Tuesday, December 23, 2003

Kitna 'Outrage' Story Part II

The Enquirer's story on the "Kitna hats" tries to go "deeper," but does it make it more than it appears. Where there only 500 hats sold in total? Who else sold the hats? How many other locals sold the hats? If "hundreds" bought them, is that a story?

Did the fact that a Catholic focused store was making a big deal out of this amount to a story? I know many don't like to bring up the differences between the Christian sects, but at its core is that not part of the story. I don't think Kitna is a Catholic, and wearing a hat like this would not be an expression of faith that I don't think would get much approval from a priest. If it got support after the fact, I still don't think that would be an acceptable tone for most Catholics. Evangelical Christians, which I assumed is Kitna's sect, are more often the in your face type of groups.

I think the story should have mentioned that various sects and that at a minimum indicate that a Catholic group was support Kitna's action.

From the story people need to stop invoking freedom of speech and freedom of religion when ever someone is prevented from doing what they want to do. The first amendment generally only applies to the actions of the government. The NFL can keep religious expression out in any form it wants from its action and its employees. It could keep out a specific religion if it so choose as well. It might loose a tax break if it did that and would loose a bunch of business, but that is about it.

UPDATE: The Post chimes in with an editorial that is all over the map. They say that yes Kitna techinically violated the rules and you can't make exceptions, but that it is no big deal. They however pumped up efforts to sell the hats. Does Scripps get a cut from "Kitna Hat" sales?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.