Video: South Carolina to introduce license plate with cross on it

posted at 11:20 am on June 7, 2008 by Allahpundit

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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

That’ a great idea. Go South Carolina. I love to see Barry Lynn and the ACLU wet their panties.

IN GOD WE TRUST.

byteshredder on June 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM

If the state made you put a cross on your car, if this weren’t completely voluntary, considering dozen of other opinions on license plates. I might think the usual knee-jerk anti-Christian view was right. Probably the state should make plates with other religious symbols, but there’s the question of _money_. Which _of course_ is why selling crosses on plates in SC is done over any other symbol, until they have a combo game fishing/Christ fish plate. That will be #1 with a bullet.

I’m starting to think there’s an anti-Christian pathology at work all the time. As someone who’s always been slightly annoyed by anyone trying to tell me how to think, and therefore unable to get behind any organized pretty much anything, I have trouble understanding all the unbridled hostility on display 24-7. Torquemada is gone. Let it go.

Beagle on June 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM

As a true non-bigoted despiser of all things Islam and neo-progressive,I hate the whole idea of political ideologies and slogans on auto tags. Imagine Michigan tags with “Allah Achbah” on them.

There is a whole plethora of outlets to express your political views out there that are not appendages of a government that should be blind to religious tribalism.

The Holy-Rollers are deploying the same PR spin tactics on this issue as the libs and the Islamoretards. It stinks and it detracts from their message.

epluribusunum on June 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM

shoveling blacks into ovens.
Darth Executor on June 7,2008 at 12:35PM.

Darth Executor:Did we go through the bermuda triangle
on the net,and its WW2 again,a la
Auschwitz!

canopfor on June 7, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Freedom from religion, PLEASE.

Kim Hartveld on June 7, 2008 at 12:49 PM

Violation of separation of church and state?

So a number of conservatives have now sighed on to the idea that the constitution is a living document and that “Congress shall make no law” also refers to the various state legislatures, school boards, etc.? Well, lets get some of BO’s appointees on the court and bring on the penumbras!

There is nothing wrong with the license plates. If people don’t like them, then act on it through the state legislature. The US constitution should have nothing to do with it.

Nosferightu on June 7, 2008 at 12:50 PM

People aren’t offended by seeing crosses on a license plate. They do get offended if they can’t get their own holy symbol of choice on a license plate.

If the state offers a cross on the license plate, but does not offer a pentacle, image of Ganesha, or Star of David, by definition the state is endorsing Christianity, and that is not the state’s place.

Sekhmet on June 7, 2008 at 12:53 PM

One of many designs that a state offers that is completely optional? How dare SC force religion down our throats?

If anyone felt offended that a car next to them had a cross on their lisence plate, then the problem lies within themself.

This is in no way a state endorsing a religion, even if a cross is the only religious symbol offered as a style. No one is forcing people to attach a vanity plate to their car; if you don’t find a style you like, take the standard issue.

In my restaraunt, I don’t give customers the right to create their own menu, if it’s not offered they can go somewhere else.

Grafted on June 7, 2008 at 12:54 PM

by definition the state is endorsing Christianity

That’s a false argument. It’s not endorsing it, it’s not restricting the expression of it.

Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 12:56 PM

On the other hand, Sanford is also right. Christians should not rely on crosses on lisence plates to wear their faith on their sleeves.

If there is not a particular oulet to outwardly symbolize my faith, I’m not worried. I can display my faith in how I live my life.

Grafted on June 7, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Maybe I missed it, why is South Carolina releasing cross plates which say Florida? We’ve got dozens of vanity plates as well, but I’ve never seen a cross. There’s “Choose Life” which caused a huge controversy. They should have balanced it with a “Baby Killer” plate. I kid.

Beagle on June 7, 2008 at 12:59 PM

I love this license plate!!!

ColtsFan on June 7, 2008 at 1:03 PM

the extreme environmentalists are basically all but Druids in name.. worship trees above all else..

but that doesn’t stop every state in the union putting out a plate for conservation of wildlife..

Why not a cross.. The State isn’t endorsing it..

much like it would endorse one university over another..

anyone in Indiana have a ‘Notre Dame’ plate?

as for the wiccam plate.. well, I think the demand had better be cost effective.. in SC, I’m sure it is..

for the skeptics out there, you can ask for UFOs on the plate with ‘I want to believe’ printed on it..

DaveC on June 7, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Sorry. Wrong link.

Let me try again.

I love this license plate!!

ColtsFan on June 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM

people getting outraged by seeing a cross on a license plate reminds me of all the riots by muslims after seeing their favorite pedophile prophet in a cartoon with a bomb in his turban..

DaveC on June 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Geez, what a bunch of whiners.

Merovign on June 7, 2008 at 1:06 PM

Darth Executor on June 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM

Delusions of persecution.

Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Why isnt the whole license plate thing privatized anyway? Companies register the plate number with the issuing state, and make plates designs of all kinds.

paulsur on June 7, 2008 at 1:14 PM

If one is to have these plates then there should be a Xenu plate for the scientologistss, at least a few dozen for the different Hindu gods and goddesses like Krishna and Kaki, the Allahu Akhbar special for you know who, a blank plate for Nihilists etc.

Freedom of religion does not mean that one specific brand of superstition should get state sponsored proselytization rights on our highways. Decontaminating our neighborhoods of Jehovah’s Witnesses is already enough of a pain.

Annar on June 7, 2008 at 1:16 PM

Correction: Kaki –

Annar on June 7, 2008 at 1:17 PM

Second try The nake of the goddess is Kali not Kaki (sorry).

Annar on June 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Fantastic idea! Christians should be allowed to broadcast their faith to the world by displaying the Roman death instrument used to kill their fabled leader. At a minimum, it makes identifying them from a distance a breeze.

DanKenton on June 7, 2008 at 1:20 PM

The comments, unraveled many have become.

wccawa on June 7, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Might be worth it if it would actually make people drive more politely. It always annoys me when the one with the fish, bumperstickers and/or rosary is the one driving aggressively and cutting off other drivers. If you’re going to advertise it, you ought to try to live it.

obladioblada on June 7, 2008 at 1:33 PM

AP at some bars and concert venues in my town,
a pentagram plate would be a solid gold recipe for success.

Mike D. on June 7, 2008 at 1:36 PM

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

Watch the video.

NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Read my original post.

rmgraha on June 7, 2008 at 1:36 PM

And, Naturally this thread is morphing into the part where Athiests tell christians how they should be living, and point out all of our flaws. Oh god! Why are we Christians so backwards and hyprocritacal! Please help us not to inconvenience outstanding and model drivers like obladioblada!

gator70 on June 7, 2008 at 1:36 PM

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.

Constitutionality? Allahpundit… The establishment clause was written in an era in which religious services were held in the government buildings. The federal government and federalism itself was built from the bottom up not the top down and was never intended to bind the states hand in exercising freedom of religion merely the establishment of a state religion. A license plate does not establish a religion. And there is nothing in the constitution to force South Carolina to offer a license plate in every “religions” preference. This license plate belongs wherever the people of South Carolina say it does, period. You are using the same recipe gay marriage advocates use in misintrepeting, if only slightly the meaning, of the constitution. Marriage is a right, a right controlled by the state not the federal government. This is why gay marriage is not the law of the land and why states are able to define marriage for themselves. But that does not prevent its advocates from continually calling it a right. In the same way militant atheists are claimng their right to no religion is being violated or that religion must be exercised on private property only. Neither claim is true.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The arguement can be made that Congress does not have the right to interfere in South Carolina’s decision, thereby prohibiting their corporate to freedom of expression.

Theworldisnotenough on June 7, 2008 at 1:38 PM

gator70 on June 7, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Not all Christians, just the ‘tard who want themselves a special license plate

Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 1:42 PM

I demand a license plate with a cross with jesus on it, with a big red circle and cross over it. That should be allowed too right, for us atheists to express our dislike of religion? Something tells me those who support this wouldn’t support my idea.

muyoso on June 7, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Freedom from religion, PLEASE.

Kim Hartveld on June 7, 2008 at 12:49 PM

You already have it. You’re welcome.

labrat on June 7, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Theworldisnotenough on June 7, 2008 at 1:38 PM

You, NotCoach, Darth and others have expressed the side of originalism very well. Not much to add. Just because the later courts overextended the reach of this amendment doesn’t mean we need to accept it. This a good argument to have.

I think AP is right as the law stands now, but the currently applied interpretation is ridiculous. Even if one agrees there should be a wall between church and state, that should rightly be established through the legislatures, not judicial fiat.

mikeyboss on June 7, 2008 at 1:44 PM

I can see CAIR having a caniption fit!

canopfor on June 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM

That alone makes it a worthwhile endeavor.

rmgraha on June 7, 2008 at 1:45 PM

muyoso on June 7, 2008 at 1:44 PM

You’re welcome to it.

The problem is the false argument that things like this are unconstitutional. It’s much more honest to say “I don’t like this”. Or “I’m going to petition my representative to vote against this”. It’s the political hackery that we all need to guard against.

Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 1:48 PM

There may be atheist drivers, but when a tractor trailer coming the other way crosses the median…and a few seconds before impact on the atheist’s car, he’s gonna be saying “Oh, God!”

JetBoy on June 7, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Theworldisnotenough on June 7, 2008 at 1:38 PM

Well said and exactly correct.

Maxx on June 7, 2008 at 1:48 PM

..Would a Christian driving with a vanity plate constitute a deadly sin? Or are we getting into semantics here?

..I’m sure someone’s going to take that question seriously.

Thou shalt not pimp my ride.

Reaps on June 7, 2008 at 1:52 PM

he’s gonna be saying “Oh, God!”

Rest assured when my car started rolling over I was far less.. blasphemous.. than that ;)

Reaps on June 7, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Seriously, what is so onerous about having to place your religious logo of choice six inches higher on the back of your car? I can’t believe somebody actually brought up Torquemada with a straight face.

RightOFLeft on June 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Theworldisnotenough

Brilliant!

Sorry Allah but you are buying into the idea that the Government has any business prohibiting religion. It is supposed to STAY away.

States have the right to put that on.

PierreLegrand on June 7, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Rock Hill On, South Carolina!!!

Red Pill on June 7, 2008 at 2:01 PM

church-state violation

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
How does this restrict what a state can put on it’s license plates?

jgapinoy on June 7, 2008 at 2:05 PM

States have the right to put that on.

PierreLegrand on June 7, 2008 at 1:58 PM

That’s what I’m talking about! I’m just trying to look at this thing from a State’s right issue.

gator70 on June 7, 2008 at 2:06 PM

A brilliant marketing ploy for added state revenue:

“For an extra six dollars you can get a plate that professes your love for your Savior. Are you sure you DON’T want that?”

Excuse my cynicism.

Rhinoboy on June 7, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Read my original post.

rmgraha on June 7, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Watch the video.

NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Sorry Allah but you are buying into the idea that the Government has any business prohibiting religion. It is supposed to STAY away.

COnfusing the issue, this has nothing to do with religion.

How does this restrict what a state can put on it’s license plates?

Because the govt issues them.

Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM

NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Darth Executor on June 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Not that I agree, but the fact that there’s only a cross plate, and that it’s cheaper than other vanity plates is going to run afoul of the current interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

And Darth? Again, not that I agree, but the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states.

misterpeasea on June 7, 2008 at 2:11 PM

That’ a great idea. Go South Carolina. I love to see Barry Lynn and the ACLU wet their panties.

IN GOD WE TRUST.

byteshredder on June 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Yup. The anti-God lawyers at the
Anti-Amerikkka Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU) will threaten to sue. Count on it.

LET THEM. BRING IT ON!

Let’s have some “Straight Talk” about how the 1st Amendment protects all forms of Religious expression, whether that be in Speech, Writing, Public Assembly, or Petitioning the Government for Redress of Grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You wont find any of the following words in our Constitution:
Separation
Church
State

Communist losers turn the 1st Amendment upside down and try to use it to silence Christians.

Those who can’t handle the truth try to silence those who speak it.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

John 14:6

God Bless America, land that I love!

Red Pill on June 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM

gator70

And, Naturally this thread is morphing into the part where Athiests tell christians how they should be living, and point out all of our flaws. Oh god! Why are we Christians so backwards and hyprocritacal! Please help us not to inconvenience outstanding and model drivers like obladioblada!

You’ve jumped to conclusions. I am a practicing Christian. I reiterate, if you’re going to advertise it, you ought to try displaying the fruits of the Spirit as well– and that includes your public behavior. Advertising it and living rudely feeds the stereotypes of hypocrisy.

The driver with the fish on the back who cuts off a line of traffic or flips someone off has kind of missed the point.

obladioblada on June 7, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Seriously, what is so onerous about having to place your religious logo of choice six inches higher on the back of your car? I can’t believe somebody actually brought up Torquemada with a straight face.

RightOFLeft on June 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM

The Torquemada sounds like a perfect name for a ‘green’ model of vehicle. Slogan: “Convert or Die!”

techno_barbarian on June 7, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Roger, you are correct, I did assume. My apoligies.

gator70 on June 7, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Neo-Aztec Heart-Rippers for Quetzecoatl,… the potential is truly unsavory.

profitsbeard on June 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Here, I was enjoying myself on this silly issue. But you have to go and remind us the illegal immigration issue. McCain and Obama both think you are a bitter redneck bigot for objecting to Neo-Aztec Heart-Rippers for Quetzecoatl being your next door neighbour.

thuja on June 7, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Neo-Aztec Heart-Rippers for Quetzecoatl,… the potential is truly unsavory.

profitsbeard on June 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Here, I was enjoying myself on this silly issue. But you have to go and remind us of the illegal immigration issue. McCain and Obama both think you are a bitter redneck bigot for objecting to Neo-Aztec Heart-Rippers for Quetzecoatl being your next door neighbour.

thuja on June 7, 2008 at 2:18 PM

And there you go people. Plates designed for people like Red Pill to buy.

Reaps on June 7, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Let’s get something straight.

The words “establishment” and “endorsement” have very different meanings.

If I “establish” a restaurant that is totally different than if I “endorse” a restaurant.

If I “establish” a restaurant, I create it, I own it, and I operate it.

If I “endorse” a restaurant, I am just a customer who likes it enough to tell someone else about it.

The first Amendment prevents Congress from making any law respecting an “establishment” of religion. Our Government is not allowed to create, own, or operate a religion (as was previously done by the Government in England with the Church of England).

The first Amendment does NOT prevent Congress from making any law respecting an “endorsement” of religion. Our Congress has always “endorsed” Christianity, from the moment of the opening prayer at the very first session of Congress.

When the President gives the State of the Union address, do you know what is above his head, LITERALLY CARVED IN STONE?

“In God We Trust”.

Take that “Separation of Church and State” crap and get it the HELL out of here!

Red Pill on June 7, 2008 at 2:22 PM

It’s worth it just to hear you whine…
It’s a license plate, for God’s sake…

right2bright on June 7, 2008 at 2:23 PM

Because the govt issues them.

Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Come on. Keep it real. You are making up restrictions that aren’t constitutional. Which is anti-conservative, to say the least.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Nobody even invited Congress to this party.

Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM

And there you go people. Plates designed for people like Red Pill to buy.

Reaps on June 7, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Just Speakin’ Truth to Power!

(I thought the liberals were supposed to like that…/sarc)

Red Pill on June 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Fight the power
Speak truth to power
Take the power back

Electricity, source of all evil..

Reaps on June 7, 2008 at 2:33 PM

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Fair enough,
How about this

This isnt something the govt should be doing because it is stupid, wasteful and creates what we like to call in the military “the appearance of impropriety”

Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 2:33 PM

The 2:22 post was far more cohesive and less excitable than the 2:12 post, so.. more power to you. Credit where credit’s due.

‘nightnight

Reaps on June 7, 2008 at 2:35 PM

This isnt something the govt should be doing because it is stupid, wasteful and creates what we like to call in the military “the appearance of impropriety”

That is irrelevent.

You cannot infringe on the rights of the citizenry dependent on whether something looks stupid or wasteful.

To argue otherwise is to use the power, or in this case expand beyond mandate, the power of the government to enforce personal opinion. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you where that path leads to.

Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 2:37 PM

I am a practicing Christian. I reiterate, if you’re going to advertise it, you ought to try displaying the fruits of the Spirit as well– and that includes your public behavior. Advertising it and living rudely feeds the stereotypes of hypocrisy.

The driver with the fish on the back who cuts off a line of traffic or flips someone off has kind of missed the point.

obladioblada on June 7, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Excellent point.

I think many of us self-professing Christians are susceptible to, and guilty of, preferring a watered-down, “civil religion” of public displays that look good on the exterior, but (unfortunately) hide an interior “heart of stone” of apathy or hostility to the Law and Gospel of Jesus Christ.

ColtsFan on June 7, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Red Pill on June 7, 2008 at 2:22 PM

What he said. It’s amazing how the Constitution has been twisted.

Like the 2nd Amendment. “Oh, no, it’s not an individual right, even though all the rest are. Only a ‘militia’ has the right to bear arms.” When the reality is, “militia,” to the writers of the Constitution, meant “every male aged 18 and over.”

You aren’t learning of any of these distortions in your Con Law classes, Squish?

misterpeasea on June 7, 2008 at 2:41 PM

You cannot infringe on the rights of the citizenry dependent on whether something looks stupid or wasteful.

Let me add: think why we secured the Bill of Rights in the first place?!

Time and time again we see republicans and democrats willing to circumvent the law and/or trample on civil liberties for nothing more valuable then the expansion of one’s own personal opinion. The left and the right aren’t too far off on tactics many times. It’s a damn shame.

Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 2:43 PM

The atoning cross of Christ is so powerful, that the fallen world can’t handle it being displayed. Are you surprised?

I’m waiting to see how long it will take for homosexual plates to make it to the streets. I’m sure that CA and MA state legislatures have them in the works.

Hening on June 7, 2008 at 2:45 PM

I’m OK with a cross on a license plate. However, I would be concerned with some other belief symbols. A parking lot fender-bender desecrating a license plate could start riots and Jihad costing many lives.

rakofgor on June 7, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Red Pill,

Like Fifth Amendment takings cases, we need to amend the US Constitution to say what it says.

Beagle on June 7, 2008 at 2:48 PM

The atoning cross of Christ is so powerful, that the fallen world can’t handle it being displayed. Are you surprised?

Great post Hening and a great point. It’s amazing how a silly God that just doesnt exist ruffles people feathers, but a Religion that promotes violence and hate like Islam doesnt even come close to raising these sorts of emotions. In my mind, proof that god is real.

gator70 on June 7, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I never figured on Utah.

Hening on June 7, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Deplorable.

Ares on June 7, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Oh for God’s sake. Somebody call the Wahhhmbulance. Atheists are the biggest whiners I have EVER seen in my life.

Jungliszt on June 7, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Beagle on June 7, 2008 at 2:48 PM

I agree with the sentiment, but really, we need to interpret the Constitution in the way it was written, and let the folks who want to interpret it a different way do the amending.

Or, we could keep finding Constitutional rights in penumbras of the emanation that the Bill of Rights gives off.

A “Living Constitution” is completely assinine. It IS living to the extent that we can amend it. Otherwise, it is dead, dead, dead.

I wonder, would any sane individual sign a “living” contract with terms that evolve over time.

misterpeasea on June 7, 2008 at 3:01 PM

For those of you that REALLY think Jefferson wanted a “Wall of separation between church and state”, consider this:

Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.

Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.

Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.

In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

National Prayer for Peace
Offered by President Jefferson, March 4, 1805

For those of you that keep screeching about the mythical “separation of church and state,” it would behoove you to know that no such phrase is found in the U.S. Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence, which are America’s primary founding documents.

Your leftist indoctrination fails you. When you shout out about separation of church and state you are quoting the Russian Constitution NOT the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Constitution Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice in the above, there is nothing about separation of church and state, now look below at the Russian Constitution.

… In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R) Article 52

You need to learn to quote the correct Constitution. Give up your liberal indoctrination, it’s a lie.

Maxx on June 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM

My Torquemada reference could have been clearer: I’m saying people are confusing minor statements of faith on something issued by the state with real establishment of religion. Like making an Inquisition out of a molehill.

That it’s an “endorsement” is clear. The new language is anti-religious content instead of anti-religious establishment. If my view held sway, this would be a far more interesting case if another religion had requested a plate and been turned down.

But now it’s just another scorched-earth-of-crosses case.

Doesn’t that fit with Islamic eschatology, Jesus comes back and smashes crosses? Figures.

Beagle on June 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM

You cannot infringe on the rights of the citizenry dependent on whether something looks stupid or wasteful.

How is this infringing on the rights of the citizenry, where in the hell does it say you have a RIGHT to a Jesus tag. That is uncharacteristically stupid of you.

Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 3:06 PM

The Torquemada sounds like a perfect name for a ‘green’ model of vehicle. Slogan: “Convert or Die!”

techno_barbarian on June 7, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Heh. I lawled (this is gonna be a word by 2020).

RightOFLeft on June 7, 2008 at 3:07 PM

Beagle on June 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM

My apologies. You were clear enough, I was just trying a little too hard to catch up to the 120th comment and misread your point.

RightOFLeft on June 7, 2008 at 3:10 PM

misterpeasea,

Hearing Obama’s criterion for appellate judges — “social justice” — wasn’t just what you wanted to hear?

I’m a dinosaur constitutionalist myself. See you in the tar pits.

Beagle on June 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM

this is where my party takes a right turn off constitution boulevard and onto theocracy lane… when will the right learn why America was founded? keep your religion out of my government.

Kaptain Amerika on June 7, 2008 at 3:12 PM

re: atheism….Hitchens Brother goes for the Jugular

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/06/what-atheists-n.html#comments

What Atheists never get

It is good news that the subject of religion, scorned for so long, can at last be discussed. But the problem is that so many atheists just don’t grasp some of the most basic points in the debate.

Here’s the main one. Atheists talk and write as if there were well-known, universally understood absolute principles of right and wrong, as if these things were self-evident. But if there are no ultimate, absolute principles of right and wrong, derived from the maker of the universe, then what do the words so often used by atheists to describe their own behaviour – “decent”, “good”, “moral” , etc, actually mean? If we are free to decide what is good, and there’s no unchallengeable gold standard of goodness, beyond our power to alter it, surely these things can be varied to suit the times, and to suit us? Anyone who claims he’s never done this in real life is automatically disqualified from the discussion as a whopping liar. So, all you atheists, how do you decide? The same principle operates, in miniature, in any legal system. How can the law be any use if the rich and powerful can always change it to suit themselves?

