on 13-09-2014 02:55 PM
An item sent to me by a friend in the USA
Football players at Arkansas State University were ordered to either remove a Christian cross decal from their helmets or modify it into a mathematical sign after a Jonesboro attorney complained that the image violated the U.S. Constitution.
The cross decal was meant to memorialize former player Markel Owens and former equipment manager Barry Weyer, said athletic director Terry Mohajir. Weyer was killed in a June car crash. Owens was gunned down in Tennessee in January.
These young men were simply trying to do a good deed. They were standing up for their fallen teammates. It’s really too bad the university could not stand up for the team.
Barry Weyer, Sr., told me that the players and coaches voluntarily decided to memorialize his son and Owens.
“The players knew they were both Christians so they decided to use the cross along with their initials,” he said. “They wanted to carry the spirits of Markel and Barry Don onto the field for one more season.”
It was a decision that had the full support of the university’s athletic director.
“I support our students’ expression of their faith,” Mohajir said. “I am 100 percent behind our students and coaches.”
However, the athletic director said he had no choice but to remove the crosses after he received a message from the university’s legal counsel.
“It is my opinion that the crosses must be removed from the helmets,” University counsel Lucinda McDaniel wrote to Mohajir. “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.”
According to documents provided to me by Arkansas State, McDaniel gave the football team a choice – they could either remove the cross or modify the decal. And by modify – she meant deface.
“If the bottom of the cross can be cut off so that the symbol is a plus sign (+) there should be no problem,” she wrote. “It is the Christian symbol which has caused the legal objection.”
The team had been wearing the decals for two weeks without any complaints. That changed after last Saturday’s nationally televised game against the Tennessee Volunteers.
Jonesboro attorney Louis Nisenbaum sent McDaniel an email complaining about the cross decal.
“That is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause as a state endorsement of the Christian religion,” Nisenbaum wrote. “Please advise whether you agree and whether ASU will continue this practice.”
Ironically, the university’s legal counsel admitted in a letter that there were no specific court cases that addressed crosses on football helmets. Nevertheless, she feared the possibility of a lawsuit.
“It is my opinion that we will not prevail on that challenge and must remove the crosses from the helmets or alter the symbols so that they are a (plus sign) instead of a cross,” she wrote in an email to the athletic director.
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation fired off a letter congratulating the university on cleansing the helmets of the Christian symbol.
“The crosses appeared to confer State’s endorsement of religion, specifically Christianity,” the FFRF wrote. “The inclusion of the Latin cross on the helmets also excludes the 19 percent of the American population that is non-religious.”
FFRF co-presidents Annie Lauire Gaylor and Dan Barker went so far as to suggest alternative ways for the football players to mourn.
“Many teams around the country honor former teammates by putting that player’s number on their helmets or jerseys, or by wearing a black armband,” they wrote. “Either of those options, or another symbolic gesture free from religion imagery, would be appropriate.”
That suggestion set off the athletic director.
“I don’t even kinda-sorta care about any organization that tells our students how to grieve,” Mohajir told me. “Everybody grieves differently. I don’t think anybody has the right to tell our students how to memorialize their colleagues, their classmates or any loved ones they have.”
While Mr. Weyer told me he supports the university “100 percent”, he said he took great offense at the FFRF’s attack.
“The fact is the cross was honoring two fallen teammates who just happened to be Christians,” he wrote on his Facebook page. “I just have a hard time understanding why we as Christians have to be tolerant of everybody else’s rights, but give up ours.”
I do, too, Mr. Weyer. I do, too.
Liberty Institute attorney Hiram Sasser told me he would be more than honored to represent the football team in a lawsuit against the university.
“It is outrage that the university defacing the cross and reducing it to what the university calls a plus sign,” he told me. “It is disgusting.”
Sasser said the students are well within their rights to wear a cross decal on their helmets and accused the university of breaking the law.
