• 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 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.
Click to expand...
He did specify "these militant athiests" there fore I don't think you can accuse him of lumping all together.
 
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...
I'm just stating my opinion. I think it makes atheists look like assholes when this is what we worry about. Especially when it's used as a symbol of respect for someone that passed away. My stance remains the same. Don't use any tax dollars, and don't force anyone to wear them, and I just don't care.
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...
As the article and myself have pointed out there are lots of other ways to pay a "thoughtful homage to the dead student" without bringing in any religious overtones.
If the students felt it was so so important to wear religious symbols on their uniforms they should have had the fore-sight to apply to a religious school.
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I'm just stating my opinion. I think it makes atheists look like assholes when this is what we worry about. Especially when it's used as a symbol of respect for someone that passed away. My stance remains the same. Don't use any tax dollars, and don't force anyone to wear them, and I just don't care.
Click to expand...

I don't mind at all, as long as those endorsing the crosses endorse all religious symbols on helmets as homages.
 
Buck Ewer said:
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 .
Click to expand...
please see the SCOTUS you are wrong. more so when all of the people involved agree. please show me the constitutional right to be offended and let it override someone else's right to free speech. ol yea it doesn't exist.

nope they would be allowing the 1st amendment to take affect which prohibts the state from not allowing people to express their freedom of speech more so when it is all in agreement by the members involved.

it wasn't a religious stunt the member of the team that died was a christian and they thought it would be a nice tribute for him and his father.
1st amenedment of free speech overrides your offense. you can be offended all you want to you can't stamp out someone else's free speech because of it.

nope their job as a state organization is to uphold the 1st amendment. they failed to do so. the football team would win this in court hands down.

you don't get to pick what way someone chooses to honor someone else's death in a public forum they can do whatever they want 1st amendment says they can.

students do not give up their 1st amendment rights just because they step into a public forum.
 
Last edited:
I love how a 2,000 year old symbol of what most atheists say is a fake... threatens a minority of people so much they have to have it removed off helmets. Two little lines which intersect carry so much power even still.
 
Bigfoot 88 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.
Click to expand...

Oh, please...if the deceased player had been Muslim and the team decided to honor him with the Star and Crescent, then the right-wing Christians would be up in arms about "Islamization." I've never seen one of these cases were the true concern was freedom of religion rather than assertion of Christian dominance.
 
Buck Ewer said:
As the article and myself have pointed out there are lots of other ways to pay a "thoughtful homage to the dead student" without bringing in any religious overtones.
If the students felt it was so so important to wear religious symbols on their uniforms they should have had the fore-sight to apply to a religious school.
Click to expand...

So what you are endorsing is an active opposition to religious expression, which itself violates the 1st amendment.

I guess you would also be in favor of removing these religious symbols from this public land?

PHO-10May28-228384.jpg
 
Last edited:
roughdraft274 said:
I'm just stating my opinion. I think it makes atheists look like assholes when this is what we worry about. Especially when it's used as a symbol of respect for someone that passed away. My stance remains the same. Don't use any tax dollars, and don't force anyone to wear them, and I just don't care.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

the athletic department had nothing to do with it neither did the coaches. this was done by the players themselves and the school or the athletic department was not invovled with the decision. you need to read more.
 
jmotivator said:
So what you are endorsing is an active opposition to religious expression, which itself violates the 1st amendment.

I guess you would also be in favor of removing these religious symbols from this public land?

View attachment 67172755
Click to expand...

not only that but right to free speech.
 
ludin said:
please see the SCOTUS you are wrong. more so when all of the people involved agree. please show me the constitutional right to be offended and let it override someone else's right to free speech. ol yea it doesn't exist.

nope they would be allowing the 1st amendment to take affect which prohibts the state from not allowing people to express their freedom of speech more so when it is all in agreement by the members involved.

it wasn't a religious stunt the member of the team that died was a christian and they thought it would be a nice tribute for him and his father.
1st amenedment of free speech overrides your offense. you can be offended all you want to you can't stamp out someone else's free speech because of it.

nope their job as a state organization is to uphold the 1st amendment. they failed to do so. the football team would win this in court hands down.

you don't get to pick what way someone chooses to honor someone else's death in a public forum they can do whatever they want 1st amendment says they can.

students do not give up their 1st amendment rights just because they step into a public forum.
Click to expand...
Helmets are not a public forum ... they are part of official school uniforms.
Crosses around necks ...yes
...on unforms ...no.
 
Ockham said:
I love how a 2,000 year old symbol of what most atheists say is a fake... threatens a minority of people so much they have to have it removed off helmets. Two little lines which intersect carry so much power even still.
Click to expand...

that is the irony of all ironies. that these people are so offended by something they say doesn't exist.
obviously they believe it does exist somehow otherwise there is no need to be offended.
 
Since the two players are gone, modifying the cross into a minus sign would make more sense than a plus sign.

Weighing in: the crosses wouldn't bother me in the least. Next, people will be wanting the Saints to change the name of their team.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Helmets are not a public forum ... they are part of official school uniforms.
Crosses around necks ...yes
...on unforms ...no.
Click to expand...

actually it is a public forum. they are playing a football game in a public space in a public arena that makes it a public forum.
SCOTUS says you are wrong. deal with it.

that you are offended by a cross that you think is fake says more about you than the players on the team.

it is not a permanment change to the uniform. it was a sticker easily removed. i would encourage the team to play with them anyway. to stand up for their rights.
1st amendment says you are wrong and overrides anything that you say.

the kids have a right to free speech that includes putting a cross if they wish on their helmets.

better yet get armbands with crosses then you can't bitch about it.
 
d0gbreath said:
Since the two players are gone, modifying the cross into a minus sign would make more sense than a plus sign.

Weighing in: the crosses wouldn't bother me in the least. Next, people will be wanting the Saints to change the name of their team.
Click to expand...

the saints are a private organization. although it wouldn't surprise me if someone didn't try.
 
jmotivator said:
So what you are endorsing is an active opposition to religious expression, which itself violates the 1st amendment.

I guess you would also be in favor of removing these religious symbols from this public land?
Click to expand...
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 .
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who is the injured party? Who is standing before the court to bring a suit? The liberty counsel claimed they would be honored to bring suit...the only thing missing is the student claiming harm.

The Constitution says that government will not make any laws abridging the free exercise of religion or free speech. What law did government or the public institution enact?

If the institution placed the memorial on the helmet and the institution removed the memorial.The NCAA owns all rights to the uniforms and their likeness. If the NCAA told the institution to remove the memorial, then that is their right.

The student owns nothing but his participation. The student has agreed by contract to adhere to all rules and regulations of the institution.

The liberty counsel can go to hell.
 
ludin said:
actually it is a public forum. they are playing a football game in a public space in a public arena that makes it a public forum.
SCOTUS says you are wrong. deal with it.

that you are offended by a cross that you think is fake says more about you than the players on the team.

it is not a permanment change to the uniform. it was a sticker easily removed. i would encourage the team to play with them anyway. to stand up for their rights.
1st amendment says you are wrong and overrides anything that you say.

the kids have a right to free speech that includes putting a cross if they wish on their helmets.

better yet get armbands with crosses then you can't bitch about it.
Click to expand...
As I said before I am fine with arm-bands.
DEAL WITH THAT.
 
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...

You are endorsing the STATE REPRESSION OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION which is WHAT THE 1ST AMENDMENT WAS EXPRESSLY WRITTEN TO PREVENT.
 
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...

Nope. But then I am secure enough in my beliefs that I don't feel threatened by other people expressing their religion.
 
ludin said:
the athletic department had nothing to do with it neither did the coaches. this was done by the players themselves and the school or the athletic department was not invovled with the decision. you need to read more.
Click to expand...

You are wrong here.
From the article:

Barry Weyer, Sr., told me that the players and coaches voluntarily decided to memorialize his son and Owens.
Click to expand...
Coaches are part of the athletic department.
 
jmotivator said:
You are endorsing the STATE REPRESSION OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION which is WHAT THE 1ST AMENDMENT WAS EXPRESSLY WRITTEN TO PREVENT.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom