Arkansas St. Has To Remove Cross From Helmets

[AUDub 11,149]

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.

True, these symbols are rooted in Christianity, but they are not exclusively Christian today.

[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.

True, these symbols are rooted in Christianity, but they are not exclusively Christian today.

Correct, none of the crosses are exclusively christian now including the Latin cross that the lawyer told them to remove.

[AUDub 11,149]

Correct, none of the crosses are exclusively christian now including the Latin cross that the lawyer told them to remove.

Huh? I don't follow your logic. The cross for the helmet was chosen exclusively because of the fact that it represented the faith of the departed.

The plus sign is much more ambiguous because it has a widely accepted secular meaning.

[AUDub 11,149]

I get odd little hanging HTML tags when conversing with you, usually in the middle of the word expression. Maybe it's because I'm on the iPad. Weird.

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.

If it can be successfully argued that the cross constitutes an expression of faith, whether it's the players or their departed friends, and I believe it can, then it fails the Endorsement test, the university can have no part of it and it can't be displayed on state property. The memorial must be secular in nature.

Had they been devout Jews for instance, I think you may have seen a Star of David in this context.

The Star of David, the Star and Crescent, that atomic symbol some atheists use, etc. None of it is permissible as they are all expressions of faith, or lack thereof in the atheists case.

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.

Interesting analogy. I don't believe it's applicable here, though. I'll parse it more closely tomorrow.

My initial thoughts on the matter are that the study of the Bible is considered a secular endeavor, and therefore not an endorsement of a Christianity. The Bible itself is a religious symbol, but merely having it on hand for study is not endorsing Christianity. The cross, on the other hand, was chosen exclusively because it represents the faith of the departed, and placing it on the jerseys is tacit endorsement of their faith.

Sorry if things seem a little choppy. It's late and I'm sleepy.

[cptau 169]

Correct, none of the crosses are exclusively christian now including the Latin cross that the lawyer told them to remove.

Huh? I don't follow your logic. The cross for the helmet was chosen exclusively because of the fact that it represented the faith of the departed.

The plus sign is much more ambiguous because it has a widely accepted secular meaning.

It is a foolish exercise by people that feel threatened by any expression religion and want to stamp it out when possible using legal or threat of legal action. The + is still a cross, in fact a Greek Christian cross. The outside group, the lawyer and the players are just playing a shell game. If they put any symbol on their helmets and say only to themselves it represents the Christian faith, the lawyer is happy and the outside complaining party is clueless. If the players' publicly say the new symbol represents Christian faith, the outside group will want the new symbol off too.

Then the NCAA steps in and dictates what can be on uniform. They did it for eye black http://bleacherreport.com/articles/346014-tim-tebow-rule-the-ncaa-bans-eye-black-messages

[homersapien 11,379]

Correct, none of the crosses are exclusively christian now including the Latin cross that the lawyer told them to remove.

Huh? I don't follow your logic. The cross for the helmet was chosen exclusively because of the fact that it represented the faith of the departed.

The plus sign is much more ambiguous because it has a widely accepted secular meaning.

It is a foolish exercise by people that feel threatened by any expression religion and want to stamp it out when possible using legal or threat of legal action. The + is still a cross, in fact a Greek Christian cross. The outside group, the lawyer and the players are just playing a shell game. If they put any symbol on their helmets and say only to themselves it represents the Christian faith, the lawyer is happy and the outside complaining party is clueless. If the players' publicly say the new symbol represents Christian faith, the outside group will want the new symbol off too.

Then the NCAA steps in and dictates what can be on uniform. They did it for eye black http://bleacherrepor...-black-messages

That is your opinion.

My opinion is the people who object to this are concerned about the expression of religion by government. They could care less about what you do as an individual.

[cooltigger21 0]

Correct, none of the crosses are exclusively christian now including the Latin cross that the lawyer told them to remove.

Huh? I don't follow your logic. The cross for the helmet was chosen exclusively because of the fact that it represented the faith of the departed.

The plus sign is much more ambiguous because it has a widely accepted secular meaning.

It is a foolish exercise by people that feel threatened by any expression religion and want to stamp it out when possible using legal or threat of legal action. The + is still a cross, in fact a Greek Christian cross. The outside group, the lawyer and the players are just playing a shell game. If they put any symbol on their helmets and say only to themselves it represents the Christian faith, the lawyer is happy and the outside complaining party is clueless. If the players' publicly say the new symbol represents Christian faith, the outside group will want the new symbol off too.

Then the NCAA steps in and dictates what can be on uniform. They did it for eye black http://bleacherrepor...-black-messages

That is your opinion.

My opinion is the people who object to this are concerned about the expression of religion by government. They could care less about what you do as an individual.

The people "concerned" about this want all vestiges of religion removed from public spaces. This reminds me of when Madalyn Murry Ohair tried to get religious broadcasts taken off the air. These people would object to a class in public school to study the bible in the context of the language and it's influence in that manner.

[AUDub 11,149]

The people "concerned" about this want all vestiges of religion removed from public spaces. This reminds me of when Madalyn Murry Ohair tried to get religious broadcasts taken off the air. These people would object to a class in public school to study the bible in the context of the language and it's influence in that manner.

Answering for myself, I wouldn't object to that at all.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

If it can be successfully argued that the cross constitutes an expression of faith, whether it's the players or their departed friends, and I believe it can, then it fails the Endorsement test, the university can have no part of it and it can't be displayed on state property. The memorial must be secular in nature.

Then what are we to do about all those religious symbols on grave markers in Arlington National Cemetery? Do they fail the endorsement test since it's on federal property and constitutes an "expression of faith" of the deceased?

The Star of David, the Star and Crescent, that atomic symbol some atheists use, etc. None of it is permissible as they are all expressions of faith, or lack thereof in the atheists case.

I think that's a gross misapplication of the test and it's a perfect encapsulation of all that is wrong with recent interpretations of the Establishment clause.

[RunInRed 16,413]

Not sure I want to jump into this debate but FWIW, if Auburn put any religious symbol on their uniforms, I would raise holy hell.

[AUDub 11,149]

Then what are we to do about all those religious symbols on grave markers in Arlington National Cemetery? Do they fail the endorsement test since it's on federal property and constitutes an "expression of faith" of the deceased?

Yes. If we are interpreting the law according to currently accepted jurisprudence in the matter, then they are unconstitutional.

EDIT: I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell they will ever be removed. The government would more than likely try to move Arlington to private hands were a challenge upheld, like the Mojave and Mt. Soledad crosses.

I think that's a gross misapplication of the test and it's a perfect encapsulation of all that is wrong with recent interpretations of the Establishment clause.

But they are the current (emphasis on current) interpretations of our highest court. Any objections you or I may have are irrelevant.

[homersapien 11,379]

Then what are we to do about all those religious symbols on grave markers in Arlington National Cemetery? Do they fail the endorsement test since it's on federal property and constitutes an "expression of faith" of the deceased?

I don't think providing crosses - or whatever - on a soldiers tombstone is unconstitutional if it simply expresses the faith of the deceased. Is that not done as a result of the families request? Can a grave be designated with any symbol requested? I know that some of the markers have the star of David. I don't know about a crescent for Islam (for example).

Surely the government doesn't just assign a cross. If so, there is a difference between the government providing a benefit available to any veteran and promoting a religion.

But if the government provides a cross by default (absent of a specific request) or if it refuses a symbol for any given religion, then I agree it's unconstitutional.

A much more clear cut example of an unconstitutional act is printing "In God We Trust" on our currency.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Not sure I want to jump into this debate but FWIW, if Auburn put any religious symbol on their uniforms, I would raise holy hell.

And see, I think that's ridiculous. What if a rabbi had somehow become close to the program (I know that's not as common or likely in the Deep South, but go with it), close to the players and he died unexpectedly? I wouldn't have any problem with them honoring him with his name in a Star of David or some other Jewish symbol on the helmet. I'm smart enough to know that such an expression isn't an act by the State of Alabama to push Judaism on unwitting folks. It's about their friend and honoring him in a way that has a connection to who he was and what mattered to him in life. Folks are way over sensitive to this stuff.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Then what are we to do about all those religious symbols on grave markers in Arlington National Cemetery? Do they fail the endorsement test since it's on federal property and constitutes an "expression of faith" of the deceased?

I don't think providing crosses - or whatever - on a soldiers tombstone is unconstitutional if it simply expresses the faith of the deceased. Is that not done as a result of the families request? Can a grave be designated with any symbol requested? I know that some of the markers have the star of David. I don't know about a crescent for Islam (for example).

Surely the government doesn't just assign a cross. If so, there is a difference between the government providing a benefit available to any veteran and promoting a religion.

But if the government provides a cross by default (absent of a specific request) or if it refuses a symbol for any given religion, then I agree it's unconstitutional.

A much more clear cut example of an unconstitutional act is printing "In God We Trust" on our currency.

But see, that's the same thing that's happening here. The cross simply expresses the faith of the deceased. It's something that connects to them as a person. That's all.

[AUDub 11,149]

There was a suit from the ACLU relatively recently to have Wiccan religious symbols added at Arlington.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

There was a suit from the ACLU relatively recently to have Wiccan religious symbols added.

Which is fine with me if that was desired by the deceased or his/her family.

[homersapien 11,379]

Correct, none of the crosses are exclusively christian now including the Latin cross that the lawyer told them to remove.

Huh? I don't follow your logic. The cross for the helmet was chosen exclusively because of the fact that it represented the faith of the departed.

The plus sign is much more ambiguous because it has a widely accepted secular meaning.

It is a foolish exercise by people that feel threatened by any expression religion and want to stamp it out when possible using legal or threat of legal action. The + is still a cross, in fact a Greek Christian cross. The outside group, the lawyer and the players are just playing a shell game. If they put any symbol on their helmets and say only to themselves it represents the Christian faith, the lawyer is happy and the outside complaining party is clueless. If the players' publicly say the new symbol represents Christian faith, the outside group will want the new symbol off too.

Then the NCAA steps in and dictates what can be on uniform. They did it for eye black http://bleacherrepor...-black-messages

That is your opinion.

My opinion is the people who object to this are concerned about the expression of religion by government. They could care less about what you do as an individual.

The people "concerned" about this want all vestiges of religion removed from public spaces. This reminds me of when Madalyn Murry Ohair tried to get religious broadcasts taken off the air. These people would object to a class in public school to study the bible in the context of the language and it's influence in that manner.

Depends on what you mean by "public spaces". If it is a space or property that is owned by the government, then logically, yes.

Regarding the bible, it would depend on how the class presented the information. If presented in a purely historical or literary way, no.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

RIR....are you going to raise "holy hell" with Chette Williams saying prayers with the team on a regular basis, often with JJ and Gus participating?

[RunInRed 16,413]

Not sure I want to jump into this debate but FWIW, if Auburn put any religious symbol on their uniforms, I would raise holy hell.

And see, I think that's ridiculous. What if a rabbi had somehow become close to the program (I know that's not as common or likely in the Deep South, but go with it), close to the players and he died unexpectedly? I wouldn't have any problem with them honoring him with his name in a Star of David or some other Jewish symbol on the helmet. I'm smart enough to know that such an expression isn't an act by the State of Alabama to push Judaism on unwitting folks. It's about their friend and honoring him in a way that has a connection to who he was and what mattered to him in life. Folks are way over sensitive to this stuff.

In that example if a player wants to draw a Star of David on his wrist tape or whatever, fine. No one is oppressing his/her self-expression "rights" to do so ... but IMO, it crosses a separation line when the University does it ... because it comes across as an endorsement. And forget the whole public/private debate ... if Auburn, as a diverse institution of higher learning, wants to uphold their self-professed ideals of respect, empowerment and inclusivity, no religion should hold any credence as a stamp next to our beloved AU.

And for the record, I've long had objections about the way Auburn has injected religion into the Athletics program (vis-a-vis Chette Williams, FCA, etc.) but that's a whole other story for another day.

RIR....are you going to raise "holy hell" with Chette Williams saying prayers with the team on a regular basis, often with JJ and Gus participating?

I don't care for that either, as stated in the post above.

[cooltigger21 0]

Not sure I want to jump into this debate but FWIW, if Auburn put any religious symbol on their uniforms, I would raise holy hell.

And see, I think that's ridiculous. What if a rabbi had somehow become close to the program (I know that's not as common or likely in the Deep South, but go with it), close to the players and he died unexpectedly? I wouldn't have any problem with them honoring him with his name in a Star of David or some other Jewish symbol on the helmet. I'm smart enough to know that such an expression isn't an act by the State of Alabama to push Judaism on unwitting folks. It's about their friend and honoring him in a way that has a connection to who he was and what mattered to him in life. Folks are way over sensitive to this stuff.

In that example if a player wants to draw a Star of David on his wrist tape or whatever, fine. No one is oppressing his/her self-expression "rights" to do so ... but IMO, it crosses a separation line when the University does it ... because it comes across as an endorsement. And forget the whole public/private debate ... if Auburn, as a diverse institution of higher learning, wants to uphold their self-professed ideals of respect, empowerment and inclusivity, no religion should hold any credence as a stamp next to our beloved AU.

And for the record, I've long had objections about the way Auburn has injected religion into the Athletics program (vis-a-vis Chette Williams, FCA, etc.) but that's a whole other story for another day.

RIR....are you going to raise "holy hell" with Chette Williams saying prayers with the team on a regular basis, often with JJ and Gus participating?

I don't care for that either, as stated in the post above.

do you oppose FCA?

[homersapien 11,379]

Then what are we to do about all those religious symbols on grave markers in Arlington National Cemetery? Do they fail the endorsement test since it's on federal property and constitutes an "expression of faith" of the deceased?

