• 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

So whats the "rule" or "law" that congress made to allow the cross on those helmets? Short of that you just sunk your own argument.

Surely you are aware that an amendment made the BoR applicable to all states. Surely you are aware that the public school's administration had to rule on the allowing of those stickers once it was brought to their attention.
 
Look, I agree this is a minor violation. Perhaps insignificant. I'm just saying that an accumulation of minor violations adds up. It leads to more, such as the way you hear some justify an action by saying we've got God on our money and God in our Pledge of Allegiance so it would be OK for government to pay for a church or distributing Bibles to schoolkids. The world as we know it will not end with this one thing, it will be an accumulation.

We kind of do pay for churches in general, particularly since they get tax-exempt status. References to gods are everywhere, and there's not much we can do about it. We're going to come across it. The government has removed quite a bit from their property proper and there has been quite significant movement away from public schools preaching religion and endorsing religion. I think it went in a good direction. But if we are to remain free, then we need to exercise reason and logic. In doing so, one realizes that this case is nothing of the sorts. An individual kid putting a sticker on their helmet is not a big deal, school didn't endorse it nor did they demand it or enforce it. It was in memory of their friend. That's it. End all be all for this case.
 
Surely you are aware that an amendment made the BoR applicable to all states. Surely you are aware that the public school's administration had to rule on the allowing of those stickers once it was brought to their attention.
Not what i asked you. You cited verse from the constitution and all i did is ask where congress had anything to do with the team honoring two fallen mates with a cross. You then move the goalposts because you know your argument has no merit.
 
Look, I agree this is a minor violation. Perhaps insignificant. I'm just saying that an accumulation of minor violations adds up. It leads to more, such as the way you hear some justify an action by saying we've got God on our money and God in our Pledge of Allegiance so it would be OK for government to pay for a church or distributing Bibles to schoolkids. The world as we know it will not end with this one thing, it will be an accumulation.

You are agreeing with yourself. The poster you are responding to did not think what the students did was a violation at all, major or minor.

As you say, some person might argue that because there are references to God on our money, it would be all right for government to do the things you mention. But the mere fact someone can make a claim does not make his claim true. Of course the government actions you mentioned would be unconstitutional.
 
Surely you are aware that an amendment made the BoR applicable to all states.

Even the justices of the Supreme Court have often commented on how difficult the issues of constitutional law raised by religious expression in public places are. And yet you claim to understand them well enough to make some very positive claims. It's odd, then, that you would flatly misstate incorporation doctrine as you just did.

If any "amendment made the BoR applicable to all states," no one but you has heard about it. If you can cite me to that amendment, I'd like to read it.

It is the Supreme Court of the U.S., through a long series of decisions, that has applied most--but not all--of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Second Amendment was the most recent part it applied to them, a few years ago in McDonald v. Chicago. One part of the Bill of Rights the Court has never applied to the states is the clause in the Fifth Amendment that prohibits trying a person for a "capital or otherwise infamous" crime without indictment by a grand jury. That applies in federal courts, and most eastern states also use grand jury indictment in murder cases. But nothing requires any state to use a grand jury in that situation, and many western states do not.

Surely you are aware that the public school's administration had to rule on the allowing of those stickers once it was brought to their attention.

It did? I wasn't aware of that. What law, exactly, requires a public school to jump, every time some lawyer writes it a letter claiming its failure to prohibit a student from doing something violates the Constitution of the U.S.?
 
Why are we all still arguing? Hasn't everyone been forced to convert to the state Church of Christianity following this ruling?

I'd hate to think the militant atheist fears were unfounded....
 
Why are we all still arguing? Hasn't everyone been forced to convert to the state Church of Christianity following this ruling?

I'd hate to think the militant atheist fears were unfounded....

I just find it fascinating that someone can be so offended by a cross...As if it was meant to offend them directly, then throw out the establishment clause at every turn as if they can't read plain English...It's the tyranny of the minority, and in cases like this the extreme minority.
 
I just find it fascinating that someone can be so offended by a cross...As if it was meant to offend them directly, then throw out the establishment clause at every turn as if they can't read plain English...It's the tyranny of the minority, and in cases like this the extreme minority.

Tyranny of the majority

 
Tyranny of the majority



That is a rather dishonest accounting of that video.

The majority of those in the Senate are Christian, and the "majority" amounted to three protesters who were quickly escorted off the premises. It wasn't even remotely the majority opinion of Christians at the event.
 
That is a rather dishonest accounting of that video.

The majority of those in the Senate are Christian, and the "majority" amounted to three protesters who were quickly escorted off the premises. It wasn't even remotely the majority opinion of Christians at the event.

I disagree.
Other then the speaker, I didn't hear any protests or calls to sit down and shut the **** up. Which is something I would have expected from people who 'understand' the Constitution and what freedom of religion really means.
 
Your rebuttal is to be dishonest? Thanks for proving my point.

Dishonesty?

This from the guy is has still not fixed his signature to the correct translation of the de Tocqueville quote. Maybe you should sit down...

See post above.
 
I disagree.
Other then the speaker, I didn't hear any protests or calls to sit down and shut the **** up. Which is something I would have expected from people who 'understand' the Constitution and what freedom of religion really means.

The protests were in the gallery and security escorted them out. I suppose you would rather a huge shouting match break out?
 
Why are we all still arguing? Hasn't everyone been forced to convert to the state Church of Christianity following this ruling?

I'd hate to think the militant atheist fears were unfounded....
For the militant atheist, merely gazing upon a Christian symbol, (Muslim and others are apparently fine) poses a grave risk. :rolleyes:
 
Dishonesty?

This from the guy is has still not fixed his signature to the correct translation of the de Tocqueville quote. Maybe you should sit down...

See post above.
Weak man....and thats right dishonesty. That seems to be all progressives like you have these days.
 
No one is offended by a cross. It's the hows and the whys the cross is there that can cause concern.
The team voted on it, and they chose to display it. The only concern today seems to be from those outsiders that can't stand to look at it. How sad.
 
Back
Top Bottom