• 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

You seem to be saying that just a little violation of the First Amendment is harmless and we should just turn our heads. Just a "little" disagreement over an "unimportant" ("unimportant" to whom?) matter can lead to wars and needless deaths, as it did in the Philadelphia Bible wars. The disagreement was over which version of the Bible would be read in public classrooms. While the matter of displaying some religious symbols on public property may SEEM trivial at times, we can see that Christian Nationalists, Dominionists, and others of the same mind but different names, will use that public display to justify further violations.


A Nineteenth-Century Trojan Horse Plot: The Philadelphia Bible Riots

but Philadelphia in 1844: the year of the Bible Riots, two of the deadliest outbreaks of street violence before the Civil War. The ‘foreigners’ meanwhile were not British Asians but Irish Catholics. <<<snip>>>>

Then, as now, schools became a battleground. 1 The northern states of the U.S. built publicly-funded school systems four decades before Britain. Proponents of the public schools saw them as handmaidens of republican government: training grounds for a generation of future citizens. It is no coincidence, indeed, that their emergence closely followed the rewriting of suffrage laws to enfranchise the vast majority of white men. When one Catholic leader in a heavily Irish suburb of Philadelphia tried to shield his constituents’ children from school readings of the King James Bible, then, he provoked outrage, for in the mind of Protestants, the King James was as crucial to the government of a true republic as a balanced constitution. In the fertile imagination of anti-immigrant nativists a practical suggestion soon became a dastardly and deep-rooted plot to destroy American liberty.

Violence soon followed. Angry locals in the Irish suburb broke up a small gathering of nativists on 3 May. Three days later, the Protestants gathered again in larger numbers, and a gunfight broke out. The first to fall was an eighteen-year old nativist, George Shiffler, who supposedly fell clasping the Stars and Stripes. Over the following days, an anti-immigrant mob avenged Shiffler’s death by burning Catholic churches, torching homes, and desecrating graves. Eventually state militia and Federal troops imposed order through Martial Law, though the local authorities placed most of the blame on the city’s Catholics. Coupled with further violence in July, more than two dozen Philadelphians – both native- and foreign-born – lost their lives in the Bible Riots. A few months later, in municipal elections, new nativist parties swept to power across much of the urban North. 2
Here's the thing, it didn't violate the 1st Amendment at all. Why do libs have such a difficult time with the phrase, "free exercise"?

Shouldn't you be in an abortion thread referring to human life as a "zef"?
 
Here's the thing, it didn't violate the 1st Amendment at all. Why do libs have such a difficult time with the phrase, "free exercise"?


Putting religious symbols on public property seems to be "RESPECTING an establishment of religion" to me, and from the discussion here, to many others also. The disagreement often isn't over whether it is actually a violation, but whether the violation is sufficiently significant to bring it to public attention. Those who believe that a few are making a big uproar over a trivial matter need to ask themselves why they are insistent upon continuing an action that is so trivial. You see, if the matter is too trivial to raise the question, it is also too trivial to insist upon continuing.


Shouldn't you be in an abortion thread referring to human life as a "zef"?

I believe I SHOULD be correcting misconceptions wherever I find them. Alas, so much ignorance and so little time.
 
Putting religious symbols on public property seems to be "RESPECTING an establishment of religion" to me, and from the discussion here, to many others also. The disagreement often isn't over whether it is actually a violation, but whether the violation is sufficiently significant to bring it to public attention. Those who believe that a few are making a big uproar over a trivial matter need to ask themselves why they are insistent upon continuing an action that is so trivial. You see, if the matter is too trivial to raise the question, it is also too trivial to insist upon continuing.

It doesn't matter what it "seems to be" to a militant liberal intent on limiting the freedom of others. It is clearly not congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and it clearly is prohibiting the free exercise therof. The fact that you don't like it matters not. In case you didn't notice, the students have prevailed. Freedom won this battle. Much to your chagrin, I'm sure.
 
You seem to be saying that just a little violation of the First Amendment is harmless and we should just turn our heads. Just a "little" disagreement over an "unimportant" ("unimportant" to whom?) matter can lead to wars and needless deaths, as it did in the Philadelphia Bible wars. The disagreement was over which version of the Bible would be read in public classrooms. While the matter of displaying some religious symbols on public property may SEEM trivial at times, we can see that Christian Nationalists, Dominionists, and others of the same mind but different names, will use that public display to justify further violations.

