• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

congratulations. right answer
they are spreading the word

I never heard that their hate was based on the Bible.

Care to share a foundation for that?
 
I never heard that their hate was based on the Bible.

Care to share a foundation for that?

what other religion uses crosses in their services?
 
what other religion uses crosses in their services?

I consider their thought processes irrational so I am not going to accord them the ability to rationally connect their beliefs to Christianity.

Do you have anything else?
 
No student was ever forced to have the cross sticker on their helmets. This was done by the students on their own as a means of honoring a fallen teammate who, according to his father, was devoutly Christian

Thank you for the clarification. So the coaches didn't order the student-athletes to put the decals on their helmets.

I would also like to offer a clarification: Throughout the thread a few have used "cross" and "crucifix" interchangeably, but they are not the same.
 
I consider their thought processes irrational so I am not going to accord them the ability to rationally connect their beliefs to Christianity.

Do you have anything else?

yes, i have shown you why the kluckers are acting in a religious capacity, burning crosses
and you want to pretend that is not reality
 
yes, i have shown you why the kluckers are acting in a religious capacity, burning crosses
and you want to pretend that is not reality

You have provided no religious significance, none at all. A cross alone does not indicate religious motives.

It may exist...but I have never seen it and you cannot provide it.

They are loons and that IS very evident to me, so I accord them little to no reason at all.
 
You have provided no religious significance, none at all. A cross alone does not indicate religious motives.

It may exist...but I have never seen it and you cannot provide it.

They are loons and that IS very evident to me, so I accord them little to no reason at all.

More and more people are coming to the conclusion that all cross-obsessives tend to the loon end of unreason.
 
would we find it similarly acceptable to allow the students to wear their helmets adorned with a KKK insignia, with the understanding that the students agreed to so wear them ... as a part of the uniform of a state sponsored institution?

You are suggesting the cross is equivalent to the KKK symbol? When these kids did it of their own afford and to memorialize fallen friends. That is low. Really low.

You don't have a freedom from religion. You have freedom of religion (or lack thereof). To say these kids can't display their religion IS a government endorsement of religion and saying crosses can't be displayed. That is wrong. If I were a player I would keep it on. And I wouldn't be cowed by some arrogant ass who doesn't understand the constitution and gets offended when they are exposed to a cross.
 
More and more people are coming to the conclusion that all cross-obsessives tend to the loon end of unreason.

Unreasonable is telling people they can't memorialize their teammates with the religion they were a part of. This is wrong. This is the kind of crap I would expect from the Stalin era soviet government.
 
You are suggesting the cross is equivalent to the KKK symbol? When these kids did it of their own afford and to memorialize fallen friends. That is low. Really low.

You don't have a freedom from religion. You have freedom of religion (or lack thereof). To say these kids can't display their religion IS a government endorsement of religion and saying crosses can't be displayed. That is wrong. If I were a player I would keep it on. And I wouldn't be cowed by some arrogant ass who doesn't understand the constitution and gets offended when they are exposed to a cross.

Who owns the property? Who owns the uniform? Who owns the team?

There is no ban on the student showing in a 1000 different ways his heart-felt loss. But to say He can do what he wishes with someone else's property is ridiculous.

Can the student run a cross flag up the school's flag pole in commemoration of the departed? Is that his right? Can he plant a tree in memoriam on the school's grounds on his own with consult or approval of the college?

Let's not take this idea that one's first amendment right is carte blanche to do as one pleases...
 
Unreasonable is telling people they can't memorialize their teammates with the religion they were a part of. This is wrong. This is the kind of crap I would expect from the Stalin era soviet government.

Or a DP liberal.
 
Your response kind of proves my point.

That I believe in America? Freedom? The first amendment? And that telling people they can't show their religion is NOT insane? That seems to be your point. Like I said. That crap belongs in the Soviet Union during Stalin's era. Not in the modern United States.
 
Who owns the property? Who owns the uniform? Who owns the team?

This isn't about JUST the players is it? Someone thinks the school shouldn't respect the memorial. The school didn't put those crosses on their. The athletes did. They were assigned those uniforms and helmets. And they were obviously allowed to do put a memorial on them. The SCHOOL was ok with that.

But then someone complained. The school was afraid of a lawsuit so they caved. And that is bull****. They shouldn't have to be afraid of some 2 bit lawyer looking to score a cheap shot on someone who does to see it his way. Why? Because they didn't put the crosses on the helmets. And they can't be held responsible for it.

So this ultimately means that whoever wants the crosses off is not a friend of the first amendment. They don't care that this was a memorial.

There is no ban on the student showing in a 1000 different ways his heart-felt loss. But to say He can do what he wishes with someone else's property is ridiculous.

Look at this from the property owner's view then. They are being threatened with a lawsuit because they let someone use their first amendment right. How is that fair? To think a lawsuit is reasonable in this cause is ridiculous. It is nothing more than a hardass militant atheist trying to score a cheap shot on religion.

This isn't about "freedom of religion." This is them (those who support this action) trying to make the 1st into freedom "from" religion. That isn't what it says and that isn't what it means. This wasn't a state sanctioned action. And if this was an issue of private property the uni could just tell them to piss off anyway.

Can the student run a cross flag up the school's flag pole in commemoration of the departed? Is that his right? Can he plant a tree in memoriam on the school's grounds on his own with consult or approval of the college?

Let's not take this idea that one's first amendment right is carte blanche to do as one pleases...

No. It isn't. But being a "property owner" doesn't mean you get to take people's rights away either. They DID act within reason. They were given these helmets. And if they are allowed to put OTHER symbols on the helmet at their discretion...they should damn sure be allowed to put a cross on if they please. To DISALLOW them is telling them they don't have a right to express their religion. And the university can't do that. Are you suggesting putting a cross on their helmet to memorialize 2 friends is unreasonable?
 
You have provided no religious significance, none at all. A cross alone does not indicate religious motives.

It may exist...but I have never seen it and you cannot provide it.

They are loons and that IS very evident to me, so I accord them little to no reason at all.


The Ku Klux Klan The Ku Klux Klan is composed entirely of white, Anglo-saxon, Christian American citizens, both male a

Abstract
The Ku Klux Klan is composed entirely of white, Anglo-saxon, Christian American citizens, both male and female, who believe that their race and religion are superior to those of people of other colors and religions.

Scope and Purpose of the System
The Ku Klux Klan is a group of American white supremacists who believe that all non-Caucasian peoples are inferior and that they have no place in the United States which is only truly home to white Christians

Representative Examples of Argumentation
Today the White Camelia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan use quotes from the Bible as well as examples from world history to support their beliefs. As this group attempts to define Christian identity they give reasons why white Christians are a superior people.

Don't ask me why they think that way; they just do.
 
You are suggesting the cross is equivalent to the KKK symbol?
i am saying the KKK symbol is representative of an ideology that has its adherents
just as there are those who follow the Christian tradition
for a state supported entity to espouse the cross as a Christian symbol is not different than for it to also allow the KKK symbol to be affixed to the player's helmet
just as most of us would be opposed the the show of support by the state towards the KKK organization there are also many who would similarly object to the state lending its support to the Christian religion
there should be no government funded appearance of favoritism towards any ideological organization

When these kids did it of their own afford and to memorialize fallen friends. That is low. Really low.
the kids should have been taught by the adults that the state funded entity cannot show its support for any religion and thus moved the memorialization to become a reference to the fallen rather than of his religion

You don't have a freedom from religion.
no, but i absolutely DO have freedom from a state sponsored religion. and i will insist upon it

You have freedom of religion (or lack thereof).
yes, we do. and we also have an expectation that the state will not intrude itself in our exposure to the array of religions that exist. which is why the state was appropriate in removing the crosses from the players' helmets

To say these kids can't display their religion IS a government endorsement of religion and saying crosses can't be displayed.
please explain how it is government endorsement of religion to forbid displaying one religion's symbol while also refusing to display all others

That is wrong.
no. that is correct. absolutely
the state should not intrude itself into the practice of religion

If I were a player I would keep it on.
and you would be sent, with your helmet, to the locker room so that the state school did not get into litigation for giving the appearance it was endorsing a particular religion

And I wouldn't be cowed by some arrogant ass who doesn't understand the constitution and gets offended when they are exposed to a cross.
that would be a fine emotion to contemplate while you are sitting in the locker room while your team mates are involved in a football game. your choice
 
Last edited:
This isn't about JUST the players is it? Someone thinks the school shouldn't respect the memorial. The school didn't put those crosses on their. The athletes did. They were assigned those uniforms and helmets. And they were obviously allowed to do put a memorial on them. The SCHOOL was ok with that.

Schools don't determine the boundaries of church & state.
 
This isn't about JUST the players is it? Someone thinks the school shouldn't respect the memorial. The school didn't put those crosses on their. The athletes did. They were assigned those uniforms and helmets. And they were obviously allowed to do put a memorial on them. The SCHOOL was ok with that.

But then someone complained. The school was afraid of a lawsuit so they caved. And that is bull****. They shouldn't have to be afraid of some 2 bit lawyer looking to score a cheap shot on someone who does to see it his way. Why? Because they didn't put the crosses on the helmets. And they can't be held responsible for it.

So this ultimately means that whoever wants the crosses off is not a friend of the first amendment. They don't care that this was a memorial.



Look at this from the property owner's view then. They are being threatened with a lawsuit because they let someone use their first amendment right. How is that fair? To think a lawsuit is reasonable in this cause is ridiculous. It is nothing more than a hardass militant atheist trying to score a cheap shot on religion.

This isn't about "freedom of religion." This is them (those who support this action) trying to make the 1st into freedom "from" religion. That isn't what it says and that isn't what it means. This wasn't a state sanctioned action. And if this was an issue of private property the uni could just tell them to piss off anyway.



No. It isn't. But being a "property owner" doesn't mean you get to take people's rights away either. They DID act within reason. They were given these helmets. And if they are allowed to put OTHER symbols on the helmet at their discretion...they should damn sure be allowed to put a cross on if they please. To DISALLOW them is telling them they don't have a right to express their religion. And the university can't do that. Are you suggesting putting a cross on their helmet to memorialize 2 friends is unreasonable?


This helmet issue is between the University... the owners of the athletic equipment and the Athletic department...the employees of the University. The University gave it's employees an order.

What the student did or want is irrelevant. If the students wish... they can file a suit against the University for violating their 1st amendment rights.
 
This helmet issue is between the University... the owners of the athletic equipment and the Athletic department...the employees of the University. The University gave it's employees an order.

What the student did or want is irrelevant. If the students wish... they can file a suit against the University for violating their 1st amendment rights.

And they SHOULD. How is it ok to tell someone they can't show their religion? The UNIVERSITY only caved because they don't want a law suit from some jerk who claimed it was a violation of the first. It clearly was not. It wasn't "state sanctioned."
 
Schools don't determine the boundaries of church & state.

No. They don't. Thus they shouldn't stop a student from displaying the memorial. That is determining the boundary for someone.
 
No. They don't. Thus they shouldn't stop a student from displaying the memorial. That is determining the boundary for someone.

Now you're being purposely obtuse and it's fooling nobody. School don't get to determine them, because they've already been determined. The separation of church and state extends to the fact that these schools are funded with taxpayer money. Remember Arkansas STATE Univeristy. If women don't get to have taxpayer subsidized birth control, what makes you think that football players get to use their tax payer funded uniforms for religious demonstrations? It's a two way street.
 
You're correct that student athletes can't wear whatever stickers they want on their uniforms, that any stickers they place on their helmets have to be sanctioned by the university's athletic department.

I'm not sure how that relates to the establishment clause, I'm not a lawyer.

I don't see how the AD approving the students choice of wearing cross stickers on their helmets as a way of showing solidarity with a fallen teammate violates the constitution.

If it does, we don't have a very good constitution.
Ok, follow me here. You've agreed that the players could not put whatever they wanted.

So let's assume a school that had one exception: Players may not put anything on their helmets except the Orthodox Cross
100px-OrthodoxCross%28black%2Ccontoured%29.svg.png

Would you consider that a constitutional violation?
 
You're being purposely obtuse and it's fooling nobody.

I have never ever seen the KKK relate their beliefs to Christianity or God.

WHich doesnt surprise me at all. And I'm no expert on the KKK.

However if I'm wrong, please feel free to provide some links.

It's entirely possibly they have irrationally defamed and abused this Christian symbol in the name of God but I have never seen it.
 
Now you're being purposely obtuse and it's fooling nobody. School don't get to determine them, because they've already been determined. The separation of church and state extends to the fact that these schools are funded with taxpayer money. Remember Arkansas STATE Univeristy. If women don't get to have taxpayer subsidized birth control, what makes you think that football players get to use their tax payer funded uniforms for religious demonstrations? It's a two way street.

Do you feel the the athletic department, supported by the government, was trying to establish a religion?
 
Back
Top Bottom