Started By
Message
re: Arkansas State Football team forced to remove Christian crosses from helmets
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:09 pm to genro
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:09 pm to genro
quote:
Rob Franklin, a graduating high school senior who is heading off to art school, donates a painting to his high school depicting the Last Supper of Jesus and his apostles. Impressed by the quality of the work, Principal Bard hangs the painting in a hallway of the school. A year later, Ms. Greene, the parent of a ninth-grader, sees the painting when she visits the school for parent-teacher night. She later tells Principal Bard that the display of the painting is inappropriate and asks that it be taken down. Is the display of the painting permissible? Should Principal Bard take it down? Principal Bard should take down the painting because its display violates the Establishment Clause. The display is not temporary and integrated into a secular curriculum. Rather, it is a permanent display representing a central event to the Christian faith, and therefore advances and endorses religion. The fact that Rob donated the painting to the school does not diminish this endorsement. PROVIDED BY: Civil Rights Division
From the PDF page 28
1
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:10 pm to Stonehog
quote:
I remember there being a part about separation of church and state.
You aren't very smart. It wasn't a University sponsored event.
BTW, a bunch of companies have donated money so that every fan in the stands will be given a shirt to wear (if they want to) for the game Saturday.
Bigger impact statement, players and fans win this one.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:14 pm to tamctshirt
quote:This doesn't violate the Constitution. Read the Constitution. Next you can point me to the all the different interpretations of the so called "Establishment Clause" and we'll notice how that doesn't fit with the Constitution. We can take every legal opinion and precedent and ruling, and see if they're valid to the actual Constitution. It'll be a fun game breaking all the layers of bullshite to see how we got to this point.
therefore advances and endorses religion.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:23 pm to genro
quote:
genro
I just realized that I was called a troll by Trey in this thread. Don't I get an award or something for that?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:29 pm to Vols&Shaft83
No you called yourself a troll. I was just echoing that
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:33 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
True, but what if the helmet stickers were purchased by a team member's parents? Or were purchased by a private entity which donated them to the football program?
Are the players not allowed to memorialize a teammate as they see fit if the helmet stickers were not purchased by the university?
It's tricky with a public institution. Even if they were purchased with donations, those donations could have been used to pay for things that tax money paid for. Also, without the tax funding helping to establish the university, they would have never received those donations.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:35 pm to genro
Ugh. I am on mobile and don't have the drive to do that. If you think I'm wrong disprove it with quotes.
ETA: clauses/amendments are considered law, so quotes from bill of rights may or may not apply
ETA: clauses/amendments are considered law, so quotes from bill of rights may or may not apply
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:36 pm to genro
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:38 pm to BillyBobPorkin
quote:
It wasn't a University sponsored event.
What?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:40 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:
you called yourself a troll. I was just echoing that
When did I do that?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:44 pm to Vols&Shaft83
Couple weeks ago
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:47 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:
Couple weeks ago
Really? Because I was banned a couple weeks ago. Me thinks I've caught you lying again.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:48 pm to tamctshirt
quote:
"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
The biggest problem with quoting Jefferson's letter as authority on the meaning of the 1st Amendment establishment clause (particularly as applied to the states via the 14th) is that the comments were made in the context of an understanding of the constitution that limited government. The Federal government had no power to establish schools, therefore the separation of schools and religion (at that time joined at the hip) would have been unthinkable. It is the injection of government into every aspect of our lives that makes the current application of the establishment clause so offensive. Thanks FDR.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:54 pm to Aux Arc
However, Supreme Court rulings use this as a reason to a case decision repeatedly, therefore it is legally valid
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:54 pm to Aux Arc
quote:
The biggest problem with quoting Jefferson's letter as authority on the meaning of the 1st Amendment establishment clause (particularly as applied to the states via the 14th) is that the comments were made in the context of an understanding of the constitution that limited government. The Federal government had no power to establish schools, therefore the separation of schools and religion (at that time joined at the hip) would have been unthinkable. It is the injection of government into every aspect of our lives that makes the current application of the establishment clause so offensive. Thanks FDR.
That's a boom
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:56 pm to BillyBobPorkin
I fricking hate lawyers. Scum of the earth.
Anyone with common sense knows that it isn't a state endorsing a religion but rather it's just honoring 2 teammates. That's like saying the Arlington cemetery is state sponsored religion because the grave markers are crosses. It's fricking ridiculous hue far atheists go to ban any religious symbols. Why does it matter? If you aren't religious then it means nothing it's a symbol no different than a fricking triangle.
If you're offended by a religious symbol then you're just a big gaping pussy
Anyone with common sense knows that it isn't a state endorsing a religion but rather it's just honoring 2 teammates. That's like saying the Arlington cemetery is state sponsored religion because the grave markers are crosses. It's fricking ridiculous hue far atheists go to ban any religious symbols. Why does it matter? If you aren't religious then it means nothing it's a symbol no different than a fricking triangle.
If you're offended by a religious symbol then you're just a big gaping pussy
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:59 pm to deltaland
quote:
I fricking hate lawyers. Scum of the earth.
My father was a lawer and a damn good one. Stfu. Also, it's not a matter of it being offensive or not by the symbol, it's a matter of it being illegal
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:59 pm to tamctshirt
quote:
However, Supreme Court rulings use this as a reason to a case decision repeatedly, therefore it is legally valid
The Supreme Court is not the final deciding body because they always get it right. They are always right because they are last. I will grant that the 14th Amendment was poorly drafted and allowed for these shitty opinions. But any thinking person can read them and see the gaps in logic.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:01 pm to Aux Arc
Gaps in logic don't matter if it's written law.
Also, this case is very similar to other stated cases, therefore a similar ruling would apply.
Also, this case is very similar to other stated cases, therefore a similar ruling would apply.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:04 pm to tamctshirt
quote:
it's not a matter of it being offensive or not by the symbol, it's a matter of it being illegal
The Arlington National Cemetery is a great example. And it WAS established by Congress. The religious symbols there are memorial in nature and not intended to promote any religion - just like the helmets.
Page 8 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News