• 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

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.

Many use quotes in order to suggest their own wisdom, even if these quotes, on reflection, are rather foolish. And it's more impressive if the person being quoted has three names.

I like to quote Albert Einstein because there is less possibility of being challenged, as well as suggesting I travel in a highly knowledgeable fraternity.
 
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.


Why should something as trivial as this have to be settled through the courts, or petitions have to be made to the higher ups. Has it really come to the point where people have to go to a court to see if their rights are being violated, that common sense can't prevail?
 
Why should something as trivial as this have to be settled through the courts, or petitions have to be made to the higher ups. Has it really come to the point where people have to go to a court to see if their rights are being violated, that common sense can't prevail?

There is nothing trivial about rights. I have no problem with the students accepting and abiding by the decision of the university and just play ball.

I do have a problem with some people wanting everyone to be amicable with their decisions based on their beliefs instead of the law.
 
Many use quotes in order to suggest their own wisdom, even if these quotes, on reflection, are rather foolish. And it's more impressive if the person being quoted has three names.

I like to quote Albert Einstein because there is less possibility of being challenged, as well as suggesting I travel in a highly knowledgeable fraternity.

I like quoting Einstein too. A lot of his non-science/math related quotes were more philosophical, innocent and non-political. A lot of them are metaphors of observation.

Then again Einstein claimed he viewed life as a child would so it's understanding.
 
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.


The kids not making a stand doesn't mean their civil rights weren't violated.
 
There is nothing trivial about rights. I have no problem with the students accepting and abiding by the decision of the university and just play ball.

I do have a problem with some people wanting everyone to be amicable with their decisions based on their beliefs instead of the law.
Didn't the students lose their right to put a cross on their helmet after it was approved by the athletic department? Is this something that should rise to the level of having to go to court? This is a smallness of mind that is destroying the country.

It's also noteworthy of the laws some people care to enforce while willingly ignoring others.
 
I like quoting Einstein too. A lot of his non-science/math related quotes were more philosophical, innocent and non-political. A lot of them are metaphors of observation.

Then again Einstein claimed he viewed life as a child would so it's understanding.
I made that post as sort of a joke but, at the risk of sounding pretentious, i'm coincidentally reading a book by Einstein now called "Out of My Later Years".
 
Didn't the students lose their right to put a cross on their helmet after it was approved by the athletic department? Is this something that should rise to the level of having to go to court? This is a smallness of mind that is destroying the country.

It's also noteworthy of the laws some people care to enforce while willingly ignoring others.
[emphasis added by bubba]
you obviously misunderstand
there is no right for a student to affix any emblem on the playing helmet of the state university
 
The kids not making a stand doesn't mean their civil rights weren't violated.
Exactly. They will stay silent because their positions are at risk. Perhaps this issue can be visited later but, meanwhile, the pettiness in all of this is staggering. What a joyless lot of people they are.
 
I made that post as sort of a joke but, at the risk of sounding pretentious, i'm coincidentally reading a book by Einstein now called "Out of My Later Years".

I believe I have read that book many years ago - or at least I read a book about his later years, I just don't remember the name because it was like 10 years ago and have probably read like 300-400 books since then.
 
[emphasis added by bubba]
you obviously misunderstand
there is no right for a student to affix any emblem on the playing helmet of the state university

Of course I never claimed that, and a misunderstanding of what has actually been said is an ongoing problem with leftists. Leftists should be more concerned about the incredible amount of money being wasted at educational facilities rather whether the athletic department of a university allowed students to put a star on their helmet to honor dead friends.

This inability to understand the difference between the important and the trivial has made leftists a petty, officious group, petulant adolescents insisting on their own way and stamping their feet until they get it. Their own education system has failed them, though of course they don't know it, and will rattle on about stars on helmets as though defending the inevitable collapse of civilization.

What a bunch of loons!
 
[emphasis added by bubba]
you obviously misunderstand
there is no right for a student to affix any emblem on the playing helmet of the state university

Yes there is - it's called the First Amendment...

Your big goddamn government cannot stop an individual from placing a crucifix on their helmet...

Of course you being a progressive you don't understand that - individual freedoms and rights.
 
Of course I never claimed that
[emphasis added by bubba]

but you did. from post #306:
Didn't the students lose their right to put a cross on their helmet ...
here's a hint. when you post something, the rest of us can read it, too

, and a misunderstanding of what has actually been said is an ongoing problem with leftists. Leftists should be more concerned about the incredible amount of money being wasted at educational facilities rather whether the athletic department of a university allowed students to put a star on their helmet to honor dead friends.

This inability to understand the difference between the important and the trivial has made leftists a petty, officious group, petulant adolescents insisting on their own way and stamping their feet until they get it. Their own education system has failed them, though of course they don't know it, and will rattle on about stars on helmets as though defending the inevitable collapse of civilization.

What a bunch of loons!
 
Correct. Now they are not forced to wear a cross, their rights are no longer violated.

However, if a player chooses to display a religious symbol, he may do so, acvording to his civil rights.
 
[emphasis added by bubba]
you obviously misunderstand
there is no right for a student to affix any emblem on the playing helmet of the state university

Yes there is a right...it's called The1st Amendment.
 
Yes there is a right...it's called The1st Amendment.

you are quite mistaken
one does not have a RIGHT to use the facilities of another - in this instance a state university - to project their religious views

now, if he owns the football team, he can then place anything he wants on the uniform

where did your side come up with the idea that you are entitled to use the property of others as it pleases you, even tho the property owner objects to the manner of usage?
 
you are quite mistaken
one does not have a RIGHT to use the facilities of another - in this instance a state university - to project their religious views

now, if he owns the football team, he can then place anything he wants on the uniform

where did your side come up with the idea that you are entitled to use the property of others as it pleases you, even tho the property owner objects to the manner of usage?

The entitlement mentality pevades all they survey.
 
If someone wants to walk around with a cross on his helmet is not my problem. As long as it is completely and utterly of their own free choice and that the players/team/coaches then also respect the person who refuses to put a cross on their helmet because they think it does not symbolize what they believe.

And as long is it was done with their own money and not public money.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
[emphasis added by bubba]

but you did. from post #306:
here's a hint. when you post something, the rest of us can read it, too

, and a misunderstanding of what has actually been said is an ongoing problem with leftists. Leftists should be more concerned about the incredible amount of money being wasted at educational facilities rather whether the athletic department of a university allowed students to put a star on their helmet to honor dead friends.
This inability to understand the difference between the important and the trivial has made leftists a petty, officious group, petulant adolescents insisting on their own way and stamping their feet until they get it. Their own education system has failed them, though of course they don't know it, and will rattle on about stars on helmets as though defending the inevitable collapse of civilization.
What a bunch of loons!

You should quote the entire sentence and not remove it from context. I said "Didn't the students lose their right to put a cross on their helmet after it was approved by the athletic department?" In other words the Athletic Department gave them that right. That's not so hard to understand unless you dishonestly remove the latter part of the sentence.
 
The kids not making a stand doesn't mean their civil rights weren't violated.

You and the kids can claim anything you wish...but a determination in court is our constitutional legal system.

In the eyes of the law...If no one is harmed, there is no a case.
 
Yes there is - it's called the First Amendment...

Your big goddamn government cannot stop an individual from placing a crucifix on their helmet...

Of course you being a progressive you don't understand that - individual freedoms and rights.


The 1st amendment is not a free pass for anyone to say or do as they wish...where ever they wish. That is not me saying so it is 230 year of American jurisprudence saying so.

Christians need to wake up and realize their free pass is over...Christians have to operate under the law just like any other American.
 
Back
Top Bottom