• 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

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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.
 
These militant atheists have failed at life. I pity them. And they don't have true respect for liberty, nor do they interpret the Constitution with integrity.
 
These militant atheists have failed at life. I pity them. And they don't have true respect for liberty, nor do they interpret the Constitution with integrity.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

The players chose to wear the cross on their helmets. It wasn't a decision that came from the university or the coaches.
 
The players chose to wear the cross on their helmets. It wasn't a decision that came from the university or the coaches.

So? As long as it was not forced upon players who did not want to wear a cross on their helmets I could care less. And I am an atheist.
 
Are students at the college allowed to wear crosses around their necks? Jewish stars?

The Constitution ensures we have the right to our religious beliefs....as long as no students were forced to display the crosses, what is the problem? Why cant they express their belief?
 
This wasn't a legal case as I see it, but an over-cautious administration - I suspect that the case would not have survived courtroom proceedings, but that the admin decided it wasn't worth the hassle/bad publicity. I would also have no issues with players wearing the cross, as long as it wasn't 'officially endorsed' (which does not seem to be the case) and it wasn't a safety risk (get a free cross-shaped bruise with every headbutt!)
 
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.

This is Debate Politics, many here make an industry of lumping people together.
 
Definitely sounds like a case where the administration of the college overreacted to a complaint that was just plain stupid. As others have said, so long as they weren't forced to wear them in any way, the players should be free to wear them, especially as they were on their helmets where it poses no safety risk I can think of.
 
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?
 
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?

A plus sign would be much closer to the KKK insignia.

When I first read the story, I was thinking the main emblem on the side of the helmet, but for a single season commemoration of teammates this seems trivial.
 
Were the dead team-mates crucified?
If they were then I would understand putting the cross decals on their helmets.
If they were not ... then the traditional black arm-band would be appropriate and called for to honor their dead on and off the field.
A football game funded by the state is no place to promote christianity, and that is precisely what these crosses represented.
The jackass who thought up this christian promotional stunt should be severely reprimanded.

The judgement to remove the crosses was correct and justified.
 
There is no law suit. There is no violation of law. There is not an injured party. The Liberty counsel and Fox news are outraged. What's new.
 
Geez people, lighten up.

This is a public university and they were concerned about certain legal issues apparently...which is their job (I assume).

No one is going to die without the cross on the helmets.

And why not just put the initials of the dead people with a R.I.P. on the helmets instead?


Religion? Humanities dummest invention, imo.
 
There is no law suit. There is no violation of law. There is not an injured party. The Liberty counsel and Fox news are outraged. What's new.

a violation of a constitutional right such as freedom of religion and practice thereof is an injury that these students suffered. the liberty counsel and other should be outraged that people religious rights are being stomped on.

please see any SCOTUS ruling on this matter. just because you step into a public forum does not mean you give up your 1st amendment rights.

not only were the kids religious views stepped on but their right to free speech. putting a cross on a helmet is free speech those rights cannot be violated by the state or the government or the FFR no matter how offended they might be.

your right to be offended doesn't stamp out someone right to free speech.
 
Geez people, lighten up.

This is a public university and they were concerned about certain legal issues apparently...which is their job (I assume).

No one is going to die without the cross on the helmets.

And why not just put the initials of the dead people with a R.I.P. on the helmets instead?


Religion? Humanities dummest invention, imo.

violation of the 1st amendment an even dummer invention. which is exaclty what the school and this so called lawyer did was violate the constitution.
students had every right to put a cross on their helmet if they wanted to.

if a simple cross offends more so when it is something you don't even believe in then you have bigger issues that you need to deal with.
 
violation of the 1st amendment an even dummer invention. which is exaclty what the school and this so called lawyer did was violate the constitution.
students had every right to put a cross on their helmet if they wanted to.

if a simple cross offends more so when it is something you don't even believe in then you have bigger issues that you need to deal with.

:roll:

Where did you learn to read? I never said I was offended.

Offended by what? A bunch of overreacting God-club members?

LOL.

I look upon religions the same way I look upon putting wheels on a hat...rather silly and a complete waste of time.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
a violation of a constitutional right such as freedom of religion and practice thereof is an injury that these students suffered. the liberty counsel and other should be outraged that people religious rights are being stomped on.

please see any SCOTUS ruling on this matter. just because you step into a public forum does not mean you give up your 1st amendment rights.

not only were the kids religious views stepped on but their right to free speech. putting a cross on a helmet is free speech those rights cannot be violated by the state or the government or the FFR no matter how offended they might be.

your right to be offended doesn't stamp out someone right to free speech.
No .
The personal expression of their religious freedom ends with their personal attire. The uniform of the school team is NOT personal attire.
If the University allowed the crosses to be worn as part of the UNIFORM they would be expressing a tacit approval of one particular religion over all others and it is their job as a state run SECULAR organization to see to it that doesn't happen.
There are lots of appropriate means of expressing public grief without religious overtones...( RIP with initials, black arm-bands etc.)
When Mohajir chose to use the deaths of these people as an excuse to promote his chosen religion, he crossed a bright line, for a state run school, and he should have known better.

Using the dead as an excuse for this religious stunt is disgusting and reprehensible .
 
Last edited:
Were the dead team-mates crucified?
If they were then I would understand putting the cross decals on their helmets.
If they were not ... then the traditional black arm-band would be appropriate and called for to honor their dead on and off the field.
A football game funded by the state is no place to promote christianity, and that is precisely what these crosses represented.
The jackass who thought up this christian promotional stunt should be severely reprimanded.

The judgement to remove the crosses was correct and justified.



The Cross is a symbol of Christianity. The less stupid question to ask is "Was the student a devout Christian?"

nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg
 
So? As long as it was not forced upon players who did not want to wear a cross on their helmets I could care less. And I am an atheist.

I'm an atheist and feel the same way. I don't want any tax dollars paying for any religious symbols in any way, but assuming that the team and the coach purchased these decals, or like the athletic association got donations to pay for them, I think they should be able to wear them.
 
The Cross is a symbol of Christianity. The less stupid question to ask is "Was the student a devout Christian?"

No.
The less stupid question would be to ask is this a state run institution or a private school.
A christian cross on an official school uniform would be a tacit approval of one particular religion over all others.
The administration saw the error in promoting one religion over all others by a secular school and they appropriately stopped the practice before it went any further.
The decision to pull the crosses should be applauded ... the offer to have the crosses modified to plus signs was truly stupid.
 
No.
The less stupid question would be to ask is this a state run institution or a private school.
A christian cross on an official school uniform would be a tacit approval of one particular religion over all others.
The administration saw the error in promoting one religion over all others and they appropriately stopped the practice before it went any further.
The decision to pull the crosses should be applauded ... the offer to have the crosses modified to plus signs was truly stupid.

No it wouldn't. If the person that died was a devout Christian then it would be a thoughtful homage to the dead student, not an endorsement of any religion.

Seriously, the anti-Religion fervor has reached peak stupid. It's like atheists are afraid they will accidentally become Christians.
 
I'm an atheist and feel the same way. I don't want any tax dollars paying for any religious symbols in any way, but assuming that the team and the coach purchased these decals, or like the athletic association got donations to pay for them, I think they should be able to wear them.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom