• 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

Buck Ewer said:
Backwards thinking...
I am endorsing the repression of the state ENDORSING ONE RELIGION OVER ALL OTHERS. That is the spirit and intent of the constitution.
Click to expand...

It isn't endorsing a religion, in this case it is telling people they can't express their religion. That is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I respect the rights of atheists to be such, and find that most are quite decent human beings with whom I get along very well. I would hesitate, therefore, to lump all atheists together, as you seem to, and accuse them of having no respect for liberty.

I would say, however, that there is a fringe of litigious-minded people out there, who happen to be atheists, who really do go out of their way to redefine "ridiculous."

In the case of my OP, the players on the team chose to honor a fallen teammate with the symbol of the cross - mainly because the individual who died was devoutly Christian. In my mind, that is a very thoughtful gesture, and one meant to honor who he was and what he stood for in life. I think for anyone to want to take away their ability to grieve as they see fit is not only wrong, but also cruel and not productive.

What did this lawyer gain from his victory?

Sometimes, we, as a society, take political correctness to absurd lengths. This is one of those times.
Click to expand...
Hear hear! This is a reasonable point-of-view.
 
jmotivator said:
It isn't endorsing a religion, in this case it is telling people they can't express their religion. That is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
Allowing the religious expression to be on the official uniform is tacit endorsement, and any endorsement is unconstitutional.
No one is stopping the team from wearing personal crosses or any un-official expression of their religious preferences.
It's when it is on the school uniform of a state run school that it steps on the constitution.
 
I would leave the cross on my helmet and dare someone to do something about it.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Allowing the religious expression to be on the official uniform is tacit endorsement, and any endorsement is unconstitutional.
No one is stopping the team from wearing personal crosses or any un-official expression of their religious preferences.
It's when it is on the school uniform of a state run school that it steps on the constitution.
Click to expand...

The players have a right to wear thosr crosses, if they choose.
 
jmotivator said:
Seriously, the anti-Religion fervor has reached peak stupid. It's like atheists are afraid they will accidentally become Christians.
Click to expand...
It's sheer idiocy and I imagine has something more to do with insecurity and being picked on too much as a child than any true concern over religious symbols.
 
apdst said:
I would leave the cross on my helmet and dare someone to do something about it.
Click to expand...
Under the circumstances you would probably be benched.
The school administration made the decision to pull the crosses.
It was not forced.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Allowing the religious expression to be on the official uniform is tacit endorsement, and any endorsement is unconstitutional.
No one is stopping the team from wearing personal crosses or any un-official expression of their religious preferences.
It's when it is on the school uniform of a state run school that it steps on the constitution.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It is explicit endorsement of the dead teammate.

Be we aren't going to get anywhere since you are so hardline in your anti-religion that you support ripping out headstones of dead soldiers...
 
Taylor said:
It's sheer idiocy and I imagine has something more to do with insecurity and being picked on too much as a child than any true concern over religious symbols.
Click to expand...
The concern is over constitutionally guaranteed freedoms...
...not religious symbols.
 
jmotivator said:
No, it's not. It is explicit endorsement of the dead teammate.

Be we aren't going to get anywhere since you are so hardline in your anti-religion that you support ripping out headstones of dead soldiers...
Click to expand...

Endorsement of the dead teammate? WTF does that even mean? A religious expression over all others is a religious expression over all others.
I am not in support ripping out headstones of dead soldiers...
All religions are represented on the individual headstones identifying the individual dead soldiers religious preferences.
That is very different from the state endorsing one religion over all others.
I'm sure you understand this concept .
You are just being pig-headed.
That is fine with me ...anyone can see what you are doing.
 
Buck Ewer said:
The concern is over constitutionally guaranteed freedoms...
...not religious symbols.
Click to expand...
It's whining about a religious symbol because you somehow feel left out.
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
As long as it remains "personal" ...Yes.
Click to expand...

And this was expression of his personal religion.

If it helps, atheism was endorsed by the empty space next to the cross.
 
Buck Ewer said:
That's fine for you.
But keep in mind that indifference promotes hubris.
Who is to say that some teammates were not forced to some degree to wear the religious symbols?
Put your self in the place of one of these kids who may be himself an atheist or who may have objections to the cross as a member of another religion. To NOT wear the cross would make them seem insensitive and and an uncaring team mate. He would have to wear the cross on his helmet to at least appear to be part of the team.
The athletic department forced that on them at a secular school.
Click to expand...

And if I was part of that team I would have gladly put the cross on my helmet in remembrance of a friend.
 
Buck Ewer said:
You did not complete the thought.
What I am endorsing is an active opposition to religious expression AT A STATE RUN SCHOOL.
Funny how you chose to omit that part.
Yes... I would be in favor of removing religious symbols, of any kind, from public land .
Click to expand...

which the SCOTUS has already ruled on and says you can't do that.
you seem to be missing this major detail.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Not on the official school uniform.
The school administration saw that, and acted appropriately and accordingly.
Click to expand...

You are so wrong it isn't funny. the only reason that the school pulled it was because they didn't want to deal with a bunch of babies crying over a cross that the students themselves elected to wear on their own accord.

what is funny is that these same players had been wearing them for 2 weeks and no one gave a rats rear end. lol.

the school knew about it and didn't pull them. they didn't want to waste school money of frivilous lawsuits being slammed by people who are so insecure with themselves that the mere sight of a cross causes them to go into a frothing rage.

even though it violates the constitution.
 
ludin said:
which the SCOTUS has already ruled on and says you can't do that.

.
Click to expand...

The school's administration saw the folly and unconstitutionality of what was being done. They wisely put an end to it ...
...you seem to be missing this major detail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom