(09-11-2014 08:13 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 07:37 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 06:20 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 06:17 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 05:41 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  If the school is a public, state-funded university, then yes, the cross violates the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the team chose as a group to honor these two and it was completely voluntary, it seems pretty clear to me their 1st Amendment rights are being violated. Did the coach demand it be put on the helmet? Was there a protest by players on the team saying they were being forced to put them on? What if the players were Jewish and the team wanted to use the Star of David instead? Well, that's a bad example. How about if they were Buddhist and the Eight Spoked Wheel was used? A Star and Crescent for a Muslim player? Would the state have reacted differently? I swear this nation has become the United States of the Offended.

As a public school though, its essentially not our choice to make. 99 percent of our student base could be Christian (Its not) but if that 1 percent is bothered, than it creates an issue.

The first amendment was crafted to protect one's right to worship as they please, but it does not protect forcing that religion on others.

No. The First Amendment protects the citizens from having the GOVERNMENT force a particular form of religion on them. It is quite a stretch to say a group of kids honoring fallen teammates by voluntarily wearing a tiny cross on the back of a football helmet is forcing Christianity on anyone.

I get it but the university is state owned so it trickles back to govt. And yes its not forced but still easy for the other side to argue.

A Cross is not offensive but the fear of what could be implied by it is......that isn't gonna cut legal muster.

So government employees should be stopped from wearing cross necklaces and earrings while at work????

(09-11-2014 08:32 AM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:13 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 07:37 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 06:20 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 06:17 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the team chose as a group to honor these two and it was completely voluntary, it seems pretty clear to me their 1st Amendment rights are being violated. Did the coach demand it be put on the helmet? Was there a protest by players on the team saying they were being forced to put them on? What if the players were Jewish and the team wanted to use the Star of David instead? Well, that's a bad example. How about if they were Buddhist and the Eight Spoked Wheel was used? A Star and Crescent for a Muslim player? Would the state have reacted differently? I swear this nation has become the United States of the Offended.

As a public school though, its essentially not our choice to make. 99 percent of our student base could be Christian (Its not) but if that 1 percent is bothered, than it creates an issue.

The first amendment was crafted to protect one's right to worship as they please, but it does not protect forcing that religion on others.

No. The First Amendment protects the citizens from having the GOVERNMENT force a particular form of religion on them. It is quite a stretch to say a group of kids honoring fallen teammates by voluntarily wearing a tiny cross on the back of a football helmet is forcing Christianity on anyone.

I get it but the university is state owned so it trickles back to govt. And yes its not forced but still easy for the other side to argue.

A Cross is not offensive but the fear of what could be implied by it is......that isn't gonna cut legal muster.

So government employees should be stopped from wearing cross necklaces and earrings while at work????

I never said anything about fear. Also an employee wearing someting is paid for by the govt. In this case I'm sure the school paid for it and even if they didn't it looks like the school is endorsing it.

And even if it was donated and each one came up with the idea themselves and the school or coach had zero to do with it, it still wouldn't be allowed. This is because its on a public uniform. If the player has a cross tattoo or necklace under the uniform, that is different. It's like the difference between a public worker wearing a cross or attaching one to thier uniform.

I don't have a problem with it but see where it gets into the gray legal area that isn't going to work.

(09-10-2014 06:12 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

Anderson Tweeted this today.

Better remove those crosses from the burial plots too...

(09-10-2014 06:30 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  If you want the crosses put the crosses, if you don't want the crosses don't put the crosses. Why do done feel the need to tell others what they can or can't do. A lot of things people do I don't agree with but I don't think I have the right to tell them not to. That's their decision, who am I. I'm sure I do some things that people don't agree with but that's my decision.

Preach on Brother. You nailed it. I love Jesus and Jesus loves you.

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. Persons viewing the helmets will, and have, seen the symbol as a cross and interpreted that symbol as an endorsement of the Christian religion. This violates the legal prohibition of endorsing religion.

Official Statement from our legal team today on the issue.

(09-10-2014 06:17 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 05:41 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 05:40 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../15402697/

Lawyers made us do it.

If the school is a public, state-funded university, then yes, the cross violates the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the team chose as a group to honor these two and it was completely voluntary, it seems pretty clear to me their 1st Amendment rights are being violated. Did the coach demand it be put on the helmet? Was there a protest by players on the team saying they were being forced to put them on? What if the players were Jewish and the team wanted to use the Star of David instead? Well, that's a bad example. How about if they were Buddhist and the Eight Spoked Wheel was used? A Star and Crescent for a Muslim player? Would the state have reacted differently? I swear this nation has become the United States of the Offended.

Doug you should really run for office and straighten up some of the mess we see on an almost daily basis in this country.

(09-11-2014 08:32 AM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:13 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 07:37 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 06:20 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 06:17 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the team chose as a group to honor these two and it was completely voluntary, it seems pretty clear to me their 1st Amendment rights are being violated. Did the coach demand it be put on the helmet? Was there a protest by players on the team saying they were being forced to put them on? What if the players were Jewish and the team wanted to use the Star of David instead? Well, that's a bad example. How about if they were Buddhist and the Eight Spoked Wheel was used? A Star and Crescent for a Muslim player? Would the state have reacted differently? I swear this nation has become the United States of the Offended.

As a public school though, its essentially not our choice to make. 99 percent of our student base could be Christian (Its not) but if that 1 percent is bothered, than it creates an issue.

The first amendment was crafted to protect one's right to worship as they please, but it does not protect forcing that religion on others.

No. The First Amendment protects the citizens from having the GOVERNMENT force a particular form of religion on them. It is quite a stretch to say a group of kids honoring fallen teammates by voluntarily wearing a tiny cross on the back of a football helmet is forcing Christianity on anyone.

I get it but the university is state owned so it trickles back to govt. And yes its not forced but still easy for the other side to argue.

A Cross is not offensive but the fear of what could be implied by it is......that isn't gonna cut legal muster.

So government employees should be stopped from wearing cross necklaces and earrings while at work????

Those are bought and paid for by private individuals. The Government itself could not buy cross necklaces and ask employees to wear them.

If our players want to cross themselves after every TD, its perfectly fine. If our fans want to have a cross out for the Utah State game (Being discussed) and tape crosses on their ASU shirts that day, its fine. That being said, The government entity itself cannot use public funds to buy that cross and try to get people to wear it.

The constitution protects the minority interest in this area. Trust me, if 25 years from now, Christianity is the minority religion in this country, Christians (myself included) will be glad this type of protection is in place.

How many of the "stop being offended" crowd would be offended by the link below? Because you can't really have it both ways.

http://watchdog.org/101810/kansas-lawmak...ta-school/

This thing has worn me out.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If it were 1867 we wouldn't be having this discussion. Until the hot heads in South Carolina got pissy and tried to un-unite the United States, citizens were protected from the Federal government by the Bill of Rights but none of the rights contained were guaranteed to be protected from the state or local government unless the state had adopted via its own constitution or by statute similar protections. If a state wanted to deny you a jury trial or search your home for the fun of it, they could unless there were locally adopted protections.

In the wake of the Civil War the southern states were told they had to adopt amendments 13, 14, and 15 or else Congress would refuse to seat their representatives and senators (Constitution allows each house to determine whether someone can be seated).

The 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights to the states. Now it no longer mattered whether your state wanted to protect your rights or not you were protected from the state because of the 14th Amendment.

What is meant by Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (funny how when I see this argued on Facebook people skip straight to exercise).

The Courts have struggled with what exactly establishment means and because it is hard to draw a bright line to deal with the close calls they've tended to err to the side ruling against the government, an outcome that I find funny because the people who complain the most tend to claim to want government restricted, yet when the Supremes rule against the government on much of anything they get mad, intellecutual consistency has never been a hallmark of our nation.

As a Christian, what I find more troubling tends to be the cases where government wins an establishment clause case, because many of those cases turn on the court finding that the symbol has such common non-religious use that it has become secular in nature. If you are Christian that ought to worry you that a Christian symbol reaches the point that it has no more religious significance to the average viewer than a lotus flower or torii gate or yin/yang symbol, to me that's called losing the war.

Was AState trying to establish religion or favor one viewpoint over another so that it endorsed and thereby established? Obviously not.

But for now, the cross has significant religious meaning, so AState stumbled over the line despite a lack of intent.

The idea that this interferes with the players free exercise is not a path you wish to go down either.

If the decal is the players execising religion then stage upon where they act it out is on a symbol of the government, namely a state operated institution and it becomes integrated into a symbol of the state, the uniform representing the athletic teams.

It also means you've opened the back of the helmet up as a free speech zone.

So if a player wants to use that spot to convey his support for Ray Rice or for NAMBLA the school has to do it.

The school can restrict speech to a degree with students so maybe it is left to memorializing the dead. Fine but what if the dead person a player wishes to honor is his uncle who was executed for raping and murdering a family? What if the dead person is Lenin or Stalin or Nathan Bedford Forrest in honor of his founding the KKK?

You just don't want to open the helmet up as a free speech zone.

(09-11-2014 08:32 AM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  A Cross is not offensive but the fear of what could be implied by it is......that isn't gonna cut legal muster.

So government employees should be stopped from wearing cross necklaces and earrings while at work????

You miss the target completely. That bullet didn't even cut the paper.

Employees of government bodies are most certainly allowed their personal exercise by wearing jewlry. Now if they work in say a print shop and there is a risk that the necklace could get caught and injure the worker, yeah it can be banned as long as the ban covers all over jewlry without regard to message.

In most government offices right around Christmas time, a memo will go out. You can decorate your cubicle and include religious symbols if the symbols are placed in such a way that it is normally only seen by you. You want a scripture on the inside of your cubicle as an inspiration that is allowed. You post a cross on top of your cubicle or the outside wall that's a no go. Secular only when the intent or the result is spreading the message to others. When the nature of your speech is such that it is aimed at others, you can't use a government facility in that manner, but inside space designed solely for you, free exercise to your heart's content as long as you get the work done. For years I had a cross with the names of Jesus on my desk. I quit displaying it because I lost the base of it when I moved to another job but it was well within my right.

(09-11-2014 08:55 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:32 AM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:13 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 07:37 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 06:20 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  As a public school though, its essentially not our choice to make. 99 percent of our student base could be Christian (Its not) but if that 1 percent is bothered, than it creates an issue.

The first amendment was crafted to protect one's right to worship as they please, but it does not protect forcing that religion on others.

No. The First Amendment protects the citizens from having the GOVERNMENT force a particular form of religion on them. It is quite a stretch to say a group of kids honoring fallen teammates by voluntarily wearing a tiny cross on the back of a football helmet is forcing Christianity on anyone.

I get it but the university is state owned so it trickles back to govt. And yes its not forced but still easy for the other side to argue.

A Cross is not offensive but the fear of what could be implied by it is......that isn't gonna cut legal muster.

So government employees should be stopped from wearing cross necklaces and earrings while at work????

I never said anything about fear. Also an employee wearing someting is paid for by the govt. In this case I'm sure the school paid for it and even if they didn't it looks like the school is endorsing it.

And even if it was donated and each one came up with the idea themselves and the school or coach had zero to do with it, it still wouldn't be allowed. This is because its on a public uniform. If the player has a cross tattoo or necklace under the uniform, that is different. It's like the difference between a public worker wearing a cross or attaching one to thier uniform.

I don't have a problem with it but see where it gets into the gray legal area that isn't going to work.

A public worker would never be taken to court for wearing a cross penchant on their government issued uniform.That goes for the Star of David also.ASU simply took the high and non distractive road of removing the decals.....that fact doesn't give the counter argument anymore credence.There was no "gotcha" here it was simply not something that the players should have to deal with by the media during a season.Coach Anderson just cut the bait.....ASU has a good man at the helm.

As an aside,I never said you said FEAR,I said FEAR.

(09-11-2014 07:37 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 06:20 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 06:17 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 05:41 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 05:40 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../15402697/

Lawyers made us do it.

If the school is a public, state-funded university, then yes, the cross violates the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the team chose as a group to honor these two and it was completely voluntary, it seems pretty clear to me their 1st Amendment rights are being violated. Did the coach demand it be put on the helmet? Was there a protest by players on the team saying they were being forced to put them on? What if the players were Jewish and the team wanted to use the Star of David instead? Well, that's a bad example. How about if they were Buddhist and the Eight Spoked Wheel was used? A Star and Crescent for a Muslim player? Would the state have reacted differently? I swear this nation has become the United States of the Offended.

As a public school though, its essentially not our choice to make. 99 percent of our student base could be Christian (Its not) but if that 1 percent is bothered, than it creates an issue.

The first amendment was crafted to protect one's right to worship as they please, but it does not protect forcing that religion on others.

No. The First Amendment protects the citizens from having the GOVERNMENT force a particular form of religion on them. It is quite a stretch to say a group of kids honoring fallen teammates by voluntarily wearing a tiny cross on the back of a football helmet is forcing Christianity on anyone.

If we want to be precise, the phrase "shall make no law respecting", was specifically drafted to prevent Congress from promoting or prohibiting a state from having an established religion. This was because Pennsylvania actually had established religion at the time and didn't want Congress telling them they couldn't.

As for the rest of the topic, even under the current interpretation of the First Amendment, there is no constitutional right not be offended. If the players want to voluntarily put a cross on their helmet, it is in no way a Constitutional violation. As said above, it is simply an acknowledgement of a particular player's religion, not an endorsement.

(09-10-2014 08:29 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 08:13 PM)Klak Wrote:  I just think it's funny that people like Rebecca Markert and anybody else who works for the Freedom From Religion Foundation hate religion so much that they've devoted their lives to anti-religion, effectively making said religion a very powerful part of their lives.

Eh. I'm thankful. There a millions of people in this country who differ away from Christianity (or religion in its entirety), and as is generally the issue, if you're in the minority, it's easy for those who don't agree with you to berate you to the point that you don't speak out about it. Everyone needs someone with a fine understanding of the law to protect them when the law is on their side, even if it's a minority group.

Sorry, but do you think there is any law that gives you the right to demand that the police powers of the State be utilized to protect you from any and all exposure to religion? THAT is what this idiot and her minons demand, and that is utterly ridiculous.

(09-11-2014 09:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  You just don't want to open the helmet up as a free speech zone.

[Removed wall of text but that was a fantastic response by arkstfan]

This should be the discussion at hand, not the fact that it's a cross. I agree with this statement totally, because that is definitely a can of worms that shouldn't be opened.

The APU thing last year was pushing the limits as well and should fall under this same discussion. That is FAR from being a religious debate.

(09-11-2014 10:30 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 09:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  You just don't want to open the helmet up as a free speech zone.

[Removed wall of text but that was a fantastic response by arkstfan]

This should be the discussion at hand, not the fact that it's a cross. I agree with this statement totally, because that is definitely a can of worms that shouldn't be opened.

The APU thing last year was pushing the limits as well and should fall under this same discussion. That is FAR from being a religious debate.

I think we all all presuming that only things that the coaches approve would EVER be allowed on a helmet. It's not like players are going to start using their helmets as the equivalent of the "flair" suspenders from Office Space.

(09-11-2014 10:26 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  If we want to be precise, the phrase "shall make no law respecting", was specifically drafted to prevent Congress from promoting or prohibiting a state from having an established religion. This was because Pennsylvania actually had established religion at the time and didn't want Congress telling them they couldn't.

As for the rest of the topic, even under the current interpretation of the First Amendment, there is no constitutional right not be offended. If the players want to voluntarily put a cross on their helmet, it is in no way a Constitutional violation. As said above, it is simply an acknowledgement of a particular player's religion, not an endorsement.

You are off slightly on your history. It was rather common among the colonies to impose a tax to support the favored local relgion (not just Pennsylvania, many of the great old churches in Virginia were built with tax dollars as well)

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, part of the logic was that if Congress did establish a religion (or more aptly pick a denomination of Christianity) that it might not be the one your state had picked so you didn't want the Feds going into competition. Shortly after the revolution the states severed those ties but it wasn't because of the Bill Rights, it wouldn't be a factor in state action until the 14th amendment.

Off the wall trivia. The bill of rights STILL does not apply if you reside on a tribal reservation. The Bill of Rights first applied to Congress, then the 14th extended it to the states but tribal reservations are neither Congress nor state, they are sovereigns who yield some power to the the Federal government via treaty. In 1968 the Indian Civil Rights Act extended parts of the Bill Rights to Native American living on tribal lands but not all civil rights.

(09-11-2014 10:35 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 10:30 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 09:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  You just don't want to open the helmet up as a free speech zone.

[Removed wall of text but that was a fantastic response by arkstfan]

This should be the discussion at hand, not the fact that it's a cross. I agree with this statement totally, because that is definitely a can of worms that shouldn't be opened.

The APU thing last year was pushing the limits as well and should fall under this same discussion. That is FAR from being a religious debate.

I think we all all presuming that only things that the coaches approve would EVER be allowed on a helmet. It's not like players are going to start using their helmets as the equivalent of the "flair" suspenders from Office Space.

Helmet could be extended to the uniform as a whole, especially when the entire team wears the same standard equipment and it could then be logically considered part of the uniform.

Players advocating for the APU thing last year flies in the face of players not putting a personal expression on the uniform. Yet, you don't see this being discussed the same way because it didn't rustle some anti-religion group's jimmies.

(09-11-2014 10:35 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 10:30 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 09:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  You just don't want to open the helmet up as a free speech zone.

[Removed wall of text but that was a fantastic response by arkstfan]

This should be the discussion at hand, not the fact that it's a cross. I agree with this statement totally, because that is definitely a can of worms that shouldn't be opened.

The APU thing last year was pushing the limits as well and should fall under this same discussion. That is FAR from being a religious debate.

I think we all all presuming that only things that the coaches approve would EVER be allowed on a helmet. It's not like players are going to start using their helmets as the equivalent of the "flair" suspenders from Office Space.

If it is opened up as a free speech zone then players could put whatever they want. This is how the Sons of Confederate Veterans get their logos on specialty plates even though no state transportation dept. really wants to allow it.

That is why you would need a preexisting policy for memorials on helmets that limits what you can put on there. Allowing the Veterans Affairs approved religious symbols only might pass muster. Maybe.

(09-11-2014 10:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:32 AM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  A Cross is not offensive but the fear of what could be implied by it is......that isn't gonna cut legal muster.

So government employees should be stopped from wearing cross necklaces and earrings while at work????

You miss the target completely. That bullet didn't even cut the paper.

Employees of government bodies are most certainly allowed their personal exercise by wearing jewlry. Now if they work in say a print shop and there is a risk that the necklace could get caught and injure the worker, yeah it can be banned as long as the ban covers all over jewlry without regard to message.

In most government offices right around Christmas time, a memo will go out. You can decorate your cubicle and include religious symbols if the symbols are placed in such a way that it is normally only seen by you. You want a scripture on the inside of your cubicle as an inspiration that is allowed. You post a cross on top of your cubicle or the outside wall that's a no go. Secular only when the intent or the result is spreading the message to others. When the nature of your speech is such that it is aimed at others, you can't use a government facility in that manner, but inside space designed solely for you, free exercise to your heart's content as long as you get the work done. For years I had a cross with the names of Jesus on my desk. I quit displaying it because I lost the base of it when I moved to another job but it was well within my right.

Are you saying a small cross penchant isn't allowed on a government official uniform?

ANY government expenditure that promotes religion is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Moreover, any taxpayer has constitutional standing to sue over it, which is a rare opportunity given the general prohibition of generalized grievances.

Pretty clear cut stuff.