• 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

Good thing the constitution has never required the explicit writing of a statement for it to apply to certain situations. Anymore irrelevant statements? No? Moving on. Wait... before you come back with some nonsense:

Even if this wasn't a case of separation of church & state (which it is as ), do students have a legal right to deface school property with their religious symbols? No. They do not. So as it stands, the school has a right to tell them to take off the little crosses and there's nothing you can do about it. :shrug:

That's why we have a constitution, so people can't invent fake ideas and apply them to the people. There's nothing in the Constitution, nor anywhere else, that says anything else about seperation of church and state being mandatory by law.

The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free practice thereof....".

No law has been passed by Congress and these kids are free to practice their religion.
 
Or better yet, wear a cross on their body suit, close to their heart for example.

Or, instead of denying these kids of their civil rights, don't watch the games.
 
That's why we have a constitution, so people can't invent fake ideas and apply them to the people. There's nothing in the Constitution, nor anywhere else, that says anything else about seperation of church and state being mandatory by law.

The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free practice thereof....".

No law has been passed by Congress and these kids are free to practice their religion.

Lmao, what silly nonsense, these kids are free to practice their religion, they're not free to deface school uniforms as they see fit. :shrug: As a matter of fact, your nonpoint about church and state is just that a nonpoint. Here are some other rights not enumerated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And here goes:

https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/joint-statement-current-law-religion-public-schools

As far as American law is concerned, religious freedom doesn't extend to you putting stickers on state funded uniforms or defacing state funded property for religious reasons :shrug:
 
Last edited:
I know what circles the Democrats ran in!

You're still not saying, what kind of circles did you run in where you claim all of those people were democrats? You know a lot of Dixiecrats do ya Grant? ;)
 
Or, instead of denying these kids of their civil rights, don't watch the games.

I already stated that I did not have a problem with it, but if the league has a problem they can have an alternative memorial to their deceased buddy in the manner I mentioned, nothing more and nothing else.
 
You're doing that thing where you're being purposely obtuse. The Westboro's extremist interpretation of the same dogma doesn't make them any less Christian because you don't like wha they're saying.

Well, alright:

United Northern and Southern Knights of the Ku Klux Klan - Home



Whatever you say.

I never said the KKK didnt consider themselves Christians, I said that I didnt believe that their organization was based on a Christian belief or foundation.

If you are a member of the debate society and you are a Chrisitian...even if all the other members are Christian, it doesnt mean that the debate society is a Christian group.

I did not know that. Too bad if you dont like it.


However you are right that the Westboro Church does make it obvious that they believe (and I use that term loosely) they are acting in the name of God.
 
Lmao, what silly nonsense, these kids are free to practice their religion, they're not free to deface school uniforms as they see fit. :shrug: As a matter of fact, your nonpoint about church and state is just that a nonpoint. Here are some other rights not enumerated:

Unenumerated rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And here goes:

https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/joint-statement-current-law-religion-public-schools

As far as American law is concerned, religious freedom doesn't extend to you putting stickers on state funded uniforms or defacing state funded property for religious reasons :shrug:

A temporary decal isn't defacing school property.
 
I never said the KKK didnt consider themselves Christians, I said that I didnt believe that their organization was based on a Christian belief or foundation.

What main tenets of Christianity do they disagree with? Before you answer, remember - Christians practically invented the selling of people of one race and not others. The Mayans, the Greeks, The Muslims, the Jews, owned slaves from all regions and religions. Christians made it almost imperative that blacks be the common currency for various political and religious reasons. One of these being the curse of Cain. That curse denied us access to churches (Mormons), it denied us civil rights (Protestants) and even Catholics (Caribbean Catholics).

If you are a member of the debate society and you are a Chrisitian...even if all the other members are Christian, it doesnt mean that the debate society is a Christian group.

