It’s on: Lawsuit filed to halt production of SC’s Christian vanity plates
posted at 4:52 pm on June 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
For those about to rock, I salute you.
No, seriously, cliched though it may be, legal clashes over inanities like this are always gratifying as a reminder of how successful America’s been in keeping church and state separate and settling in the most mundane way the sort of dispute that gets people’s throats slit in other countries. And needless to say, it’s always fascinating to watch great principles decided on the dumbest conceivable fact patterns.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of several religious leaders and a religious organization whose First Amendment rights are violated by South Carolina’s “I Believe” license plate…
Plaintiffs in the case include four South Carolina clergy the Rev. Dr. Thomas A. Summers, Rabbi Sanford T. Marcus, the Rev. Dr. Robert M. Knight and the Rev. Dr. Neal Jones as well as the Hindu American Foundation…
“The state has clearly given preferential treatment to Christianity with this license plate,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “I can’t think of a more flagrant violation of the First Amendment’s promise of equal treatment for all faiths. I believe these plates will not see the light of day.”
Here’s the complaint; note paragraph 36, which knocks the legislature for giving consumers a price break on the plate even though they had to do so or else they would have made the Establishment Clause difficulties worse. Exit compromise: You can keep this if the state also offers a plate featuring an image of Hitchens, drunk, above the slogan, “Abandon all hope.”
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 »
Of course; someone has to be offended. Par for the course.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 4:53 PM
HHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Still a stupid waste of money,
Now the state gets to waste even more fighting the lawsuit.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 4:54 PM
The irony of this post’s screencap adjacent Robert Spencer’s is not lost on me. Well played, sir.
fourstringfuror on June 19, 2008 at 4:54 PM
fourstringfuror on June 19, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Heh
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Fear the license plate…
right2bright on June 19, 2008 at 4:56 PM
I’d pay for that. I’d pay quite a bit. I also like the thumbnail of the Hitch under super-bright lights with a cig.
VolMagic on June 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM
I agree with those who say they shouldn’t be making these plates unless they’re going to make one for all religions.
However, I think it’s a stupid thing to go to court over. It’s a piece of metal attached to the bottoms of a car.
Esthier on June 19, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Mountain, meet molehill.
MrScribbler on June 19, 2008 at 4:59 PM
But, but, but, I BELIEVE!!
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 5:00 PM
I’d want the Rastafarian license plate except I’d probably get pulled over and harassed all the time.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:01 PM
See:
VolMagic on June 19, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Agreed.
It’s more than that, it’s about the separation of church and state.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:03 PM
So now SC taxpayers get to pay for lawyers.
I have no objection to the plate. What I object to is taxpayers getting snookered because their lawmakers are too stupid to see a problem coming.
This has nothing to do with free speech. This has to do with the State of SC making a buck. As I pointed out in the previous thread they could raise registration rates 15cents a registration and make MORE money they they will make on this boondoggle.
Keep it simple. State, number-number-number-letter-letter-letter. When you run out of those (at 17.5 million combinations) add a letter and you are good to go for another 450 million registrations or so.
Go to PIP or Kinkos. They’ll be happy to make you your freedom of speech bumper sticker and you won’t be paying for those Mercedes the lawyers are driving.
Limerick on June 19, 2008 at 5:04 PM
They won’t find 250 people in that state willing to purchase it.
bnelson44 on June 19, 2008 at 5:04 PM
That’s the principle of the matter and on that I understand, mostly.
But literally it boils down to a piece of metal. It’s just so trivial. The state should have offered alternative plates and shouldn’t have singled out one religious group, or some other compromise should have been reached.
This shouldn’t take a court case to decide.
Esthier on June 19, 2008 at 5:06 PM
As a Christian, I keep absolutely all indicators that I am a Christian off my car, because I know how I drive, lol.
A drunk Hitchens plate though? Sign me up for that action.
Corinthian Jest on June 19, 2008 at 5:07 PM
With that you’ve totally redeemed yourself for the endless “gulp” headlines.
phronesis on June 19, 2008 at 5:08 PM
One of those phrases that’s been turned upside down so often that no one remembers what Jefferson originally meant.
A few days after Jefferson wrote the phrase (in a personal letter–it’s not in any of our founding documents), he went to church…in the Capital building, where his church met. Jefferson also signed legislation to fund missionaries to the Indians in Pennsylvania.
jgapinoy on June 19, 2008 at 5:09 PM
This could actualy be interesting…
The Constitution say CONGRESS shall make no law… it does NOT say that State Governments can’t… that would be covered under the STATE Constitution. Fed Court should immediatly throw this out as it is NOT in its jurisdiction…
There is NO requirement for the States to follow a limitation specificly placed on Congress.
Romeo13 on June 19, 2008 at 5:09 PM
I fail to see how having a License plate that says “I Believe” infringes on your right to religious freedom.
Oh no… I have a religious plate… Your right to believe in Atheism is damaged!
Skywise on June 19, 2008 at 5:09 PM
If Jesus were alive today, he’d spend 364 days a year in court, defending himself.
He’d get only one day off… His Birthday.
madmonkphotog on June 19, 2008 at 5:09 PM
So they’re Establishing a Religion by printing a license plate?
Good Heavens, that’s some Powerful Ju-Ju that Christianity has! If only the countless missionaries working their bums off in far-away lands with nothing to show for it had known.
No wonder that atheists are so skeered of it.
ROFL.
That aside, I actually happen to agree that it’s silly for the State to print license plates for a particular group, but not out of fears that the non-existent “wall of separation” will come down upon us or that the public proclamation of the faith in question will turn our once free nation into a thuggish theocracy overnight.
It’s favoritism to make one group happy at the exclusion of others, and that ain’t right, particularly not for government. If they were offering to print plates for every nomination that would like one, it’d be a different question, but they’re not.
Misha I on June 19, 2008 at 5:10 PM
So . . . let me get this straight. Christians want a vanity tag just like the turtle helpers and golfers and someone files a lawsuit . . . but . . . muslims can have state sponsored schools???
My goodness I love America. We must do every thing in our power to keep those nasty Christians from overstepping the precious separation of church and state principle*. /sarc off
* this principle was concocted by the same branch of government that has given use the Boumediene decision
infidel2 on June 19, 2008 at 5:10 PM
We’re mostly in agreement so I hate to nitpick, but a book is more than just a ream of paper in a binding. The medium is irrelevant, it’s the principle that is at issue.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Yawn. Traffic must be down today. Hot Atheist to the rescue!
TheBigOldDog on June 19, 2008 at 5:12 PM
So then states can have a total ban on guns, eliminate free speech, prevent women from voting, re-establish slavery, etc, and the Constitution doesn’t apply?
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Want.
Enrique on June 19, 2008 at 5:14 PM
So as long as your religion is the beneficiary of preferential treatment by the government you don’t mind, but what if it wasn’t your religion and the plates were, say, Islamic?
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:16 PM
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Separation of Powers.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Actualy, some of the origional States HAD State relgions. It was never found UnConstitutional… except that you could not use it as Test for whether you could hold office.
And if the Founders didn’t find this a bad thing… how can you use the “establishment” clause to stop a State from printing a stinkin License plate?
Romeo13 on June 19, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I don’t think they would be able to fit “You’d better believe.” Too many letters.
phronesis on June 19, 2008 at 5:18 PM
No, because what you said is specifically prohibited. There is no prohibition against a state allowing an expression of religion.
jgapinoy on June 19, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Does anyone know if any other religious groups have attempted to go through the process of obtaining a vanity plate?
My hunch is that they have not.
If they have then there may be some kind of case for discrimination. Otherwise they need to grow up.
infidel2 on June 19, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I’d be willing to bet “I don’t believe” wouldn’t get approval.
phronesis on June 19, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Heck no, they can’t. The fact that they do is besides the point.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:20 PM
I have a Red Sox vanity plate. It costs extra, but the money goes to the Jimmy Fund.
Seriously though, that’s a good point, but one that is lost on the prepetual adolescents who run off to court screaming, “Not Fair! Not Fair!”
reaganaut on June 19, 2008 at 5:21 PM
By taking it out of context naturally. Failing that, redefine the Constitution as “living”.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Ooooh, AC/DC reference!
Do you suppose these license plates are intended to prevent someone from driving down the …. Highway to Hell?
(insert bad-pun-groan here)
thirteen28 on June 19, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Nope. Taking guns as an example, that’s something that is a protected right. It simply says “shall not be infringed”, it doesn’t say anything about by whom it shan’t be infringed, meaning that nobody can do it. “Congress shall make no law…”, on the other hand, is quite specific as to whom.
If I remember correctly, at least one State did have a State Religion back in the day, but I may very well be wrong.
All that aside, I don’t think it would fly anyway, nor do I, even as a Christian, have any interest whatsoever in State Religions. I come from a country that had one, and if you want to find a highly effective way of killing any sort of interest in religion at all, that’s the way to go.
Not to mention that I don’t believe that it’s any of government’s damned business what people choose to believe or not believe in.
Misha I on June 19, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Dude, I’m a theist and I’d sport that plate. Awesome.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 19, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Praise the Lord.
Keep the state outta the church business. Please!
locomotivebreath1901 on June 19, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Expect a contact from DARPA regarding weaponized puns.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 19, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Go read the Bill of Rights, this is the ONLY right that specificly mentions that Congress shall not.
The others inumerate Rights, which are universal. This is the only one which specificly stops CONGRESS from doing somthing… and this was done because at the time, some states HAD State Religions.
State Religions OK, FEDERAL Religions not, according to the US Constitution.
Romeo13 on June 19, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Hillarious ROTFLMFAO
infidel2 on June 19, 2008 at 5:23 PM
I absolutely agree with that, but on the other hand there is a prohibition against a state only allowing an expression of one particular religion.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:24 PM
How is it besides the point. They can’t, but they do. That sounds like selective enforcement to me.
infidel2 on June 19, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Who needs all those paragraphs? They could have just said “These are offensive to Muslims” and been done with it.
Kafir on June 19, 2008 at 5:25 PM
First off, thanks Romeo for confirming what I thought was the case about early State Religions here in the U.S. I thought that was the case.
Second, I agree completely. There IS no “wall of separation” and the Establishment Clause is completely and utterly irrelevant to this particular case. Actually it’s pretty much always irrelevant to whatever case it’s being trotted out for, but it’s all that the Christophobes have to hang their pointed hats on, so it’ll have to do. That and the famously non-existent “wall of separation.”
If people weren’t in the habit of misinterpreting the Constitution as they see fit, the plaintiffs in this case would simply be told to go pound sand and that’d be the end of it, because they don’t have a case. It’s a frivolous suit, and that’s it.
But, again, I still think it’s wrong for the State to selectively pander to one group over another, and it doesn’t matter which group it is.
Misha I on June 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM
…And that error should be corrected pronto.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Ditto
infidel2 on June 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM
What does any of this matter? This time next year the automobile itself will be banned, being deemed a threat too grave to the environment, and we will all be riding buses.
Weight of Glory on June 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM
I love how the conservatives here believe that the State of South Carolina has a legitimate reason to Feng Shui my vehicle. Like they really really really need to be spending my tax dollars defending their right to the crayon box.
Limerick on June 19, 2008 at 5:27 PM
We do agree, completely actually. I’m just insulting the medium. It’s stupid (no offense intended), and I don’t get the mindset that wants to showcase a system of beliefs on a car.
The fact that people wanting to do that in regards to religion so much so that other religious beliefs are being left out is even more stupider (and yeah, that was intentional).
Esthier on June 19, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Agreed, anybody want to pay me to bring that lawsuit?
infidel2 on June 19, 2008 at 5:28 PM
How about a license plate with Barry Goldwater’s image on it with him saying -
All good conservative should line up
and kick the S.C. legislature right in the ass!
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Maybe successful at stopping Christianity, but they certainly have not been successful in keeping religion and state separate.
THE OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES IS SECULAR HUMANISM/ATHEISM!
It is an atrocity…especially considering that 80% of the citizens of the United States call themselves Christian.
Why do we continue to allow them to force their atheist religion on us and brainwash our children with lies?
SaintOlaf on June 19, 2008 at 5:33 PM
As opposed to giving atheism preferential treatment? Sorry, I don’t want an atheist license plate. By not allowing them the state is infringing on my right to practice my religion. If the government gives in, someone should counter-sue.
I wouldn’t give a damn. Unlike most of hot air, I don’t think the vast majority of american muslims are sitting around in bushes ready to lop my infidel head off.
Darth Executor on June 19, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Stupid or not, it’s a breach of constitutionally protected freedom of religion.
Darth Executor on June 19, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Here is a list of Florida’s specialty plates:
http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/specialtytags/
I see plenty of college plates, but nothing that allows someone to celebrate the fact that they didn’t go to college. What about the people that want to use their license plate to advocate going to a tech school instead of college? How about the anti-school folks that want to advocate dropping out of high school? Where’s their plate? And what about that Florida boy that went to an out of state school and then returned to Florida? Why doesn’t the state allow him to show pride in his school of choice?
I see “Save the Seas”, “Save the Manatee” and “Trees are Cool”….but what about “Coastal Drilling”, “Eat the Manatees” and “Trees Make Great Toothpicks”?
From what I’ve read, the Americans United case is rather flimsy.
1. The plates are offered at a discount to other vanity plates because the extra money on the other vanity plates gets donated to a cause represented by that plate. They charge less in this case so they aren’t donating that extra money to an churches/Christian groups.
2. There is no law (that I could find) that says that if a plate is made available for one point of view it must be made available for all the various related/opposite points of view. If there is a law on the books, it has certainly not been enforced before now.
3. Creating an “I believe” plate with a cross on it does not make anyone a second class citizen. If a person of another faith/no faith has met the minimum requirements to get a vanity plate with their point of view created and been turned down because the state doesn’t want to sell anything for that religion…well, then they’ve got a case. Otherwise, it seems like their entire point is, “Hey, we didn’t try because we didn’t care, but we just want to make sure no one else gets one.”
JadeNYU on June 19, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Reference please? I know that a bunch of lawsuits have held that, but unless there is a STATE Constitutional mandate to do so, its wrong… as far as I know there is no law about that.
Thats why I think this case could go all the way to the Supremes… this is pretty explicit Constitutional language, with the framers intent clearly shown by them origionaly having state religions, and not doing anything about it.
Romeo13 on June 19, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Heh. With how many times you’ve used that quote, inserting varying rumps at various times, I’m getting a image of Mr. Goldwater as the “boy-who-cried-kick’em-in-the-butt.” Is there no place for a hiney to hide from Barry Goldwater’s forceful stride?
Weight of Glory on June 19, 2008 at 5:37 PM
I don’t support giving atheism preferential treatment either, but is ever item in the world that doesn’t include an expression of religious faith necessarily atheist in nature? I a bland, boring license plate with a registration number and tabs and the name of the state atheist?
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Goldwater was always suggesting that others should do the kicking…Goldwater was in fact a girlie man himself.
SaintOlaf on June 19, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Here in NC, it warms my heart a bit to see the state issued vanity plates that honor former members of the 82nd and Purple Heart recipients amongst others. I could however care less about the SC plates. If the people of SC want this plate and are willing to defend it in court so be it.