It would be helpful if (in examining the ability of yourselves and others to do and be good, in accordance with unalterable principles) you also applied this rather powerful test, to your own actions and those of others, since we can all be well-behaved when we think we’ll get an earthly advantage out of being seen to be ‘good’. Likewise, when we think nobody is looking, or we’ll never be found out, we’re more inclined to jump that red light, or spread poisonous gossip about a career rival. The test is “morality is what you do when you’re sure nobody is looking”.

jp on June 7, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Kaptain Amerika on June 7, 2008 at 3:12 PM

You can have your government, it’s too much into my business.

gator70 on June 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM

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 and bathroom walls where it belongs.

MB4 on June 7, 2008 at 3:20 PM

Awesome! I wonder if I can get one in california?

We should just make them standard issue plates….guys like AP would have a fit every time they walk to their car..

SaintOlaf on June 7, 2008 at 3:20 PM

I’m waiting to see how long it will take for homosexual plates to make it to the streets. I’m sure that CA and MA state legislatures have them in the works.

If you get em, they get em, why not?

The atoning cross of Christ is so powerful, that the fallen world can’t handle it being displayed. Are you surprised?

Thats not it at all, but whatever makes you feel better.

You aren’t learning of any of these distortions in your Con Law classes, Squish?

Of course I am Mr. Pee Pee (I can give you a cute nickname too). And I completely agree with your take on the 2nd amendment. However, I also tend to agree with the overapplication of the 14th amendment. I dont think this is unconstitutional necessarily. It would likely pass muster, but that does not make it right.

Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Kaptain Amerika,

Did you miss the part where they put Girl Scouts, space shuttles, manatees, universities, and funding dolphin-safe tuna nets on license plates?

In this case you’re putting you’re putting your government in their religion as much as the other way around because the state uses license plates as conveyances for free speech (on some issues). And that’s the problem in a nutshell. As AP said at the top, equal protection and basic fairness are clearly implicated here.

It’s interesting that you feel violated by the presence of religious symbolism in the form of intersecting lines on someone else’s car.

I’m pretty sure the real Captain America was of tougher stuff.

Beagle on June 7, 2008 at 3:22 PM

jp on June 7, 2008 at 3:16 PM

This is of course the typical fallacy that the only people who have problems with this are atheists and crazy jihadis.

Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM

You need to learn to quote the correct Constitution. Give up your liberal indoctrination, it’s a lie.

Maxx on June 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM

check out the PBS documentary, “Wall of Seperation”….amazing it got made and put out on PBS of all things.

jp on June 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM

How is this infringing on the rights of the citizenry, where in the hell does it say you have a RIGHT to a Jesus tag. That is uncharacteristically stupid of you.

Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Stupid of me? Assail my logic, no need to assail me, unless of course you can’t assail my logic – which is what I must conclude.

You said – gov’t shouldn’t be doing [things] because it’s stupid and wasteful. That’s an opinion. Government is free to do whatever the will of the people is within the constraints of it’s mandates and boundaries.

If you restrict the will of the people simply because something maybe stupid or wasteful, you infringe on the rights of the people to have their will expressed through the government.

You can call me stupid if you like, but please think through the position first. It saves me a post. And consider whether it is opinion or legality that you are arguing here. If you think it is legality, please address the logic of my argument, as you have not yet.

Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 3:27 PM

“Might be worth it if it would actually make people drive more politely. It always annoys me when the one with the fish, bumperstickers and/or rosary is the one driving aggressively and cutting off other drivers. If you’re going to advertise it, you ought to try to live it.

obladioblada on June 7, 2008 at 1:33 PM”

Professing myself to be a Christian should in no way be taken to mean that I am perfect. It does, in fact, symbolize my own recognition that I am not perfect. Yes, I may cut you off or drive too aggressively, but only because I am a human and have failings.

