Page 38 of 45 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 442

Thread: Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

  1. #371
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,425

    Re: Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #372
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,685

    Re: Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Dang, now all the Atheists will be forced to convert to Christianity.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  3. #373
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    Any team member who had to wear a helmet with a cross on it. They had no choice in the matter.
    Wrong you are...Read the article again....

    "Barry Weyer, Sr., told me that the players and coaches voluntarily decided to memorialize his son and Owens.

    The players knew they were both Christians so they decided to use the cross along with their initials,” he said. “They wanted to carry the spirits of Markel and Barry Don onto the field for one more season.”

    The players wanted this symbol on their helmets.

    and even if there had been, peer pressure is an enormous factor.
    However, it wasn't a player that complained...Rather some snotty lawyer in the stands at the TN game...No one for two weeks said a word about it, and this one Jerk gets his panties in a bunch and causes trouble....He should have left the game if he couldn't bear to watch the crosses kick his teams arse.

    Whoever permitted the crosses be put on the team's helmets forced all of the team to comply.
    No one was "forced"... The team wanted to show support for two fallen members, and the coach allowed them to show their unity with them...If you can produce just one player that says he didn't want to wear the cross then I'll stand corrected, but your misrepresentation of this is just plain dishonest.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #374
    Guru
    OKgrannie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,221

    Re: Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    The Supreme Court decisions on this kind of thing are all over the map. It's very hard to extract rules and principles from them, because each case seems to turn on details peculiar to it, without much rhyme or reason. Also, these cases often have involved both Free Speech Clause and Establishment Clause issues, and it's sometimes hard to understand why the analysis in a case was based on one clause instead of the other. The decisions, like the Court's decisions about religious displays in public places, make too much fuss about very minor details and at times seem arbitrary. The Court goes one way this time, the other way the next, and it's often very hard to see what made the difference.

    I think this jurisprudence could and should be simplified and made more rational by allowing much more religious expression in these situations. Let the Court stop making a production of every little incident. This country was founded by English Protestants, and the considerable interplay between religion and government that's given rise to in our history doesn't seem to have harmed us much. As the dissenters noted in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Jane Doe, a 2000 decision involving student-initiated prayers before high school football games, "George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of 'public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God....'"

    All this stuff is a fairly recent development--until 1947, any state that wanted to could have declared its own official religion. A century and a half passed before the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was first applied to the states. This country was at least as religious as today during that long period, which saw a Civil War, two World Wars, and the Great Depression, among other social stresses. But even so, our history does not show state governments turning into theocracies. The current hypervigilance is silly and uncalled for. It is also a sign of the bitter animosity many people who ironically like to see themselves as more-tolerant-than-thou harbor toward all things religious.
    You seem to be saying that just a little violation of the First Amendment is harmless and we should just turn our heads. Just a "little" disagreement over an "unimportant" ("unimportant" to whom?) matter can lead to wars and needless deaths, as it did in the Philadelphia Bible wars. The disagreement was over which version of the Bible would be read in public classrooms. While the matter of displaying some religious symbols on public property may SEEM trivial at times, we can see that Christian Nationalists, Dominionists, and others of the same mind but different names, will use that public display to justify further violations.


    A Nineteenth-Century Trojan Horse Plot: The Philadelphia Bible Riots

    but Philadelphia in 1844: the year of the Bible Riots, two of the deadliest outbreaks of street violence before the Civil War. The ‘foreigners’ meanwhile were not British Asians but Irish Catholics. <<<snip>>>>

    Then, as now, schools became a battleground. 1 The northern states of the U.S. built publicly-funded school systems four decades before Britain. Proponents of the public schools saw them as handmaidens of republican government: training grounds for a generation of future citizens. It is no coincidence, indeed, that their emergence closely followed the rewriting of suffrage laws to enfranchise the vast majority of white men. When one Catholic leader in a heavily Irish suburb of Philadelphia tried to shield his constituents’ children from school readings of the King James Bible, then, he provoked outrage, for in the mind of Protestants, the King James was as crucial to the government of a true republic as a balanced constitution. In the fertile imagination of anti-immigrant nativists a practical suggestion soon became a dastardly and deep-rooted plot to destroy American liberty.

