The Christian Taliban Are At It Again!

[Midwest_Doc]

I considered posting this on R/T, but I think the core issue is beyond a discussion of belief.

*******

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of several religious leaders and a religious organization whose First Amendment rights are violated by South Carolina’s “I Believe” license plate.

The new plate features the words, “I Believe,” accompanied by a depiction of a large, bright-yellow Christian cross superimposed on a multicolored stained glass church window.

Plaintiffs in the case include four South Carolina clergy the Rev. Dr. Thomas A. Summers, Rabbi Sanford T. Marcus, the Rev. Dr. Robert M. Knight and the Rev. Dr. Neal Jones as well as the Hindu American Foundation.

The Summers v. Adams lawsuit charges that the Christian plate gives preferential government treatment to one faith. It asks the court to prevent South Carolina officials from producing the plates.

“The state has clearly given preferential treatment to Christianity with this license plate,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “I can’t think of a more flagrant violation of the First Amendment’s promise of equal treatment for all faiths. I believe these plates will not see the light of day.”

The South Carolina legislature unanimously passed legislation to produce the license plate, and South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said he is willing to put up the required $4,000 to produce the plate, with the money to be reimbursed by the state later. The legislature has not proposed or made available a similar specialty plate for any other faith.

Gov. Mark Sanford allowed the bill to become law without his signature.

In South Carolina, an individual can apply for a vanity plate less than seven characters long, but symbols and emblems are not permitted. Other specialty plates are created either by DMV approval or through the legislature. Plates approved by the DMV are subject to signification regulations, including “no slogans, names or other text.”

The Americans United lawsuit says the Christian license plate violates the separation of church and state as well as freedom of speech. It notes that other religions will not be able to get similar license plates expressing differing viewpoints, nor can a comparable “I Don’t Believe” license plate be issued.

The lawsuit was filed in Columbia, S.C., in the U.S. District Court for South Carolina.

“The state has made believers of non-Christian faiths feel that they are second-class citizens,” Lynn said. “Under our Constitution, that’s impermissible.”

Attorneys working on the case include AU Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, AU Litigation Counsel Heather Weaver and AU Madison Fellow Nancy Leong. Aaron J. Kozloski of Capitol Counsel, a Columbia, S.C. law firm, is serving as local counsel.

[TransitJohn]

1. Interesting, thanks

Once of my issues I follow...
Which brings up one of my pet peeves....

Could you please post a link?????

[paparush]

2. "I Believe" they are morons.

[gratuitous]

3. Sounds like idolatry to me

And isn't that one of the big no-nos in those 10 Commandments the Repressive Right wants to post everywhere? You'd think they'd have some familiarity with it, wouldn't you?

[baldguy]

52. You don't understand.

Worshiping a cross - or the money that it can con people out of - isn't idolatry because they are representations of Ja-HEEZ-us!

[Indenturedebtor]

105. Don't bring up the idolatry thing...

They get all sorts of upset about that commandment. :hide:

[MrCoffee]

4. These are specialty plates, right?

The ones you have to pay extra for? South Carolina isn't changing the standard plate design to reflect a religious preference, are they?

[wtmusic]

7. Are they providing crescent plates for Muslims? Lotus plates for Hindus?

That alone reflects a religious preference.

[MrCoffee]

14. Has anyone called their state legislator to propose one?

The state can acknolegdge religion, it just can't prefer one. Unless someone can show that the state flat-out rejected a Hindu or Muslim or any other plate, there's nothing wrong with this.

[wtmusic]

15. You can see the logical end of that argument.

Every sect of every religion would contact the state and demand their version. Can't happen, and shouldn't.

All or none -- and since all is impossible, we're left with one possibility.

[MrCoffee]

19. Can't happen and shouldn't? Why on earth not?

The state isn't establishing a religion, nor is it prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What is your problem with the plates? You don't like Christianity?

[wtmusic]

21. Wrong. The state is implicitly establishing a religion

by giving preferential treatment to Christians.

Do you understand that this offer, for practical reasons, will not be extended to members of all faiths?

[lukasahero]

84. If I understand correctly - there's a minimum interest requirement

While someone can propose a specific license plate, there needs to be enough interest in one to make it happen and there aren't enough, say, Buddhists in the area to meet the requirement even if all of them knew to express an interest. (Heard on NR a week or two ago - don't remember exact details but I'll look it up if pressed.)

[wtmusic]

100. That alone, with respect to religion, is unconstitutional

They are creating an ad hoc "ballot" by which citizens can vote for an illegal law.

By that rationale, you could round up every racist in SC and create a plate labeled "In Celebration of White People". :crazy:

[lukasahero]

111. Agreed

Just because Christians are the majority (and I sort of consider myself to be one - sort of), doesn't give them special privilege based on standards minorities, by virtue of being a minority, aren't capable of meeting.

I'll have to dig up the details of the story because when I first heard it I thought the same as some posters here - who cares, they'll pay for their plates so what's the harm? Until I heard about the part where the only way other groups could take advantage of the opportunity was to have enough people on board to support the initiative.

That's why we don't vote on rights - it's not a right if the majority can take it away. And it's not equal opportunity if the opportunity is based on minimum requirements the minority population can't possibly meet.

[Hugabear]

17. Did you get the part about the Lt. Governor paying the up-front money?

Not only is the Lt. Governor paying the up-front money to get these plates produced, the state legislature is going to REIMBURSE him for it.

Do you think that a Muslim association would be able to get similar treatment?

[MrCoffee]

18. If they did not get similar treatment, that would be excellent grounds to sue

This, however, is not.

[Ian David]

5. Here's the link

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr009=2liddfw591.app1b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9897&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

[wryter2000]

6. Barry Lynn is my hero

Americans United could always use some money.

www.au.org

[Midwest_Doc]

8. I second that!

Here is another organization you may consider supporting: http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/

[wryter2000]

10. They look awesome

I'll definitely consider adding them to my very limited list. I used to have more money than I do now and can't contribute as much as I'd like to.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. "with the money to be reimbursed by the state later" - why?

Bad enough that official signs give preferential treatment for one religion, but for the state to pay for it too?

[hfojvt]

39. I believe people pay extra for such license plates

thus the cost will be fully borne by the people choosing to purchase them. The state is collecting that money from willing citizens that it is using to reimburse the Lt. Gov., not collecting it from taxpayers at large.

[DemoTex]

11. Will SC's "I Believe" plates replace these two?

BTW: The "I Believe" plate is not yet on the SCDMV website.

http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/plategallery.aspx?q=All

[bullwinkle428]

46. Wow, what a list of options they offer! I must admit that

I found the NASCAR favorite drivers series amusing, although I did notice that the Dale Earnhardt Jr. plate was inaccurate - his current number is 88, not 8!

[MattBaggins]

110. We have a problem Houston

If you look down on that page of plates; SC all ready has a plate for Secular Humanists.

[GoneOffShore]

112. WOW! Amazing list of plate options - I didn't think there were that many cars in SC!

[Kansas Wyatt]

12. I actually like when self righteous Christians identify themselves in vehicles.

It let's me know that a bat-shit loony person is operating that vehicle, and it also allows me the opportunity to NOT cut them any slack, be courteous to them, and/or help them in any way.

[Flarney]

13. I kinda feel the same way about the confederate flag...

I hate seeing it, but at least it makes it easier to identify the knuckle-draggers I live with here in Columbia, SC.

[wtmusic]

20. Courtesy can be extended to anyone.

Being an asshole just confirms to them how "right" they are.

IMO, if you smother them with kindness and truth you'll get better results.

[Summer93]

61. Or, as my Mom said - catch em being good

[wtmusic]

80. Like that!

:thumbsup:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

28. Right fcsk people who believe differently than you

What business do they have being in your diverse society..

[NeedleCast]

31. It's self-righteous to display a religious symbol on a bumper?

Hmmmm, I better go scrape those Obama stickers off. Wouldn't want to be self righteous....

[Hugabear]

59. Didn't realize that Obama was a religion

I know there were a lot of jokes about Obama followers being a "cult", but really now...

[Umbram]

79. Eh? Wow...

Obama is a religious symbol? Neat!

[hfojvt]

38. I guess that girlfriend burned you pretty bad.

I'm sensing a little bigotry here.

[Kansas Wyatt]

88. Nope, not at all.

I only stated that I did not have to be my usual self and extend any common courtesy to a group (fundies) that votes for whoever their church leader tells them, think I am less because they claim to know Jesus, empowered evil bastards in spite of common sense, are the evil they claim to hate, etc. etc. etc.

If someone wants to call my an "asshole" for not kissing a evangelical fundamentalist's ass and praising them as knowing so much more than anyone who does not "believe" like them, then I could care less. I do not want to "get along" with people like that, nor do I owe them a damn thing.

