home
RSS
SNL Tim Tebow controversy continues debate over quarterback's faith
A "Saturday Night Live" sketch imagined a meeting between Tim Tebow and Jesus.
December 21st, 2011
11:23 AM ET

SNL Tim Tebow controversy continues debate over quarterback's faith

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – When “Saturday Night Live” parodied Tim Tebow’s relationship with Jesus last weekend, not everyone was laughing.

Televangelist Pat Robertson called the sketch, in which the Denver Broncos quarterback is met in a locker room by Jason Sudeikis playing Jesus, an example of “anti-Christian bigotry that is just disgusting.”

Speaking on the Christian Broadcast Network on Monday, Robertson wondered aloud about how other religions would have reacted to a similar parody.

“If this had been a Muslim country and they had done that and had Mohammed doing that stuff, you would have found bombs being thrown off and bodies on the street,” Robertson said.

The SNL sketch had Jesus meeting Tebow after the Broncos come-from-behind win against the Chicago Bears the previous Sunday. In it,
Sudeikis jokes that instead of reading the Bible, Tebow might want to read the playbook so that he (Jesus) doesn’t have to intervene in the 4th quarter.

“First of all, you are welcome – yes, I, Jesus Christ, are the reason you have won your past 6 football games,” says Sudeikis.

The skit and the controversy continues a narrative that combines religion, sport, and seemingly miraculous come-from-behind victories and that is turning Heisman-trophy-winning Tebow into a cultural icon.

From Rick Perry comparing himself to Tebow in a recent Republican presidential debate to Sarah Palin describing herself as “pro-Tebow” in an interview on Sunday, Tebow is gaining public admiration far outside of the world of football.

“I am so pro-Tebow,” Palin, the former vice presidential nominee, said on Fox News. “He is so unashamed of his savior, Jesus of Nazareth. He knows that Jesus is going to rock your world when you give it all over to him. He knows that the son of God should be honored a praised and Tebow does that and I respect it.”

Tebow’s on-field calling card has become his habit of getting down on one knee to pray while everyone else on the team celebrates, an act known as “Tebowing.” The gesture had been mocked by Tebow opponents and has led to high school students being suspended but has also spurred a Tebowing website and has been adopted by some other NFLers.

Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger Tebowed during a Monday night game.

Tebow has remained mostly silent about all the drama around him and his faith. An avid Twitter user with over 700,000 followers, Tebow hasn’t commented on the SNL skit or Roberterson’s or Palin’s recent comments.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Christianity • Sports • TV

soundoff (553 Responses)
  1. Frank

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXtVzj9y-bo&feature=player_detailpage

    December 21, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • Brother Maynard

      OK I'm an Atheist and I thought this clip was hilarious. The Tree grinding up to paper and have the Bible printed on it. FUNNY!!
      I guess that is the difference though. Atheists ar not threatened by satire/ humor, but relious folks are.

      December 28, 2011 at 7:42 am |
  2. Stan

    George, you said:

    1. "The Bible says that Christians will be hated and reviled" There you go, one of the few things that the bible got right. Think about why the revulsion is there.

    2. "Somebody has to stand up for Christ." Uh huh. So your omnipotent creature can't take care of itself? Uh, right. What was that line from that poem again, something about "then why call it god?...".

    December 21, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • George

      1. The revulsion is there because the message of Christ has always been one of repentence, and people don't want to give up their sinning.
      2. We are called to be witnesses for Jesus. Look up the Apostolic Charge in the Bible.

      December 21, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • Snow

      George, you seem to know exactly what your god wants and what he does not.. down to which presidential candidate he would support in the coming elections.. have you been chatting regularly with him?

      December 21, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • Answer

      Just accept that people like George exist in this world.. he'll quickly commit suicide sooner or later.

      There is nothing better than having a self righteous hater trying to contain all his hate in his little shell and watching himself go mental. Just pat the little hater on his little head and let him spew. It's lovely watching a vicious cycle eating itself.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • George

      @Snow

      Actually, I have been chatting with Him regularly.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • Answer

      That's cool George – glad that He shows you that you are right in your hate. Keep up the good work.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Clayton

      George, you are obviously "chatting" with your non-existent god in much the same way as a person would "chat" with a cat, right?
      Give us some actual words your god has said to you in a clear manner and where something definite can be described as being "his" words. Go ahead and flail around. I've done this before.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • Rick

      Answer is right. Georgie is a hate filled little mother scratcher. Preaching like a little god is what makes him feel important.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • Snow

      Ah, I see, does god talk back to you too george?