You're being foolish. This group wasn't labeled by others. It consider itself in line with mainstream Christian belief. You not agreeing with their definition of Christianity does not change the fact that their interpretation of Christianity is as valid as yours. :shrug:

I did not know that. Too bad if you dont like it.

On one hand, you've never heard of them, on the other you know they're not real Christians because they don't match your intepretation of Christianity.

However you are right that the Westboro Church does make it obvious that they believe (and I use that term loosely) they are acting in the name of God.

However, according to you - their interpretation of Christianity is... flawed. Yes?
 
What main tenets of Christianity do they disagree with? Before you answer, remember - Christians practically invented the selling of people of one race and not others. The Mayans, the Greeks, The Muslims, the Jews, owned slaves from all regions and religions. Christians made it almost imperative that blacks be the common currency for various political and religious reasons. One of these being the curse of Cain. That curse denied us access to churches (Mormons), it denied us civil rights (Protestants) and even Catholics (Caribbean Catholics).
You're being foolish. This group wasn't labeled by others. It consider itself in line with mainstream Christian belief. You not agreeing with their definition of Christianity does not change the fact that their interpretation of Christianity is as valid as yours. :shrug:
On one hand, you've never heard of them, on the other you know they're not real Christians because they don't match your intepretation of Christianity.
However, according to you - their interpretation of Christianity is... flawed. Yes?


I'm not even going to read that wall of useless text. Why should I? It's apparent from your first sentence that you didnt read mine...or perhaps only read into it what you already believed (incorrectly)

You are trying to belittle me because I had no substantive interest in the KKK? And still dont?

ROFLMAO! :lamo
 
That's why we have a constitution, so people can't invent fake ideas and apply them to the people. There's nothing in the Constitution, nor anywhere else, that says anything else about seperation of church and state being mandatory by law.

The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free practice thereof....".

No law has been passed by Congress and these kids are free to practice their religion.
They'd rather ignore that and go by the false claim of 'separation'. These people are actually more dangerous in the long term (and more annoying in the short term) than Christians.
 
I'm not even going to read that wall of useless text. Why should I? It's apparent from your first sentence that you didnt read mine...or perhaps only read into it what you already believed (incorrectly)

You are trying to belittle me because I had no substantive interest in the KKK? And still dont?

ROFLMAO! :lamo

Nope, I'm calling you out your statements useless. The fact that you don't know who they are doesn't make them any less Christian. You can't even tell us which tenets of Christianity they disagree with. However, you know it's not Christian..... because? I'm asking you to substanciate your sweeping generalization about an organisation whose religious context you were unaware of minutes ago but then rapidly dismissed as being un-Christian without being able to cite one difference between it and that of everyday Christians.
 
What main tenets of Christianity do they disagree with? Before you answer, remember - Christians practically invented the selling of people of one race and not others. The Mayans, the Greeks, The Muslims, the Jews, owned slaves from all regions and religions. Christians made it almost imperative that blacks be the common currency for various political and religious reasons. One of these being the curse of Cain. That curse denied us access to churches (Mormons), it denied us civil rights (Protestants) and even Catholics (Caribbean Catholics).
This is so flawed that it demeans a rational person to read it. "Practically invented"? This is funny, but the tone behind it makes it quite serious.
 
Football team forced to remove Christian crosses from helmets | Fox News



Football players at Arkansas State University were ordered to either remove a Christian cross decal from their helmets or modify it into a mathematical sign after a Jonesboro attorney complained that the image violated the U.S. Constitution.

The cross decal was meant to memorialize former player Markel Owens and former equipment manager Barry Weyer, said athletic director Terry Mohajir. Weyer was killed in a June car crash. Owens was gunned down in Tennessee in January.

These young men were simply trying to do a good deed. They were standing up for their fallen teammates. It’s really too bad the university could not stand up for the team.
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.”

It was a decision that had the full support of the university’s athletic director.

“I support our students’ expression of their faith,” Mohajir said. “I am 100 percent behind our students and coaches.”

CLICK HERE TO JOIN TODD ON FACEBOOK!

However, the athletic director said he had no choice but to remove the crosses after he received a message from the university’s legal counsel.

“It is my opinion that the crosses must be removed from the helmets,” University counsel Lucinda McDaniel wrote to Mohajir. “While we could argue that the cross with the initials of the fallen student and trainer merely memorialize their passing, the symbol we have authorized to convey that message is a Christian cross.”

According to documents provided to me by Arkansas State, McDaniel gave the football team a choice – they could either remove the cross or modify the decal. And by modify – she meant deface.

“If the bottom of the cross can be cut off so that the symbol is a plus sign (+) there should be no problem,” she wrote. “It is the Christian symbol which has caused the legal objection.”

The team had been wearing the decals for two weeks without any complaints. That changed after last Saturday’s nationally televised game against the Tennessee Volunteers.

Jonesboro attorney Louis Nisenbaum sent McDaniel an email complaining about the cross decal.

“That is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause as a state endorsement of the Christian religion,” Nisenbaum wrote. “Please advise whether you agree and whether ASU will continue this practice.”

Ironically, the university’s legal counsel admitted in a letter that there were no specific court cases that addressed crosses on football helmets. Nevertheless, she feared the possibility of a lawsuit.

“It is my opinion that we will not prevail on that challenge and must remove the crosses from the helmets or alter the symbols so that they are a (plus sign) instead of a cross,” she wrote in an email to the athletic director.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation fired off a letter congratulating the university on cleansing the helmets of the Christian symbol.

“The crosses appeared to confer State’s endorsement of religion, specifically Christianity,” the FFRF wrote. “The inclusion of the Latin cross on the helmets also excludes the 19 percent of the American population that is non-religious.”

FFRF co-presidents Annie Lauire Gaylor and Dan Barker went so far as to suggest alternative ways for the football players to mourn.

“Many teams around the country honor former teammates by putting that player’s number on their helmets or jerseys, or by wearing a black armband,” they wrote. “Either of those options, or another symbolic gesture free from religion imagery, would be appropriate.”

That suggestion set off the athletic director.

“I don’t even kinda-sorta care about any organization that tells our students how to grieve,” Mohajir told me. “Everybody grieves differently. I don’t think anybody has the right to tell our students how to memorialize their colleagues, their classmates or any loved ones they have.”

While Mr. Weyer told me he supports the university “100 percent”, he said he took great offense at the FFRF’s attack.

“The fact is the cross was honoring two fallen teammates who just happened to be Christians,” he wrote on his Facebook page. “I just have a hard time understanding why we as Christians have to be tolerant of everybody else’s rights, but give up ours.”

I do, too, Mr. Weyer. I do, too.

Liberty Institute attorney Hiram Sasser told me he would be more than honored to represent the football team in a lawsuit against the university.

“It is outrage that the university defacing the cross and reducing it to what the university calls a plus sign,” he told me. “It is disgusting.”

Sasser said the students are well within their rights to wear a cross decal on their helmets and accused the university of breaking the law.

“It is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination to force the players to remove or alter the cross on their helmets that they chose themselves simply because the cross is religious,” Sasser said.

These young men were simply trying to do a good deed. They were standing up for their fallen teammates. It’s really too bad the university could not stand up for the team.

“The university and others want football players to be positive role models in the community, but as soon as the players promote a positive message honoring their former teammates – the university discriminates against them in a blatant violation of the Constitution.”

Mr. Weyer said he’s not a political man – but he is a Christian man. And he’s tired of having to kowtow to the politically correct crowd.

“It’s time that we as Christians stand up and say we’re tired of being pushed around,” he said. “We’re tired of having to bow down to everyone else’s rights. What happened to our rights? The last time I checked it said freedom of religion – not freedom from religion.”

Well said, Mr. Weyer. Well said.