As for the former Fundie girlfriend....

I have a new girlfriend (there's always another one just right around the corner... funny how that always works out) who happens to be Christian, but doesn't feel the need to proudly display it, force it upon everyone, and demand that everyone conform to it. She even votes Democratic... She obviously must not be a 'true believer,' according to Evangelical Fundamentalists.

[spoony]

103. Any other groups of people you like to mistreat routinely?

Usually it isn't just one.

[Kansas Wyatt]

113. State how I mistreated anyone.

By all means, dissect my post and tell me exactly how I mistreated anyone, "routinely" in my daily life. You cannot, because you cannot mistreat someone just by refusing to go out of your way to be nice to them, and that is all that I do. Their organization wanted the attention and power, so they can accept the backlash and rejection to their rapture ready country club mentality.

Excuse me for observing their brand, that they want noticed. Where does it state on their brand that I have to go out of my way to be super sweet and nice to them? It doesn't anywhere... But it does identify them as being unable to think for themselves, illogical, and susceptible to delusional thinking.

[timtom]

16. It's clear.

Crosses should not be permissible. It's just plain wrong (unless they also allow crescents, magen davids, swastikas, yin yangs, etc.)

Why do legal bodies (i.e. the state) play these mindless games?

It's either this or that. Period.

[wtmusic]

23. Two cars speeding: one with a cross, the other with a crescent

Which one gets the ticket?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

83. DWI

Driving While Islamic

[spoony]

107. Oh, now I get it, it's part of the BIG conspiracy

If that's the scenario, why not just use bumper stickers or fish? Easier to read than plates.

[timtom]

114. Both of them.

[hfojvt]

85. No. It is clear that crosses cannot be prohibited unless all others are too.

there needs to be enough of a demand for a crescent plate.

The state plays these 'games' because there is popular support for it. I think it's more puzzling why we progressives play this 'game' of 'let's try to alienate the majority.'

[wtmusic]

93. How much demand does there have to be

to have a crescent on a plate (aka, why are you just making this shit up)?

When all else fails, look to what the law says, and not what you think it should say:

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

Crystal clear. No religion in government. The law will fall like a rock.

[hfojvt]

97. making what up?

It's pretty clear that if the new license plate option is not self-sustaining (sold in quantities large enough to be self-sustaining) then the state would be financially subsidizing it, which would violate the establishment clause.

The reason the law should stand is because the state is clearly not supporting a religion here. Instead it is allowing private citizens to support religion by purchasing a specialty plate, just like it allows OTHER organizations to support their causes with specialty plates. Since South Carolina allows the following specialty plates
http://www.scdmvonline.com/VehPlateSpecialty.aspx
then it cannot discriminate against Christians unless they can find a secular reason for doing so. Otherwise it is 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion.

[wtmusic]

99. There's a nurses amendment to the Constitution? One for homeless pets?

You don't get it. Just by offering the plates to Christians and Christians alone, the state is showing preferential treatment for Christianity.

A1 deals with religion -- not homeless pets, not nurses, not NASCAR. That entire line of argument is a straw man.

Not allowed in the US, and Thank God.

[hfojvt]

101. they are showing the same 'preferential' treatment to

the Sons of the Confederacy and to Nascar, etc., because there is a public demand for it. The first Amendment does not demand the discrimination against religion either. The state needs to be neutral - by not allowing Christians to have a license plate is not neutral. A1 does not allow the state to be anti-religion either. A Christian church gets the same treatment as any other organization.

[wtmusic]

102. One more time -- you are confusing the rights of citizens

with those of government. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Restricting the government's ability to show a preference, provide a special plate, or in any way differentiate on the basis of religion has no effect on the restriction of any citizen to practice their religion. This arises from confusion between two clauses of the amendment -- the establishment clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

and the free exercise cause:

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

These are two completely distinct ideas: the government could, in theory, make no laws establishing religion but prohibit the free exercise of it (it happened in the USSR). And vice versa.

Not printing a Christian plate, in no way, prevents anyone from practicing Christianity, but printing one does show preference for that religion. Hence the law is illegal and it will not withstand challenge.

[hfojvt]

123. the government is not providing a special plate

it is allowing one to exist, giving Christians the same access as NASCAR. A similar analogy would be if t-shirts or coffee mugs were sold on school property. If NASCAR can have a booth, then a Christian group MUST be allowed to have a booth as well.

From the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States:
"By contrast, when religious activity in public schools results from choices by students, parents, or other private individuals, the Court has repeatedly held that the activity can or even must be permitted....Thus, in cases about access to facilities, the Court treats religious and secular viewpoints as alternatives, and equal access for religion as the neutral course - not merely permitted, but required."

The religious activity - publicly declaring one's faith is resulting from the choice of car owners who choose to pay an extra $24. NASCAR and Christians need to have equal access to the public sphere - even if that is a license plate. The state only prints one at the request, and payment, of a private citizen.

[wtmusic]

124. "Allowing one to exist"?

So the plate would be floating in space somewhere, if it weren't for Thom Jeff and his Constitution shooting the damn thing down?

NASCAR ≠ religion (although it seems that way, sometimes). So bringing up NASCAR is a straw man.

Permitting religious activity in schools clearly deals with the free exercise clause. How does not printing "I Believe" plates prevent anyone from being a Christian? As Varkam notes below:

Does not having a Christian license plate somehow infringe upon one's ability to freely practice their religion? Perhaps you can point me to the gospel where Jesus said "And yea unto those who possess the license plate of the father, for they will pass into the kingdom of heaven".

We're reaching an impasse here, so I'll end with the law, which is the ultimate arbiter and doesn't leave much leeway:

Everson vs. Board of Education:

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."

[knitter4democracy]

22. I'm glad they're fighting this. They should be. It should never have passed.

It's wrong on many levels. First, not all Christians are included in that symbolism (not all Christians use or are okay with stained glass windows or that version of the Cross), and then you have everyone else. There should be an "I don't believe" plate, and many versions of the "I believe" plate with pentagrams, stars, and various other faith symbols. There should also be an "I coexist" plate (I like that bumper sticker).

--or--

There should be nothing about faith on the plates. I think that's the best answer. If you want to proclaim your faith, there are these new-fangled things called bumper stickers.

[Wiley50]

24. It might as well say "I'm Delusional" n/t

[wvbygod]

25. the same reason many of us are uncomfortable with our candidates at the pulpit

The separation is only on paper.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

26. Im sorry this is just crying for no good reason

Its a stupid license plate, I mean people get them for football teams! I suppose the fact my bro cant get an NHL place in Carolina but others can get their Nascar plate means he is 'A second Class Citizen'...

[NeedleCast]

27. Just Goes to Show People Will Get Worked Up About Anything

In Virginia, we have a "Children First" license plate that's become very popular. Does that mean the state is giving preferential treatment to children?

[wtmusic]

29. The Constitution has no problem with helping out kids

It has a big problem with giving one religion preferential treatment over another.

[NeedleCast]

30. Look, Unless I can get a plate that says

White, Middle-Aged, somewhat overweight, shaved headed, goatee sporting people first, I'm going to get offended and file a lawsuit! Everyone else is doing it, might as well get my piece of the pie. Stupid state government and their pro-children policies.

Sarcasm aside, I just don't see this as a state endorsement of a certain religion as it appears no other religions have attempted to get a plate adorned with their various symbols made. If Muslims or Jews were to try and fail to get a similar plate done, THEN I'd have a problem with it. Not before. But don't let that stop you from being all offended about a license plate. I know that's what we're supposed to do here in the states when someone expresses a thought or opinion we disagree with.

[wtmusic]

33. Offense has nothing to do with it.

It's the law, and has a wealth of precedent. Even if all religions were included, it will not survive a constitutional challenge:

Emerson vs. Board of Education (1947):

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment#Religious_displays

[NeedleCast]

36. All religions have not asked to be included

If they do, and are told no, then it's a constitutional issue showing preference of one religion over another.

In my opinion, this move doesn't violate separation of church and state, but I guess I'll leave it up to the courts to decide. No preference is being shown unless the state says it wont make a Muslim plate of similar design. I do think they're putting themselves in a stupid position because as you (or someone else) pointed out, they're opening the door to every other religious denomination to request a plate.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

32. But the kids first plate gives preference to kids

Dont the elderly have the same basic rights? Seems to me 'kids first' violates the 14th amendment...

[wtmusic]

35. Unfortunately the Constitution allows discrimination by age

and it is manifest in many ways: drinking, smoking, voting, running for president. You could argue that A14 is violated by such laws but you'd be up against a lot of case law that has ruled otherwise.

It does not, however, permit preferential treatment for any or all religions.

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Good for them!

This surely seems a flagrant violation of church-state separation.

[hfojvt]

37. isn't that the wrong headline?

Sounds like the anti-Christian taliban are at it again with their stupid lawsuit.

[varkam]

42. .

[hfojvt]

48. no sillier than comparing a license plate option

to taliban-like oppression. But it's easier to oppress a majority by using a court. That's why the anti-christian brigade is working through the court instead of through the legislature.

[varkam]

49. Something you're forgetting...

is that the BoR and the Constitution are designed to safeguard minority rights. If the legislature runs afoul of those safeguards, then it becomes the job of either the executive or the legislative branch to redress those grievances (the whole checks and balances thing). Of course politicians are going to get behind any bill that will make them out to be as pious as possible - it's pandering 101. They'd swaddle themselves in the tunic of Baby Jesus if they could.

And do you seriously think that Christians are oppressed in this country? Pray tell, why do you think that?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

50. If you think Bush invaded

because he was told by God and not Exxon you're more gullible than the folk who think he is an evangelical Christian..

[varkam]

51. Uh..I don't think that.

:shrug:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

63. my bad, clicked reply in the wrong place..

[hfojvt]

60. I did forget that

I had this silly notion that the Bill of Rights safeguarded everybody's rights, not just the rights of minorities. How undemocratic is it for the legislature to pander to the will of the voters? Obviously we cannot have that.

I did not say anything about oppression. That was a red herring you dragged into the argument, and I foolishly snapped at it. What I said is that some people seemingly hate Christianity and thus wanna make an issue every time a President says 'under God' or has a prayer service with the Armed Forces or allows a specialty license plate with a cross on it to be sold to people who want one. In their eyes, we cannot allow Christianity out of the closet because doing so oppresses minorities. When I was an atheist at the University of Minnesota, I never once felt oppressed because a Christian fraternity put up a banner that said "Jesus Christ is Lord of the University of Minnesota". It was their free speech right, IMO, and by putting up a banner did not make it either true, nor official University policy. The first amendment also includes the line 'nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

[wtmusic]

65. You're confusing the rights of individuals with the government.

UofM is not permitted to put up a banner "Jesus Christ is Lord of the University of Minnesota". Individuals are. Even individuals who work there, as long as it is not on behalf of the university or on university property.

The "seemingly hate Christianity" is your perception and completely subjective. Try testing out those same rights using Islam and you'll get a good barometer of what "hate" is all about.

[varkam]

66. Oy.

I had this silly notion that the Bill of Rights safeguarded everybody's rights, not just the rights of minorities. How undemocratic is it for the legislature to pander to the will of the voters? Obviously we cannot have that.

It's not anyone's right to foist their religion into the public square - which is exactly the point of the lawsuit.

I did not say anything about oppression. That was a red herring you dragged into the argument, and I foolishly snapped at it.

Actually, the term taliban implies such oppression. If you did not intend that connotation, then I would choose your words more carefully in the future.

What I said is that some people seemingly hate Christianity and thus wanna make an issue every time a President says 'under God' or has a prayer service with the Armed Forces or allows a specialty license plate with a cross on it to be sold to people who want one.

Yes, those reverends and their ilk who are bringing this lawsuit. Ohh, they hate Christianity so :eyes:

Speaking of red herrings...it's an issue of keeping the church separate from the state, not hatred of Christianity.

In their eyes, we cannot allow Christianity out of the closet because doing so oppresses minorities. When I was an atheist at the University of Minnesota, I never once felt oppressed because a Christian fraternity put up a banner that said "Jesus Christ is Lord of the University of Minnesota". It was their free speech right, IMO, and by putting up a banner did not make it either true, nor official University policy. The first amendment also includes the line 'nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

Is that the analogy you're going with? Really? Guess what? There's a teensy-weensy bit of a difference between a Christian frat at the University of Minnesota and the state legislature of South Carolina. For example, one is a public entity whereas the other is a private group. One is comprised of members who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, whereas the other is comprised of members who are sworn to do Bong Hits 4 Jesus.

Does not having a Christian license plate somehow infringe upon one's ability to freely practice their religion? Perhaps you can point me to the gospel where Jesus said "And yea unto those who possess the license plate of the father, for they will pass into the kingdom of heaven".