    Violence soon followed. Angry locals in the Irish suburb broke up a small gathering of nativists on 3 May. Three days later, the Protestants gathered again in larger numbers, and a gunfight broke out. The first to fall was an eighteen-year old nativist, George Shiffler, who supposedly fell clasping the Stars and Stripes. Over the following days, an anti-immigrant mob avenged Shiffler’s death by burning Catholic churches, torching homes, and desecrating graves. Eventually state militia and Federal troops imposed order through Martial Law, though the local authorities placed most of the blame on the city’s Catholics. Coupled with further violence in July, more than two dozen Philadelphians – both native- and foreign-born – lost their lives in the Bible Riots. A few months later, in municipal elections, new nativist parties swept to power across much of the urban North. 2
    "Though no one can go back and make a brand new start, anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending."
    ~Anonymous

  5. #375
    Sewer Rat
    Risky Thicket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,803

    Re: Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    You seem to be saying that just a little violation of the First Amendment is harmless and we should just turn our heads. Just a "little" disagreement over an "unimportant" ("unimportant" to whom?) matter can lead to wars and needless deaths, as it did in the Philadelphia Bible wars. The disagreement was over which version of the Bible would be read in public classrooms. While the matter of displaying some religious symbols on public property may SEEM trivial at times, we can see that Christian Nationalists, Dominionists, and others of the same mind but different names, will use that public display to justify further violations.


    A Nineteenth-Century Trojan Horse Plot: The Philadelphia Bible Riots

    but Philadelphia in 1844: the year of the Bible Riots, two of the deadliest outbreaks of street violence before the Civil War. The ‘foreigners’ meanwhile were not British Asians but Irish Catholics. <<<snip>>>>

    Then, as now, schools became a battleground. 1 The northern states of the U.S. built publicly-funded school systems four decades before Britain. Proponents of the public schools saw them as handmaidens of republican government: training grounds for a generation of future citizens. It is no coincidence, indeed, that their emergence closely followed the rewriting of suffrage laws to enfranchise the vast majority of white men. When one Catholic leader in a heavily Irish suburb of Philadelphia tried to shield his constituents’ children from school readings of the King James Bible, then, he provoked outrage, for in the mind of Protestants, the King James was as crucial to the government of a true republic as a balanced constitution. In the fertile imagination of anti-immigrant nativists a practical suggestion soon became a dastardly and deep-rooted plot to destroy American liberty.

    Violence soon followed. Angry locals in the Irish suburb broke up a small gathering of nativists on 3 May. Three days later, the Protestants gathered again in larger numbers, and a gunfight broke out. The first to fall was an eighteen-year old nativist, George Shiffler, who supposedly fell clasping the Stars and Stripes. Over the following days, an anti-immigrant mob avenged Shiffler’s death by burning Catholic churches, torching homes, and desecrating graves. Eventually state militia and Federal troops imposed order through Martial Law, though the local authorities placed most of the blame on the city’s Catholics. Coupled with further violence in July, more than two dozen Philadelphians – both native- and foreign-born – lost their lives in the Bible Riots. A few months later, in municipal elections, new nativist parties swept to power across much of the urban North. 2
    Interesting, thanks!










    "When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf

    When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that person is crazy. ~Dave Barry



  6. #376
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    You seem to be saying that just a little violation of the First Amendment is harmless and we should just turn our heads. Just a "little" disagreement over an "unimportant" ("unimportant" to whom?) matter can lead to wars and needless deaths, as it did in the Philadelphia Bible wars. The disagreement was over which version of the Bible would be read in public classrooms. While the matter of displaying some religious symbols on public property may SEEM trivial at times, we can see that Christian Nationalists, Dominionists, and others of the same mind but different names, will use that public display to justify further violations.


    A Nineteenth-Century Trojan Horse Plot: The Philadelphia Bible Riots

    but Philadelphia in 1844: the year of the Bible Riots, two of the deadliest outbreaks of street violence before the Civil War. The ‘foreigners’ meanwhile were not British Asians but Irish Catholics. <<<snip>>>>

    Then, as now, schools became a battleground. 1 The northern states of the U.S. built publicly-funded school systems four decades before Britain. Proponents of the public schools saw them as handmaidens of republican government: training grounds for a generation of future citizens. It is no coincidence, indeed, that their emergence closely followed the rewriting of suffrage laws to enfranchise the vast majority of white men. When one Catholic leader in a heavily Irish suburb of Philadelphia tried to shield his constituents’ children from school readings of the King James Bible, then, he provoked outrage, for in the mind of Protestants, the King James was as crucial to the government of a true republic as a balanced constitution. In the fertile imagination of anti-immigrant nativists a practical suggestion soon became a dastardly and deep-rooted plot to destroy American liberty.

    Violence soon followed. Angry locals in the Irish suburb broke up a small gathering of nativists on 3 May. Three days later, the Protestants gathered again in larger numbers, and a gunfight broke out. The first to fall was an eighteen-year old nativist, George Shiffler, who supposedly fell clasping the Stars and Stripes. Over the following days, an anti-immigrant mob avenged Shiffler’s death by burning Catholic churches, torching homes, and desecrating graves. Eventually state militia and Federal troops imposed order through Martial Law, though the local authorities placed most of the blame on the city’s Catholics. Coupled with further violence in July, more than two dozen Philadelphians – both native- and foreign-born – lost their lives in the Bible Riots. A few months later, in municipal elections, new nativist parties swept to power across much of the urban North. 2
    Here's the thing, it didn't violate the 1st Amendment at all. Why do libs have such a difficult time with the phrase, "free exercise"?

    Shouldn't you be in an abortion thread referring to human life as a "zef"?

  7. #377
    Guru
    OKgrannie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,221

    Re: Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Here's the thing, it didn't violate the 1st Amendment at all. Why do libs have such a difficult time with the phrase, "free exercise"?

    Putting religious symbols on public property seems to be "RESPECTING an establishment of religion" to me, and from the discussion here, to many others also. The disagreement often isn't over whether it is actually a violation, but whether the violation is sufficiently significant to bring it to public attention. Those who believe that a few are making a big uproar over a trivial matter need to ask themselves why they are insistent upon continuing an action that is so trivial. You see, if the matter is too trivial to raise the question, it is also too trivial to insist upon continuing.


    Shouldn't you be in an abortion thread referring to human life as a "zef"?
    I believe I SHOULD be correcting misconceptions wherever I find them. Alas, so much ignorance and so little time.
    "Though no one can go back and make a brand new start, anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending."
    ~Anonymous

  8. #378
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    Putting religious symbols on public property seems to be "RESPECTING an establishment of religion" to me, and from the discussion here, to many others also. The disagreement often isn't over whether it is actually a violation, but whether the violation is sufficiently significant to bring it to public attention. Those who believe that a few are making a big uproar over a trivial matter need to ask themselves why they are insistent upon continuing an action that is so trivial. You see, if the matter is too trivial to raise the question, it is also too trivial to insist upon continuing.
    It doesn't matter what it "seems to be" to a militant liberal intent on limiting the freedom of others. It is clearly not congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and it clearly is prohibiting the free exercise therof. The fact that you don't like it matters not. In case you didn't notice, the students have prevailed. Freedom won this battle. Much to your chagrin, I'm sure.

  9. #379
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    You seem to be saying that just a little violation of the First Amendment is harmless and we should just turn our heads. Just a "little" disagreement over an "unimportant" ("unimportant" to whom?) matter can lead to wars and needless deaths, as it did in the Philadelphia Bible wars. The disagreement was over which version of the Bible would be read in public classrooms. While the matter of displaying some religious symbols on public property may SEEM trivial at times, we can see that Christian Nationalists, Dominionists, and others of the same mind but different names, will use that public display to justify further violations.
    Like most rights, even the ones protected by the First Amendment are not absolute. I'm not at all sure the Supreme Court ever should have applied the Establishment Clause to the states at all, but just because it has does not mean that every trivial mixing of church and state is automatically unconstitutional. The call for absolute separation of church and state is simple-minded. There has been quite a bit of mixing of the two in this country's history, and there always will be some. The Court has warned more than once that the Establishment Clause should not be interpreted too rigidly. For example:

    The First Amendment[]does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; 'so help me God' in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'
    .............
    We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. (emphasis added); Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306, 312-315 (1952)
    Last edited by matchlight; 09-21-14 at 03:01 PM.

  10. #380
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    Putting religious symbols on public property seems to be "RESPECTING an establishment of religion" to me, and from the discussion here, to many others also. The disagreement often isn't over whether it is actually a violation, but whether the violation is sufficiently significant to bring it to public attention. Those who believe that a few are making a big uproar over a trivial matter need to ask themselves why they are insistent upon continuing an action that is so trivial. You see, if the matter is too trivial to raise the question, it is also too trivial to insist upon continuing.I believe I SHOULD be correcting misconceptions wherever I find them. Alas, so much ignorance and so little time.
    You really should learn to find the time. There must be a community library where you live.

Page 38 of 45 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •