• 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

disneydude said:
the problem comes when a player feels that he is obligated to participate in fear of retalitation for not going along. If it were an individual player decision, I'm ok with it....but if the idea was pushed by the coaching staff or administration, that is wrong.
Click to expand...

Coercion?

Well, when that happens be sure to post the story, but to make brash assumptions without precedent is just wrong.
 
Rediculous. Pathetic.


I mean, I understand the colleges move. They have to protect themselves from litigation.

For ****s sake, no one was forced to wear it, no one is forced to fund it. It's not public funds that procured that gear.


Sometimes I think life would be better if we all just died.
 
justabubba said:
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?
Click to expand...

I missed when the KKK became a religion.
 
americanwoman said:
So you wouldn't mind a couple of devout Satanic worshiping football players with a picture of Satan on their helmets as a thoughtful homage to honor a fellow satanic football player that died? It's not endorsing anything, just honoring their friend.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt. As long as it didnt replace or supplant the school logo.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Coercion?

Well, when that happens be sure to post the story, but to make brash assumptions without precedent is just wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't know the specific facts of this specific case. It may be that there was none. I was speaking in general. If the coaching staff or the school administration says "hey I think this is a really good idea but you don't have to do it"....of course there is coercion because a player on the team is not going to want to take the chance that they might be retaliated against if they don't. This is exactly why companies have rules against managers dating people they supervise etc.....because of the very appearance of impropriety. If this was something that some individual players came up with and the others decided to do it as well....then that is is different situation.
 
disneydude said:
I don't know the specific facts of this specific case. It may be that there was none. I was speaking in general. If the coaching staff or the school administration says "hey I think this is a really good idea but you don't have to do it"....of course there is coercion because a player on the team is not going to want to take the chance that they might be retaliated against if they don't. This is exactly why companies have rules against managers dating people they supervise etc.....because of the very appearance of impropriety. If this was something that some individual players came up with and the others decided to do it as well....then that is is different situation.
Click to expand...

Yeah right, so now Christianity is a gang or a cult???

How devout do you think your typical Christian is?

This is a state university and I HIGHLY doubt anyone on that team would care weather a guy put a crucifix on his helmet or not.....

Yeah generally those "crazy Christians" go to private Christian colleges...

You can be assured that the strong majority of those on the team belong to wild frats that love to do things that I suppose - contradict the Bible????

So I find coercion highly unlikely.......... I bet out of the 60-70 guys on that team maybe 10 attend church on a regular basis.

Sorry I didn't mean to go over the top or mock you - I just find the stigma behind Christianity and the notion that coercion is a possibility in a weird way to lend credence to this ruling to be ridiculous... The idea is just so over the top for me.
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
No. The cost is not the issue.
The helmets are part of the official school uniform at a state run school.
If the team mates wanted to wear the decals on their faces that would be fine.
On the helmets ... no.
Click to expand...

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
 
Risky Thicket said:
Oh, puhleeze! What would the reaction have been if the two men being honored were Jews or Buddhists or - the most hated of them all - MUSLIMS and the team was asked to put the appropriate religious symbol on their helmets?

Can you honestly tell me that you would have been just as supportive if it were a star and crescent decal the players were to wear to honor two Muslims?

moon.gif


Be honest:

Do you think the team would have readily agreed to wear it?

Would you have been as quick to bring it to our attention if some players or citizens had protested it?

Would have been as supportive to displaying that religious symbol?
Click to expand...

I would gladly wear a Star of David to show solidarity for a fallen Jewish friend or teammate, same with Muslim. And I'm a dacoit Christian.

I respect and honor other people and their faiths, I don't try to suppress or judge them.
 
pinqy said:
Are the students normally allowed to wear whatever they want on their helmets or is there a general rule against that? I've never heard of a team where that was allowed. So we're not talking about preventing an expression on religious grounds, we're talking about a specific exemption to the general rule granted by the school for a specific explicitly religious symbol.

Which constitutes endorsement by the school in violation of the Establishment Clause.


Which is irrelevant in Establishment cases.
Click to expand...

You're correct. Still don't see how this leads to the conclusion that the stickers should be removed.
 
Peter Grimm said:
You're correct. Still don't see how this leads to the conclusion that the stickers should be removed.
Click to expand...

So you agree that the stickers are a violation of the Constitution, but you don't see why that should be corrected?
 
pinqy said:
So you agree that the stickers are a violation of the Constitution, but you don't see why that should be corrected?
Click to expand...

I don't think they violate the constitution. Argue the facts rather than try to put words in my mouth please.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I don't think they violate the constitution. Argue the facts rather than try to put words in my mouth please.
Click to expand...

I'm not...I said they were a violation of the Establishment Clause, and you said I was correct. Not sure how you can both agree and disagree. You have me confused here.
 
So this would be okay too right?
crescent-200.gif
 
pinqy said:
I'm not...I said they were a violation of the Establishment Clause, and you said I was correct. Not sure how you can both agree and disagree. You have me confused here.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pinqy said:
Which constitutes endorsement by the school in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Click to expand...

That's your assertion, supported by nothing whatever from the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence. I will give it all the weight it deserves.

The damned Establishment Clause never even applied to the states, for God's sake, until 1947. For more than a century and a half, any state that had wanted to could have declared its own official religion. Just imagine! But somehow, this country survived it--more's the pity.

Amazing how this disgusting, fascist Amerikka--which as every evolved progressive who's ever seen a couple Michael Moore or Oliver Stone films or taken a few college courses knows is the source of all the world's evil, which was born in slavery, which has oppressed blacks and women and homosexuals forever, while it wasn't busy committing genocide against Native Americans or using its atom bombs to commit war crimes, as it spread its filthy capitalist, xtian tentacles all over the planet, plundering, warring, and polluting as it went, and which now is chafing at the bit to kill some more Muslims to feed its lust for blood and profits--ever managed to avoid becoming a full-out xtian theocracy!
 
Peter Grimm said:
We had Jewish day in Colorado public schools. Kids had to wear the Star of David. It was meant to raise awareness about the holocaust
Click to expand...

That's a bit different: it wasn't centered on the the Torah; it was centered around a point in human history that not only has emperical evidence to back it up, but affected the entire world. It's not about a certian religious perspective. The kids putting crosses on their helmets were defacing school property and making a religious statement in a publically funded sports program.

As star of David sewn onto clothing as a pejorative racial identification under school adminstration for the purposes of education and a crucifix sticker put onto a a school helmet by some guys in a public arena because Jesus is their lord and savior are two very differnt things.

I'm suprised that you try and compare the two.
 
jet57 said:
That's a bit different: it wasn't centered on the the Torah; it was centered around a point in human history that not only has emperical evidence to back it up, but affected the entire world. It's not about a certian religious perspective. The kids putting crosses on their helmets were defacing school property and making a religious statement in a publically funded sports program.

As star of David sewn onto clothing as a pejorative racial identification under school adminstration for the purposes of education and a crucifix sticker put onto a a school helmet by some guys in a public arena because Jesus is their lord and savior are two very differnt things.

I'm suprised that you try and compare the two.
Click to expand...

They're exactly the same. In both cases, the intent is to show solidarity with, and to memorialize the fallen. I fully support this.

It doesn't matter if the star was sewn, stiched, knitted, or duct taped (FYI, it was made of construction paper and safety pinned).
 
Peter Grimm said:
They're exactly the same. In both cases, the intent is to show solidarity with, and to memorialize the fallen. I fully support this.

It doesn't matter if the star was sewn, stiched, knitted, or duct taped (FYI, it was made of construction paper and safety pinned).
Click to expand...

Well then, what am I missing about the crosses that validates what you're saying? And I question your interpretation of the star of David representing the fallen in that effect: I really do.
 
Lursa said:
I missed when the KKK became a religion.
Click to expand...

the kluckers burn these artifacts
maybe you can help me remember what it is that they burn
 
justabubba said:
the kluckers burn these artifacts
maybe you can help me remember what it is that they burn
Click to expand...

Because they are hating in the name of Christ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom