The concern is over constitutionally guaranteed freedoms...
...not religious symbols.
You really should have looked at his attachment then.
On a state funded uniform ... making it unconstitutional.
I don't need endorsement of what I personally believe.
I don't have that weakness.
The school's administration saw the folly and unconstitutionality of what was being done. They wisely put an end to it ...
...you seem to be missing this major detail
And expression of religion is explicitly protected by the constitution.
Whatever their motivation was ... They were wise and correct in putting an end to the practice.You are so wrong it isn't funny. the only reason that the school pulled it was because they didn't want to deal with a bunch of babies crying over a cross that the students themselves elected to wear on their own accord.
what is funny is that these same players had been wearing them for 2 weeks and no one gave a rats rear end. lol.
the school knew about it and didn't pull them. they didn't want to waste school money of frivilous lawsuits being slammed by people who are so insecure with themselves that the mere sight of a cross causes them to go into a frothing rage.
even though it violates the constitution.
By an individual...not by a government entity. And cannot be or appear to be endorsed by a government entity.
Judges are quite capable of making bad decisions...religious freedom is a constitutionally protected freedom that includes religious symbols. it also includes freedom of speech which covers those same symbols. again you are wrong.
what they did is no different than this.
Texas cheerleaders win in court again over Bible banners - CBS News
Whatever their motivation was ... They were wise and correct in putting an end to the practice.
No one complained before the team put crosses on their helmets either.
The public goes to the games to watch football being played...Not to see religious endorsements on the uniforms.
Judges are quite capable of making bad decisions...
Especially in Texass.
Endorsement of any religion over all others by a government institution is unconstitutional, regardless of what some local judge says.
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.
wrong. the 1st amendment forbids them to interfere the stickers fall under freedom of speech as well either way they were completely 100 legal to wear.
the school supported them wearing them because they had been wearing them.
a judge didn't tell the school to stop the school didn't want to waste the money in a lawsuit.
i would wear them anyway and let people complain. you going to sue the student for expressing his 1st amendment rights you lose automatically.if i was the football team
the school had nothing to do with the stickers.
freedom of speech and experssion is constitutionally protected.
The threat of lawsuits keeps institutions within the law all the time...there is nothing unique in that.wrong. the 1st amendment forbids them to interfere the stickers fall under freedom of speech as well either way they were completely 100 legal to wear.
the school supported them wearing them because they had been wearing them.
a judge didn't tell the school to stop the school didn't want to waste the money in a lawsuit.
if i was the football team i would wear them anyway and let people complain. you going to sue the student for expressing his 1st amendment rights you lose automatically.
the school had nothing to do with the stickers.
freedom of speech and experssion is constitutionally protected.
One person can't be a football team.
Think about this a little bit.
The threat of lawsuits keeps institutions within the law all the time...there is nothing unique in that.
The coaches who are employed by the school and the state, facilitated the wearing of the stickers. That was clear in the article.
You can not say that "the school had nothing to do with the stickers."
The freedom of speech and religious expression by individuals is protected. The freedom of speech and religious expression by publicly funded institutions, however, is not.
Where have I claimed that religious symbols don't exist? That doesn't even make sense.public can still watch the games with a cross on their helmet. doesn't stop them from watching the game unless that mere sight of a cross causes you to burst into flame.
so much outrage for something you claim doesn't exist.
hmm can only mean that you don't really believe it and are scared of a bunch of 20 year old's honoring their fallen member.
as i said next game they should wear a huge arm patch with a cross then there is nothing you can do about it just to tick you off more
and show that people like you don't get to dicate their freedoms.
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.
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.
it was the players not the school that decided to wear them.
Were the dead team-mates crucified?
If they were then I would understand putting the cross decals on their helmets.
If they were not ... then the traditional black arm-band would be appropriate and called for to honor their dead on and off the field.
A football game funded by the state is no place to promote christianity, and that is precisely what these crosses represented.
The jackass who thought up this christian promotional stunt should be severely reprimanded.
The judgement to remove the crosses was correct and justified.
The article clearly states: " that the players and coaches voluntarily decided to memorialize his son and Owens. "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.
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.
it was the players not the school that decided to wear them.
violation of the 1st amendment an even dummer invention. which is exaclty what the school and this so called lawyer did was violate the constitution.
students had every right to put a cross on their helmet if they wanted to.
if a simple cross offends more so when it is something you don't even believe in then you have bigger issues that you need to deal with.
The wearing of black to mourn the dead is universally accepted as a way to mourn the dead.Why should the wearing of black, in any form, which is the standard for mourning in many religions, be any less offensive to non-Christians as a cross? Just because you find it less offensive doesn't mean it doesn't also have historical religious undertones.
Anyone can find a reason to be offended by anything if they try hard enough.
Under the circumstances you would probably be benched.
The school administration made the decision to pull the crosses.
It was not forced.
The wearing of black to mourn the dead is universally accepted as a way to mourn the dead.
The cross is uniquely christian.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?