      December 21, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • George

      @Clayton

      I could easily give you an example, but it is too personal. It's not any big religious pronouncements. It's reassurance.

      @Snow

      Yes, He does talk to me too.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • Snow

      @George.. when god talks to you, does he also ask you to do things?

      December 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • Clayton

      George, reassurance can be "wordless" and self-caused, including hallucinations. Can you give us any proof that your "god" exists beyond your warm and fuzzy "reassurances" within your own head?
      For example, can you ask your "god" something you personally have no way of knowing and get a detailed response that shows your "god" actually responded clearly beyond giving you emotional support?
      Can you ask him about something no one on earth could possibly know yet could be verified later, like where Jesus' own words are to be found? Or where his body is at this moment?
      If your "god" can tell you where the "hidden" manuscripts of Jesus himself are to be found, then that would be something, wouldn't it?
      Don't you think your "god" would want everyone to know where they could find the words that Jesus wrote, assuming he wrote anything?
      Ask him! Surely he favors you with emotional support he can tell you the GPS coordinates of Jesus' hidden scrolls, right?

      December 21, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
    • bigdakine

      George, just remember when you talk to God it is called prayer. When God talks to you it is delusion.

      January 17, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
  3. Snow

    Hey George.. remember our discussion about you not being different from those who hated your savior? and we concluded that you are no different from them because of that hate you are festering in your heart?

    Well a word of advice from a friend – you are showing that hate again, dude

    December 21, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
  4. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    This deserves to be at the top of the board. @DamienKnight – I completely agree with you.

    DamianKnight

    @George,

    Because I don't believe in most of the stuff you posted. I'll go through them one at a time.
    1) Abortion: First off, Roe vs. Wade trumps anything the states can do. It would be defying the highest court in the land which would then cause the collapse of our justice system. Secondly, I don't think abortion should be outlawed. Why? Because it will create more problems with people doing the same thing in an unsafe manner. I just get mental images of some 14 year old with a coat hanger in her room...

    2) Same Gender Marriages: I don't see why two people of the same gender can't have the same rights as those who are of opposing gender unions. I am all for allowing churches to refuse to perform the marriages, but due to the separation of church and state, the state should not be able to discriminate against people based simply on who they choose to bring to their bedroom.

    3) Christian Displays: Christian displays are perfectly allowed to be on public property. You can sing carols, enact Christian plays, etc all day on public property. That's your 1st Amendment Right. Where the problem is when the government shows a bias towards one group of people over another, which is what is being done with Nativity scenes.

    4) Criminalizing ho.mo.se.xuality, fo.rnic.ation and adultery: No, no and no. Absolutely not. The government needs to stay out of the bedroom of two consenting adults.

    5) A state can't declare anything for the entire nation. And by declaring the United States a Christian Nation, it destroys the free practice of religion clause in the Const.itution.

    December 21, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • George

      What don't you get about the fact that an amendment to the Const.itution will trump all cases including Roe v. Wade?

      December 21, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
    • Louisa Ferre

      George is in the closet
      how much you guys want to bet?

      December 21, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • Wolf Blitzer

      @George – I am also a Christian and have to completely disagree with you. Why would you want such a thing? That's absolutely absurd and I'm shocked that you think that. Does our nation need a change of heart and do we need to focus on the more important things in life (i.e. God, happiness, selflessness, etc)? Absolutely, but the way you want that done is nothing short of a totalitarian regime. Bringing people to Christ doesn't happen by forcing it upon them (see Crusades for an example), if anything that does the complete opposite. If you want to bring people to Christ and make this a more Christian nation than I suggest you stay out of politics (as Jesus did) and work on helping others, plain and simple.

      December 21, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • George

      @Wolf

      We need to get rid of sin in this country. We need God to turn his favor once again upon us. This is not forcing Christianity on anyone. People are free to believe however they want. If they choose wrongly, they will burn in hell. That's not our concern. Our concern is that God looks favorably on America. He won't if we are lost in sin.

      It is not totalitarian because all of this is done through our republican (notice little "r") form of government. Futhermore, the amendment just reflects traditional morality which prevailed in previous times. There is no right to sin.

