• 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

The school rolling over and being too spineless to put up a fight =/= the school believing their decision is the Constitutionally correct one.
 
clownboy said:
Precisely. That's why these players choosing to wear the crosses were not at odds with the 1st.
Click to expand...

No, with a headstone you can choose (within some limits) what to have. Could the students have chosen something OTHER than a cross? If not, then it is at odds with the 1st.
 
ludin said:
yet teachers can have islam day and hindu day and etc etc etc ... and nothing is said or done unless parents speak up. no lawsuits no threats.
mention Christ or God and they come out of the wood work.
Click to expand...

Show me where teachers have had Islam day and Hindu day and etc., etc., etc. and Christian day has been denied. Give us the links. Show us where and let us read about it.
 
Henrin said:
No, it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Wow, subtlety isn't your strong suit, let me slow this down for you.

You made an argument that the players putting crosses on their helmets doesn't hurt someone else.

I threw out gay marriage as an example of something the right opposes that does precisely the same thing.

Got it now?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Ah, yes, a couple of dozen university men playing football wanting to honor their former team mates and colleagues by putting a small cross on their helmets
are actually right-wing evangelicals at war
Click to expand...
.

Some Americans really need to get over their self-obsession and get lives not devoted to finding offense around every corner and a court case to promote and reward themselves for being clever.
Click to expand...



Did you ever hear the song: 'Onward, Christian Soldiers'?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Some Americans really need to get over their self-obsession and get lives not devoted to finding offense around every corner and a court case to promote and reward themselves for being clever.
Click to expand...

Some Canadians should mind their own business. I guess there aren't enough problems in the great white north.
 
pinqy said:
No, with a headstone you can choose (within some limits) what to have. Could the students have chosen something OTHER than a cross? If not, then it is at odds with the 1st.
Click to expand...

Yes, they could choose anything they wanted. There was nothing stopping them from putting any religious symbol on their helmet. I realize you hate religion(I'm an atheist), but you have to stop reaching. Oh and btw, endorsing doesn't mean the same thing as establishing. Just sayin' I really find it rather sad that people for some reason think they are synonyms.
 
Last edited:
Top Cat said:
Some Canadians should mind their own business. I guess there aren't enough problems in the great white north.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there are. Fortunately, I'm not a contributing factor because I've got more self respect and self control than to need to make an ass of myself trying to find offense where none exists.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Indeed, there are. Fortunately, I'm not a contributing factor because I've got more self respect and self control than to need to make an ass of myself trying to find offense where none exists.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean like crying race card when there wasn't one?

LOLOLOLOL
 
Can I put advertisements on my helmet?
 
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...

Well, never mind all that. Let's begin with the failure to understand that the team was trying to pay its respects toward the dead and that funerary customs began with Neanderthal. It's really okay to let people have their little moments and to respect customs different from one's own. Such petty intolerance, and what do you bet that this guy "celebrates diversity"?

An opportunist is always going to seize the moment, though. I think that the more suits are filed by overeager, intolerant atheists and attention-whores looking for their 15 minutes, the stronger the resistance will grow, even among other secularists, toward frivolous bullying such as this.
 
I don't agree with the complaining lawyer that this was a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. I don't think the Supreme Court's decisions on this general subject show that. The notion that a reasonable person would likely consider this small, simple, kind gesture an official endorsement of Christianity by the state of Arkansas stretches credibility past the breaking point.

The university's lawyer seems to have taken the safe and easy way out by recommending abject surrender. She might lose her nice job if she ended up costing the university money, while no one can harm her for caving in. Or so she probably thinks. Maybe some of the alums who are chipping in money for that football program should make clear to her and to the university that if they don't show some backbone, they won't be giving any more money.
 
Last edited:
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...

AliHajiSheik said:
This is Debate Politics, many here make an industry of lumping people together.
Click to expand...

What part of "militant atheists" do you not understand? I have atheist friends. I did not lump them together.
 
Right, so a player as an individual cannot put a crucifix on his helmet????

Progressives and Atheists do realize that preventing a player from putting a crucifix on his helmet is an EPIC First Amendment violation....

I wonder how many judges this Atheist clown had to go though to finally find one that was sympathetic to his tyranny, authoritarianism and fascism?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Right, so a player as an individual cannot put a crucifix on his helmet????

Progressives and Atheists do realize that preventing a player from putting a crucifix on his helmet is an EPIC First Amendment violation....

I wonder how many judges this Atheist clown had to go though to finally find one that was sympathetic to his tyranny, authoritarianism and fascism?
Click to expand...

Forcing atheists (or anyone including Christians who do not wish to flaunt their badge on their sleeve/helmet) to wear one is just as bad.
 
Were the players forced to put the decals on their helmets?
 
I think there are two ways a court would look at this particular case and in both cases there is a different outcome. So if you were do use the traditional Lemon test I think the argument for an endorsement of religion is kinda easy to make. You have a state actor (being the state school) and the purpose is not secular. Then you'd have to look at if it advances a religion and I'd think most would agree that the cross is an advancement of the Christian religion, but I am sure people have counterarguments out there for it, I personally do see it as an advancement of religion. Finally you have to see if there would be excessive state entanglement and I doubt very highly anyone would think there would be since all that would have to happen is that the stickers be removed.

The second test that the court could use is the endorsement test and as long as the message the sufficiently diluted then the religious message would be okay. All the school would have to show is how big the cross is compared to the rest of the uniform.

I must admit I would have gone down the same road as the university's lawyer, unless the school if they lost would have not appealed the decision. Both arguments have merits, but the Lemon test is the most commonly used test so given a decision on the matter I would have just gone with the safer, less expensive path. Especially if this topic was not something the school cared too much about.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Forcing atheists (or anyone including Christians who do not wish to flaunt their badge on their sleeve/helmet) to wear one is just as bad.
Click to expand...

NO ITS NOT -- what part of religious freedom DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???

People have the RIGHT to display religious symbols as individuals..... I can walk around all day in a shirt with a gigantic crucifix on it and their isn't ONE damn thing you or this tyrannical government can do about it... Oh and quite frankly I dont really give a **** if you're "offended" ......... If you're offended by a crucifix then you're either a vampire or are just looking to be offended.

I love how the tolerance goes out the window when it comes to "liberals" and Christianity..... You better believe if Muslims could (or had) idols and they displayed their idol or idols that "liberals" would be in full support clapping their hands like when Rudy took the field at the end of "Rudy" but no - we're talking Christian religious symbols here and if there is anything "militant liberals" and "militant Atheists" hate more - it's Christianity.
 
the problem comes when a player feels that he is obligated to participate in fear of retalitation for not going along. If it were an individual player decision, I'm ok with it....but if the idea was pushed by the coaching staff or administration, that is wrong.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I think there are two ways a court would look at this particular case and in both cases there is a different outcome. So if you were do use the traditional Lemon test I think the argument for an endorsement of religion is kinda easy to make. You have a state actor (being the state school) and the purpose is not secular. Then you'd have to look at if it advances a religion and I'd think most would agree that the cross is an advancement of the Christian religion, but I am sure people have counterarguments out there for it, I personally do see it as an advancement of religion. Finally you have to see if there would be excessive state entanglement and I doubt very highly anyone would think there would be since all that would have to happen is that the stickers be removed.

The second test that the court could use is the endorsement test and as long as the message the sufficiently diluted then the religious message would be okay. All the school would have to show is how big the cross is compared to the rest of the uniform.

I must admit I would have gone down the same road as the university's lawyer, unless the school if they lost would have not appealed the decision. Both arguments have merits, but the Lemon test is the most commonly used test so given a decision on the matter I would have just gone with the safer, less expensive path. Especially if this topic was not something the school cared too much about.
Click to expand...

The only way it's "endorsing religion" is if the crucifix on the helmet is mandatory.

If the individual want's to put a crucifix on their helmet and they're prevented from doing so - THAT is a blatant First Amendment violation.

I don't think it really matters considering this ruling will be overruled - and when it is I hope the school sues this Atheist punk for all their legal fees and I hope it breaks their bank.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I think there are two ways a court would look at this particular case and in both cases there is a different outcome. So if you were do use the traditional Lemon test I think the argument for an endorsement of religion is kinda easy to make. You have a state actor (being the state school) and the purpose is not secular. Then you'd have to look at if it advances a religion and I'd think most would agree that the cross is an advancement of the Christian religion, but I am sure people have counterarguments out there for it, I personally do see it as an advancement of religion. Finally you have to see if there would be excessive state entanglement and I doubt very highly anyone would think there would be since all that would have to happen is that the stickers be removed.

The second test that the court could use is the endorsement test and as long as the message the sufficiently diluted then the religious message would be okay. All the school would have to show is how big the cross is compared to the rest of the uniform.

I must admit I would have gone down the same road as the university's lawyer, unless the school if they lost would have not appealed the decision. Both arguments have merits, but the Lemon test is the most commonly used test so given a decision on the matter I would have just gone with the safer, less expensive path. Especially if this topic was not something the school cared too much about.
Click to expand...

The Lemon test is not in as good odor with the Court as you imply--hasn't been for 25 years or so. Five members of the Court today--Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy--are more or less reluctant to find Establishment Clause violations, unless there has been a clear attempt to coerce people to affirm some religious belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom