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: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Thank you Allah. It was getting … old.
Here’s hoping the threads can get back to some intelligent, thought-provoking, give and take rather than the chest-thumping that’s been infecting many of the threads.
Rod on June 8, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Lemme’ see. I can’t rember them all, but there’s
Soothsayer,
honora,
PinkyBigglesworth,
and now Red Pill.
The list just seems to go on and on.
My collie says:
I’m an “internet nobody”, remember? I not significant enough to ban. You might as well ban the 1s and the 0s.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on June 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM
To the kiddies who have accepted the new abridged version of the United States, a few historical glimpses into the original understanding of America
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.” – George Washington 10-03-1789 national Thanksgiving Proclamation; as printed in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal, on October 17, 1789
In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity – National Fast declared by Congress 03-16-1776 source: Journals of the American Congress From 1774 to 1788 (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, pp. 286-287
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, November 15, 1862. The President, Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, desires and enjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men in military and naval service. The importance for man and beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the Divine will, demand that Sunday labor in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity….At this time of public distress, adopting the words of Washington in 1776, “men may find enough to do in the service of God and their country without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality.” The first general order issued by the Father of his Country after the Declaration of Independence indicates the spirit in which our institutions were founded and should ever be defended: “The general hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Historical writings
Historical Documents
No
The encouragement of Christian behaviour was rooted in America because Christian ethics were the ethics of America. Belief in God Almighty was literal and not hypothetical and therefore God Almighty had to be respected at the highest levels of the land unless you were nuts and wanted to insult God Almighty
Today those who wrote our government would be considered kooks and inquisitors who must be suppressed in the public square. I think the cross on a license plate is a great idea and I would buy one if offered in my anti-theistic state of Michigan. The Cross stands for the belief system that caused America to happen. It is not a coincidental religion, but the religion that made men invent this nation
Kiddies read the documents and writings, not the interpretations of those writings handed to you in school.
entagor on June 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM
wow. red pill gone? was it for thread spamming? that was my only real peeve with the guy; when he got on a roll there was no stopping him.
sulla on June 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM
So why was he banned this time Allah. I’ve looked over all the post he made to this thread and saw nothing that came near being near to a banning offense. Red Pill says over at his web site that you just can’t handle the truth, I think that sums it up pretty well.
Time to write your boss again, there was nothing even close to justifiable about this banning.
Maxx on June 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM
How about oh, I don’t know, thread-jacking? You are assuming because AP posted in this thread that he hammered RP, that it was because of this thread. RP uses, er used, HA like it was his own blog. It’s not. Besides he has intimated many times that when AP got tired of him he would ban him and asserted the reason AP did not was because of traffic.
You’ll note AP doesn’t do a lot of open threads and doesn’t like for threads to go awol. It was bound to happen. AP and Byran (previously) tend to be very generous with the hammer. AP won’t ban you for disagreeing with him, but he will for abuse and/or violation of the terms of use.
Spirit of 1776 on June 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM
You don’t think that multiple sequential posts spamming threads is a justifiable banning offense?
It’s not RP’s blog. I, for one, wonder why he wasn’t banned much much sooner than this.
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
You banned Red Pill?
Why?
Because He says God told him that Mike Huckabee will be president?
Come on Allah give him another chance..
I don’t think it was thread spamming because he said he was going to answer someone’s question and instead of one long post he would break it up in small posts.
I’m sure he won’t do it again..
AllahP you have a republican blog. You have to expect that 90-95% of your readership is Christian.
It’s a terrible idea to alienate them because then, HA would fade into obscurity.
I for one wouldn’t want to see that happen..because I actually enjoy your articles and posts (even though I disagree with you often).
I don’t see why this site can’t compete with huffington post with their average of 2,000 comments per post..
You should let him back and give him a warning instead of a ban next time.
SaintOlaf on June 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Spirit of 1776 on June 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Gentlemen we are talking about THIS thread before us. There was not any thread-jacking in this thread by Red Pill. There was not spamming in this thread by Red Pill. Red Pill’s comments in this thread were nothing out of the ordinary for any commenter here. If Allah wanted to ban him for such an offense he should have done it in a thread where Red Pill had made such an offense.
Anyway, let Michelle decide, I just sent her a quick email on the matter. Allah can ban anybody he wants, I don’t deny that, but I sure could not see any “standard” for banning in this thread.
Maxx on June 8, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Pardon me for saying so, but you are making assumptions without facts. AP placed it here I think because he thought people were expecting answers to questions. IE he was informing them that non would be forthcoming.
To say he should have done so before, only speaks to AP’s patience. Michelle doesn’t need to decide. AP already did.
Spirit of 1776 on June 8, 2008 at 4:15 PM
You have your opinion and I have mine.
Maxx on June 8, 2008 at 4:17 PM
I think you’ve made an incorrect assumption. I don’t think RP was banned from responses on THIS thread. I think it’s been an accumulation of spamming multiple threads. Just like he did the last time he got banned.
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Hi SaintOlaf:
As a Christian, I do not feel “alienated” when Allahpundit enforces the rules against commentators (even the “Christian” ones) who have broken the rules.
I strongly disagree.
Allahpundit has allowed me to share my philosophical positions (arising from my Christian worldview) freely here at Hot Air on many occasions. In my frequent comment posts concerning the question of the rationality or irrationality of atheism as a worldview, there has always been a courteous, respectful, polite exchange of ideas between Hot Air atheists and myself. As a Christian theist, I have argued in the past that atheism, and its accompanying denial of the immaterial laws of logic, lead to the death of rationality. Yet Allahpundit has never hinted at banning me or anything like that.
ColtsFan on June 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Allah, you banned Red Pill and announced it on this thread. Everyone is positing reasons why. Don’t you think it would be wise to tell us why? (finally).
Skidd on June 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Heh. Beat me to it again, Spirit.
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 4:25 PM
SaintOlaf,
Respectufully, and speaking only for myself, as an Evangelical Christian, banning RedPill does not alienate me from HotAir.
Rod on June 8, 2008 at 4:27 PM
I think the ‘finally’ would indicate that this has been coming for a while now. But AP can speak for himself.
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 4:28 PM
That’s what I’m hoping.
Skidd on June 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Sorry:) Just obvious to us both.
Spirit of 1776 on June 8, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Careful there, Rod. You’re likely to find yourself attacked for not being Christian enough. I’ve watched it happen again and again.
He might imply you’re gay first though. That seems to be a favorite pattern.
If I had to guess, I’d guess the saint to be the next ban hammer candidate. Could be just wishful thinking on my part, however.
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Granted, I’m not able to read this blog every day, and post even less. But I’ve never read Red Pill throw out accusations like the two you just mentioned.
He just posted a lot–and got a trifle goofy at times. Many posters here get goofy at times. Is that ban-able?
Skidd on June 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM
I know AP has closed a least one thread because RP was spamming the tar out of it. I really don’t think it’s what is in this thread right here that brought it about. Straw/Camel. AP’s a patient guy, so don’t get too worked up over this.
Spirit of 1776 on June 8, 2008 at 4:43 PM
You and a few other atheists were the only ones calling for Red Pill to be banned.
It’s funny that you atheists are always the only ones calling for bannings.
You want to suppress your opponents voice instead of defeating his argument.
The point is; in order to have a successful right wing blog to rival HuffPo’s readership and counter their influence..you don’t want to scare away Christians.
Yes Christians “persecution radar” comes on very easily..but you never see us calling for banning.
We’re content to debate you and defeat your argument.
SaintOlaf on June 8, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Respectfully, the answer is in your own post. We’re (I’m certainly not) vindictive. We’re also not making any of this up. The evidence is recorded. Google site:hotair.com “Red Pill” (thanks to Entelechy for that search tip)
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 5:03 PM
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 4:31 PM
First off, you just proved my point. I’m not an atheist.
What I do see you calling for is eternal damnation for everyone who does not march lockstep in agreement with how and who you choose to worship.
You have more in common with that rev phelps individual, and come across in your rants as the written incarnation of what I would expect from that dispicable individual.
You can climb down off your cross now too. I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks HA would be a lot better off without your particular brand of ‘christian’ vitriol.
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 5:08 PM
What debate? There is no debate possible with an unyielding, condescending stone wall. It is a waste of precious life to attempt to debate oh so much holier than thou ‘Christians’ such as yourself.
That you utterly fail to realize that you are the ones chasing away far more of the kinds of people we need in this coalition says everything.
You serve as the example that can be pointed to for pretty much every negative and derrogatory stereotype that people have concerning Christians.
Since I know this will in no way sway your opinion, that is all I’m willing to say to you.
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 5:15 PM
As a very conservative born-again Christian, there are times that I get tired of the way Christianity is presented here by non-believers. But, WHAT DO WE CHRISTIANS EXPECT?
Yes SaintOlaf, I get tired of Chrisitans whining about every little jab they recieve on this site. Jesus said it Himself. EXPECT IT.
But as to Red Pill, he never whined. He approached it by quoting Scripture (which is good) and at times, spamming. (Which got some people irritated).
What gets me is the disgusting language some posters use. Swearing, blue language, vile word-pictures, etc. Those are the people who should be warned, then banned.
We’re adults here and too many times angry posters act as children.
Skidd on June 8, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Vanity plates in Texas amount to only 1% of all registered vehicles. That is pretty low considering how opinionated my fellow Texans can be.
I read a brief reveiw about marketing. It seems that most states who provide vanity plates are guilty of making them dead weight by overpricing. In Texas they are $40. In Illinois something like $80.
It goes back to the fact that Government has no business trying to run a business. Between the lawyers and legislators that were paid to ponder the laws, the paper pushers, the accountants…etc…etc…etc….I wonder how much we spent to have vanity plates compared to the return based on the 1% market share they have.
Limerick on June 8, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Again, respectfully, you do not have the right to not be offended. This is America and freedom of speech pretty much guarantees you’re going to be offended at some point.
My advice is similar to yours; expect it and don’t whine about it. I’m a Christian too, (a very flawed one, I’m the first to admit), but I have a real problem with prudes.
You may disagree, and it is your right to do so. But I live in the real world and real people are extremely flawed creatures. And many of them are your friends and allies.
Just remember, America is and should be about Freedom.
Thanks for your posts.
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Limerick! What are you doing? Posting an interesting, relevant, on-topic comment like that?
sulla on June 8, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Why have any decorum or rules at all? Pile on hard and fast, right?
Freedom doesn’t mean “without contraint.”
Skidd on June 8, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Nice way to make a point!:)
Skidd on June 8, 2008 at 5:31 PM
One thing that Texas did correctly as to contract out the vanity plate operation (part of it anyway). The state can only produce plates with six characters. All seven character vanity plates go to and private firm to make. At least the state didn’t buy new equipment with my tax dollars.
I still don’t like them. My truck has a lot of personalization on it, bought and paid for by the owner. Because the state didn’t offer it I did not feel like I was having my voice silenced.
Limerick on June 8, 2008 at 5:39 PM
I had just given up. Thank you Limerick for bringing this topic back on thread.
I would think that if all our governments – federal, state, city – ran themselves more like profit-based businesses – justifying costs and looking to maximize their returns (whatever they may be) – that there would be much less burden on us taxpayers.
That said, if I were running the RMV or DMV in the state, if selling vanity plates increased state revenue and cut my costs, I’d sell them, with whatever approved symbol or saying the buyer wanted.
If there was no financial benefit, then no.
Rod on June 8, 2008 at 5:51 PM
I’ll agree with the profit test. Some things (fire-police) you just can’t but these metal tax stamps should be able to be marketed for profit.
Just for fun: The Texas State Legislature only meets every other year. Even then it is limited by law to operate for only 140 days (The Governor can call a special session but that has a 30 day limit under the law).
It is a sure fire way to keep the law books and the politicians thinner.
Limerick on June 8, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Reminds me of a scene from The Onion movie- S.C. adds swastika and middle finger to their flag.
bayam on June 8, 2008 at 5:58 PM
The difference is that you are wrong.
Squid Shark on June 8, 2008 at 6:00 PM
You mistake my point. I’m not advocating anarchy. My point is that no one is forcinng you to read what others have written. Feel free to scroll past what you cannot abide. I do it often. Mostly with people with which it is impossible to reason.
I appreciate you wanting to elevate the level of discourse. That’s an admirable and honorable aim. The world will not be perfect till Jesus returns. To expect it to be so is to have one’s expectations set way too high. And to force those who do not agree to bend to a will that is not their own is fascism.
I’ve found a little tolerance to go a long way.
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Naughty words, this is the price you pay when you do to a beard where emotions run high. I recommend you trade you trade in that tissue-paper skin for something a little more durable.
Squid Shark on June 8, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Oh yeah…. well… it wouldn’t be the first time.
Maxx on June 8, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Back on topic, with something I’m still looking for a reasonable reply to:
This thread was started with Allah’s one word comment: Heart-ache.
That statement intrigues and troubles me. Does it mean that, as an atheist, his heart breaks that a state would allow a Christian Cross on a license plate?
And if so, what must it be like to have to use money that bears the statement, “In God We Trust”?
And lastly, as some have stated, if it’s “unconstitutional” to put a cross on a licence plate, how can that be reconciled to congress authorizing “In God We Trust” be placed upon our money?
Rod on June 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM
So AP trumpets that he’s banned somebody (a Christian) from the site. No explanation, no warning of how to avoid similar behavior, just…banned.
Now Christians and atheists are at each others’ throats.
Nice job, Allah. Way to keep everything civil.
fossten on June 8, 2008 at 6:47 PM
At each other’s throats? Dramatic much?
//not an athiest, but evidently not Christian or Conservative enough either
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 6:55 PM
fossten on June 8, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Whats your take on this license plate thing going on?
Good idea? Bad idea?
Just wondering.
Rod on June 8, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Actually I see now that Allah had good reason to ban Red Pill. Take a look at this current thread to see why.
So I owe Allah and Michelle an apology for saying Allah could not handle the truth, that was far from correct and uncalled for. Sorry about that Allah, I do apologize.
However, it sure would be nice if you told us a person was banned in the very thread in which the commenter made the offense. It might avoid some of this upset.
Nevertheless, I jumped to conclusions and I’m sorry about that.
Red Pill, you got banned again because you did exactly what Allah warned you not to do. Allah was justified to ban you because you don’t listen.
Maxx on June 8, 2008 at 7:23 PM
States can do whatever they want. Fed needs to stay out.
fossten on June 8, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Wow. May I say frankly – I applaud your honesty.
Spirit of 1776 on June 8, 2008 at 7:29 PM
What is it with you people that you FEAR Christians? You couch your fear in lofty (idiotic) rhetoric about separation of church and state but what it really boils down to is that you people are uncomfortable that Christians want to express their faith openly! John McCain is a great candidate for you people because he refuses to talk faith. GWB drives you crazy because he does. You are as appalled and disgusted as liberal Democrats when a politician mentions Christ.
What is it to you? Is anybody forcing YOU to get this plate? Is anybody forcing YOU heed Christ’s message? Why is it that you hate Christians so much you demand that they practice their faith in secret? That wasn’t Christ’s intent and Christians should rise in protest when their faith is demeaned and assualted. That is what the above commment about bumper stickers does.
highhopes on June 8, 2008 at 7:57 PM
I don’t care either way about the license plates. But how in the world is saying “leave this stuff on bumper stickers” equated to “demanding that they practice their faith in secret”?
Bumper stickers aren’t secret. In the People’s Republic of Santa Monica, some of the Priuses driving on the 405/westside 10 are so overflowing with hippie-chic “bumper” stickers on bumpers, sides, trunk, rear and side windows, etc., they have barely enough clear window to see through (which is why they drive so poorly, I’m sure). Bumper stickers on cars is clearly freedom of expression, and some people express themselves to exhaustion. bumper stickers are cheaper than license plates; you can express yourself on a budget without a vanity plate. (isn’t vanity a deadly sin?)
I think spending extra on custom plates, whatever picture or text is on them, is a waste of money. I’m not big on bumper stickers either. I agree with Sanford that the best advertisement of faith is a life dedicated to it.
I recall the story of the lady pulled over for aggressive driving, obscene gesturing, etc. she bellowed at the officer for daring to stop her. He pointed to the Christian bumper sticker on the car and said, “the way you were acting, I figured this car must be stolen.”
sulla on June 8, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Wow…
How about us on the fiscal side of this issue. As I mentioned further up the thread Texas has a vanity plate market share of 1% (roughly 250,000 vehicles). At $40 a pop they are generating $10M gross. Best case senario that is about $5m extra revenue.
With 25 million cars and trucks the state could make that much money with a general increase of 20 cents a registration across the board, and not add any more employees or lawyers to the payroll doing it.
Also how is not providing vanity plates infringing on your religion or freedom of speech? Are you going to scream murder if the Crescent Moon or the pentagram ends up on them also?
Limerick on June 8, 2008 at 8:16 PM
oops – left out that while I think vanity plates, bumper stickers, etc. are a waste of money, I don’t think they should be banned. It’s your money; waste away. If a state chooses to sell such plates, it’s their call.
sulla on June 8, 2008 at 8:19 PM
They sure will, the US isnt a Muslim Country, its a Christian Country. Majority religion rules dontcha know.
Squid Shark on June 8, 2008 at 8:34 PM
I’ll put the question back on you. On what grounds to you claim that Christians shouldn’t be able to purchase a plate that says “I believe” What is is to you if they want a plate proclaiming their faith instead of a sticker? In case you haven’t noticed there are few places a sticker can go on most vehicles these days and the bumper isn’t one of them.
On these comments we agree but I’m one of those people who have never identifed myself by my vehicle. My car has always been practical and economic. I probably wouldn’t get a “Jesus Freak” plate for fear that my car would be keyed by people who giggle uncontrolably over the T-Shirt “I found Jesus- he was behind the couch.”
LOL!
highhopes on June 8, 2008 at 8:52 PM
I’m pretty sure you misread my post.
highhopes on June 8, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Ok…(if you say so…I’ve no axe to grind)
Limerick on June 8, 2008 at 9:01 PM
I took the Red Pill!
RMC1618 on June 8, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Good on ya, Maxx.
techno_barbarian on June 8, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Just logged on and discovered that Red Pill has been banned. I don’t know the history behind all of it, but I personally don’t see anything different going on here than want went on in either of the “Expelled” threads.
It’s your site Allah, and you ban at your discretion, I guess I’m just not sure where the ‘line’ is.
Red Pill, I’ll miss your boldness and scriptural insight my friend.
labrat on June 9, 2008 at 12:55 AM
I don’t. (I’d left out a thought.) From my next comment:
Nothing at all (see above).
I don’t have anything against the state selling such a plate to those who want one. And, following Allah’s point, if they wanted to have one for Muslims, Hindus, Shinto, atheists – Dawkins proposed a logo, and he’s not alone – go for it. “I believe” is a fairly innocuous motto, even a positive statement in my mind.
The capitalist in me would suggest an I BELIEVE plate with space for people to add their own sticker (solving the space problem you mentioned). A religious, patriotic, athletic, or other symbol of what you believe in could go there. The state provides the phrase; you provide the specifics. Let the state stay out of the sticker business if they choose (or offer a limited set of stickers, again if they choose), but let others fill in any gaps that remain. I’m sure the Darwin Fish, anarchy, and Obamessiah marketeers would be quick with their alternatives, but that’s par for the course.
