Video: South Carolina to introduce license plate with cross on it
posted at 11:20 am on June 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
In which Mark Sanford earns my respect while alienating pretty much everyone else in the party. The punchline here is that in guaranteeing that no religious organization gets any of the proceeds from sales, the state actually made these fabulously more affordable than any other vanity plate — less than one-tenth the average cost, if the Times’s figures are right.
Two ways to play this for First Amendment purposes. Either offer designs for every other religion, right down to the pentagram plate for wiccans (a strategy which would still be of dubious constitutionality), or cancel the plate and leave this stuff on bumper stickers where it belongs.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
I agree totally AP.
p0s3r on June 7, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Barry Lynn’s got it right in the clip. Good for Sanford.
Purple Fury on June 7, 2008 at 11:24 AM
How exactly are religious themed vanity plates unconstitutional?
NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Totally agree. This is a blatant church:state violation.
Deplorable.
Ares on June 7, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Again, how? This is a vanity plate in which people are choosing to advertsie their own relgion without the state telling them they must carry this plate.
NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Taxpayer says 6-7 random letters/numbers is all the religion I need on my metal tax-stamp.
Limerick on June 7, 2008 at 11:28 AM
This is a state providing a plate for only one religion. The state helps christians advertise their faith but does not extend the same service to atheists, jews, hindus, muslims et al. That’s a violation – it’s a virtual endorsement of a single religion. Scratch that, not ‘virtual’.
It would be as if the legislature allowed for Republican plates but not Democrat plates.
rjjago on June 7, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Unless we want Satanist, and Jihad, and KKK license plates, this “religious” theme plate concept has to be kept off government-issued items.
You open the door to every lunatic cult if you open it at all.
Best not to invite chaos.
profitsbeard on June 7, 2008 at 11:34 AM
I don’t care about the church-state violation, they are just tacky. The atheists behind TBN are probably behind these Jesus junk license plates. :p
ninjapirate on June 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Has the lawsuit over this license plate already been filed?
AZCoyote on June 7, 2008 at 11:37 AM
How incredibly tacky! What’s next? A Jesus urinal screen so you can contemplate your faith in your private moments?
thuja on June 7, 2008 at 11:37 AM
So don’t go to South Carolina. States have rights. I hope we are not advocating Federal intervention here. If this is what the people of S. Carolina want then let them have it. There are plenty of godless towns and states in the U.S to choose from. I don’t necessarilly agree but then again I don’t live in that state. Who the heck looks at liscense plates anyways? This is a non issue that really has no impact on anything.
gator70 on June 7, 2008 at 11:38 AM
In Arkansas, you can get a plate that says In God We Trust.
someguy on June 7, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I started wondering if there is a fatwa that Islamic themed license plates must always face towards Mecca?
thuja on June 7, 2008 at 11:40 AM
This statement belongs on a bumber sticker. How exactly does this violate your pretend separation of church and state. And how is it different from an Illinois license plate which advertises the atheist religion of “the environment” or any of the state colleges, or bass fishing?
This crap doesn’t belong on license plates, but of course there is no complaint until a Christian says in public “hi, I’m a Christian”. Then it’s “Aaaarrrrgggghhhh! A theocracy!”
Jaibones on June 7, 2008 at 11:40 AM
The problem that people have with this plate is the same problem that exists in how the 1st Amendment is interpreted. It does not say freedom from religion, it says freedom of religion. But far too many people have been brain washed into believing that the former is correct and not the later.
NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 11:42 AM
You don’t like “tacky”? Ban Volkswagen Bugs, then come see me about license plates.
Jaibones on June 7, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Yeah, licence plates should not feature such overt religious icons.
AbaddonsReign on June 7, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I didn’t watch the video (because I don’t really care), but if South Carolina is introducing the licens plates, why does the screen shot show Florida?
rmgraha on June 7, 2008 at 11:42 AM
What the heck! You drive up behind a car which has one of these plates on, what, are you going to become physically ill? Converted? Heaven forbid!
I don’t know what all the fuss is about. Go solve world hunger or something!
Vince on June 7, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Butt-boy Barry Linn was on NBC; we can only assume that they are filing jointly.
Jaibones on June 7, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Well, we have “In God We Trust” printed on our money. Our kids pledge allegiance to God every morning in our schools. Our elected leaders swear on the Bible. How is any of that any worse than an optional license plate with a cross on it?
SoulGlo on June 7, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I wouldn’t call it “deplorable” but I agree, shouldn’t be done, get a bumper sticker or Jesus fish. Keep the plates secular.
doubleplusundead on June 7, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Watch the video.
NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 11:44 AM
How about a third: South Carolina =/= “congress”. Even if you stretch the first amendment to refer to the entire US government like a good liberal, you still can’t equate the two. Unless there’s a breach of SC law you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Darth Executor on June 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I meant to say – How is a an optional license plate with a cross on it any worse than those things?
SoulGlo on June 7, 2008 at 11:46 AM
why does the party feel teh need from time to time to confirm every bad opinion that outsiders have about it?
Defector01 on June 7, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I’m with you. I am interested in how the country as a whole feels they have the right to infringe on a State’s right to pass it’s own laws as the founding fathers intended. If Minnesota can fund Mulsim schools, S. Carolina can have Christain liscense plates.
gator70 on June 7, 2008 at 11:50 AM
The state is not forcing you to use one of these plates, so I don’t see it as any kind of problem.
Maxx on June 7, 2008 at 11:51 AM
cancel the plate and leave this stuff on bumper stickers where it belongs.
AprilOrit on June 7, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Virtually all of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the States through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There is no way this will survive a First Amendment challenge. It violates the establishment clause, unless, as AP says they offer one for every religion, and I mean EVERY religion, regardless of how many members there are, and how long the group has been organized.
Troy Rasmussen on June 7, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Where is right4life and Red Pill Screaming about how we are persecuting them for thinking this crap is stupid and belongs on you bumper not your plate.
I have been fighting the FL version of this since they came out.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Agreed, keep government and church separate.
Hog Wild on June 7, 2008 at 11:53 AM
well said
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I always thought we had “In God We Trust” on our money so that the entire world could know exactly which God America trusts.
thuja on June 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Very good question, where are they…and St Olaf?
It belongs on a bumper sticker next to “No need knockin’ when the trailer’s rockin’”
AprilOrit on June 7, 2008 at 11:56 AM
And I say this view is wrong because of how the 1st Amendment is interpreted today. Again, it says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The Founding Fathers never imagined a sanitised landscape free from religion at all levels. They did not put this into the 1st Amendment because they wanted such a landscape. Their concerns were that people would be barred from political participation because of religion, not that religion should be barred.
NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Since Congress passed no law either respecting or disrespecting any kind of establishment, there’s no first amendment problem with this.
stonemeister on June 7, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Non issue. Stanford, by the way, is making a doctrinal argument – ie in the way he thinks faith should be demonstrated.
It’s a personal expression, not a state expression. If the market will bear other type of plates, print ‘em up.
Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 11:58 AM
NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 12:01 PM
An easy answer would be standards for the size and number of characters on each plate, State identification, authorized reflective paint types,etc. Vehicle owners would register the auto and obtain their plate “ID” series. The actual plate could then be custom made by any source able to meet the standards.
Totally customized plates without the guv making ‘em. Make mine NOOBAMA with Peeps along the edges.
T J Green on June 7, 2008 at 12:01 PM
License plates are a state mandated form of identification. If these things are being fitted to cars this is treading on the wrong side of the line, in my opinion. I could be wrong, and if I am I hope that we see some stars of david, moon and star, and pentagram plates coming out. I’d also like to see some upside down cross plates and, of course as this is the South, some flaming cross plates. Somehow I think that would raise a few hackles – which gives the lie to all this.
Cute. I’m sure that you enjoy yucking it up by confusing the environmental lobby with actual religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam but there is no need to showcase you ignorance.
Ares on June 7, 2008 at 12:01 PM
How the heck do you get to that? It’s not a requirement by any stretch.
That’s similar to saying that if the state taxes wwjd bracelets, since it’s profiting off of the sale of religious ideology, it violates the church:state. The 1st is to protect freedom of expression (this plate is expression, btw, that’s why they are sold as personalized) and protect against state-establishment.
I think this is just knee-jerk frankly.
Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I think it is great. Every state should have one. Plus Where in the Constitution Does it say a separation between church and state. It says there will not be a state religion. Unless your a liberal than your religion is the state…LOL
tengger on June 7, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I do not consider the work of activist judges valid. There’s no sane way to interpret “Due process” (which concerns an individual’s rights being respected) as having anything to do with alleged state promotion of religion.
Darth Executor on June 7, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Sorry, we live in more nuanced times. The constitution is just a ****ing piece of paper the courts use to wipe their ass with./sarc
Darth Executor on June 7, 2008 at 12:06 PM
SC Constitution:
also…
jp on June 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM
NotCoach:
You’re not getting it. No one’s saying you can’t have an expression of faith on your car. There is no law anywhere (least of all in SC) either real or imaginary that prevents you from putting an “I Believe” sticker on your car. Knock yourself out. I see thousands of Fish and Darwin stickers all around.
What’s being asserted is that you can’t have the state provide a LICENSE PLATE (basically a receipt for payment of a state tax) that features ONE religion, but not others AND expect that to somehow survive a constitutional challenge. It’s not “separation” of church and state, but the appearance of state sanction for one religion to the exclusion of others.
It will NEVER fly, and all of this “freedom of” vs. “freedom from” is irrelevant to the actual issue.
Plus they’re tacky as hell.
Purple Fury on June 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM
If a person is willing to put it in a bumper sticker then they will be willing to put it on a plate. Yet I see no general uprising of anger against the bumper stickers people use. This is a straw man that has little to do with the issue at hand. How is the state establishing a religion or impugning other religions?
NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM
You can have my license plate when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!
wccawa on June 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM
This is what happens when you take a clear statement opposing a state religion (against “establishment”) and turn it into an anti-religious litigious mess (”endorsement”).
Beagle on June 7, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Plus they state is not proclaiming that as its religion. It is just giving the people a way to express their faith. If you dont like dont buy one. Same goes for other things you dont like. A movie a tv show dont watch it. dont support it.
tengger on June 7, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Ooof! That hurt. Anyway, any Christian that feels the need to “advertise” their faith, whether it be on a license plate or a crucifix around their neck, needs to take a close look at their life.
1Ti 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
labrat on June 7, 2008 at 12:11 PM
a Federal, i.e. National Religion. originally it was not suppose to apply at all to the States. Most original State Constitutions have similar recognizations as SC above. Ironically enough Mass. was a pretty strong Christian state originally, the Puritans. Their worldview is the only reason the United States ever came to be and was as radical as it was, declaring Rights come from God, not a King/state, etc.
jp on June 7, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Well you better move sunshine…
And while you are at it, I will get right on segregating the schools, taking away Miranda, abolishing the Public Defenders office, and letting those homos into the Boy Scouts.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 12:11 PM
check out this SC secessionist group:
http://christianexodus.org/
probably some of what they are catering to here, SC taxes and govt. is pretty good. If Obama wins it may be a good place to move to. Charleston is nice.
jp on June 7, 2008 at 12:12 PM
A license plate, mandated by the state and attached to your car is effectively a symbol of the state – in that it is very different from a bumper sticker. The state lays no claim on your car bumper.
Surely you can see the difference here? It really is quite simple.
Ares on June 7, 2008 at 12:13 PM
All that shows is that SC is an idiot state that is as backwards as I remember it being.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Hmmm. I disagree with the state being involved in advertising one’s faith, but I don’t know who I’ll root for once the ACLU comes around to suing the state. Kudos to Sanford for having the political courage to not support the law, even though 95% of the state probably does.
malan89 on June 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM
It mostly certainly should withstand a 1st Ad challenge.