It’s because of this attitude people have that I won’t put any symbol on my vehicle. I know I am not perfect and certainly don’t always drive perfectly, and I don’t want what may be a momentary lapse in my judgment to serve as my Christian witness to others.

kas on June 7, 2008 at 3:29 PM

Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 3:27 PM

And this goes right to the heart of the problem with regards to judicial activism. What is slowly happening is that judges are usurping our democracy and denying the people the right to decide these matters for themselves. When Jefferson said that it was each branch of governments responsibility to interpret and administer the Constitution as they understood it he was only echoing the general sentiment of the time. We have lost our way and now believe that only the SC can give the final word on what is or is not constitutional. There is a good reason why there were only two judicial review rulings before the Civil War. Our ancestors had a much greater respect for democracy then we do today.

NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Why not?

We already have the evil god of the freemasons all over our money and monuments.

It’s time to replace it with the only true God that exists..Jesus Christ.

I am the Way the Truth and the Life…NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME!

SaintOlaf on June 7, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Professing myself to be a Christian should in no way be taken to mean that I am perfect. It does, in fact, symbolize my own recognition that I am not perfect. Yes, I may cut you off or drive too aggressively, but only because I am a human and have failings.

kas on June 7, 2008 at 3:29 PM

That sounds like a very similar concept to that of carbon credits.

MB4 on June 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Our ancestors had a much greater respect for democracy then we do today.

NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM

I agree. I expect judicial activism though, I expect Congress to blame the President, and I expect the President to chide Congress. People who have power aggregate power. John Adams believe that so firmly as to have the wisdom to make sure we had checks/balances.

What I do not expect is for both parties to adopt the pattern of behavior that judicial activism represents. When Rep’s and “conservatives” take the same hammer to civil liberties over personal opinion that Dems’ and liberals/progressives do, then that is a sad sad day.

I don’t care about the license plate, but I do care about the legality of it’s existence. As you allude to, we didn’t make it 200+ years by flapping in the wind at every opinion.

Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 3:39 PM

It’s time to replace it with the only true God that exists..Jesus Christ Barry Goldwater!.

SaintOlaf on June 7, 2008 at 3:35 PM

MB4 on June 7, 2008 at 3:39 PM

MB4 on June 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Not in the slightest. Christianity’s core tenet is the terrible fallen nature of humanity, and the need for a savior. By professing the Christian faith,you acknowledge your own failings. Of course, there are obvious ways to taint the principle (I’m going to rob you – hey, I’m fallen, can’t you see the Jesus fish?) but the issue is not “You are all terrible, but I managed to ‘buy my way out.” The statement is: “We are all fallen; look upon He who has redeemed you.”

I don’t really like the plates – I heard Dana Carvey’s getting one – but I have two objections: one, I don’t think a man should have a vanity plate; two, I feel like this could go the way of the Jesus fish, which was used to tell the public “Hey, I’m a Christian” – especially by price-gougers and unscrupulous businessmen. Hey, it’s cheaper than the other plates, if I read AP’s post right; why not abuse it?

emailnuevo on June 7, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Read my original post.

rmgraha on June 7, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Watch the video.

NotCoach on June 7, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Read my original post: I didn’t watch the video (because I didn’t care).

I’m just reading the posts to see how the atheists keep trying to censor any and all mention of religion. It’s funny, since saying “There is no God” is just as much a religious statement as saying “I believe in Jesus.”

rmgraha on June 7, 2008 at 3:46 PM

goldwater was a homosexual.

SaintOlaf on June 7, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Spirit of 1776 on June 7, 2008 at 3:27 PM

I did not intend to insult you.

The reason this stands in SC is because they have a backwards constitution which needs to be heavily amended.

However I do concede the point you made and stand corrected. It bears repeating that just because something passes constitutional muster, does NOT make it right. (Roe v Wade)

Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 3:54 PM

goldwater was a homosexual.

SaintOlaf on June 7, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Of course, anyone who goes soft on homos is gay…

Who gives a s**t if he was gay. My gov is possibly gay *shrugs*

Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4