The back of Penn State’s Cross-like t-shirt says, “Don’t be intimidated, it’s just me and 110,000 of my friends”. It may as well say, “Don’t be intimidated, it’s just the symbol of forgiveness and eternal life”. The Penn State’s cross-like t-shirt design has drawn complaints by folks saying that the design looks like the Christian Cross. So what? What if it does look like a cross?
The “white out” t-shirt is for students and fans to wear at Penn State home football games, to essentially “white out” the opposing teams fans, but it might be hard to do now that Penn State has received 6 complaints. Yeah, you read that right. A total of 6 complaints; it only takes one to stir up a hornets nest.
The Anti-Defamation League in Philadelphia happened to be one of those complaining about the Penn State Cross-like t-shirt design. I’m guessing some brainy college student who thinks that they’re too intelligent for God to exist, walked into the student bookstore, saw the shirt and called the Anti-Defamation League. The school newspaper is now involved as well; I’m guessing the same student turned them onto the shirt too.
If you take a look at the shirt, it’s really a non-issue. You have to be looking for something to complain about for there to actually be something to complain about. The Penn State cross-like design shirt has the word Penn State across the chest with a solid blue bar running straight down the middle.
The designer of the shirt told Fox News (Oh no, I wrote Fox News and Christian in the same post!) that the single blue bar on the shirt was based on the single blue stripe on the football teams helmet. If you have ever seen the Penn State helmet, it looks very much the same.
I’m a guy who has seen my share of crosses; and this one isn’t there. This is just another meaningless “cause” that a few liberals are clinging onto just to have something to argue about. Can’t the students at Penn State buy their t-shirts to wear to a football game without some political or religious controversy breaking out?
Please Anti-Defamation League and you other 5 complainers (although it’s sure to be more now, you know libs once they get started) let this one go. The Penn State Cross-like t-shirt design is not some subliminal way of converting a bunch of college kids to Christianity. I think they just like their football team.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:46 am
HOW CAN I PURCHASE ONE????
October 28th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Have tried to find a site to buy one. Will keep looking.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:12 am
I can’t find a picture of the shirt itself, so it’s hard for me to say whether it’s really promoting religion or not. My guess is it’s just a poor design choice and not a religious symbol.
Still, at a school like Penn State — or any public school — religion should certainly be kept out of official academic activities.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:35 am
It would be nice to see a photo of the shirt. And public institutions could very well use some godly principles, like DO NOT STEAL and the like.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:05 am
Hah, I’m not sure that something as universal as the impropriety of theft could be considered an exclusively “godly” principle. Plenty of secularists, including myself, agree with many of the principles that are also espoused in the bible. That doesn’t mean we got them from the bible.
Anyway, sure “godly principles” — if that’s what you want to call them — are fine. What’s not fine at a state school is positioning those principles as Godly. School rules are school rules, not school commandments.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:38 am
[...] Good thing they didn’t have anything on there that even sort of kind of resembled a cross, like at Penn State. [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 6:38 am
[...] Good thing they didn’t have anything on there that even sort of kind of resembled a cross, like at Penn State. [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 7:10 am
You can see the shirt here.
http://www.examiner.com/x-19905-Religion-in-the-News-Examiner~y2009m10d27-Penn-State-goes-PC-yanking-Crosslike-Tshirt-from-shelves
October 28th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Yeah thanks Shannon. I have to say, that looks a lot more like an unintended design coincidence than intentional religious symbolism.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Rhayader, I knew you were going to squeal. Of course, I did not use the word “exclusive”, but I guess your discomfort against anything “religious” made you see it there. Curious to see you join the group that lives for things unseen… Anyway, NOT STEALING can very well be both a godly and secularist principle (I hear more squealing?). And the shirt design is hardly a cross: it takes the eye of an atheist to derive a religious symbol from there. Next: road intersections are banned because they usually have a “cross” shape…
Oh, and the US Constitution was largely shaped after the Mosaic law, so it can be said we got the DO NOT STEAL from the Bible. But I undestand that you agree (painfully) with the principle, just not with the source. And that difference between school rules and school commandments… splitting hairs? That’s OK, you can calm now, I won’t keep torturing you with the “God” word.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:44 am
“Squeal”? Give me a break.
Anyway, NOT STEALING can very well be both a godly and secularist principle
Which is exactly what I said.
And the shirt design is hardly a cross: it takes the eye of an atheist to derive a religious symbol from there.
Uhh, read comment #9. I already said that too.
Oh, and the US Constitution was largely shaped after the Mosaic law, so it can be said we got the DO NOT STEAL from the Bible.
That’s completely irrelevant.
But I undestand that you agree (painfully) with the principle, just not with the source.
I didn’t say that. I said that religion should not be a direct source of policy guidance for a publicly funded school, per the first amendment. Feeling defensive today or something?
October 28th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Wow, that was fast! And, yes, you said that, but that’s ok, everyone is entitled to backtrack a little here and there.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Where exactly did I say that? Show me the quote.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:55 am
You clearly see me as somebody who is intent on attacking religion whenever possible. That’s not what I’m about. Go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe — more power to you. I couldn’t care less what religion someone is.
All I’m asking is that we keep it away from the government. Simple enough.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:15 am
OK. You say you don’t attack religion whenever possible, you just want people who have religious beliefs to shut up their religious convictions whenever it has to do with the rules and laws under which they are going to be governed. I get it. You apparently don’t.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:20 am
I get it. You apparently don’t.
Haha, what? It’s tough to reply to incoherent non-sequiturs.
you just want people who have religious beliefs to shut up their religious convictions whenever it has to do with the rules and laws under which they are going to be governed
Yeah pretty much. Of course that’s not just what I want, it’s what is required by our Constitution.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:33 am
I saw the shirt and one of the creators on Fox and Friends this morning. It was a great shirt and I’d love to have one also.
The fact that we here in the land of the free have to cater to a few malcontents over the good of the many just shows how far we have sunk into the mire.
Penn State should just tell those few to ;look somewhere else!
I guess those same few would be horrified at all the crosses at Arlington Cemetary!
Sign me, disgusted!
October 28th, 2009 at 8:37 am
It’s not that tough to reply to incoherent non-sequiturs, I am getting plenty of practice replying to yours. And nope, it’s not required by the Constitution, unless of course you refer to one of those legislations from the bench used to override what the Constitution says, or just to what you wished the Constitution said.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:40 am
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
A law based on religion clearly violates the first amendment. Showing a preference for one religion by definition gives short shrift to other religions. You’d see this plain as day if we were to base a law on Islam, which is no different constitutionally than basing a law on Christianity.
And what have I said that could possibly be classified as incoherent or a non-sequitur? Again, show me the quote.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Oh, come on Rhayader. You know that such clause was written to avoid an official denomination like it happened in England, not to jettison God out of the government. You wish it meant what you say.
And how come you can push for laws that fit whatever your philosophy of life is, but I can’t do the same?
And, about non sequiturs, aren’t those things that only the very bright can say and don’t understand?
October 28th, 2009 at 11:02 am
You know that such clause was written to avoid an official denomination like it happened in England, not to jettison God out of the government.
Oh I do, huh? Thanks for filling me in on what I know.
Again, if you really apply what you’re saying, then we could base laws on Islam or atheism if there was enough support. Would you really be OK with that? Answer honestly.
And, about non sequiturs, aren’t those things that only the very bright can say and don’t understand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
It’s a nonsensical remark that doesn’t fit properly into the conversation. Like in comment #15 when you said I “apparently don’t” understand my own point.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:19 am
Hey Rhayader, is atheism a non-prophet organization?
And can you insure yourself against Acts of God?