Sports evangelism is just the latest incarnation of muscular Christianity, a Protestant ideology from the mid-19th century that believed participation in sports and other physical/outdoor activities (fishing, hiking, hunting, etc.) helped men to develop Christian morality, virtue, physical fitness, and other positive "manly" character traits. The movement was in many ways a reaction to the percieved feminization of established religious groups (which promoted piety, good works, asceticism, humility, and intellectualism) and of society in general.

Muscular Christianity held that sports aided the physical, mental, moral and spiritual development of men and boys. Physical fitness and manliness were not incompatible with Christianity; indeed, they were a perfect complement to it. The athlete demonstrated his Christian faith on the playing field and carried sports-based concepts of honor, fairness and morality through his entire life. (It was also believed that boys who constantly played sports would be too tired to seek out vice, especially masturbation and homosexual activities.) Sports were introduced into schools to promote these virtues -- something that remains part of both the British and American educational systems to this day. The YMCA/YWCA and the modern Olympic movement also have their roots in muscular Christianity.

On the negative side, muscular Christianity elevated body over mind. "Bookishness" and intellectual achievement were derided. It forced men into a rigid concept of masculinity. "Feminine" virtues and women had no place in this concept of Christianity. And proving one's manhood through sport seemed pointless in times of war.

Modern sports evangelism is the heir to this movement. It shares the belief of the Victorian muscular Christians that sports are the best way to encourage virtue. It too is a reaction against the perceived feminization of society and religion (especially by those who feel threatened by feminism). It also seems to be a reaction to corruption in modern athletics, although it doesn't yet appear to have had much effect. (Despite all the prayers on the playing field, every week seems to bring a new sordid tale of drugs, doping, and general bad player behavior.)

Where modern sports evangelism differs from old-style muscular Christianity is in its emphasis on sports as a tool for evangelism. The Victorians recognized this but never fully tapped into its potential. Their goal was one of self-fulfillment: to enable Christian men and boys to develop spiritually and morally through sport. Using sports to spread the Gospel to the unchurched was part of the movement but wasn't its main purpose.

Now, the situation is reversed. Spreading Christianity through sport is the point of modern sports evangelism. Developing masculine virtue through sports is certainly part of this process, but it's not the primary goal these days. Getting people to come to Jesus is.

Modern sports evangelism does not promote just any old kind of Christianity, but a certain set of conservative Christian beliefs that are compatible with the ideal of manliness. (As before, homosexuality is demonized.) Its emphasis on the physical plays well in today's anti-intellectual climate. Although female athletes certainly do promote their Christian faith through sport, sports evangelism still seems to be mainly a male-dominated movement.

Given the terrible events unfolding in the world, insisting that God fights on the side of one's favorite sports team implies a certain lack of perspective. But fusing religion and sport has been part of our culture for the past century and a half and it isn't likely to go away any time soon.

It has the same goal as the pill, IUD, depo-provera, patch, nova ring, condoms, spermicide, and all the rest: to prevent pregnancy.

True, you aren't using a drug or a device. But NFP still involves taking deliberate action to stop a pregnancy from happening (in this case, voluntary celibacy during periods when a woman is most fertile). That is what contraception is all about. I can't see how it is all that different from taking the pill or using a condom.

If you want to start a business, you don't need to marry someone with money. There are many ways to raise startup capital (savings, credit cards, loans, family members, outside investors, etc.), each with its benefits and drawbacks, plus a number of organizations that can assist you with the process. You need to do some serious thinking about why you believe a greencard marriage is a better idea than, say, applying for a small business loan. The risk of running afoul of the INS and screwing yourself over royally in a sham marriage doesn't seem to be worth the benefit.

If your business idea is so vague or far-out that you can't get financing from the usual sources, it is probably not viable. Writing a business plan and going through the process of lining up startup capital will help you figure out whether it has a chance to work out or not.

Although I have been singled out for especially patronizing and nasty attacks because I'm a woman. (Yes, even here in Salon letters. ;-)