Arkansas St. Has To Remove Cross From Helmets

[AUDub 11,149]

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!!!!!!!

Awfully insecure, aren't we?

I'm Christian and I don't feel I'm being attacked.

[quietfan 233]

I, too, am a Christian and don't feel at all attacked. Nor am I attacking Christianity or Christians. I think the principles taught by Christ--care for the underprivileged and downtrodden, forgive ("70 x 7!"), judge not, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, be wary of wealth, the Golden Rule, etc.--are the best guidelines for social interaction and civil harmony ever laid down.

I really don't know how a simple statement of fact can be considered as an "attack", but obviously to some it seems so. It is their right to feel that way, but certainly not my intention. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that the 1st Amendment forbids Congress from recognizing or endorsing a particular religion, or religion at all. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, extends that protection against a government-backed religion to all persons and to all parts of government and at all levels of government, federal, state, and local.

I don't disagree that some of the Founding Fathers were indeed Christian, I admitted as much in my first post. I'm grateful that there were those to represent Christian ideals in their proceedings. But they were not and should not have been the only voice. Some Founding Fathers were also non-Christians, and neither the Continental Congress nor the Constitutional Convention sought to make Christianity the "official" religion of the United States. My comment about "superhuman" founding fathers was sarcastic, implying that only super humans could or would expect people two centuries in future to completely understand their thoughts or intentions. My point was that they were NOT superhuman, they were not infallible, and there is no reason to assume that their ideas are automatically superior to ideas of today.

I reject the logic of any argument that says "this is the way it should be because that's what someone in the late 18th century said it should be", particularly when it is clear from this thread alone that we cannot even agree on what they thought or meant. The Founding Fathers were great men, giants of history, and left us probably the best form of government the earth has seen to date. But that does not mean they never made mistakes or that society's ideas and values will not, or should not, change over time. I think they would be shocked that anyone would think otherwise.

I certainly disagree with the statement that "only America has called itself Judeo-Christian". I've never heard anyone make that argument before. Every country of western Europe that participated in the colonization of the New World--the English, French, Spanish, Dutch, and Portuguese--considered themselves Christian. The Pope still exercised secular control over significant portions of Italy in 1776. The Spanish Inquisition was still persecuting non-Christians and non-Catholics in Iberia and Latin America under the direct control of the Spanish monarch. Many of the early settlers who came to the future United States were fleeing religious strife between "Christians" of Europe: Protestant against Catholic in Germany, Huguenot vs Catholic in France, Catholic vs. Anglican vs. Puritan in England, etc. Even today, the monarch of England is also head of their state church, and the majority of people in South America call themselves and their countries Roman Catholic.

Rather, the United States is unique in being the first country in history to create a written constitution that explicitly forbids the establishment of an official state religion and thus to explicitly declare that it is NOT a Judeo-Christian (or Buddhist, or Islamic, or atheist) state, doing so largely to prevent the sort of religious strife Europe had endured for centuries.

Furthermore, I would have real trouble accepting the legitimacy of any religion that required the power of the state to defend its beliefs or enforce its doctrines. Any religion worthy of the name should have faith in the truth, power, and sufficiency of its teachings alone to win over humanity, with no need for "outside" assistance.

[WarTim 3,456]

So atheist should not find aid and comfort from the government either. GREAT! Now I am on board...

[cooltigger21 0]

Actually it is not difficult at all. The constitution is pretty self explanatory. Also Jefferson was not a signatory to the constitution. Go read the federalist papers. James Madison wrote extensively.

[quietfan 233]

So atheist should not find aid and comfort from the government either.

If you mean in the sense of the government endorsing or favoring atheism, of course not. The 1st Amendment forbids the government from endorsing or showing partiality for any particular religious belief, including a belief in no religion or no deity. I think we should all find comfort in the government not telling us what to believe.

However, all too often it seems to me, some conservatives choose to interpret the government's non-endorsement of one particular religion (conservative Christianity) and its protection of all views as the equivalent of the government supporting atheism. NOT endorsing their religious view is in no way the same as an endorsement of atheism!

[cptau 169]

Just add the Alabama or Florida state flag to their helmets, problem solved.

[alexava 6,973]

was a complaint filed or did the school attorney just see that as a possibility? how can anyone give a rip about a cross on a helmet. keep the cross. see how far someone would go to make you remove it.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

The attorney saw the possibility.

[autigeremt 6,635]

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

I disagree (only option that is) but I'll leave it at that. Well, actually... I won't. If the players wanted this on their helmet, and it only pertained to the football team, then I say it has no legal bearing. If the university had requested all students to display a cross in the same manner then that would be grounds for legal action.

[alexava 6,973]

The attorney saw the possibility.

that is what i thought. I would let it ride.

[AUDub 11,149]

was a complaint filed or did the school attorney just see that as a possibility? how can anyone give a rip about a cross on a helmet. keep the cross. see how far someone would go to make you remove it.

If they risk going to court, where they will almost assuredly lose, do you know who pays the court costs?

[alexava 6,973]

was a complaint filed or did the school attorney just see that as a possibility? how can anyone give a rip about a cross on a helmet. keep the cross. see how far someone would go to make you remove it.

If they risk going to court, where they will almost assuredly lose, do you know who pays the court costs?

right, but wait and remove when that complaint comes. i doubt it would be too late. make someone else be the bad guy. i find it hard to believe someone would sue over it.

[AUDub 11,149]

I disagree (only option that is) but I'll leave it at that. Well, actually... I won't. If the players wanted this on their helmet, and it only pertained to the football team, then I say it has no legal bearing. If the university had requested all students to display a cross in the same manor then that would be grounds for legal action.

What if the university requested all students display the cross in Cross Manor?

(Apologies, EMT. Once again I could not resist.)

[AUDub 11,149]

right, but wait and remove when that complaint comes. i doubt it would be too late. make someone else be the bad guy. i find it hard to believe someone would sue over it.

People sue over these sorts of things all the time. Are you familiar with the Freedom from Religion Foundation?

[autigeremt 6,635]

I disagree (only option that is) but I'll leave it at that. Well, actually... I won't. If the players wanted this on their helmet, and it only pertained to the football team, then I say it has no legal bearing. If the university had requested all students to display a cross in the same manor then that would be grounds for legal action.

What if the university requested all students display the cross in Cross Manor?

(Apologies, EMT. Once again I could not resist.)

Why did you think I did it? I couldn't resist either.

[AUDub 11,149]

Why did you think I did it? I couldn't resist either.

You're even more sly than I thought.

[alexava 6,973]

right, but wait and remove when that complaint comes. i doubt it would be too late. make someone else be the bad guy. i find it hard to believe someone would sue over it.

People sue over these sorts of things all the time. Are you familiar with the Freedom from Religion Foundation?

yes. what damages do they seek to recover? or do they just force public institutions to comply?

[TitanTiger 20,483]

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

No it wasn't. There was the common sense option, which was that the cross was not an endorsement of any religion but a reflection of the person they wished to honor. Anyone getting butthurt over that is looking for reasons to be upset. I'd say the same thing if the guy had been a devout Jew and they wanted to put the Star of David on there because it was such a part of who he was.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

Why did you think I did it? I couldn't resist either.

You're even more sly than I thought.

I thought it was obvious from the beginning emt, but then again my mind was not clouded by the cut and paste mafia, aka "the posse." Nice to see you coming around Ben!

[alexava 6,973]

right, but wait and remove when that complaint comes. i doubt it would be too late. make someone else be the bad guy. i find it hard to believe someone would sue over it.

People sue over these sorts of things all the time. Are you familiar with the Freedom from Religion Foundation?

I went to their web site and they were preparing a formal complaint. seems like a lot of time and energy wasted.

[AUDub 11,149]

yes. what damages do they seek to recover? or do they just force public institutions to comply?

It's times like this I wish Auctoritas had not decided to take a break from politically speaking. He has first hand experience on the matter. I found his post from the Michael Sam thread. I'll bold the relevant portion.

You would be correct. Although, that is a little bit of a misleading statement.

Full disclosure (and bear in mind, I rarely disclose this to many people - for the obvious reason that the last time it came out, I wasn't exactly well received):

In 2001, a private group approached the Habersham County Commission with a large Ten Commandments plaque and wanted to put it up. The CC accepted it, and at a meeting, adopted the following resolution:

"WE, THE BELOW-SIGNED SETTING [sic] COMMISSION OF HABERSHAM COUNTY, IN CONSIDERATION OF OUR BIBLICAL HISTORY OF GEORGIA, BOTH IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEVOTIONAL ACTS IN OUR HERITAGE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF ALMIGHTY GOD AND WISH TO GO ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THIS MAGNIFICENT DOCUMENT AND STATE THAT WE WILL DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO DISPLAY TO THE LIMIT OF OUR ABILITY, AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. IN THE ENACTING OF THIS RESOLUTION, WE HEREBY PETITION THE GOD OF HEAVEN TO PRESERVE THE PEACE WHICH HE HAS SO GRACIOUSLY EXTENDED TO U.S. BY OUR ANCIENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND BEG HIS CONTINUED PROTECTION AND ALLEVIATION OF ILLS WHICH COME TO THOSE WHO FORGET HIM AND HIS LAW."

Judge William O'Kelley said in open court that it was the most blatant religious proclamation he had ever seen.

The individual who was presenting this resolution noted that he was "on a mission to restore God back into our governments" and urged the board to be "leaders in God's work." A member of the board indicated his agreement with similar sentiments and made a motion to accept the resolution, which was adopted unanimously. The display went up, alone, right inside the front door of the courthouse so that it was the first thing you saw when you went inside. A copy also was posted in the same manner at the Natatorium. There was a separate display in the Tag Office at the courthouse.

There were several complaints regarding it, but most of those people were understandably nervous about being named in a lawsuit. I, however, felt that my standing in the community as well as my occupation as a firefighter/EMT would shield me somewhat from backlash, and would possibly help people realize that someone who didn't believe in God could still be good. In the end, Reverend Bo Turner and I agreed to be plaintiffs in the case. Bo was the former mayor of Clarkesville, the county seat, as well as a Baptist minister, preaching at a fairly sizeable church in the area. The lawsuit was filed in March of 2002 as a case on First Amendment grounds that the County's action violated the Establishment Clause - in essence, the action coupled with the proclamation established what an objective observer would consider an official religion of the County.

In response to the lawsuit, and by advice of their legal counsel, in October of 2002 the county started accepting donations of "other" "historical documents to culturally enrich the citizens of this county due to the special historical significance of these documents and symbols to our county and our country." In the end, the original display remained, and 4 other things were posted in small picture frames in normal typeface - the Mayflower Compact, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and ironically enough, the Bill of Rights. When it was clear from Judge William O'Kelley's comments during the discovery phase that that was not enough to mitigate the violation because it was obvious which document was more important due to its size and decoration, the county removed the initial Ten Commandments plaque and placed in it's spot a Ten Commandments that matched the historical documents. That was the final offer pre-trial from the defendants. We decided to decline that as a settlement and moved to trial.

The trial in Federal Court in Gainesville was certainly an interesting experience, and one that I am unabashedly proud of. It is not often that a 23 year old man gets to participate in our great system of government at such an important level.

I will not bore you with details, much, of the trial. I was the first witness called by the plaintiff's attorneys. There was an attorney from the area that was working Pro Bono, and the defense decided that they would save their big guns from the Liberty Council for Rev. Turner, who was known as a constitutional scholar as well as very good at verbal sparring. The testimony was fairly standard from both sides, until I was asked if I didn't like the display, couldn't I "just walk into the courthouse at the back door?" I looked up at Judge O'Kelley, who looked down, smirked, and gave me a little nod. I responded, "I'm sorry, I thought we'd gotten rid of that sort of thing back when they outlawed segregation."

The defense attorney looked poleaxed and said he was all done.

That exchange was highlighted in the ruling. Judge O'Kelley: "Counsel for the defendant brought out that plaintiffs could have avoided their alleged injuries had they chosen to do so; they could have accessed the buildings through back entrances or sent in car registration fees through the mail. Although the defendant did not explicitly make this argument in its written brief, the court found the implications of the questioning at trial quite distasteful. One would hope this country has progressed well beyond the point where any minority segment of our society is forced to use back door entrances to government buildings simply to accommodate the beliefs of the majority." (emphasis mine)

In early 2004, Judge O'Kelley (who, by the way, was a Reagan appointee, and was known as a conservative justice) ruled that,

"...The court finds that defendant's display of the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Defendant has failed to retreat from the unambiguous religious purpose articulated when the first resolution was passed and has done nothing to indicate to the reasonable observer how the presented documents are historically related, thereby failing under both prongs one and two of the Lemon test. While there might be ways to constitutionally display the Ten Commandments as part of a larger, historical presentation, Habersham County has failed to do so in this case."

It is important to note that we asked for no damages and received no compensation. After the trial, our attorneys filed a motion for the losing party to reimburse legal fees, which is standard practice, albeit one that I was unaware of. The initial thought by the County Commission was that their legal insurance through the GA Association of County Commissioners would cover it; However, it turns out that the language of their policy only would pay the court costs if damages were awarded. The County was on the hook for that money. It is my only regret with this case - That money could have been used elsewhere. To pay it off, and to fund an appeal, several citizens of the county offered to donate money for the possible costs.

After counsel for the County Commission researched, she determined that even if the money came from private hands, it cannot be given and accepted for an express purpose to fight a court battle. The County Commission decided, then, that they would not appeal the ruling, and removed the Ten Commandments, as well as the rest of the vitally important historical documents. In its place, they hung an empty picture frame where the Ten Commandments had been.

I did not undertake that lawsuit lightly, or as an attack on Christianity, or Christians, or God. I would have done the same had they erected something from Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism. I fought this fight because I am an American, and a proud one at that. There is a reason that the Framers put the First Amendment in a place of primacy in the Bill of Rights, and there is a reason that the Framers also put the religion clause first in it. We are part of a great nation that was founded with ideals that we are all equal, and as such, we should have equal access to, and equal treatment from our government. Had the display originally gone up with the rest of those documents, and the initial proclamation not existed, I would not have batted an eye. But, instead, the posted the Ten Commandments with a proclamation that I, by want of majority religion, was a second class citizen and I was not welcome there.

My mom once told me of her experience marching with African Americans during the Civil Rights movement. She told me that sometimes, even if it is dangerous, we have to stand up to make sure that nobody else has to sit down. She told me that one day, I would have to make a choice as well, and then she reiterated Matthew 25:35-40 "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'"

So, when I speak of my experiences, and why I believe the way I do politically, socially, religiously, these things are why. I've seen the worst of what man can do, and some of the best. I may not be a Christian, but there's nothing that says I can't do good while I'm at it. And sometimes, that means standing up to be counted- even when the world is against you or your brethren whom you may know or may have never met- so that we all, as a nation, can be assured that we all stand together.

If you are interested in reading Judge O'Kelley's opinion, it is here: http://www.leagle.co...COUNTY, GEORGIA

[AUFAN78 3,910]

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

No it wasn't. There was the common sense option, which was that the cross was not an endorsement of any religion but a reflection of the person they wished to honor. Anyone getting butthurt over that is looking for reasons to be upset. I'd say the same thing if the guy had been a devout Jew and they wanted to put the Star of David on there because it was such a part of who he was.

While I agree, that will not be the politically correct sentiment.

[AUDub 11,149]

No it wasn't. There was the common sense option, which was that the cross was not an endorsement of any religion but a reflection of the person they wished to honor. Anyone getting butthurt over that is looking for reasons to be upset. I'd say the same thing if the guy had been a devout Jew and they wanted to put the Star of David on there because it was such a part of who he was.

Their intent is irrelevant. It is unconstitutional to display religious imagery on state property. ASU legal counsel recommended they remove or modify the cross. They probably realize they would be fighting a losing battle.

[WarTim 3,456]

There are many outlets that would gladly pay the costs. More on the way too. ;-)

[AUDub 11,149]

There are many outlets that would gladly pay the costs. More on the way too. ;-)

From above:

After counsel for the County Commission researched, she determined that even if the money came from private hands, it cannot be given and accepted for an express purpose to fight a court battle. The County Commission decided, then, that they would not appeal the ruling, and removed the Ten Commandments, as well as the rest of the vitally important historical documents. In its place, they hung an empty picture frame where the Ten Commandments had been

The risk is too great that the state would be on the hook for that money. I'm not sure of the law in Arkansas on the matter, but even if said outlets (whatever those are) are willing to donate to fund the cause, there's a possibility the money they donate may not be used on court costs.