Had the athletic department required all helmets to have a cross that might be something to worry about, however students electing to honor another in a religious way is perfectly fine.
 
I never said the KKK didnt consider themselves Christians, I said that I didnt believe that their organization was based on a Christian belief or foundation. If you are a member of the debate society and you are a Chrisitian...even if all the other members are Christian, it doesnt mean that the debate society is a Christian group. I did not know that. Too bad if you dont like it. However you are right that the Westboro Church does make it obvious that they believe (and I use that term loosely) they are acting in the name of God.
It would be interesting to know which part of the Bible they were referring to when calling themselves "Christian". It would certainly have nothing to do with Christ's teaching in the NT but there may be something buried in the OT.

Perhaps one of the Democrats/Leftists would know.
 
The players chose to wear the cross on their helmets. It wasn't a decision that came from the university or the coaches.



On that basis, the atty's assertion that this violated the Establishment clause is BS. Only if the University itself did it would there even be a question, and even then it would be arguable.
 
Nope, I'm calling you out your statements useless. The fact that you don't know who they are doesn't make them any less Christian. You can't even tell us which tenets of Christianity they disagree with. However, you know it's not Christian..... because? I'm asking you to substanciate your sweeping generalization about an organisation whose religious context you were unaware of minutes ago but then rapidly dismissed as being un-Christian without being able to cite one difference between it and that of everyday Christians.

Never said it they werent Christians, said I didnt know that the organization was based on Christianity.

Reading....it's fundamental. Please stop reading what you WANT to read into my posts.

Again, you're making yourself look foolish trying to look 'right' here. Kinda sad it's that important to you.
 
"At the heart of racism is the religious assertion that God made a creative mistake when He brought some people into being." ~ Friedrich Otto Hertz
 
This is so flawed that it demeans a rational person to read it. "Practically invented"? This is funny, but the tone behind it makes it quite serious.

Oh? Was there anything like the Transatlantic slave trade before it?
 
Never said it they werent Christians,

You seem to be saying a lot of things:

I said that I didnt believe that their organization was based on a Christian belief or foundation.

I see NOTHING Christian.

If their organization wasn't based on Christian belief or foundation and when presented with images of Christian crosses, statements from the leaders and an affirmation that Jesus is the savior, and still reject that you saw anything Chirstian can you still honestly claim that you never said they weren't Christian? ;)
 
You seem to be saying a lot of things:

If their organization wasn't based on Christian belief or foundation and when presented with images of Christian crosses, statements from the leaders and an affirmation that Jesus is the savior, and still reject that you saw anything Chirstian can you still honestly claim that you never said they weren't Christian? ;)

Wow, 2 quotes from different posts taken out of context!

Not too desperate to make a point, eh?

Please...dont ask ME about honesty! LOL

You still refuse to acknowlege the distinction...dishonest

People can be Christians in an organization yet the organization not be based on Christian principles. Like the debate society, like a softball team.....
 
"At the heart of racism is the religious assertion that God made a creative mistake when He brought some people into being." ~ Friedrich Otto Hertz

C'mon that is total nonsense considering every religion has all races, so how could such a statement be true?

If you want to interchange "racism" with "bias" then maybe that quote would make some sort of sense.
 
When you have nothing to say, don't say it.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers

This I agree with 100%.

Sadly, some people think it's up to the government to protect them from being offended - as if a crucifix is logically something to be offended by.

Anyone who is offended by something as mundane a cross has issues or is a total drama queen.

I'm tired of people thinking others should change so they don't offend others.... People should learn how to ignore what they don't like or what may offend them.
 
Or, instead of denying these kids of their civil rights, don't watch the games.

If these kids' civil rights were violated as you claim...then the Constitution allows for redress of grievance.

They can ask the university to reconsider. They can ask a judge for injunction. They can file civil rights suits against the university.

The university did what it believed was proper...If the student remain moot, then no rights were violated.
 
Back
Top Bottom