      December 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
    • Eric G

      @George: "traditional morality which prevailed in previous times"

      Right, the good old days............ back when women couldn't even vote.

      December 21, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • J.W

      If you made a Christian amendment you would have to repeal the 1st amendment.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • Louisa Ferre

      Republic you don’t know what the word means, so shoot yourself and stop confusing a republic with a democracy

      December 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • J.W

      And as far as being in God's favor, the US is still the richest, most powerful country in the world. I think God has shown us favor.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @George,

      So what you're suggesting is, we completely trash the First Amendment and re-write the Consti.tution to favor the people of a certain faith, granted, the vast majority of the population. Whose interpretation of the Bible would you like to use? Calvinist? Catholics? Presbyterians? Orthodox? Lutherans? I can probably answer by stating, the one you ascribe to. While I have no issues with your interpretation of the Bible (as I don't know much about it, but suffice to say, it's pretty funadmentalist), I have trouble with the idea of making everyone in this nation, having to ascribe to it.

      The First Amendment was placed in the Consti.tution, not to protect Christianity, but to protect the minorities from subjugation under a theocracy. The founding fathers, while many of them Christian, were quite clear in their ideas that I should not be able to legislate your behavior based on my faith, anymore so than you should be able to legislate my behavior based on yours.

      We may agree on aspects of our faith, sir, but apparently, our politics differ greatly.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  5. Wolf Blitzer

    The only thing more annoying than someone being retarded, is someone being retarded while claiming they are smarter than everyone else. Yes atheists, I am referring to you.

    December 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Wow, you sure burned athiests (so to speak). LOL. Your such a pogue.

      December 21, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
    • Keith

      Pro 17:24 Wisdom [is] before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool [are] in the ends of the earth.

      December 21, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      @Keith – Cave ab homine unius libri

      December 21, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • Rick

      Wolf: Still begging for salvation?

      December 21, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • Snow

      yes.. hear you all dumb atheists.. The right to claim that they know the truth and no one else is solely reserved for the Christians and Wolf. Add to that the pseudo superior att.itude of self righteousness and superior intellect is also reserved for them due to their belief in the sky-daddy-do-it-all.

      How dare you try to claim logic is superior to their faith in unicorns?

      December 21, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  6. Keith

    Wonder if SNL would have the balls to do a skit on mohammed? Every member who participated would have a fatwa issued on them before they left the building, so agian islam gets a free pass while Christianity is the punching bag. Who's the hateful bigot now?

    December 21, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Still you

      Fatwa envy much?

      December 21, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • Keith

      Isa 5:20 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

      December 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris

      December 21, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • TR6

      So what you’re saying is that Muslims have balls and Christians don’t

      December 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  7. Pathfinder

    get over it Pat, time to go to confession. do your penance.

    December 21, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
  8. Reality

    Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

    Current problems:

    Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals like Robertson and atonement theology,
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    December 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • Wolf Blitzer

      Sorry you were r.aped as a kid, please stop blaming others for your misfortune. Seek some help and get over it. The anger, and free time, which you clearly have so much of could better be spent elsewhere.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • .........

      screw him hit report abuse on all reality bull sh it

      December 21, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  9. Atheist #1

    http://pleated-jeans.com/2011/12/13/the-25-funniest-family-christmas-portraits-of-all-time/?utm_source=theslingshot&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=25-funniest-family-christmas-portraits

    December 21, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
  10. George

    Atheists! Put it to rest! It's the Christmas season after all.

    December 21, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • HellBent

      Don't take your own advice often, do you?

      December 21, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @George
      It's the first day of Hannukkah.
      L'Chaim! Now go eat some greasy food, but keep it kosher.
      And remember that you are not one of God's Chosen People.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
    • yo!

      No, it's not it's Winter Solstice your christ wasn't born until September, you're celebrating a fantasy.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      It is the Holiday Season George. Now put the mouse down and back away slowly...

      December 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
    • Rick

      George: Put it to rest. It is winter solstice season.

      December 21, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • captain america

      Remember doc v is a canadian and as such his opinion doesn't mean sh it to an American.There's your sign

      December 21, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  11. Avser Bastian

    NEW – NOT LIABILITIES OR DISCRIMINATION, BUT INSTEAD ASSASSINATIONS !!!

    http://myshortbiography.blogspot.com/ LEARN TRUTH ABOUT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, UNITED NATIONS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AS WELL AS NEW WORLD ORDER(MULTICULTURALISM = TERRORISM) GOVERNMENTS !!! NOT THERE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, BUT TO DENY YOUR RIGHT TO EXISTENCE !!!

    http://myshortbiography.blogspot.com/ ABDUCTIONS / RENDITIONS / BRAIN CHIP IMPLANTS / BLACKLISTING / BLACKBALLING / MK-ULTRA BRAINWASHING against civilian population TODAY / ASSASINATIONS and much more per WHO, WHY, AND HOW !!!

    WHY TO ACCEPT LIABILITIES FOR CRIMES COMMITTED WHEN WE CAN SIMPLY ASSASSINATE OUR VICTIMS(YOU) THANKS TO HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS AND FREE PRESS/MEDIA(most severe censorship ever !!!) !!?

    COMING NEXT: WHITES ARE NOT WELCOME IN AMERICA ANY LONGER !!! WE DON'T NEED YOU ANY MORE !!!

    OUT OF AMERICA WITH WHITES NOW !!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xGfYOAydjw
    OR
    http://www.youtube.com/user/BostjanAvsec OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE RECORDED LIVE IN 2009 !!! These are hard facts about lunatic Obama/Bush's twilight zone administrations(HORROR) or genocide against whites per ZIONIST Washington DC and in complete agreement with communist Moscow !!!

    EXILING WHITES WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE AND IMPORTING NON WHITES IMMIGRATION REQUIREMENTS COMPLETELY FREE.

    THIS NEWS IS RELATED TO WALL-STREET PROTESTS...NOT ANTI WALL-STREET, BUT ANTI WHITES !!!

    ANTI WALL-STREET PROTESTS ARE ALSO KNOWN UNDER ZIONIST "TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP" IN AMERICA FROM HANDS OF WHITE AMERICANS TO SO CALLED "MINORITIES"(COMMUNISM). Wall street protesters are Obama's raise of the planet Apes army which spread from London per Zionist Washington DC and communist Moscow where Mr. SOVIET UNION NUMBER TWO or new Stalin is in place = PUTIN

    ANTI WALL-STREET PROTEST MOVEMENT IS LED BY SO CALLED "ANONYMOUS" !!

    Anonymous !!? REALLY !!?

    NOW TELL ME WHO IS ANONYMOUS IN A POLICE STATE WHERE WE ARE SURVEILLANCED 24/7 !!? WHO !!?

    NOBODY !!! ABSOLUTELY NOBODY IS ANONYMOUS IN A POLICE STATE AND NOR ARE THOSE WHO MADE YOU PROTEST FOR THEIR SAKE OR WHAT MULTICULTURALISM(animal Apartheid) IS !!! http://multiculturalismisterrorism.blogspot.com

    GREEK CRISES !!! We are all Greece...find out who wants to burn not only what is Greece, but is burning our countries for over 66 years now !!! http://burnbabyburnahaha.blogspot.com

    December 21, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • George

      Quit spamming the board with your atheistic propaganda!

      December 21, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • yo!

      "Quit spamming the board with your atheistic propaganda!"

      Hey hypocrite why don't you stop spamming the boards with your stupid conservative christian trash.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • Curious

      I don't regard myself as white or black. Is there room for the colorless in America?

      December 21, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
  12. Avser Bastian

    NEW – NOT LIABILITIES OR DISCRIMINATION, BUT INSTEAD ASSASSINATIONS !!!

    http://myshortbiography.blogspot.com/ LEARN TRUTH ABOUT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, UNITED NATIONS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AS WELL AS NEW WORLD ORDER(MULTICULTURALISM = TERRORISM) GOVERNMENTS !!!

    NOT THERE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, BUT TO DENY YOUR RIGHT TO EXISTENCE !!! 66 YEARS OF GENOCIDE AGAINST WHITES WORLDWIDE IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE !!! STOP THE ANIMAL APARTHEID NOW !!! http://myshortbiography.blogspot.com/ <== ABDUCTIONS / RENDITIONS / BRAIN CHIP IMPLANTS / BLACKLISTING / BLACKBALLING / MK-ULTRA BRAINWASHING against civilian population TODAY / ASSASSINATIONS and much more per WHO, WHY, AND HOW !!!

