in order to be successful. It's on this latter level that I enjoy watching and studying the game (well, that and the emotional attachment I have to the Colts from growing up watching them play). I'm no fan of the violence (it makes me sick when commentators celebrate "big hits" or whatnot), I'm certainly no fan of the massive amounts of money involved (though I contribute to it by watching), and I also think that sports in general do serve as a kind of civil pseudo-religion (Noam Chomsky talks about them as a surrogate to distract "the masses" from real political activity). All of which leaves me more or less confused. Is there any integrity in watching football (and occasionally playing football computer games) because I'm interested in the strategic game itself, even though I can't find much else to like in the whole production? Or is football simply nothing more in the end than a flat-out expression of male violence, and if I'm working to become a nonviolent and anti-sexist male, nothing but disowning it entirely would have integrity? To put things in less polarized terms, where does football fall on the continuum from "mostly harmless vice, don't be such a perfectionist" to "it really reinforces male violence, ditch it now"? As a football fan (and more particularly, a still-somewhat-giddy-from-our-first-Super-Bowl-win lifelong Indianapolis Colts fan), I feel a slightly guilty sense of responsibility to comment on this post :-) Thanks for bringing up the topic, Lora.

So here’s my thing. There’s no question that at one level (probably the dominant level) football is just what Falwell thinks it is: a violent, male, macho, win-or-die-trying stand-in for war.

At the same time, of all the major team sports football is by leaps and bounds the most complex in terms of strategy and coordination, by far the most intellectually difficult to coach or play. It’s the only major team sport where the phrase “chess match” really is a legitimate description of the kind of strategic thinking and counter-moving both the coaches and players have to be able to do on every single play in order to be successful.

It’s on this latter level that I enjoy watching and studying the game (well, that and the emotional attachment I have to the Colts from growing up watching them play). I’m no fan of the violence (it makes me sick when commentators celebrate “big hits” or whatnot), I’m certainly no fan of the massive amounts of money involved (though I contribute to it by watching), and I also think that sports in general do serve as a kind of civil pseudo-religion (Noam Chomsky talks about them as a surrogate to distract “the masses” from real political activity).

All of which leaves me more or less confused. Is there any integrity in watching football (and occasionally playing football computer games) because I’m interested in the strategic game itself, even though I can’t find much else to like in the whole production? Or is football simply nothing more in the end than a flat-out expression of male violence, and if I’m working to become a nonviolent and anti-sexist male, nothing but disowning it entirely would have integrity?

To put things in less polarized terms, where does football fall on the continuum from “mostly harmless vice, don’t be such a perfectionist” to “it really reinforces male violence, ditch it now”?

]]>