• 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 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.

The US already gives tremendous exemptions and benefits to religious entities...If Americans can't see that and want a Constitutional fight over their belief that Christianity is "under attack"...I say those benefits and exemptions be rescinded.

The US may have protected classes...But we need to end this belief that the US has a superior class.
 
I don't believe in religion, but this is just sad. Damn sad. What harm would it have done to let them wear the crosses?
 
I don't believe in religion, but this is just sad. Damn sad. What harm would it have done to let them wear the crosses?

Why should anyone have to "let" them wear crosses? Isn't freedom of religion a guaranteed constitutional right? Funny, I don't see freedom from religion anywhere in the Constitution.
 
[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
Not saying it isn't in writing somewhere, but could you provide any proof that it is against university or NCAA rules in writing to not do what they did? If not they could possibly have a counter suit on 1st amendment grounds.
 
Not saying it isn't in writing somewhere, but could you provide any proof that it is against university or NCAA rules in writing to not do what they did? If not they could possibly have a counter suit on 1st amendment grounds.

It wouldn't matter if it was written into NCAA rules. Unconstitutional rules cannot be legally enforced. This is clearly unconstitutional.
 
I don't believe in religion, but this is just sad. Damn sad. What harm would it have done to let them wear the crosses?

You're looking at it only from the perspective of this particular case. Law doesn't work that way...you have to go by general principles.

The question here is whether or not, given a rule against students putting whatever they want on their helmets (which we're assuming), is it ok for the school to make an exception for one particular religious symbol and no others? By any standard laid out by the Supreme Court, that would be unacceptable.
 
It wouldn't matter if it was written into NCAA rules. Unconstitutional rules cannot be legally enforced. This is clearly unconstitutional.
Ok, so a cross to memorialize a fallen team friend for a game so offends you? Really? Now that's tolerence.
 
You're looking at it only from the perspective of this particular case. Law doesn't work that way...you have to go by general principles.

The question here is whether or not, given a rule against students putting whatever they want on their helmets (which we're assuming), is it ok for the school to make an exception for one particular religious symbol and no others? By any standard laid out by the Supreme Court, that would be unacceptable.
Did the school refuse other symbols? Show us. Otherwise your argument here is moot. Also please show where the State adopted in legislation a formal State religion in this case.
 
Did the school refuse other symbols? Show us. Otherwise your argument here is moot.
No, no, no. You're skipping ahead. Answer the question first. IF a school (any school...I'm talking general principle here, not this particular case) did not allow anything put on the helmets that wasn't authorized, and only authorized a single religious symbol of a particular religious group...would that be allowed under the Constitution or not?

I will address your second part to get it out of the way, though:
Also please show where the State adopted in legislation a formal State religion in this case.
First show where the Supreme Court has ever ruled that nothing less than a formal state religion was a violation of the establishment clause.
In any case, without the 14th amendment, a state religion is allowed and did occur...South Carolina had an official religion until the Civil War.
 
Ok, so a cross to memorialize a fallen team friend for a game so offends you? Really? Now that's tolerence.

It doesn't offend me in the least. I'm 100% in favor of religious freedom.

I'm saying it's unconstitutional to attempt to prevent an individual from displaying a religious symbol.
 
You're looking at it only from the perspective of this particular case. Law doesn't work that way...you have to go by general principles.

The question here is whether or not, given a rule against students putting whatever they want on their helmets (which we're assuming), is it ok for the school to make an exception for one particular religious symbol and no others? By any standard laid out by the Supreme Court, that would be unacceptable.

It doesn't bother me when football players wear anything on their uniforms. It shouldn't bother anyone else either.
 
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.

Faux News again? LMAO
 
No, no, no. You're skipping ahead. Answer the question first. IF a school (any school...I'm talking general principle here, not this particular case) did not allow anything put on the helmets that wasn't authorized, and only authorized a single religious symbol of a particular religious group...would that be allowed under the Constitution or not?

I will address your second part to get it out of the way, though:
First show where the Supreme Court has ever ruled that nothing less than a formal state religion was a violation of the establishment clause.
In any case, without the 14th amendment, a state religion is allowed and did occur...South Carolina had an official religion until the Civil War.
By generalizing you distort the issue. Stick with the topic, and that is this school.

The SCOTUS is not responsible for legislation. That's congress.
 
It doesn't offend me in the least. I'm 100% in favor of religious freedom.

I'm saying it's unconstitutional to attempt to prevent an individual from displaying a religious symbol.

It's not unconstitutional to force someone to display one particular one?
 
It's not unconstitutional to force someone to display one particular one?

Nobody is forcing anyone to do it. People are being forced not to do it.
 
By generalizing you distort the issue. Stick with the topic, and that is this school.
Nope, it's the opposite. Rules and laws are built on general principles and individual cases can distort. A desperate man steals food from someone rich in order to feed his starving family. Most would be in sympathy to that and understand the need in that particular case...but that doesn't mean laws against theft are unjust.

So in analyzing a law or rule, we first have to examine the general case and general principle, and THEN look at how an individual case fits in.

The SCOTUS is not responsible for legislation. That's congress.
But SCOTUS is responsible for interpretation of the law. That's what a court is for.
 
I see a "full of feces" situation ..here ..
So, we must go to a higher level .. of "civil disobedience" .
Refuse to play football !
Liberals , do NOT miss this chance .. I am sure that the conservatives will be all over this one ..
And I do NOT see how any establishment clause can apply..
The school is a private entity, is it not ... and any public funds should NOT change this ..
The school hierarchy is running on ignorance and fear .
Freedom OF or FROM from religion ?? ...even I support the students(I am NOT religious ) , the "cross" on their helmet is what the majority want ..probably not every student "wants" this , but, to them, its such a little thing....and it should stay that way ..
 
And I do NOT see how any establishment clause can apply..
The school is a private entity, is it not ... and any public funds should NOT change this ..
No it's not a private entity. It is a state-owned school.

Freedom OF or FROM from religion ?? ...even I support the students(I am NOT religious ) , the "cross" on their helmet is what the majority want ..probably not every student "wants" this , but, to them, its such a little thing....and it should stay that way ..
Is it freedom of? If the only way they can wear the crosses is specific approval by the school, then it's not freedom of religion. And the majority can not be given special rights that don't equally apply to the minority.

If the school had the rule that players could put whatever they wanted (as long as it was not obscene or offensive etc) then there would be no issues with the crosses.
 
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.

The courts have determined tine and again that students retain their civil rights at school functions.
 
The courts have determined tine and again that students retain their civil rights at school functions.

No one is arguing differently. The question is whether or not this case is of individual student civil rights, or unconstitutional endorsement by the school.
 
No one is arguing differently. The question is whether or not this case is of individual student civil rights, or unconstitutional endorsement by the school.

The players chose to display those crosses, not the school.
 
Back
Top Bottom