Moreover, the precedent is already set for the use of license plates to advertise personal preferences. Which is to say personal identities. If they allow personal identities to be expressed and refuse to allow Christians to express their believe in stain-glass windows (i kid) then their identity and their beliefs are being discriminated against. If it gets axed, Christians should counter-sue.
Again, Sanford is making a doctrinal objection, not a Constitutional one. Which is to say, he is expressing his religious belief about the expression of faith with the power of the state.
Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Again, the state is not establishing a religion or impugning another. The state is simply allowing people to express themselves. There is no violation here for the reasons I have given above. And furthermore, there was never any intent by our Founding Fathers to view religion as something totally separate from the state. Displays are not 1st Amendment violations despite the wrong headed rulings of modern day courts. Stopping the state from punishing people for their faith was always the intent.
NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Respectfully, from what I’m observing, gia worship is currently (and frustratingly) the fastest growing religion being shoved directly down our throats.
The devotion and open prosthetilization dwarfs any currently mainstream religion.
I’ve noticed that many television channels and companies of all types are now proudly promoting their green-ness. Easy to say. Meaningless, ultimately, other than their power to propagandize and endorse.
I expect to see Preparation-H to tout its green-ness any moment now.
As for the license plate issue; state’s rights. I wouldn’t have one, but I don’t have anything against anyone else who might select to pay the extra the vanity plate would require.
techno_barbarian on June 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I actually hope South Carolina tries this, just to watch what happens the second the state gov’t tries to deny a custom license plate to a Scientologist, a Wiccan, a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or someone like Samir Khan. Instant equal-protection/First Amendment lawsuit! Some people just have to learn the hard way.
Travis Bickle on June 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM
believe = belief in stain-glass
Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Yes, because it’s impossible to ensure safety and rights are respected without unelected government entities using their dictator-like powers. Moron.
Darth Executor on June 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Seriously, though, I feel that vanity plates (and most bumper stickers) are just a way to draw unwelcome attention to yourself.
Veteran plates? Guaranteed to draw the ire of some wingnut Code Pinker or violent peacenik.
Wildlife plates? Drop dead certain to gain the attention of an over-the-top Earth Firster.
Sports team/alumnus plates? Will certainly get the evil eye from a drunk fan of a rival team/college.
In short, if you want your ride to get trashed, keyed or busted up, feel free to get ‘em. As for me, the less attention, the better.
wccawa on June 7, 2008 at 12:17 PM
not suprising at all with leaders like John Adams and Sam Adams from Mass. and the Puritan legacy they came from
the HBO series on Adams was excellent.
jp on June 7, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I adore Mark Sanford. As far as the plate is concerned, I couldn’t care less as long as prisoners are making them and being rehabilitated. It doesn’t offend me at all as an agnostic person. I was born and raised in South Carolina and I understand the vast majority of my fellow Palmetto Staters will quickly purchase one.
SouthernGent on June 7, 2008 at 12:20 PM
How about a plate showing Mohammed’s army slaughtering the pagans during his campaign to take Mecca? It’s in the book, don’t tell me that it is offensive.
Ares on June 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM
So Christians want the same exposure as NASCAR fans?
Come on, have a little faith and quit treating your belief like a trademarked Coca Cola symbol….
I am slowly becoming an atheist more and more every day.
And please tell me which parent of the conservative movement wore his Christianity like a Tommy Hilfigger symbol..Reagan, Lincoln, Buckley, Goldwater… I mean which one?
This whole idea of a christian conservative is becoming more and more an oxymoron.
tottoritodd on June 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM
You fail to understand original intent as imagined by our Founding Fathers. They never dreamed of the 1st Amendment being applied as it is today. The establishment clause was never intended as bar to displays or proclamations of faith, but as a bar to states preventing people from practicing religion or political participation.
Admittedly though the wrong headed views of today’s courts may find this current display unconstitutional. That does not mean they are right in their interpretation.
NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Clearly the no one was looking out for their rights in the first place that is why the courts got involved.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Not that I have anything against NASCAR……
tottoritodd on June 7, 2008 at 12:23 PM
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ….
Most interpret to this portion of the 1st amendment to mean that the government cannot establish a religion, thereby giving the people the right to determine their own religious beliefs.
However, many believe it means freedom “from” religion – that the government should not acknowledge, display symbols of, offer prayers, or in anyway have anything whatsoever to do with religion.
By allowing an individual to display a Christian cross on a state license plate, they argue that the state is supporting Christianity – hence, they say, it’s against the constitution.
I can only say that I feel for those that are offended by having to see a cross on a license plate.
Even worse, can you imagine how disheartened and angry they must be every time they have to reach into their wallets or purses to pay their debts with government tender emblazoned with “In God We Trust”?
How could congress have possibly let that slip by?
Rod on June 7, 2008 at 12:24 PM
It was intented to prevent state endorsement and support of one religion in favor of another, they had had plenty of the in England thank you very much.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 12:24 PM
If you endorse one, you have to endorse them all.
The “Man Boy Love” organization could make a “religious” argument for having their own pedophile plates, too, under this kind of opening the door to mayhem type of unthought-through legislation.
Bi-Sexual -Witches for Baal, Neo-Aztec Heart-Rippers for Quetzecoatl,… the potential is truly unsavory.
Throwing a sop to the majority sometimes opens the cauldron lid for an EXPENSIVE calamity.
profitsbeard on June 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Very well said techno.
The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (also known as Earth Summit II), held in Johannesberg, South Africa Sept. 2-11, 2002, opened with a welcoming ceremony with children forming a human Tower of Babel and singing beneath a huge globe.
labrat on June 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM
How does this offend your rights to free speech or religion? It doesn’t? Like Gay Marriage it’s just another… “choice”.
How exactly does my displaying a cross on my license plate affect your religious belief (or non belief thereof?)
Skywise on June 7, 2008 at 12:28 PM
the PBS documentary from last year, “Wall of Seperation” was/is excellent btw….if you care about the actual history.
these issues are important, and this is why challenging Darwinian dogma(see Expelled) is so important, not just with Science but philosophy and the Role of the Govt. This nation would not exist as we know it, nor the world for that matter, had the Founders not had the presuppositions it had. in short that we have “inalienable rights endowed by our Creator”. Truly revolutionary, and extremely important because if that base pressuposition goes, so goes the foundation of the country. If a creator(a fixed point) doesn’t grant rights, then the State/King does and will do so not on a fixed point but an arbitrary basis. see schism between the Constitutional Originalist and the “living, evolving Document” Activist Judges who play god.
jp on June 7, 2008 at 12:28 PM
If the “faith plate” is one choice among many and religious symbols are not required on all SC license plates, then I don’t see how this crosses the church-state separation line of “establishing” a religion. I agree with Sanford, however: this reduces faith to a cheap marketing gimmick, when the real advertisement should be how one lives one’s life.
irishspy on June 7, 2008 at 12:28 PM
And how exactly do religious displays violate the establishment clause? A display is not an establishment of religion, period.
NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 12:29 PM
The “Establishment” clause is to ban the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion by the Federal government. Establisment, establishment, establishment establishment………..
Vince on June 7, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Perhaps you are right NotCoach. I see the Founding Fathers intent somewhat differently. They came from a country, England, where Church and State were intimately entwined and – to my mind – they wished to implement the exact opposite of that state of affairs for reasons that we probably all know. The separation of church and state *is* largely a political and legal issue which is how we can disagree about it.
Same as it ever was.
Ares on June 7, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I’m sure Mike Huckabee will be moving from Little Rock very soon.
So…….when do the license plates with the Crescent Moon, Star of David, Om, etc. roll out?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 7, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I think the idea is tacky, but once again if the people of S. Carolina allow them then so be it. What bothers me is that “the people” do not seem to have much of a say so anymore. 65% of the people in California voted agains gay marriage at one time. The courts over-ruled the people and now there is gay marriage. So now a bunch of whiney athiests who do not even live in S. Carolina will probably get their way and the plates will go away. And so we continue our march to become the People Republic of the Untied States. We just need to continue to socailize everything, rescue folks with government money because they made poor choices, and make everything morally equivalent because we do not want folks to feel bad about themselves. The proof of our decline is posted on you tube everyday. But as long as God is taken out of everything, that’s okay!
gator70 on June 7, 2008 at 12:32 PM
I’m not against the plates, I just think they should kick it up a notch:
Why not allow for a completely cusomizeable plate?
Design it yourself with thatever you want, so long as it is within the bounaries of decency. (It would have to be reviewed.)
Capitana on June 7, 2008 at 12:32 PM
if the founders were still around there wouldn’t be any muslims and mosque around for that. the Alien and Seditions Act would be used, immigration from muslim countries would’ve been stopped…..of course they didn’t have license plates back then anyway.:)
jp on June 7, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Just fyi. Jefferson who coined the phrase separation of church and state, HIMSELF called for a day of fast in Virginia’s assembly in 1775 due to the current problems. He most certainly reserved the power of the states, even AS states, to have religious expression.
The fact that we are bantering over tags just goes to show how the intent has been bent over the years for various agendas.
Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 12:33 PM
An obvious solution to every problem: things don’t go your way, hand all power over to a tyrant. I wonder if you’d be singing the same tune if a closet KKK supreme court was shoveling blacks into ovens.
Darth Executor on June 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM
First off,I think its okay,
But, o boy,here comes the gauntlet,
I can see CAIR having a caniption fit!
When do we here about the car with the plate isn’t
welcomed in a politicaly correct Liberal Universary!
Then its going to be how some Muslim is offended by
seeing a car with that plate drive by!
Then the crazys are going to demand that no car with
that plate be allowed 5 square miles near a Mosque!
Then some wacko,who has a problem,because its not his
faith will do a tap dance on the guys car!
And,its going to stick out like a sore thumb,almost
an easy target,by you know who,who pray 5 times a day!
canopfor on June 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM
The saddest thing about this is that people are using an amendment that was meant to protect religious expression to snuf it out.
Darth Executor on June 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Maybe the church is a corporate sponsor of license plates, like Pepsi’s name on an arena.
Imagine a Target or Pepsi sign on the plate. If we can sell our roads, airports, and ports to corporations and foreigners, why not let the church sponsor the plates, maybe even add a little Popemobile emblem.
JiangxiDad on June 7, 2008 at 12:36 PM
It’s not a cross. It’s a bookcase.
whitetop on June 7, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Hmm…nobody in this debate has thought that perhaps Christians ought to stay away from vanity plates?
I mean, we don’t have wrath plates, gluttony plates, envy plates, and so on…though some people hanging out in the left lane seem to think they have sloth plates.
James on June 7, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I bow to you!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 7, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Why? Do they offer every option or variation for the current VANITY plates? SC offers a NASCAR plate. What about the Formula One fan? What about Annapolis? I see West Point has a plate. Using your argument, SC must offer every other variation the same option which is ludicrus. If another group wants a plate then request one from the state.
I think everyone is so worried about such a non issue they’re not seeing the money the State of SC will make on registration fees from this.
http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/plategallery.aspx?q=All
I have a vanity plate here in AZ regarding the MN Vikings. Does that mean the State of AZ is condoning the MN Vikings? It is a VANITY plate.
BTW, I don’t hear anyone bitching about the separation of church & state regarding the “Adopt A Highway signs” although I see faith & religious groups listed on STATE ISSUED signs. So why is that different?
VikingGoneWild on June 7, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Guess it better come with a restriction that the car be driven in S.C. only (except maybe Hilton Head :)
JiangxiDad on June 7, 2008 at 12:38 PM
LOL
NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 12:38 PM
The Christians in SC are just trolling. Don’t take the bait.
Metro on June 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Ha! Awesome.
Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »