• 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

no they didn't the coaches supported the students in something they wanted to do.
yep the school had nothing to do with it.

yep the students on the team are individuals.
so they made an individual choice to support their fallen player in line with something he believed in 100% protected.
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.

now i am sure if they asked if it was ok to do so from their coach which it was ok for them to do so.
Which constitutes endorsement by the school in violation of the Establishment Clause.

it was the players not the school that decided to wear them.
Which is irrelevant in Establishment cases.
 
These militant atheists have failed at life. I pity them.

Atheists don't want or need your sanctimonious pity.

I'm sure it sucks for you knowing that public property should be devoid of religious symbols. You can wear those on your car, hat, etc. Just leave them off public property. Helmet belongs to the state.

No brainer issue here.
 
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.
It brings one to ask; would this team be allowed to wear any kind of stickers on their uniform helmets of any kind?
Would they be allowed to put anarchy symbols or peace symbols or STP stickers on their helmets as a form of self expression?
My guess would be ...no probably not.
Clearly what we have here is christian hubris and assumption of acceptance.
 
I would simply like to note for all the busy bodies who want to make this a constitutional rights issue that you need only cast your mind back to the State funeral for President John F. Kennedy - a Catholic mass in the White House, two Catholic priests standing with the President's coffin in the rotunda of the Capital, services in St. Matthew Catholic Cathedral, crosses and symbols of Catholicism everywhere and yet no one's constitutional rights to honour their President free of religious symbolism was an issue.

Nobody is forcing these young men to wear this cross - they do it freely, of their own will and their own constitutional rights, and the purity of their feelings and respect for their lost friends and colleagues should far outweigh the offense felt by some asshole sitting on their couch suddenly finding an issue to bleat about.

As I said previously, anyone can claim offense regarding anything if they simply try hard enough. And what a sad life a person must lead when that is their primary accomplishment.
 
From what I can tell, students adding crosses to the helmet should be protected speech. The speech would have to run afoul of some fairly specific constraints to be restricted -- e.g. too vulgar, imminently threatening etc.

It would be different if a school representative mandated it. That's not the case here.

I don't see any reason why students can decorate their football uniforms, as long as it is voluntarily and of their own accord.
 
It's religious in nature and related primarily to funeral rites/ceremonies conducted in many forms of religion. You can't get away from the fact that much of our history and culture owes itself to religious customs observed over centuries. The only religion under assault, however, it Christianity.

And to be clear, I'm not the slightest bit religious but I would never presume to invent offense simply for the purpose of denying a religious person something they hold dear.



It needs to be pointed out that the laws concerning this are drafted in a building with Greek pillars, originally part of Greek myth, a small city of nothing but giant columns reaching to their Gods.

The court house in which this will be heard will likely have the same columns and perhaps gargoyles, torso and head statuettes along the top sills "holding" things up,,,a pagan culture. That court house and the Supreme Court of the United States will have a statue of a woman, blindfolded, holding a scale, "lady justice" you call her now, but she is "Justitia" the Greek Titan of fairness and fair play.

No one has an issue with any of this. They are not threatened because few if anyone believes in that stuff anymore, but many DO believe in the cross. That's why it's an issue,. or else you have to get rid of all those statues....

Oh, and the judges benches [thrones] too...they actually originate from the early Vatican
 
I would simply like to note for all the busy bodies who want to make this a constitutional rights issue that you need only cast your mind back to the State funeral for President John F. Kennedy - a Catholic mass in the White House, two Catholic priests standing with the President's coffin in the rotunda of the Capital, services in St. Matthew Catholic Cathedral, crosses and symbols of Catholicism everywhere and yet no one's constitutional rights to honour their President free of religious symbolism was an issue.


That was 51 years ago. I'd like to think we've grown a bit.

mrb-papersign-RestRooma.jpg
 
That was 51 years ago. I'd like to think we've grown a bit.
Because equating a Presidential Catholic funeral and Jim Crow makes sense.... :lamo
 
I would simply like to note for all the busy bodies who want to make this a constitutional rights issue that you need only cast your mind back to the State funeral for President John F. Kennedy - a Catholic mass in the White House, two Catholic priests standing with the President's coffin in the rotunda of the Capital, services in St. Matthew Catholic Cathedral, crosses and symbols of Catholicism everywhere and yet no one's constitutional rights to honour their President free of religious symbolism was an issue.
Why would it be? Kennedy was Catholic, and wanted a Catholic funeral, and there could be no thought that this was anything except his personal belief.
 
