Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Relapse wrote:
With all of the other court cases that have gone on, I would disagree.

Sources?

The courts (both the Supreme Court and lower courts) are fairly balanced when it comes to rightfully disallowing state-sanctioned religious displays (in accordance with the Establishment Clause) and rightfully allowing private religious speech in a public forum (which is protected by the First Amendment). I think it is pretty clear that this case would fall under the latter.

However, like previously noted by the legal council, there isn't any precedent to go by when it comes to football helmets.

Whatever, you know where this was going if they didn't remove the memorials.

They did not have to remove "memorials".

They were advised to remove a cross, and provided with plenty of alternatives to still memorialize them.

 d-usa wrote:
They did not have to remove "memorials".

They were advised to remove a cross, and provided with plenty of alternatives to still memorialize them.

Though I think we can all agree turning it into a "mathematical symbol" is a bit ridiculous suggestion.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They did not have to remove "memorials".

They were advised to remove a cross, and provided with plenty of alternatives to still memorialize them.

Though I think we can all agree turning it into a "mathematical symbol" is a bit ridiculous suggestion.

Everybody looking at it will know it's a cross (because a + is still a cross, Greek cross to be exact I think) and it gives enough plausible deniability to avoid problems because it's not the Latin cross.

 d-usa wrote:
It's either a state sponsored religious decal, or it's a random free epxression of students (which probably violates a school policy if this program is like others I know and doesn't actually allow you put random stickers on your helmet) that will open a giant pandoras box unless you shut it down quickly.

That's a good point about what the school policy regarding modification of the uniform. I didn't think about that aspect of it, but it is important to take in to consideration.

I think all of this started with some attorney being a dick to make a name for themselves. The legal council made a recommendation that the AD and staff didn't like so they made a big deal about for attention. Personally, I couldn't care less about the decal and I think it is a perfectly respectable memorial to people important to the team. I just don't think it is a reason to fly off into a rage though. But like I said, that is what the author and the AD want people to do, because it goes along with the narrative.

Relapse wrote:
Whatever, you know where this was going if they didn't remove the memorials.

A cursory Google search on the subject will offer plenty of proof that the courts make a pretty clear distinction between state-sanctioned religious displays/speech (not allowed) and private religious speech in public fora (allowed). The problem is when a court case on the former is decided against the religious displays/speech, certain news organizations and media personalities get really angry, really fast. However, when a court case is decided in favor of personal religious speech, these same people are remarkably silent about it because it doesn't fall in line with their "we are under attack" narrative.

Or you could ignore that and just assume all "other court cases" ended up crushing the freedoms of the helpless, persecuted majority. Whatever works, I guess.

But wait...
If you shorten the bottom of the cross, it is still a christian symbol! It will just be a Greek cross instead of a Latin cross

edit:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They did not have to remove "memorials".

They were advised to remove a cross, and provided with plenty of alternatives to still memorialize them.

Though I think we can all agree turning it into a "mathematical symbol" is a bit ridiculous suggestion.

Everybody looking at it will know it's a cross (because a + is still a cross, Greek cross to be exact I think) and it gives enough plausible deniability to avoid problems because it's not the Latin cross.

I wonder why people have problems with the Latin cross but not the Greek cross?
Also, the symbol on the helmets could be constructed as a dagger symbol, which is often used to indicate persons who have died: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger_%28typography%29

 LordofHats wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:


Nearly $10k if you're in state still isn't "cheap."

For college? It sure the feth is. You're not going to find many programs that are cheaper and not complete trash. Penn State is considered one of the best schools in the US and tuition is $11k. $11k for one of the best educations in America.

The two best school in France for science are arguably École Normale Supérieur and École Polytechnique. If you manage to pass their entrance exam, you are paid to study. A decent pay, largely enough for a student to live comfortably. The only “catch” is that you need to work for the state for ten years.

11k is expensive.

Sorry but this is 'Murica. We no likely government (except when we do)

 Iron_Captain wrote:
But wait...
If you shorten the bottom of the cross, it is still a christian symbol! It will just be a Greek cross instead of a Latin cross

edit:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They did not have to remove "memorials".

They were advised to remove a cross, and provided with plenty of alternatives to still memorialize them.