Like most rights, even the ones protected by the First Amendment are not absolute. I'm not at all sure the Supreme Court ever should have applied the Establishment Clause to the states at all, but just because it has does not mean that every trivial mixing of church and state is automatically unconstitutional. The call for absolute separation of church and state is simple-minded. There has been quite a bit of mixing of the two in this country's history, and there always will be some. The Court has warned more than once that the Establishment Clause should not be interpreted too rigidly. For example:

The First Amendment[]does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; 'so help me God' in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'
.............
We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. (emphasis added); Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306, 312-315 (1952)
 
Last edited:
Putting religious symbols on public property seems to be "RESPECTING an establishment of religion" to me, and from the discussion here, to many others also. The disagreement often isn't over whether it is actually a violation, but whether the violation is sufficiently significant to bring it to public attention. Those who believe that a few are making a big uproar over a trivial matter need to ask themselves why they are insistent upon continuing an action that is so trivial. You see, if the matter is too trivial to raise the question, it is also too trivial to insist upon continuing.I believe I SHOULD be correcting misconceptions wherever I find them. Alas, so much ignorance and so little time.
You really should learn to find the time. There must be a community library where you live.
 
The school reversed it's decision as long as the students themselves agree and put it on their themselves.

1st amendment upheld.

the liberty council threatened a lawsuit for violation of the 1st amendment is the school bared the team from wearing the crosses.
 
He did specify "these militant athiests" there fore I don't think you can accuse him of lumping all together.

I believe a historically apt analog to this would be uppity nigger. How dare we stand up for religious neutrality in a state sponsored school!
 
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.

The Jonesboro attorney is a moron who probably had someone else take the bar exam for him as he clearly is ignorant of the 1st amendment to the US constitution.
 
The Jonesboro attorney is a moron who probably had someone else take the bar exam for him as he clearly is ignorant of the 1st amendment to the US constitution.

It's also possible that he thought the school's lawyer would react to a threatening letter just as she did, by advising surrender, that the school would follow her learned counsel, and that that would be the end of it. Lucinda Whozit probably was afraid that if she recommended fighting and the school lost and had to pay a lot, that might be the end of her nice job.
 
Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
Putting religious symbols on public property seems to be "RESPECTING an establishment of religion" to me, and from the discussion here, to many others also. The disagreement often isn't over whether it is actually a violation, but whether the violation is sufficiently significant to bring it to public attention. Those who believe that a few are making a big uproar over a trivial matter need to ask themselves why they are insistent upon continuing an action that is so trivial. You see, if the matter is too trivial to raise the question, it is also too trivial to insist upon continuing.

It doesn't matter what it "seems to be" to a militant liberal intent on limiting the freedom of others. It is clearly not congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and it clearly is prohibiting the free exercise therof. The fact that you don't like it matters not. In case you didn't notice, the students have prevailed. Freedom won this battle. Much to your chagrin, I'm sure.

Are you saying that putting religious symbols on public property is NOT respecting an establishment of religion? In case you haven't heard, it is not only Congress, but the states also are forbidden to make laws or rules respecting an establishment of religion. Disallowing religious displays on public property, a commonsense ruling BTW, is not interfering with anyone's free exercise. Anyone is free to display any symbols they choose on their own property, and they have no right to co-opt government property or anyone else's property to promote a religion. No one has ever had a "free exercise right" to someone else's property.
 
You really should learn to find the time. There must be a community library where you live.

Yes, there is a wonderful library where I live, and over the past fifteen or twenty years they have gotten for me hundreds of books on the topic of separation of church and state....all for free, I don't even have to pay postage. Since you are just starting out on this learning adventure, I recommend the books written by Rob Boston. They are easy to read for beginning thinkers.
 
Yes, there is a wonderful library where I live, and over the past fifteen or twenty years they have gotten for me hundreds of books on the topic of separation of church and state....all for free, I don't even have to pay postage. Since you are just starting out on this learning adventure, I recommend the books written by Rob Boston. They are easy to read for beginning thinkers.

You must have missed the part about freedom of religion.
 
Are you saying that putting religious symbols on public property is NOT respecting an establishment of religion? In case you haven't heard, it is not only Congress, but the states also are forbidden to make laws or rules respecting an establishment of religion. Disallowing religious displays on public property, a commonsense ruling BTW, is not interfering with anyone's free exercise. Anyone is free to display any symbols they choose on their own property, and they have no right to co-opt government property or anyone else's property to promote a religion. No one has ever had a "free exercise right" to someone else's property.

The Constitution disagrees with you, which is no surprise. Since it is the symbol of freedom and liberty, while modern liberalism is the symbol of tyranny and oppression.
 
You must have missed the part about freedom of religion.

Separation of church and state is essential for citizens to have freedom of religion. Once government is involved in endorsing or encouraging any sect of religion, freedom is destroyed and one sect or another is given an advantage or disadvantage. Freedom of religion relies on equal access to religious expression, once government provides a forum for one group's particular expression, that equal access is destroyed. Try reading When the Religious Right is Wrong and Close Encounters with the Religious Right by Rob Boston and you will begin to understand.
 
The Constitution disagrees with you, which is no surprise. Since it is the symbol of freedom and liberty, while modern liberalism is the symbol of tyranny and oppression.

That is your opinion, a poorly informed one indeed. Tyranny and oppression are the result of religion and government becoming entwined.
 
Yes, there is a wonderful library where I live, and over the past fifteen or twenty years they have gotten for me hundreds of books on the topic of separation of church and state....all for free, I don't even have to pay postage. Since you are just starting out on this learning adventure, I recommend the books written by Rob Boston. They are easy to read for beginning thinkers.
Thanks. I'll be sure to watch for it.
 
You are endorsing the STATE REPRESSION OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION which is WHAT THE 1ST AMENDMENT WAS EXPRESSLY WRITTEN TO PREVENT.

A football team is not the federal government. False analogy. It the players are not forced to wear the cross than you can be offended if you want to. It seems many people are looking for a reason to be offended. Not my problem.
 
That is your opinion, a poorly informed one indeed. Tyranny and oppression are the result of religion and government becoming entwined.

How is my opinion poorly informed? I am conforming to the Constitution, you are not. You cannot twist the words to suit your ideology. Wearing a cross emblem to honor fallen teammates does not equate, "religion and government becoming entwined". That is absurd, and you know it. Libs only use this stuff to advance an agenda.
 
A football team is not the federal government. False analogy. It the players are not forced to wear the cross than you can be offended if you want to. It seems many people are looking for a reason to be offended. Not my problem.
I used to believe this too. But I am becoming more and more convinced that these events are simply used as opportunities to advance the lib agenda of tyranny and oppression. As Rahm Emanuel said, "never let a good crisis go to waste".
 
I used to believe this too. But I am becoming more and more convinced that these events are simply used as opportunities to advance the lib agenda of tyranny and oppression.

picard-facepalm2.jpg
 
Separation of church and state is essential for citizens to have freedom of religion. Once government is involved in endorsing or encouraging any sect of religion, freedom is destroyed and one sect or another is given an advantage or disadvantage. Freedom of religion relies on equal access to religious expression, once government provides a forum for one group's particular expression, that equal access is destroyed. Try reading When the Religious Right is Wrong and Close Encounters with the Religious Right by Rob Boston and you will begin to understand.

The goverment isn't involved, here.
 
I used to believe this too. But I am becoming more and more convinced that these events are simply used as opportunities to advance the lib agenda of tyranny and oppression. As Rahm Emanuel said, "never let a good crisis go to waste".

I agree. But these tactics only work on the weak, and we have way too many of them these days. By design of course, but still true.
 
How is my opinion poorly informed? I am conforming to the Constitution, you are not. You cannot twist the words to suit your ideology. Wearing a cross emblem to honor fallen teammates does not equate, "religion and government becoming entwined". That is absurd, and you know it. Libs only use this stuff to advance an agenda.

1. Is a religious symbol, for instance a cross, intended to respect an establishment of religion? 2. Is equipment owned by a state school and furnished to athletes for use in a state-sponsored activity considered to be government property? 3. Does the placement of said religious symbols on government property constitute an "entwining" of government and religion?

I predict your answers will be: 1. Yes, and 2. Yes, and 3. Yes, BUT. The BUT will be followed by "it's not important", "it doesn't matter", "nobody cares", "it doesn't hurt anything", "it's just symbolic", "the majority wants it", "objectors only ____(fill in the blank)", all of which mean only that you don't care about the Constitutionality, you just want your way.

You do know that there are other ways to honor fallen teammates, some have been mentioned, ways that do not involve using government property to express religious sentiments. It is clearly not a matter of mean ole constitutionalists simply being contrary. It is a matter of religionists having a feeling of entitlement, they are entitled to use anything to proclaim the dominance of their particular religion.
 
Back
Top Bottom