Arkansas St. Has To Remove Cross From Helmets

[Weegle777 78]

And the ridiculousness continues. Good grief.

http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=14572

(Jonesboro, AR)—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. (Photo: Courtesy Arkansas State)

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.

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' exp<b></b>ression of their faith," Mohajir said. "I am 100 percent behind our students and coaches."

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.

***Full article at the link above.

[cooltigger21 0]

I saw that this morning. This is absurd. You cannot appease these people.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

So much for Freedom of expression in today's society....

[AUDub 11,147]

Removing it was the only option. Arkansas State is a public university.

[AUtiger98 24]

Removing it was the only option. Arkansas State is a public university.

I would say removing it was the only option to avoid a lawsuit. So a second option would be to fight it in the courts.

[cooltigger21 0]

i wonder if they had an Islamic symbol on there would these people have raised a stink? I suspect not.

[cooltigger21 0]

Removing it was the only option. Arkansas State is a public university.

That is the problem Ben. It is a complete misinterpretation of the establishment clause. Putting a cross on a uniform in honor of someone does not constitute endorsement of Christianity.

[AUDub 11,147]

I would say removing it was the only option to avoid a lawsuit. So a second option would be to fight it in the courts.

A protracted and expensive fight they would very likely lose.

[AUDub 11,147]

i wonder if they had an Islamic symbol on there would these people have raised a stink? I suspect not.

If it makes you feel any better, I'd file the lawsuit personally.

[AUDub 11,147]

That is the problem Ben. It is a complete misinterpretation of the establishment clause. Putting a cross on a uniform in honor of someone does not constitute endorsement of Christianity.

Had the students done it on their own, no problem. The school can not legally participate.

[cooltigger21 0]

That is the problem Ben. It is a complete misinterpretation of the establishment clause. Putting a cross on a uniform in honor of someone does not constitute endorsement of Christianity.

Had the students done it on their own, no problem. The school can not legally participate.

I'm sorry but that is wrong. This whole idea comes from people taking one phrase in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson and acting as though that is part of the constitution. That, like so much of the constitution, has been completely distorted and misinterpreted through the years.

[AUDub 11,147]

I'm sorry but that is wrong. This whole idea comes from people taking one phrase in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson and acting as though that is part of the constitution. That, like so much of the constitution, has been completely distorted and misinterpreted through the years.

It's not a misrepresentation. It's an interpretation. One that has withstood all challenges in the courts.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I'm sorry but that is wrong. This whole idea comes from people taking one phrase in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson and acting as though that is part of the constitution. That, like so much of the constitution, has been completely distorted and misinterpreted through the years.

It's not a misrepresentation. It's an interpretation. One that has withstood all challenges in the courts.

Courts populated by progressive judges who chose to legislate from the bench rather than just adjudicate according to the written law.

[AUDub 11,147]

Courts populated by progressive judges who chose to legislate from the bench rather than just adjudicate according to the written law.

They are adjudicating according to the written law. The laws are open to interpretation. That's their job. That you or I might have a differing interpretation is irrelevant. They're the judges.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Courts populated by progressive judges who chose to legislate from the bench rather than just adjudicate according to the written law.

They are adjudicating according to the written law. The laws are open to interpretation. That's their job. That you or I might have a differing interpretation is irrelevant. They're the judges.

Of course, I get that but there's very little doubt that their interpretations have been rooted in political persuasion. The atheists are obsessively politically active AND vocal and like most liberal groups they feel everyone should cater to their wishes. Since they do not believe in God they work overtime making sure that those who do do not have the latitude to freely exercise their religion. Their is nothing in the Constitution ANYWHERE about separation of church and state which they have used to their advantage and the courts have not been diligent in protecting the Judeo-Christian ideals this country was founded on.

[cooltigger21 0]

Courts populated by progressive judges who chose to legislate from the bench rather than just adjudicate according to the written law.

They are adjudicating according to the written law. The laws are open to interpretation. That's their job. That you or I might have a differing interpretation is irrelevant. They're the judges.

that is why we go by, or should, the original intent of those who wrote the constitution. It really isn't complicated.

[quietfan 233]

...

Their is nothing in the Constitution ANYWHERE about separation of church and state which they have used to their advantage and the courts have not been diligent in protecting the Judeo-Christian ideals this country was founded on.

The #1 principle this country is founded upon as of 1789 is that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And since Marbury vs. Madison it has been universally accepted that the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator and interpreter of said Constitution. Neither the Constitution, which doesn't even mention God(s), nor any ruling by SCOTUS has ever endorsed "Judeo-Christian ideals" as the founding principles of our nation, in anyway superior to, preferable to, or deserving of special status relative to other religions' ideals or even atheism's principles. If that is a problem, take it up with the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, every Congress since then that has chosen not to try to amend it to favor Judeo-Christianity, and every Supreme Court since then that has refused to recognize any special status for those "Judeo-Christian ideals". The Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, which was signed by the President and ratified unanimously the Senate, therefore carrying the full weight of Constitutional validity, specifically states: "..the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

We don't necessarily have to agree personally with the Constitution or any court's interpretation thereof, but we have to live under and obey them or become criminals.

Between the 1st and 14th amendments, it is universally recognized by all federal courts that no arm or agency of the state (federal or local) may recognize "an establishment of religion". I'd say putting a Christian (or any other religion's) symbol on one of the most recognized, photographed and publicized emblems of a state university--the football team's helmets--constitutes an agency of the state giving preferential recognition to one particular religious establishment. It's no different than a President or Governor, Congress or Park Service, placing a statue of Buddha in the Lincoln Memorial or in a state capitol--it's still an agency of the state giving preferential recognition to one particular establishment of religion.

I respect the football team for wanting to remember and honor their fallen teammates, but they have no more right to put a cross on state property than you or I do to paint a Satanic pentagram in the rotunda of the Capitol.

[As for the Fathers who fought the Revolution and ratified the Declaration of Independence (which has no official standing in our legal system even if it makes reference to a "Creator"): Some were Christians, some were Deists (who accepted the concept of a Supreme Being but did not accept the Biblical description of said deity as the "uniquely correct" description), and probably some agnostics/atheists. They were also a motley collection that included smugglers, moonshiners, womanizers, slave owners, and slave bedders...hardly a group limited to fine upstanding proselytizing Christians!]

[AUDub 11,147]

Well put, quietfan.

that is why we go by, or should, the original intent of those who wrote the constitution. It really isn't complicated.

How does one determine original intent? You've already shot down Jefferson's letters. In truth, we can't. The best you can do is offer a differing interpretation.

[quietfan 233]

I've always been somewhat fascinated, amused, and amazed by the concept I call "Founding Father Infallibility" espoused by many on the right...in many cases Protestants who refuse to even recognize the infallibility of the Pope (who can at least use Scripture to argue his position). The Founding Fathers themselves knew they were not "infallible" or uniquely qualified to define government for all history, which is why they made provisions for amending the Constitution they wrote. So even if we could, in fact, deduce their original intent, we are under no obligation to follow it or "worship" it. In fact there are 27 Amendments that prove they didn't get it all right from the start! (Or maybe 26, since the 21st merely repealed the 18th.)

(Of course, if they had such mystical powers as to telepathically make their intent clear to us after more than two centuries, I might have to concede them some unique "superhuman" status!)

[TheBlueVue 177]

I've always been somewhat fascinated, amused, and amazed by the concept I call "Founding Father Infallibility" espoused by many on the right...in many cases Protestants who refuse to even recognize the infallibility of the Pope (who can at least use Scripture to argue his position). The Founding Fathers themselves knew they were not "infallible" or uniquely qualified to define government for all history, which is why they made provisions for amending the Constitution they wrote. So even if we could, in fact, deduce their original intent, we are under no obligation to follow it or "worship" it. In fact there are 27 Amendments that prove they didn't get it all right from the start! (Or maybe 26, since the 21st merely repealed the 18th.)

(Of course, if they had such mystical powers as to telepathically make their intent clear to us after more than two centuries, I might have to concede them some unique "superhuman" status!)

Superhuman status? Who has conferred super human status on the founding fathers? Yes, they were prescient enough to make provisions to change the Constitution they wrote and intentionally made it a VERY difficult task to change it. In the roughly 240 years since its adoption only 27 changes have been made. Im not sure you've given much thought to how precious little change that represents, keeping in mind 10 were adopted immediately

i've never felt the founding fathers were superhuman but I can easily see that they were much more keenly aware of the fact that a govt that was imbued with too much power w/o the checks and balances to keep it in check would abuse that power at the expense of the citizenry. After all, they were fleeing a Monarchy for the purpose of claiming their inalienable rights. They were tired of govt telling them what their rights were as they felt that life liberty and pursuit of happiness were rights endowed by their Creator.

Super human? Definitely not. However, more keenly aware of the importance of the necessary values and ideals required to sustain a constitutional republic and the downside of a bloated over powerful centralized govt and the abuse of power that would follow as a result of it? No question about it!

As an after thought. we're under EVERY obligation to follow it because IT IS the law. If you don't want to follow it you'll have to change it. Good luck with that!

[TheBlueVue 177]

...

Their is nothing in the Constitution ANYWHERE about separation of church and state which they have used to their advantage and the courts have not been diligent in protecting the Judeo-Christian ideals this country was founded on.

The #1 principle this country is founded upon as of 1789 is that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And since Marbury vs. Madison it has been universally accepted that the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator and interpreter of said Constitution. Neither the Constitution, which doesn't even mention God(s), nor any ruling by SCOTUS has ever endorsed "Judeo-Christian ideals" as the founding principles of our nation, in anyway superior to, preferable to, or deserving of special status relative to other religions' ideals or even atheism's principles. If that is a problem, take it up with the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, every Congress since then that has chosen not to try to amend it to favor Judeo-Christianity, and every Supreme Court since then that has refused to recognize any special status for those "Judeo-Christian ideals". The Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, which was signed by the President and ratified unanimously the Senate, therefore carrying the full weight of Constitutional validity, specifically states: "..the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

We don't necessarily have to agree personally with the Constitution or any court's interpretation thereof, but we have to live under and obey them or become criminals.

Between the 1st and 14th amendments, it is universally recognized by all federal courts that no arm or agency of the state (federal or local) may recognize "an establishment of religion". I'd say putting a Christian (or any other religion's) symbol on one of the most recognized, photographed and publicized emblems of a state university--the football team's helmets--constitutes an agency of the state giving preferential recognition to one particular religious establishment. It's no different than a President or Governor, Congress or Park Service, placing a statue of Buddha in the Lincoln Memorial or in a state capitol--it's still an agency of the state giving preferential recognition to one particular establishment of religion.

I respect the football team for wanting to remember and honor their fallen teammates, but they have no more right to put a cross on state property than you or I do to paint a Satanic pentagram in the rotunda of the Capitol.

[As for the Fathers who fought the Revolution and ratified the Declaration of Independence (which has no official standing in our legal system even if it makes reference to a "Creator"): Some were Christians, some were Deists (who accepted the concept of a Supreme Being but did not accept the Biblical description of said deity as the "uniquely correct" description), and probably some agnostics/atheists. They were also a motley collection that included smugglers, moonshiners, womanizers, slave owners, and slave bedders...hardly a group limited to fine upstanding proselytizing Christians!]

…only America has called itself Judeo-Christian. America is also unique in that it has always combined secular government with a society based on religious values. Along with the belief in liberty—as opposed to, for example, the European belief in equality, the Muslim belief in theocracy, and the Eastern belief in social conformity—Judeo-Christian values are what distinguish America from all other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence andAttributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."

--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

John Quincy Adams

SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.⁶

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [isaiah 52:10].⁷

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.⁸

Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854

Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.<a href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN25" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">²⁵

[AUDub 11,147]

…only America has called itself Judeo-Christian. America is also unique in that it has always combined secular government with a society based on religious values. Along with the belief in liberty—as opposed to, for example, the European belief in equality, the Muslim belief in theocracy, and the Eastern belief in social conformity—Judeo-Christian values are what distinguish America from all other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

You forgot the quotation marks. Wikipedia is simply quoting Prager there. It's only his opinion.

"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence andAttributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."

--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

The whole exchange. Context is important here.

Also interesting:

Christianity, you will say, was a fresh revelation. I will not deny this. As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed? How has it happened that all the fine arts, architecture, painting, sculpture, statuary, music, poetry, and oratory, have been prostituted, from the creation of the world, to the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Scratch the red states.

John Quincy Adams

SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.⁶

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [isaiah 52:10].⁷In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.⁸

You'll have to do better than David Barton. He's been know to make things up.

This is another textbook example of what happens when quotes are simply passed along and repeated without anyone bothering to check the original source to see if it’s accurate. This is why, in scholarly documents, footnotes are used to provide specific documentation of the source of a quote. Let’s follow the trail backwards and see where it leads. The quote is used by David Barton, who is nearly always the modern source of false quotations from the founding fathers. We’ll see an example of another one below. Barton did not get it from the original documents, he got it from another book of quotations by William Federer called America’s God and Country: An Encyclopedia of Quotations. So Federer got it from the original, right? Wrong. Federer’s footnote is to a book by John Wingate Thornton from 1860. The Thornton book is full of quotations and footnotes locating the source of those quotes. But these words, attributed to John Quincy Adams, are not in fact a quote at all. The words belonged to Thornton. The words are not in quotation marks and there is no footnote giving a source. And no one has ever located an original source from Adams that contain those words, of even a similar sentiment to it. The quote, to be blunt, is a fake. Adams never said it. But this is an excellent example of what passes for historical scholarship among the Christian Nation proponents – the truth doesn’t matter so long as something can be made to appear as supporting their position.

Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854

Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.[/url]<a href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN25" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">²⁵

I thought the debate was whether or not we are a Christian nation, not whether or not aspects of Christianity influenced the individuals who founded our country.

[AUDub 11,147]

Liars for Jesus by Chris Rodda would be a good read for you, Blue. David Barton is featured heavily.

[homersapien 11,367]

…only America has called itself Judeo-Christian.

America? What America? Whose America?

While I am sure some Americans have proclaimed the country Judeo-Christian, no such individual speaks solely for America.

[WarTim 3,456]

I am SICK and tired of these idiots ATTACKING Christians and Christianity. The time is at hand to take a stand. PS.... They OFFEND me!!!!!!!