Though I think we can all agree turning it into a "mathematical symbol" is a bit ridiculous suggestion.

Everybody looking at it will know it's a cross (because a + is still a cross, Greek cross to be exact I think) and it gives enough plausible deniability to avoid problems because it's not the Latin cross.

I wonder why people have problems with the Latin cross but not the Greek cross?
Also, the symbol on the helmets could be constructed as a dagger symbol, which is often used to indicate persons who have died: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger_%28typography%29

Very good question.

I think the article said they used the cross because the deceased were both devoted Christians.

 cincydooley wrote:
I think the article said they used the cross because the deceased were both devoted Christians.

Yep.

As an atheist I have no problem with what the team did.

I would only object if the deceased were a different religion, but that is not the case here so allow the team to grieve and come to terms with their loss.

sirlynchmob wrote:
As an atheist I have no problem with what the team did.

I would only object if the deceased were a different religion, but that is not the case here so allow the team to grieve and come to terms with their loss.

That's my feeling. I'm not an athiest, but my religion doesn't use crosses or have them in our buildings.

sirlynchmob wrote:
As an atheist I have no problem with what the team did.

I would only object if the deceased were a different religion, but that is not the case here so allow the team to grieve and come to terms with their loss.

Depending on the rules and regulations regards modifying the uniforms, I have no issue with players putting whatever they felt appropriate on their uniforms... A cross, a few words, some other symbol, a picture of the person, or nothing at all if that is what they wanted.

I would have an issue if the players were forced (either directly or via other means) to display the cross.

 cincydooley wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:


Nearly $10k if you're in state still isn't "cheap."

For college? It sure the feth is. You're not going to find many programs that are cheaper and not complete trash. Penn State is considered one of the best schools in the US and tuition is $11k. $11k for one of the best educations in America.

$11k, no matter how you cut it, isn't "cheap." And that's predicated on you living in state. It's $30k If you're not from Pennsylvania.

definition of "cheap" equals :
low in price in relation to similar items or services.

Then it is not cheap.

 Hordini wrote:

I'm certainly not saying all private schools are bad, I just don't see how many of them are worth 4x the cost or more of a public school.

Bear in mind that many private schools offer very generous aid packages to many students. For example, the private school I went to had a base cost of ~45k per anum (including 9k room and board*), but I paid ~13k per anum due to my aid package. Significantly less than I would have paid at University of Illinois.





*Professional catering, AC, wireless, and cable; so not a bad deal over 2 semesters in a semi-urban area.

sirlynchmob wrote:
As an atheist I have no problem with what the team did.

I would only object if the deceased were a different religion, but that is not the case here so allow the team to grieve and come to terms with their loss.

I'm entirely of this position as well. I figure that it should be identified as a piece of personal heraldry, rather than religious. While it might coincide with religious imagery, that might only be because the person who they're trying to pay tribute to had identified with that imagery in the first place.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Sigh...

Aside from the deliberately misleading headline, the article was halfway decent until the end... the ridiculous "Christians are under attack!" meme crept in and ruined the whole thing.

There are a couple of things to take away from this article. First, the AD was advised to remove the crosses by the legal council, not forced to do so. The other thing of note is that the whole situation started from a letter an attorney in Jonesboro, not the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which the author claimed was "attacking" the AD.

 cincydooley wrote:
feth these people. This "freedom from religion" group is one that i can't stand.

The "Christians are under attack in this country!" is one group of people I can't stand. Feth those people.

Seriously, no one is under attack here. The crosses were voluntarily removed and there is no legal action pending. This all stemmed from one email from a douchbag attorney, so let's pump the brakes on the moral outrage for a minute.

Wasn't there, somewhat recently, a case that went up to the Supreme Court because some "anti-religious" type group had an issue with a Federal Monument in California to WW1 soldiers?? I seem to remember one, and the ruling on that was basically that, in particular instances, crosses can also be used as a "non-religious" marker of a memorial, as it is one of many seemingly universally recognized symbols for memorial and/or remembrance (as well as all the religious shenanigans)


@d-usa, the way that I read it, it sounds more like option 2 that you listed... Basically, it seemed to me, that the PLAYERS got together and said "we want to do something as a memorial to our friends on our uniform" and decided on a "design" (if you want to call it such), and then approached the coaching staff, who felt OK with it, but ran it by the AD who said "sure, sounds like your players got it all together"

I don't think it'd be too much of an issue in the future, because realistically how often do we see a single school commemorate multiple people frequently?? (by that I mean, how often do we see a different sort of "memorial" affixed to a uniform for a college sports team?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
As an atheist I have no problem with what the team did.

I would only object if the deceased were a different religion, but that is not the case here so allow the team to grieve and come to terms with their loss.

By your reasoning, if you were faced with a sporting team who recently had two people recently pass away (as the school in the OP did) but they were both Asatreans (dunno if that's the appropriate term there, for a follower of Asatru) or if they both followed Shinto, or Buddhism, would you be "OK" with symbols of those respective religions (Mjollnir, a Torii, and an 8 pointed star/circle) put on the athletic equipment, provided it was done in the same taste/proportions as was in the OP??

If you wouldn't have a problem, I'm guessing that you WOULD have a problem if both of those people followed one of the religions I mentioned, but the team still put a cross on the helmet?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Wasn't there, somewhat recently, a case that went up to the Supreme Court because some "anti-religious" type group had an issue with a Federal Monument in California to WW1 soldiers?? I seem to remember one, and the ruling on that was basically that, in particular instances, crosses can also be used as a "non-religious" marker of a memorial, as it is one of many seemingly universally recognized symbols for memorial and/or remembrance (as well as all the religious shenanigans).

The Mount Soledad cross? It was ordered removed in 2013 but the removal was stayed pending an appeal by the government. The issue with this case was the fact that it is the only object there and is explicitly religious.

There is also the Argonne Cross in Arlington Cemetery, but there aren't any lawsuits to remove it, and if there were they would not be successful. The Ninth Circuit Court that ordered the Soledad cross removed referenced the Argonne Cross. They argued that the Argonne Cross is different that the Soledad cross because it is in a cemetery and among numerous nonreligious memorials.

The memorial crosses have been restored. The players may put them back on their helmets:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/09/18/arkansas-state-lifts-ban-on-football-helmet-crosses-but-players-must-foot-bill/?intcmp=latestnews

Will be interesting to see what happens the first time a student wants to put another kind of sticker on the helmet...

 d-usa wrote:
Will be interesting to see what happens the first time a student wants to put another kind of sticker on the helmet...

Assuming it's under similar circumstances (that is, a memorial) hopefully they'll let them and it won't be an issue like it was this time.

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Will be interesting to see what happens the first time a student wants to put another kind of sticker on the helmet...

Assuming it's under similar circumstances (that is, a memorial) hopefully they'll let them and it won't be an issue like it was this time.

Wasn't this in Arkansas?? If so, I wouldn't bet on it. I would very, very much doubt that if a player on the team or someone close/important to the team was Muslim and died that they'd put a crescent/star on the helmet.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Will be interesting to see what happens the first time a student wants to put another kind of sticker on the helmet...

Assuming it's under similar circumstances (that is, a memorial) hopefully they'll let them and it won't be an issue like it was this time.

Wasn't this in Arkansas?? If so, I wouldn't bet on it. I would very, very much doubt that if a player on the team or someone close/important to the team was Muslim and died that they'd put a crescent/star on the helmet.

I agree the odds of it actually happening are probably low, but if it did, it ought to be allowed.

 Hordini wrote:


I agree the odds of it actually happening are probably low, but if it did, it ought to be allowed.

Agreed... just like the "Satanist coloring book" that has made its way into Florida schools due to the Christians pushing so hard for religious material in school

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Hordini wrote:


I agree the odds of it actually happening are probably low, but if it did, it ought to be allowed.

Agreed... just like the "Satanist coloring book" that has made its way into Florida schools due to the Christians pushing so hard for religious material in school

Well, I think a memorial with a star and crescent is perfectly fine in general, not because they have to allow it as a response to letting other players do a cross memorial first.


The Satanist coloring book thing is an example of Christians continually making a bigger deal about something than they really needed to, and it finally turning around and biting them in the ass (and rightly so).