[hfojvt]

74. That is the analogy I am going with

because some people got very upset about it at the time. Similar foolishness. It is however, the right of people to foist their religion in the public square, because the public square belongs to everybody. It is not right for the state to foist the current administration's religion into the public square. For example, if every South Carolinian was forced to use the "I believe" license plate instead of just those who opt to pay for the privilege.

Taliban does not imply oppression unless the taliban is in power. Imagine what those haters would do if they were a vast majority. They are obnoxious enough as a tiny minority.

See the final quote here:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/45

[varkam]

76. Oh, the irony, it's killing me.

It is however, the right of people to foist their religion in the public square, because the public square belongs to everybody.

:rofl:

And, again, do you really truly believe that all these Rev Drs hate Christianity? Seems like a pretty bold assumption to me.

[hfojvt]

81. I know nothing about these "reverend doctors"

But I am pretty sure everyone who calls themself Reverend is not necessarily a Christian. We could ask the Reverend Moon. Many splinterists in the Judean People's Front do hate every other brand of Christianity that is not their flavor.

[varkam]

86. Wait, wait, wait.

So you really think that this is a lawsuit inspired by hatred of Christianity?

And given that these Rev Drs are SC clergy, I would tend to think that they fall into the Christian category - though that (and yours) is just an assumption.

[hfojvt]

95. AU is not a pro-Christian organization

Their actions in this case presume and demonstrate an expansive and anti-Christian interpretation of the first Amendment. They aim to change American traditions not by popular will or by education or persuasion, but by judicial fiat. Some of their fans seem to be religion haters.

[varkam]

117. AU isn't anti-christian, either.

That is, unless your definition of Christianity includes a theocracy. People of all religious faiths are members of AU, including (gasp!) Christians. Those must be the self-hating Christians though, right? ;)

And how is it that this reflects the will of voters, being that they didn't actually...you know...vote on this issue?

[hfojvt]

125. presumably their elected representatives answer to them

That is, those who object could lobby their representatives, and if enough people objected then at least a few would cave to the public pressure.

[wtmusic]

43. If the lawsuit is stupid it will quickly get thrown out.

It isn't and it won't.

[fascisthunter]

54. yeah sure.... sounds like it to those who agree with the Christian Taliban

[Marrah_G]

40. For you to relate this to the oppression the Taliban inflicts on its people makes you look foolish

[wtmusic]

41. Possibly

but the president who gets his orders from a Christian God is the one who invaded a sovereign state, killing one million of its inhabitants.

Just another flavor.

[underseasurveyor]

44. Do you play for the Celtics?

Because that was a Slam-Dunk if ever I saw one:toast:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

62. If you think Bush invaded

because he was told by God and not Exxon you're more gullible than the folk who think he is an evangelical Christian..

[wtmusic]

72. Real reason not important.

"God" helped him gain the support of American fundamentalists. Dead is dead.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

87. Right.... Its obviously an example of the 'Christian Taliban'

That bush starts a war for his oil cronies and blames it on God...

Get a life... 'The Real Reason is not Important' sheesh if thats not the case lets just stop pushing for investigations into the truth, after all 'The real reasons don't matter'

[Bill McBlueState]

47. you could say the same thing in response to post 37 n/t

[Marrah_G]

55. Agreed!

[hfojvt]

82. What? I just used the OP's language.

edit: thee, thee, thee. Sheesh, I can't do 6 words without a typoe.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion..

Of course South Carolina, and Christianity, are exempt from the law...aren't they?

[fascisthunter]

53. Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion..

keep repeating it DUers

[hfojvt]

56. did the South Carolina legislature suddenly become 'Congress'?

Can you tell me how many of the original 13 colonies had state religions when the Bill of Rights was written? I know Virginia did.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Federal laws override state laws.

Virginia also had slavery.

[hfojvt]

70. they didn't until approximately 1957

Then suddenly the SCOTUS decided that the 100 year old 14th Amendment should be applied to everything. Even if that wasn't the intention when it was passed. Slavery was overturned by the will of the northern people willing to kill or die to make it happen, and then by amending the Constitution.

[Umbram]

73. Yea, those damn activist judges extending liberty...

:sarcasm: :puke:

[hfojvt]

98. What is liberty?

If 80% want to do something, and the court sides with the 20%, then it seems to me that the 80% have LOST liberty. You see it differently perhaps, since you are with the 20%. I am against the idea of top down rule.

[wtmusic]

The Incorporation Doctrine

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

[NeedleCast]

57. Please Indicate the new Law which has been established

[wtmusic]

64. Here:

"The South Carolina legislature unanimously passed legislation to produce the license plate, and South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said he is willing to put up the required $4,000 to produce the plate, with the money to be reimbursed by the state later. The legislature has not proposed or made available a similar specialty plate for any other faith."

In the OP.

[Dr. Strange]

58. Is Congress making a law here?

Personally, this strikes me as a Christian bling tax, of sorts. I'm finding it hard to get worked up over.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Well, the founders thought the seperation of church & state was something to get worked up over.

Enough to pass the 1st Amendment.

[spoony]

104. Yeah I'm sure they'd just shit themselves over a license plate, lol.

I just hope none of your heads explode when Obama talks about God in his inauguration speech.

[Umbram]

71. Incorporation is covered in junior high social studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29

Citizens do well to know the Constitution.

[leftynyc]

67. I'm sorry, but

comparing a vanity license plate to the Taliban is - and do forgive me for being blunt - moronic.

[texasleo]

75. I love how the extreme left compares obnoxious plates to keeping women in bee keeper suits.

:nopity:

[ulysses]

77. yes, because violations of religious freedom are merely "obnoxious".

Leo! :hi:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

89. whos religious freedom is being violated?

I guess the problem here is some people think they have a right to *not* be offended and Im sorry peeps, that just does not exist..

If I were an Atheist or a Muslim a license plate with a cross in *no* conceivable way limits my ability to freely practice my religion... It is not establishing a religion nor is it restricting the free practice and all 50 people who will buy this plate will not intimidate folks into renouncing their faith..

[ulysses]

92. there's no right to not be offended, that's true.

You have a right, however, to not have your government show a preference toward a religion other than your own. That's what this is.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

115. So you have evidance that a similar request for a Muslim or Wiccan plate

was refused?

[ulysses]

119. haven't looked for it. the fact is that the *state*,

which doesn't have any business trafficking in religious symbolism at any rate, created a license plate for Christians only. Whether or not they would refuse one for Muslims, Wiccans, Atheists, etc (and given the state, they just might), it doesn't matter. What they've done is wrong.

[Mountainman]

96. You are not seeing this from the proper perspective. The state represents all citizens and has no

right to give preferential treatment to some. Also the 1st Amendment of the Constitution prohibits government from establishing religion which this is.

Now you may throw your rights in the shit can if you want to but not mine! I have a right to have my government obey the Constitution of the United States. That trumps any argument you can come up with.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

116. They have plates for Nascar and none for the NHL..

Is that messing with peoples rights? I know sports fans who are more faithful to that than some are to their religion..

This is *not* establishing a religion

1) The religion already exist
2) These plates do not prohibit other religions from being practiced
3) These plates give no money to a religion of *any* kind..

[Mountainman]

120. You don't know shit from shine-ola do you? NASCAR and religion are not even close!

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

121. Youve never been to carolina....

[wtmusic]

122. LOL nt

[wtmusic]

78. It's a smaller step from plates to "beekeeper suits"

than no plates to plates.

You want religion in government, or not?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

90. Are you serious...

Hold on Im taking a one inch step to the west... Ok now I am 'closer' to the pacific ocean than I was before...

TO turn your logic on its head...

Its a smaller step to ban the free practice of religion once you ban plates than when you have not banned them...

You want government to ban religious freedom or not?

[wtmusic]

91. You, like others, are confusing the rights of citizens

with the rights of government.

Not allowing the government to give preferential treatment to one religion over another has absolutely no effect on the citizens' rights to practice whatever religion they want to.

Conversely, it only enhances it. Fundamental distinction.

[Swamp Rat]

94. They are always "at it."

Because they have no faith in their own religion, they force it on everyone else.

[Rage for Order]

106. Christian Taliban?

Are you seriously comparing supporting a license plate that says "I Believe" with the actions of the Taliban? Either you have a natural proclivity for extreme hyperbole, or you are incredibly ignorant. Of course, it could be a bit of both.

[pleah]

108. !!!!!

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot

[spoony]

109. Nice hit-and-run thread, btw

Toss a grenade from that R/T sludge pit and high-tail it away from the ugliness that follows. Grand work.

[Prophet 451]

118. I'm curious

Would anyone be protesting if they also offered plates (at the usual price, obviously) to non-Christian faiths and to atheists? Atheists could have the Darwin fish or that lovely "Coexist" logo I see occasionally.