    WHY TO ACCEPT LIABILITIES FOR CRIMES COMMITTED WHEN WE CAN SIMPLY ASSASSINATE OUR VICTIMS(YOU) THANKS TO HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS AND FREE PRESS/MEDIA(most severe censorship ever !!!) !!

    December 21, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
  13. William Demuth

    Humour and religion have always been a toxic mix.

    Religious people still don't grasp that by making a fool of ones self, by definition you are leaving yourself open to parody.

    Perhaps if the Christians understood how absurd they appeared to non believers, they might tone down the preaching.

    December 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • Mr. Hat

      @William
      I'm Christian and I thought this was great!

      December 21, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
  14. George

    Once again, I was sitting on page 2 when everyone progressed to page 3.

    December 21, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
    • HellBent

      Seemingly the story of your life...

      December 21, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • Clayton

      XD lmao!

      December 21, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • Curious

      How should Christian values be realized in society assuming the best outcome in the 2012 elections? What would that look like?

      December 21, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • George

      @Curious

      A Christian Amendment should be passed.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • Curious

      George, how would such an Amendment read?

      December 21, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • George

      @Curious

      It would allow the states to outlaw abortion, define a marriage as being between one man and one woman, make it legal to display Christian symbols on public property, recriminalize ho.mos.e.xuality, for.nication and ad.ultry, and declare America a Christian nation.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
    • HellBent

      Translation from @George's post:

      It would shred the consti.tution as it exists now and form a nation more closely modeled on several states in the middle east.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      ....ok, even as a Christian, I don't want all of this.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • Louisa Ferre

      I’m pretty sure that would make it a theocracy....you know what gay bomb time
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab02682r09U

      December 21, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • George

      @DamianKnight

      Why would you be opposed to leaving it up to the states?

      December 21, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • Clayton

      George you are a traitor. There is nothing else that fits your description quite so well as "traitor" for you hate our country and seek to destroy the Constltution, our rights under the Constltution, and only want a theocracy.
      The Constltution was specifically written to deny any theocracy from forming because the 13 colonies were a mishmash of petty little theocracies all fighting each other as well as being a collection of people seeking religious freedom from the European theocracies.
      And you want to go against all that and form your little ideal of a theocracy by refusing to follow the Constltution and the freedoms and rights it gives us as a nation of free people!!!
      You are a traitor and I would gladly put you up against a wall and have you shot.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @George,

      Because I don't believe in most of the stuff you posted. I'll go through them one at a time.
      1) Abortion: First off, Roe vs. Wade trumps anything the states can do. It would be defying the highest court in the land which would then cause the collapse of our justice system. Secondly, I don't think abortion should be outlawed. Why? Because it will create more problems with people doing the same thing in an unsafe manner. I just get mental images of some 14 year old with a coat hanger in her room...

      2) Same Gender Marriages: I don't see why two people of the same gender can't have the same rights as those who are of opposing gender unions. I am all for allowing churches to refuse to perform the marriages, but due to the separation of church and state, the state should not be able to discriminate against people based simply on who they choose to bring to their bedroom.

      3) Christian Displays: Christian displays are perfectly allowed to be on public property. You can sing carols, enact Christian plays, etc all day on public property. That's your 1st Amendment Right. Where the problem is when the government shows a bias towards one group of people over another, which is what is being done with Nativity scenes.

      4) Criminalizing ho.mo.se.xuality, fo.rnic.ation and adultery: No, no and no. Absolutely not. The government needs to stay out of the bedroom of two consenting adults.

      5) A state can't declare anything for the entire nation. And by declaring the United States a Christian Nation, it destroys the free practice of religion clause in the Const.itution.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
    • Clayton

      Okay, Damian, I won't put you up against a wall with George. But watch your step. You still haven't proved your god exists.

      December 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      @Damien – you know what's scary? I believe in everything you just said.

      December 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • George

      @Clayton

      There is nothing un-American to what we Christians want. The Founders provided a method to amending the Const.itution. Christians want to use it.

      December 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • Rick

      Georgie Boy: It will sure be interesting when cops, trying to arrest people for fornication, get harmed

      December 21, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • TR6

      @George:”A Christian Amendment should be passed.”

