Arkansas St. Has To Remove Cross From Helmets

[TitanTiger 20,483]

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.

No it's not...unless you waive common sense and reasonableness to come to decisions.

Lawyers are risk averse. They probably could have won the court battle by showing it was about a tribute to the person and the cross was representative of him and what was important to him. They just didn't want to spend the money.

[AUDub 11,149]

No it's not...unless you waive common sense and reasonableness to come to decisions.

Lawyers are risk averse. They probably could have won the court battle by showing it was about a tribute to the person and the cross was representative of him and what was important to him. They just didn't want to spend the money.

I disagree. And I am insulted with the notion that I am waiving common sense or reason.

Again, that it's a memorial is irrelevant. Displaying a religious symbol on state property is tantamount to endorsement. Are you familiar with the Lemon Test?

[TitanTiger 20,483]

I disagree. And I am insulted with the notion that I am waiving common sense or reason.

Again, that it's a memorial is irrelevant. Displaying a religious symbol on state property is tantamount to endorsement.

And that last statement is precisely what is lacking in common sense or reason. It defies common sense and reason to believe that in any way the state is endorsing a damn thing other than honoring a person the players were close to and cared for.

[AUDub 11,149]

And that last statement is precisely what is lacking in common sense or reason. It defies common sense and reason to believe that in any way the state is endorsing a damn thing other than honoring a person the players were close to and cared for.

Just to clear some things up before we continue. Want to make sure we're on the same page.

Are you familiar with the Lemon Test?

What is your view on the establishment clause? Do you, like cooltigger, believe there is no separation of church and state?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I disagree. And I am insulted with the notion that I am waiving common sense or reason.

Again, that it's a memorial is irrelevant. Displaying a religious symbol on state property is tantamount to endorsement.

And that last statement is precisely what is lacking in common sense or reason. It defies common sense and reason to believe that in any way the state is endorsing a damn thing other than honoring a person the players were close to and cared for.

I understand and agree with both of you. However, once challenged, common sense has to yield to common sense. It is a shame in many cases but, that is our system. It is actually quite admirable.

[cooltigger21 0]

And that last statement is precisely what is lacking in common sense or reason. It defies common sense and reason to believe that in any way the state is endorsing a damn thing other than honoring a person the players were close to and cared for.

Just to clear some things up before we continue. Want to make sure we're on the same page.

Are you familiar with the Lemon Test?

What is your view on the establishment clause? Do you, like cooltigger, believe there is no separation of church and state?

Whoa up hoss. You misunderstand what I said. Maybe that was my fault. The establishment clause simply prohibits a state religion or church. We have no official church like the church of England. This does not come anywhere close to doing that.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Just to clear some things up before we continue. Want to make sure we're on the same page.

Are you familiar with the Lemon Test?

Not extensively, but what I know of it, I don't think it applies here. The state isn't putting forth a statute. They are deciding whether to insert themselves into an expression of grief and honoring a friend these players lost.

What is your view on the establishment clause? Do you, like cooltigger, believe there is no separation of church and state?

I don't believe there is "no" separation. I do believe the modern view of the last 50 years has an excessively strict interpretation of it. And this case is a prime example of it.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

I disagree. And I am insulted with the notion that I am waiving common sense or reason.

Again, that it's a memorial is irrelevant. Displaying a religious symbol on state property is tantamount to endorsement.

And that last statement is precisely what is lacking in common sense or reason. It defies common sense and reason to believe that in any way the state is endorsing a damn thing other than honoring a person the players were close to and cared for.

I understand and agree with both of you. However, once challenged, common sense has to yield to common sense. It is a shame in many cases but, that is our system. It is actually quite admirable.

It might be. Then again, the ones that are so easily butthurt that they would even threaten such as lawsuit are pretty awful people.

[AUDub 11,149]

Not extensively, but what I know of it, I don't think it applies here. The state isn't putting forth a statute. They are deciding whether to insert themselves into an expression of grief and honoring a friend these players lost.

More specifically, O'Connor's Endorsement test, which is "a legitimate part of Lemon's second prong."

I don't believe there is "no" separation. I do believe the modern view of the last 50 years has an excessively strict interpretation of it. And this case is a prime example of it.

Thank you.

[AUDub 11,149]

And that last statement is precisely what is lacking in common sense or reason. It defies common sense and reason to believe that in any way the state is endorsing a damn thing other than honoring a person the players were close to and cared for.

Just to clear some things up before we continue. Want to make sure we're on the same page.

Are you familiar with the Lemon Test?

What is your view on the establishment clause? Do you, like cooltigger, believe there is no separation of church and state?

Whoa up hoss. You misunderstand what I said. Maybe that was my fault. The establishment clause simply prohibits a state religion or church. We have no official church like the church of England. This does not come anywhere close to doing that.

I apologize CT. I meant to include a paragraph break right there.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Not extensively, but what I know of it, I don't think it applies here. The state isn't putting forth a statute. They are deciding whether to insert themselves into an expression of grief and honoring a friend these players lost.

More specifically, O'Connor's Endorsement test, which is "a legitimate part of Lemon's second prong."

I don't believe this action by the football players fails that test. I think it's a prime example of straining at gnats. I would say the last sentence of O'Connor on this particular aspect of the test sums it up nicely:

The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit, is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion.

I'd say it's clear to anyone that isn't willfully looking for a way to just stick it to a group of believers that this sticker in no way showed intent by the government to endorse a religion.

My view on this particular situation could best be summed up by the belief that society needs to reacquaint itself with the fine art of leaving other people alone.

[AUDub 11,149]

Not extensively, but what I know of it, I don't think it applies here. The state isn't putting forth a statute. They are deciding whether to insert themselves into an exp<b></b>ression of grief and honoring a friend these players lost.

More specifically, O'Connor's Endorsement test, which is "a legitimate part of Lemon's second prong."

I don't believe this action by the football players fails that test. I think it's a prime example of straining at gnats.

It can be argued that the display of a religious symbol is an action of the university, and therefore the state, no matter who placed it and no matter what reason.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Not extensively, but what I know of it, I don't think it applies here. The state isn't putting forth a statute. They are deciding whether to insert themselves into an expression of grief and honoring a friend these players lost.

More specifically, O'Connor's Endorsement test, which is "a legitimate part of Lemon's second prong."

I don't believe this action by the football players fails that test. I think it's a prime example of straining at gnats.

It can be argued that the display of a religious symbol is an action of the university, and therefore the state, no matter who placed it and no matter what reason.

It can be argued by people who wish to search far and wide for opportunities to take offense at nothing, sure.

I would say O'Connor's statement on the matter does bring intent into the equation though:

"The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit, is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion."

[icanthearyou 4,463]

And that last statement is precisely what is lacking in common sense or reason. It defies common sense and reason to believe that in any way the state is endorsing a damn thing other than honoring a person the players were close to and cared for.

Just to clear some things up before we continue. Want to make sure we're on the same page.

Are you familiar with the Lemon Test?

What is your view on the establishment clause? Do you, like cooltigger, believe there is no separation of church and state?

Whoa up hoss. You misunderstand what I said. Maybe that was my fault. The establishment clause simply prohibits a state religion or church. We have no official church like the church of England. This does not come anywhere close to doing that.

That, and our broad freedom to practice religion are a pretty big implication (state to stay out of religion, religion to stay out of the state), are they not?

[AUDub 11,149]

It can be argued by people who wish to search far and wide for opportunities to take offense at nothing, sure.

Whether or not it's nothing is debatable. This particular suit was filed by an alumni.

I'll get on to the question of intent tomorrow. Wife is sick and it will take time.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Whether or not it's nothing is debatable. This particular suit was filed by an alumni.

Alumni or arch rival, it doesn't matter. A reasonable person would have, at most, inquired about it and dropped the matter once it was explained what the decal was about. An unreasonable person looking for opportunities to be offended does this.

I'll get on to the question of intent tomorrow. Wife is sick and it will take time.

Take your time.

[homersapien 11,379]

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.

I think that's a fair distinction.

[AUDub 11,149]

Alumni or arch rival, it doesn't matter. A reasonable person would have, at most, inquired about it and dropped the matter once it was explained what the decal was about. An unreasonable person looking for opportunities to be offended does this.

Whether or not the his actions are reasonable is a matter of opinion. My opinion on the matter matches up very closely with your own, but has no bearing on the legality of the school's actions.

Take your time.

Thank you, Titan.

You make a fair point. Intent is important.

Quick question about the statement released by the school. I hope it's good one. My argument kind of hinges on it. I try to tiptoe around you. You're the worst kind of conservative. A rational one. You make too much damned sense for my liking sometimes.

“I am 100 percent in support of our coaches’ and players’ expression of faith, as well as their choice to honor the two individuals associated with our team who passed away by voluntarily wearing a cross decal on the back of their helmets. Unfortunately, we have received a complaint that use of the cross violates the Constitutional prohibition against separation of church and state.

After consulting with University counsel, we have been advised to either modify the decal or remove it completely. Thus, in order to ensure that we are in full compliance with Constitutional law, we will be modifying the decal to still honor the two individuals who are no longer with us.”

You referred to the crosses as "an expression of grief." An apt descriptor.

In the first sentence of the first paragraph, the school says they support the coaches' and players' "expression of faith." If the cross is to be considered an "expression of faith," and provided by the school at taxpayer expense, does that constitute an endorsement of religion, as well as answer the question of intent, thereby failing the Endorsement Test?

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Whether or not the his actions are reasonable is a matter of opinion. My opinion on the matter matches up very closely with your own, but has no bearing on the legality of the schools actions.

Yeah, it's a side note, but one I think that more people need to come to terms with. We're an over-litigious society to begin with. As I mentioned before, we need to get more used to the notion of leaving others alone.

Thank you, Titan.

You make a fair point. Intent is important.

Quick question about the statement released by the schools. I hope it's good one. My argument kind of hinges on it. I try to tiptoe around you. You're the worst kind of conservative. A rational one. You make too much damned sense for my liking sometimes. :glare:/> :laugh:/>

"I am 100 percent in support of our coaches' and players' expression of faith, as well as their choice to honor the two individuals associated with our team who passed away by voluntarily wearing a cross decal on the back of their helmets. Unfortunately, we have received a complaint that use of the cross violates the Constitutional prohibition against separation of church and state.

After consulting with University counsel, we have been advised to either modify the decal or remove it completely. Thus, in order to ensure that we are in full compliance with Constitutional law, we will be modifying the decal to still honor the two individuals who are no longer with us."

You referred to the crosses as "an expression of grief." An apt descriptor.

In the first sentence of the first paragraph, the school says they support the coaches' and players' "expression of faith." If the cross is to be considered an "expression of faith," and provided by the school at taxpayer expense, does that constitute an endorsement of religion, as well as answer the question of intent, thereby failing the Endorsement Test?

I think the school is characterizing it as that. I don't think that aligns with what the players said about it though. To whatever degree it was an expression of faith, it was about the importance of faith to their deceased friends and not some intention to evangelize using a helmet sticker. Had they been devout Jews for instance, I think you may have seen a Star of David in this context.

To me its sort of the distinction between studying the Bible in an English lit class because of its indelible mark on the English language (especially the King James Version) versus having a Bible class for the purposes of giving religious instruction. Some students may take the class because they want to know more about the holy book of their own faith and others may even draw some faith or glean some religious understanding from the class. But that's not what the class is about, and having such a class doesn't mean that gov't is endorsing a particular religion, even if they don't have comparable classes for the Quran or the writings of Buddha. The purpose of this cross was to memorialize their friends in a way that had connection and meaning to those friends' lives. It was an expression of grief, not an attempt to push religion on anyone.

[Shire5k 19]

Being an Atheist myself, I agree with everyone who thinks this is ridiculous. Stop looking for reasons to stir up ****. These kids were honoring two people who had died. Leave them alone.

[alexava 6,973]

I understand the legal aspects. I also support seperation of church and state. I don't see how any reasonable person could have a problem with this helmet sticker.

[DKW 86 7,425]

While i understand the players supporting/honoring their friends, i also think thaty this could end up offending a lot of people.

Say 10 years from now enough people come to support ISIS. What if one of the supporters died that was associated with Auburn and the players decided to honor them by wearing a small ISIS flag on their helmets? If one of your loved ones was killed in Iraq in the coming war, you would be offended very much. Things change and what is okay now may not be cool in the future. What was okay 50 years ago is no longer favored now. Things do change. There are times when even i, and i detest almost all of political correctness, have to admit that even some political correctness may be correct.

[WarTim 3,456]

No political correctness is ever correct, sorry.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

While i understand the players supporting/honoring their friends, i also think thaty this could end up offending a lot of people.

Say 10 years from now enough people come to support ISIS. What if one of the supporters died that was associated with Auburn and the players decided to honor them by wearing a small ISIS flag on their helmets? If one of your loved ones was killed in Iraq in the coming war, you would be offended very much. Things change and what is okay now may not be cool in the future. What was okay 50 years ago is no longer favored now. Things do change. There are times when even i, and i detest almost all of political correctness, have to admit that even some political correctness may be correct.

David, you're trying to hard.

[cptau 169]

Amazing that the school lawyer said using a + sign would be Ok.

Almost all Christian symbols started out as a means to secretly mark the believer as a Christian without drawing the attention of the pagan roman government. Some things don't really change much...

The + is the cross of Saint George used as the flag of England in the UK flag and for other countries, the X is the cross of Saint Andrew used in the flag of the UK, Scotland, Alabama, and Florida among others.

Most homes and many buildings have 6 panel doors which are called cross and bible doors. The top 4 panels outline the cross. The bottom 2 panels form an open bible symbol. So all government buildings should remove them and if you don't like Christian symbols you'll need to get them out of your house.