Because equating a Presidential Catholic funeral and Jim Crow makes sense.... :lamo

I wouldn't expect you to understand. There's critical thinking involved.
 
Never fails - when someone on the left can't counter a legitimate argument, they immediately trot out race and imply racism where none exists.

That wasn't the point. But don't let that stop you from yelling fire!
 
Why would it be? Kennedy was Catholic, and wanted a Catholic funeral, and there could be no thought that this was anything except his personal belief.

It was a STATE funeral, not a private one.
 
I wouldn't expect you to understand. There's critical thinking involved.

You're right - that deep deep level of stupidity in a post is beyond my understanding. Congrats tho!
 
Why would it be? Kennedy was Catholic, and wanted a Catholic funeral, and there could be no thought that this was anything except his personal belief.

But you just previously stated that the players aren't allowed to mourn according to their wishes and beliefs. The two young men who died and who are being honored were Christians - don't you think it would be their personal beliefs that would dictate the type of honor? And the father of one of the boys being honored wants the crosses to stay.
 
Last edited:
That wasn't the point. But don't let that stop you from yelling fire!

So you just use race and racism as a debating tool, is that it? That's a terrific way to minimize both the issue at hand and racism - well done.
 
If it were permanently part of the uniform, I would object too. As a personalized sticker for each person who died for a single season, and it being optional for each wearer, then I heartily approve.
 
Nobody is forcing these young men to wear this cross - they do it freely, of their own will and their own constitutional rights, and the purity of their feelings and respect for their lost friends and colleagues should far outweigh the offense felt by some asshole sitting on their couch suddenly finding an issue to bleat about.

John, I would remind you that peer pressure, especially in high school and even more especially as a member of a team, is significant. We don't know, no one does, how many players on the team would prefer not to wear the cross symbol. We do know from our own life experiences that those kids who disagree are highly unlikely to speak up. In addition, the act of placing a religious symbol on their helmets may discourage non-Christian kids from trying out for football. Lastly, unless people read about it in the press, anyone unfamiliar with the reason for the symbol and most opposing teams only see the cross and it is thus left up to interpretation.

As I said previously, anyone can claim offense regarding anything if they simply try hard enough. And what a sad life a person must lead when that is their primary accomplishment.

The same can be said for religious martyrdom. Just this week I read where a teacher in Georgia is burning all his sick days to protest the fact that he can't talk about Jesus in the public school classroom. In an interview he admitted that he did do it and said that as Christ grows in him he talks more about Jesus in the classroom, but that it was his right to share Jesus's message with the class and that he was being punished for his religious views. :roll:

We do hear/read about this sort of self imposed religious martyrdom frequently. "They won't let God in the classroom", "They hate Jesus", "They want to silence the word of the Lord".
 
John, I would remind you that peer pressure, especially in high school and even more especially as a member of a team, is significant. We don't know, no one does, how many players on the team would prefer not to wear the cross symbol. We do know from our own life experiences that those kids who disagree are highly unlikely to speak up. In addition, the act of placing a religious symbol on their helmets may discourage non-Christian kids from trying out for football. Lastly, unless people read about it in the press, anyone unfamiliar with the reason for the symbol and most opposing teams only see the cross and it is thus left up to interpretation.



The same can be said for religious martyrdom. Just this week I read where a teacher in Georgia is burning all his sick days to protest the fact that he can't talk about Jesus in the public school classroom. In an interview he admitted that he did do it and said that as Christ grows in him he talks more about Jesus in the classroom, but that it was his right to share Jesus's message with the class and that he was being punished for his religious views. :roll:

We do hear/read about this sort of self imposed religious martyrdom frequently. "They won't let God in the classroom", "They hate Jesus", "They want to silence the word of the Lord".

Good afternoon Risky,

I'd say two things:

1. I can't imagine that any young man who loves football and wants to play for his school team is going to be dissuaded from doing so because the team wants to honor their fallen colleagues with a tiny cross on their helmets. To me, that's just absurdly illogical.

2. I won't address your second point, it not being relevant in my view, and it represents a clear disruption to the education program whereas the topic of this OP offers no such disruption to the playing of football or the enjoyment of watching football.
 
Back
Top Bottom