Written by Don Byrd
The Arkansas State University football team will no longer be wearing Christian crosses on their helmets to memorialize a teammate and an equipment manager who recently died. University counsel determined the stickers violate the separation of church and state by appearing to endorse religion.
The Washington Post reports:
“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,” [University Counsel Lucinda McDaniel] wrote [to Athletic Director Terry Mohajir]. “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.”
Then, there is this strange tidbit (my emphasis):
On Monday, McDaniel emailed Mohajir, saying she found no specific legal cases that addressed crosses on football helmets but recommending that the bottom of the cross could be cut off so the symbol would be a plus sign.
Really? Try to hide the very public fact that this is intended to be a religious symbol by mischievously editing the image? And that is perhaps the lawyer’s recommendation?
I have a better idea. Let’s not do that. If the University wants to allow the team to wear the decals, it should make a good faith argument that such use of the cross is not a violation of church-state separation. Wearing the decals is apparently voluntary, and they were proposed by team members, not school officials. Further, as McDaniel says, there are no specific cases addressing this precise issue. If you want to make such an argument that the decals are ok, do.
Or, if you believe the cross decal is an improper use of such visible state equipment and gives the impression of university endorsement of Christianity, then remove them and explain this conflict to the very well-meaning students who wish to remember their friends in a meaningful way.
Making a “plus sign,” however, which is nonetheless intended to be a secret (I guess) religious symbol, is in my view not a helpful or even honorable approach. It would do a kind of violence to the cross that is offensive, and mocks the Establishment Clause requirement that the state remain neutral in religious matters.
Instead: defend this use of the cross if you think it is valid, or remove it if you suspect it is not; but don’t defile the cross in pursuit of some dubious legal technicality.