“It is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination to force the players to remove or alter the cross on their helmets that they chose themselves simply because the cross is religious,” Sasser said.
These young men were simply trying to do a good deed. They were standing up for their fallen teammates. It’s really too bad the university could not stand up for the team.
“The university and others want football players to be positive role models in the community, but as soon as the players promote a positive message honoring their former teammates – the university discriminates against them in a blatant violation of the Constitution.”
Mr. Weyer said he’s not a political man – but he is a Christian man. And he’s tired of having to kowtow to the politically correct crowd.
“It’s time that we as Christians stand up and say we’re tired of being pushed around,” he said. “We’re tired of having to bow down to everyone else’s rights. What happened to our rights? The last time I checked it said freedom of religion – not freedom from religion.”
on 14-09-2014 09:43 AM
So where does it stop. Say a devout Muslim student wants to wear a traditional Muslim dress, or a devout Catholic a crucifix are they barred by the constitution from wearing these regions symbols inside state owned institutions because one may offend the other.
When members of the school participate in sanctioned events, that's when separation occurs. The school has no problem with personal religious items, even crucifix ear rings............and they would have no problem with students wearing religious garb in schools, I knew several girls in high school who wore traditional garb.
on 14-09-2014 09:49 AM
@tall_bearded01 wrote:
So where does it stop. Say a devout Muslim student wants to wear a traditional Muslim dress, or a devout Catholic a crucifix are they barred by the constitution from wearing these regions symbols inside state owned institutions because one may offend the other.
A reminder is in order: Australian state run schools are secular and are guided by Federal laws regarding religious equality.
Within schools, students are allowed to express their own religion within the bounds of their school uniform.
on 14-09-2014 10:42 AM
@i-need-a-martini wrote:
And as for the other items, perhaps you could be so kind as supply proper links this time to support your claims as I felt that I have spent the last 30mins on a wild goose chase that yeiled [sic] nothing.
yielded
on
14-09-2014
11:50 AM
- last edited on
14-09-2014
12:16 PM
by
underbat
@watta*drama*queen wrote:
@i-need-a-martini wrote:
And as for the other items, perhaps you could be so kind as supply proper links this time to support your claims as I felt that I have spent the last 30mins on a wild goose chase that yeiled [sic] nothing.
yielded
I only mentioned the spelling because I was specifically trying to find links to the OPs statements. Incorrect spelling because of a slip of a key in a general sentence is neither here nor there. But incorrect spelling of a persons name when you need to search them is worth mentioning.
on 14-09-2014 03:35 PM
Not yielded. The crabbing season has commenced, so I’ve been out there doing volunteer work with Fish Watch.
So let’s see
“I assume that you couldn't supply the links yourself for a reason?” Yep I could have, chose not too, because I expect people to do their own research instead of being spoon feed.
“Well, I have searched every combination that I can possibly find for all of those 'needle-in-a-haystack' hints and I am still no closer to finding anything at all that backs up your claims”. All I did was a Google search with the keywords, “Australia, Political Correctness” and came up with 100’s of hits. Maybe you need a better computer.
“So not sure why you mentioned the Rainbird paper.” Because unlike some true believers here, I arrive at my opinions on assessment of a diverse range of material, both for and against, instead of simply relying on that with which I agree and turning a blind eye to the rest.
Finally, as for “Again can't find any reference from The Drum archives about Christmas bans or SAH bans”. A classic case of selective hearing/interpretation. I clearly stated both were from person experience, with the list provided being to demonstrate the wide range of opinion and information available on the topic in general.
You see the difference between you and I is, I would never, when something was cited as being “from personal experience’ disputed the accuracy of the recollection without evidence in support, as to do so is to accuse the writer of lying. Oddly enough, I expect the same in return, and have little regard or respect for any person who is not like minded.
on 14-09-2014 03:37 PM
So you couldn't find anything to back up your own statements either then huh?
on 14-09-2014 04:46 PM
What is it about ”I clearly stated both were from person experience, with the list provided being to demonstrate the wide range of opinion and information available on the topic in general.’ and “You see the difference between you and I is, I would never, when something was cited as being “from personal experience’ disputed the accuracy of the recollection without evidence in support, as to do so is to accuse the writer of lying.”
Now as I understand it, you are saying, If someone says something you don’t agree with then have to provide evidence in support. I’ll keep that in mind the next time you post something.
Oh and as for finding it. Took 30 seconds. Must be the absence of blinkers
on 14-09-2014 04:49 PM
So you are saying, if a person is wearing attire which identifies them as belong to a specific state funded instruction, say such as a school uniform, they are precluded from wearing, or doing anything which may be considered as having religious connotations.
But then, doesn’t that run contrary to the decision of the Dearborn School Board, which is a state funded school, and who recently decided that application of the Supreme Court decision is limited to Christen observance only. That is, whereby it was unconstitutional for children from Christen families to follow religious observance while on school grounds, children from the Islamic community were not so preclude...
Then let’s widen the debate. Was there not recently the case of a Fire Chief who banded firemen form wearing sticker representing the American flag on their helmets to commutate the 250 so firemen who lost their lives in the Twin Towers on 9/11, and then took disciplinary action against those firemen who refused to remove them, and then what about the recent reports of an Army Officer, who was refused entry to onto school property to visit/collect his child because he was wearing his inform (shades of the 1960) …..
on 14-09-2014 04:59 PM
Blinkers - too blind to see
The Constitutional and Supreme Court decision referred to applies to is the US Constitution and US state funded schools. I would have though the preamble to my original post (from a friend in the US might have sufficiently alluded to that fact)
on 15-09-2014 03:50 AM
So you are saying, if a person is wearing attire which identifies them as belong to a specific state funded instruction, say such as a school uniform, they are precluded from wearing, or doing anything which may be considered as having religious connotations.
You know better than that........don't put words in my mouth. I said that if they are participating in an organized activity supported by a school, and representing that school they are only authorized to wear what the school and the regulating organization (be it the Sun Belt Conference or the NCAA). If, the field-goal kicker were to cross himself or bow to Allah before the kick.....he has that right.
But then, doesn’t that run contrary to the decision of the Dearborn School Board, which is a state funded school, and who recently decided that application of the Supreme Court decision is limited to Christen observance only. That is, whereby it was unconstitutional for children from Christen families to follow religious observance while on school grounds, children from the Islamic community were not so preclude...
That's where you're wrong. Every student has the right to follow his religious beliefs at school as long as it is a personal thing. Organized religious activities, whether it's marching down the hall singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" or sacrificing a goat to Baal during homeroom is prohibited.
Then let’s widen the debate. Was there not recently the case of a Fire Chief who banded firemen form wearing sticker representing the American flag on their helmets to commutate the 250 so firemen who lost their lives in the Twin Towers on 9/11, and then took disciplinary action against those firemen who refused to remove them, and then what about the recent reports of an Army Officer, who was refused entry to onto school property to visit/collect his child because he was wearing his inform (shades of the 1960) …..
Without supporting links to your allegations, this is nothing more than an op-ed piece. For the record, there are myriad entities, usually local or state (red state) governments that attempt to either obviate the separation, or work around it. Invariably they spend the taxpayer dollars in vain attempts to defend their revised laws or regulations in court, and just as invariably, they lose. The incident with the army officer wasn't policy, it was an over-zealous school official flexing his bureacratic muscle.........His boss statetd: "I learned at The Basic School that I’m responsible for everything my people do and don’t do, and I’m responsible for this and I’ll correct it,” said Robert Shafer, superintendent for Rochester Community Schools who left the Marine Corps as a first lieutenant and later made captain in the Reserve. “It’s not the kind of behavior that we’d endorse as a school district. It certainly isn’t a policy, and it’s regrettable and we’re going to fix it.”