I don't think providing crosses - or whatever - on a soldiers tombstone is unconstitutional if it simply expresses the faith of the deceased. Is that not done as a result of the families request? Can a grave be designated with any symbol requested? I know that some of the markers have the star of David. I don't know about a crescent for Islam (for example).

Surely the government doesn't just assign a cross. If so, there is a difference between the government providing a benefit available to any veteran and promoting a religion.

But if the government provides a cross by default (absent of a specific request) or if it refuses a symbol for any given religion, then I agree it's unconstitutional.

A much more clear cut example of an unconstitutional act is printing "In God We Trust" on our currency.

But see, that's the same thing that's happening here. The cross simply expresses the faith of the deceased. It's something that connects to them as a person. That's all.

I agree that it's somewhat of a gray area legally speaking. Did the families of the deceased make a request to the school to put crosses on the helmet? If the school had a policy that allowed the family to make such a request - regardless of religion - then I suppose I could accept it being the same.

The problem there would be the need for a symbol to designate atheism (perhaps a circled cross with a diagonal line through it) or agnosticism (perhaps a question mark?)

The bone of contention here is the official recognition of any particular religion.

A (constitutionally) acceptable policy would necessarily involve a pure accommodation of the deceased. The national cemetery example doesn't bother me (assuming they have a policy). Designation of ones religion on their grave marker is a pure accommodation of the deceased in return for their service to the country. A blank or plain marker would be fair for someone without a religion.

This example is a little more problematic. To use someone's religious symbol to memorialize them - without a specific request or policy - seems a little more like promoting the idea of religion, in fact, a particular religion. As a practical matter, it would be preferable to just keep it secular and use their initials.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Not sure I want to jump into this debate but FWIW, if Auburn put any religious symbol on their uniforms, I would raise holy hell.

And see, I think that's ridiculous. What if a rabbi had somehow become close to the program (I know that's not as common or likely in the Deep South, but go with it), close to the players and he died unexpectedly? I wouldn't have any problem with them honoring him with his name in a Star of David or some other Jewish symbol on the helmet. I'm smart enough to know that such an exp<b></b>ression isn't an act by the State of Alabama to push Judaism on unwitting folks. It's about their friend and honoring him in a way that has a connection to who he was and what mattered to him in life. Folks are way over sensitive to this stuff.

In that example if a player wants to draw a Star of David on his wrist tape or whatever, fine. No one is oppressing his/her self-exp<b></b>ression "rights" to do so ... but IMO, it crosses a separation line when the University does it ... because it comes across as an endorsement. And forget the whole public/private debate ... if Auburn, as a diverse institution of higher learning, wants to uphold their self-professed ideals of respect, empowerment and inclusivity, no religion should hold any credence as a stamp next to our beloved AU.

For the record, the sticker wasn't next to the ASU logo. It was on the back of the helmet and maybe an inch or so tall, like decals that have had a player's number on it for instance.

But beyond that, I think that allowing for things like this DOES uphold ideals of respect, empowerment and inclusivity. The only way that it wouldn't is if they refused to put a similar symbol when memorializing another person meaningful to the team. If they would allow a cross because the person being honored was a devout Christian but would refuse a Muslim crescent, a Jewish Star of David, the atomic symbol (see below) some atheists favor or what have you, that would be a problem.

This is such a non-issue given the context of this particular situation. It's sad that people get so worked up over it.

[AUDub 11,149]

...The problem there would be the need for a symbol to designate atheism (perhaps a circled cross with a diagonal line through it) or agnosticism (perhaps a question mark?) ;)/>...

Atheist.

They don't have one for agnosticism, but there is one for secular humanism.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I proudly support Chette Williams and the FCA. Anyone who hasn't read Chette's latest book called "The Broken Road" should do so. It is the behind the scene story of the road to the 2010 NC.

[quietfan 233]

Regarding Chette Williams and FCA:

Unless the FCA has changed since I was in school, it met separately from the athletic department and its meetings were voluntary--you actually had to go out of your way to attend their functions. As such, the courts recognize it as a voluntary extracurricular activity, like a Baptist Student Union, the Methodist Wesley Foundation, or even a chess club or intramural sports.

Chette's ministry is a little more complicated. I have no problem with his counseling services being available to students or athletes and/or holding worship services on the side, just as I have no problem with campus ministries of the aforementioned BSU or Wesley.

His more formal association with the team has always bothered me however. Even if the coaches promise there is no coercion, I can help but think a Jewish, Muslim, or atheist student-athlete might feel a bit intimidated or expect prejudicial treatment (even from peers) for not participating in coach-endorsed Christian activities/prayers.