As long as no one is COMPELLED to drive around with a plate declaring something against their beliefs, I have no issue. I refuse to drive around with, say, “DEATH TO THE UNBELIEVER” or “FAMOUS POTATOES” or “BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED”. And anyone who would try to force that on a helpless public should, IMHO, be flogged in the public square.
sulla on June 9, 2008 at 12:58 AM
I’m going to second that.
Not only that, he repeatedly used it to direct traffic to his blog. He didn’t bother me enough that I would have banned him (the ones who question everyone else’s faith are on my top list), but the banning makes sense to me.
That used to bother me until I saw the way Christianity was being portrayed by people in here who claim to be believers.
I have a lot of respect for people who admit their mistakes and apologize. That was very admirable.
About the plates…
I’d rather let every group have a plate. As far as I’m concerned this nation was set up to allow everyone to believe and show that belief in whatever ways are possible. The more the better.
As for myself, I’d never get one. I have never cared much for bumper sticker proclamations of faith, and don’t see this as any better.
And I’d rather no one put one on a car, but that’s just because it sickens me to see them on the cars of the most obnoxious drivers on the road. It’s disgraceful to tell the world you’re a Christian while you act as though you are not.
Esthier on June 9, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Being bureaucracies they are a combination of stupidity and cunning. The act of offering something to a political faction can be as good politically as making it actually available.
entagor on June 9, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I’d never get one. Christians are becoming the most publicly hated religious group in the country. Wouldn’t want my car to get keyed.
fossten on June 9, 2008 at 2:51 PM
We should be careful to define religion.
Religion includes what is deepest to one’s soul, this may very well include dedication to one’s country (ie. American flags) one’s favorite state team (ie. Michigan state etc.) or any number of religious objects. Why can these people display their religious affections and Christians cannot?
There seems to be a market for the Christian plates, if Muslims or Jews rally for a chance for theirs I doubt they would be denied. The market dictates the supply.
Just my 2 cents.
byvirtue on June 9, 2008 at 3:03 PM
That’s why I’m always nervous about the McCain sticker on my Honda.
jgapinoy on June 9, 2008 at 11:09 PM
There is a need for governments to have a monopoly in auto registration. That does not imply the need for governments to grant themselves a monopoly in license plate production.
pussum207 on June 10, 2008 at 11:03 AM
My thoughts exactly. Having a plate that expresses your enthusiasm for your religion should not be held to a higher standard than a plate that expresses your enthusiasm for Nascar or your local college team, just because it is religious in nature.
If there is a demand for a religious plate, the state should be able to supply that demand just like it were any other type of vanity plate. The selection process should be exactly the same, without any thought of knee jerk sep. of church/state arguments. Anything less is discrimination based on religion which, from what I understand, is a bit on the wrong side of that thing we call the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
TheFluke on June 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM
I agree with Fluke. I mean, hey if a plate can have Elks, or Purple Hearts etc, pffft why not this? I’m not ashamed to say I’m Christian. bring it on.
johnnyU on June 10, 2008 at 10:43 PM
go green..
anyway..
Would anyone expect to see more road rage if there were license plates with the Star of David and a red crescent?
it was a page or 2 back but someone said that this is a metal stamp tax.. VA has about 20 or so different types of plates.. (3-4 you can choose from currently).. why not offer a CHOICE (gawd forbid) for people to express themselves however they want..
for you atheists out there, would you feel better if the money for the plate went to Planned Parenthood or some other program designed to
eliminatekill urban youths?DaveC on June 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM
The claim that selling a vanity plate with a symbol on it represents a tacit endorsement of the organization affiliated with that symbol seems a stretch to me.
I’m sure there’s some weird cult out there that worships whales. Are we going to jump on California for selling whale tail vanity plates?
Nowhere do I see that the state is obligated to provide plates for every faith. The state isn’t obligated to provide vanity plates at all.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4