      Christians shouldn’t just be amended, they should be fully spayed and neutered

      December 21, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • George

      @DamianKnight

      I'm going to try to spell it out for you. An amendment changes the Const.itution and becomes part of the Const.itution. Therefore, all court cases regarding these matters are moot. That the point in going the amendment route. Capice?

      December 21, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • Rick

      Georgie: A "christian amendment" has zero chance of passing a vote, or a constiutional challenge. My advice to you is to beat the rush and go meet Jesus halfway

      December 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
    • Louisa Ferre

      The vast majority of Americans have se.x before marriage, including those who abstained from se.x during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Se.x in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital se.x is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had se.x before marriage.
      The new study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine se.xual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time. According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had se.x, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from se.x until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital se.x by age 44.
      “This is reality-check research. Premarital se.x is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,” says study author Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Inst.itute. “The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had se.x before marriage, which calls into question the federal government’s funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12–29-year-olds. It would be more effective to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become se.xually active—which nearly everyone eventually will.”
      Indeed, while the likelihood that Americans will have se.x before marriage has remained virtually unchanged since the 1950s, people now wait longer to get married, so they are se.xually active and unmarried for much longer than in the past. During this period, Dr. Finer concludes, young adults have an especially great need for accurate information about how to protect themselves against unintended pregnancies and se.xually transmitted infections.

      Seriously that’s a lot of cells to make if fo.rnication becomes illegal

      December 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @George,

      You said "allow the states to", that implies you want to change state laws, not federal laws (like the Consti.tution). And like has been said, it will never happen. This isn't a Christian Nation.

      Did you notice Jesus wasn't involved in politics? I don't recall a scripture where he was sitting in front of Pilate's house with a sign saying "The Jews are the 99%!" He was never politically active. Why? He answered it. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God what is God's."

      December 21, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  15. Round John

    @Guster, part of what you need to consider as well is that the evidence for the Jesus stories is not very clear. 2000 years is indeed a long time; generations have passed, no eyewitnesses still exist, and the stories have changed many times with re-telling, new edits, and a series of translations.

    Perhaps more significantly, there is no more recent evidence for activity that can be attributed with any certainty to a god. Therefore, a just god cannot reasonably blame modern humans for doubting his existence. All that you are left with, if you accept the consequences that the bible presents, is that your god is either unjust, or just ain't there. The latter case is a lot stronger.

    December 21, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • George

      @RoundJohn

      "there is no more recent evidence for activity that can be attributed with any certainty to a god."

      That's where you are wrong. But in order to see the evidence, you must open your heart to God. And then the evidence is abundant. Just everywhere.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • boocat

      Hey George – I can see abundant things too when I take a hit of LSD.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • HellBent

      Translation from @George's post – you need to redefine the word evidence.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Round John
      If you wait around long enough you can do that. You see, the heart is so "intelligently designed" that it fails regularly. So when you have your first open heart surgery, ask God to come on in!

      December 21, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • TR6

      @George:”But in order to see the evidence, you must open your heart to God. And then the evidence is abundant. Just everywhere.”

      But in order to see the evidence for UFOs you must truly open you heart to UFOs; but, once you do the evidence is abundant. Just everywhere

      December 21, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  16. boocat

    I have one thing to say to Pat Robertson.....YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW.

    December 21, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • Feather

      Yes, Goodness knows
      The Wicked's lives are lonely
      Goodness knows
      The Wicked cry alone
      Nothing grows for the Wicked
      They reap only
      What they've sown

      December 21, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
  17. Bookss

    Hom.o.S.exuality needs to be parodied so that everyone has been made fun of. I know we need to laugh at ourselves once in a while but make it fair.

    December 21, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      You can't seriously be suggesting that gays have not been parodied, ridiculed, discriminated against, etc., etc!

      The christian persecution complex knows no bounds.

      December 21, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
    • boocat

      What cave did you just crawl out of?

      December 21, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
    • George

      @HotAir

      Cite for me one instance in the last 10 years where ho.mo.s.e.xuals have been parodied (not including trans.e.xuals.).

      December 21, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @George
      Google "I Am The Very Model of a Modern Hom.ose.xual"

      December 21, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @George,

      Big Gay Al on South Park.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • HellBent

      "Cite for me one instance in the last 10 years where ho.mo.s.e.xuals have been parodied"

      Someone needs to get a life ... or at least a TV that can receive a channel other than Fox News.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Norm MacDonald'd "World's First Two Gay Guys" bit.
      The Kids in The Hall series "Death Comes to Town"

      December 21, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      George, I trust that the examples provided fulfill your request. If not, let me know and I'll be happy to demonstrate how you too can do research on subjects other than your imaginary friend and The Babble.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
  18. Bookss

    Open

    December 21, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
  19. OrthodoxGuy

    Frankly, like most actual Christians, I don't like Pat Robertson or the other televangelists. As far as I'm concerned, they're all out for themselves and their pockets, and they twist MY faith to do it. That makes me angry, and I have to talk to my Priest and seek absolution for that anger. I think Televangelism should be banned and all televangelists should be arrested for fraud. The Orthodox Church does not support them.

    December 21, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
    • rick

      Televangelism cannot be banned. It would be protected under the 1st amendment. That being said, my stomach turns when I see those snakes. And, I found it quite amusing when Eddie Long Dong was discovered for being the self-loathing closet case he is

      December 21, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • Clayton

      Fraud is not protected under the 1st Amendment, so you're wrong about that. All we need to do is prosecute them for fraud.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      He's referring to the Free Practice of Religion under the 1st Amendment, Clayton.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • boocat

      And how much money do you give your church on a monthly basis? After all we know that "God is all powerful and all knowing but he needs money.... he just can't handle money."

      December 21, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • Clayton

      DamianKnight, fraud is illegal and is not a protected form of speech, is not a protected form of religious expression and so does not enjoy any 1st Amendment protections.
      Are you saying that religion-oriented fraud should be given free rein? Then you are a disgusting criminal-minded idiot.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @Clayton,

      First and foremost, can we have civil discussion without name calling? If not, I'll move on after this post.

      Second, merely preaching and providing a source for people who want to donate isn't fraud. It's religious freedom. Just because YOU don't ascribe to the beliefs of the evangelists doesn't make it fraudulent. Now, if they were, say, saying they were taking donations to build a church in South America and were instead using it to play the lottery, that crosses the line into fraudulent activity.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • Clayton

      Okay, so you're willing to admit that fraud would be the taking of money under false pretenses, perhaps using demonstrably false statements and other forms of speech and expression to defraud the victims?
      A definition of fraud:
      noun
      1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
      2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
      3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
      4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
      --
      So we'll have degrees of fraud where religion-based fraud is concerned. The legal definitions usually cover false claims made to trick or deceive a victim into giving money or other things of value, including services.
      A false claim can be established by the inability to prove the false claim as being true, with proof to the contrary being added in some cases to bolster the prosecution's case against the fraudster.
      I could say, and you couldn't prove me wrong, that all religious claims are untrue since there is no proof or evidence that such claims are true and therefore cannot be given countenance by any court worth it's salt in this country.
      So technically every religion is a well-entrenched fraud with some organization behind it.
      Relying, as many religions do, upon the mere unfounded assertions of "adherents" that cannot be shown to be true, then every religion is a fraud and can be shown to be a fraud.
      Now we come to the question of the victims who are sincere in their "beliefs."
      They can be used to further the aims of the religious leadership and can be found at all levels of religious leadership, since gullibility and subsequent sincerity is often found in every religion.
      So with religion, a victim can be an unwitting helper to the fraudster, just as in other fraud schemes. A con-artist can hide behind many sincere victims who further the criminal agenda. The victims can be "pure in heart", yet are tools for anyone who knows how to manipulate their simple-minded gullibility.
      So where do we draw the line?
      We could demand that every religious claim be proven. Oh, wouldn't that go down well with all the religious nuts!
      We could use technology to show the criminal intent and methods of the worst religious fraudsters.
      But you are a victim of indoctrination. Everyday types of fraud do not use much in the way of indoctrination, so we have a tougher problem in dealing with entrenched victims and their beliefs than we would encounter with a stock fraud case for example.
      In the end, crime is not protected speech and is not protected expression of religion. Only the fraudsters would try to say that it is, or the deluded victims. Which one are you?

      December 21, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • TR6

      @Clayton:” Are you saying that religion-oriented fraud should be given free rein? “

      Your right! All the religious nut cases should be thrown in jail. Of course if we do that we’re going to have to build a lot more jails

      December 21, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @Clayton,

      You could have stopped at this statement "I could say, and you couldn't prove me wrong, that all religious claims are untrue since there is no proof or evidence that such claims are true and therefore cannot be given countenance by any court worth it's salt in this country."

      Because this is where your argument begins to fall apart. First off, the donations are considered charitable donations to the cause as a whole to do with as they see fit. What are the donations being used for? To further the preachings and ministry of God through the televangelist. Are they using the money to further the preachings and ministry? Yup. Therefore, no fraud. The donator knows they are giving the money freely to a religious inst.itution for the furthering of that religion.

      Now, if that televangelist takes the money given to him by the donators and then goes to Jamaica and lives a life of luxury, then that's fraud. This is what happened to Jim Bakker. He was investigated for fraud and convicted.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • Clayton

      If it were a matter of putting them in jail then yes we would need more jails or we could release the non-violent drug offenders which make up the vast majority of inmates in this country where we have more of our citizens in prison per capita than any other nation on earth because some people hate the very idea of freedom and liberty.
      Once everyone saw that we were serious, we'd see a decrease in religious fraud, i think.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • Clayton

      Damian, the crime of fraud does not include the purposes for which the victims gave the money. Fraud is all about the taking of the money under false pretenses and does not address the money itself or where the victims think it is going.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @Clayton,

      You're so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. Televangelists take donations to help further their ministry, they state that right up front when asking for money. As long as they use that money to further their ministry, it's not fraud. If it was fraudulent, televangelists wouldn't be able to take donations (because they're not exactly hiding their request for donations by asking on public television) because the courts would stop them. As it is, televangelists are considered a charity. As long as they use that money to further the goals of the charity, it's not fraud.

      Jim Bakker was arrested and convicted of fraud because he took the donation money and then used it to fund his opulent lifestyle. It was not because he took donation money, but because he was disingenuous about where that money would be spent. Therefore he defrauded the people, saying it would go towards his ministry, but it did not.

      December 21, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • Clayton

      Damian, all I can say is that you have a very definite mind-block concerning people acting falsely, fraud, and probably most crimes where religion is involved or the central point.
      If your pastor came up to you and told you he's been pretending to be a believer all these years because the money was too good to pass up, what would you say? Would you consider him a fraud? Do you think intent might have something to do with it?
      So you think that money that is plowed back into the ministry is not fraud, despite a non-believer being the one asking for the money, simply because that money goes back into supporting the whole fraudulent organization?
      When you construe the terms so narrowly and so conveniently in order to protect your own "faith" and ignoring the central scams and related scams, what am I to think but that you are being deliberately blind to the whole concept of fraud?

      December 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @Clayton,
      Your main issue is you don't believe in God. You are blinded by your own hatred of religion and your belief God doesn't exist. That's where you can't see past your own personal bias.

      You're asking different questions. Fraud as a person and fraud as an act. If a person misrepresents themselves, they are a fraud. If a person does something for their own personal gain and gets funds through deception, then that act is a fraud.

      Situation 1)
      Pastor legitimately believes in and worships God, he is not fraud.
      He collects funds from the congregants for the purposes of helping the ministries and the money collected does go to those ministries, his act is not fraudulent

      Situation 2)
      My Pastor believes in God and worships Him. He is not a fraud.
      My Pastor states that he is collecting funds for the church and then takes the money and buys himself a home in Beverly Hills he has committed fraud.

      Situation 3)
      My pastor does not believe in God but stood up there and acted like he did. He is a fraud.
      The money he collects still goes to the church and its ministries. Fraud has not been committed.

      Example 4)
      My pastor does not believe in God but stands there and acts like he does. He is a fraud.
      My pastor collects funds from the congregants for the church and then spends it on himself. He has committed fraud.

      It's really not that difficult.

      December 21, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
    • Clayton

      Well, I guess you think all religions are true and always represent the truth. Have fun with that. Your response is pretty good as far as it goes, but I think a prosecutor would have more to say on the actual criminal aspect of it. I reserve the right to declare all religions and religious activity to be fraudulent at the core. And I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Oh, well.

      December 21, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
  20. lunchbreaker

    You can make a lot of money displaying your Christianity, just look what it did for the band Creed.

    December 21, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I'm so glad we're out of the Puddle of NickelCreed Theory era.
      Now if only someone would get rid of Bon Jovi.

      December 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.