Dawnsblood on June 19, 2008 at 5:40 PM
LOL… but have to admit, my Veteran License plate has gotten me out of a couple of tickets here in Colorado!
Romeo13 on June 19, 2008 at 5:41 PM
when a bumper sticker won’t do.
I have 10th Mountain Division plates on my Colorado Plates. Just let them separate Military from State. It’s coming. Freakin’ Communists.
But seriously, I’m a Christian, and I don’t think they should allow it. Because then next thing you know, we’ll have Homosexual plates, HairyDarwin Plates, Beastiality Plates, and NAMBLA plates.
kirkill on June 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM
plates on my plates – sheesh…ok, they shut down the coffee shop this afternoon.
kirkill on June 19, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Mr. Goldwater was a Major General in the U.S. Air Force Reserves. He was also referred to as “Mr. Conservative”. He was married, with four children.
When all else fails, call him a girlie man.
Entelechy on June 19, 2008 at 5:44 PM
As originally understood, the entire Bill of Rights — including the Second Amendment — was applicable to the federal government only, and not to the states. See Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 32 (1833).
It wasn’t until 1925, when the Court announced the “incorporation doctrine,” that the Bill of Rights was applied to the states.
My point is this: Your argument has been litigated. And today, almost everyone, including conservatives, believes the Bill of Rights applies to the states, even though it was not originally understood to apply to the states. (As you note, the plain language of the First Amendment is directed at Congress. But when we find it inconvenient, we dispense with the plain language.)
paul006 on June 19, 2008 at 5:44 PM
You make a good point, perhaps states can have a state religion. I don’t have time to research the issue right now to argue the point, though.
If true, perhaps this was inevitable. People have been predicting that a consequence of abandoning the melting-pot, especially when combined with rampant illegal immigration, is that America is likely to balkanize.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:46 PM
I’m going to exercise my First Amendment right not to pay taxes.
Hey, if everyone else can put their own spin on the First, why can’t I?
ynot4tony2 on June 19, 2008 at 5:47 PM
It depends on the context. In this case, a normal license place becomes atheist because people are trying to block other people’s right to express their religion through the license plate.
Darth Executor on June 19, 2008 at 5:47 PM
I demand license plates with strippers on them! And beer!
flipflop on June 19, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Nothing but nothing here about states allowing free expression of religion.
If Muslims or Buddhists want their own plates, that’s cool with me.
jgapinoy on June 19, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Neither characteristic made him infallible.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Ding!
RushBaby on June 19, 2008 at 5:50 PM
To hell with my rights if I can kill those of *insert enemy here* too. Nice. Don’t get me wrong, apart from darwin (whom I feel sorry for rather than despise) I can’t stand those groups. But I think freedom of speech and freedom of religion are crucial to any society and am not interested in giving away either one just to stick it to the liberal deviants.
Darth Executor on June 19, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Yeah, but it’s a government issued piece of metal that’s requred to be on the car. Granted, no one is required to get this or any other vanity plate…but I think it’s wrong to issue an official state plate with a cross on it.
And no…I’m no athiest. Catholic to the core. What if the cross on that plate were a crucifix? Would the state have allowed that?
JetBoy on June 19, 2008 at 5:51 PM
What a shocker.
Hawkins1701 on June 19, 2008 at 5:52 PM
I don’t think anybody, (not including lowlifes on the left, which don’t count), have a problem with government honoring veterans who fought for our country with personalized license plates. That’s the least we can do.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Me too! but then I better not let my daughter drive my car anymore….
Romeo13 on June 19, 2008 at 5:53 PM
To being a girlie man?
Entelechy on June 19, 2008 at 5:53 PM
I’m a Christian and I don’t want those ugly things anywhere.
ninjapirate on June 19, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Which only provides further credence to the argument that these religious license plates qualify as establishment of religion in the first place.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 5:57 PM
According to Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the First Amendment promises equal treatment for all faiths? That’s really…out there.
RushBaby on June 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM
On Ronald Reagan’s speech for Mr. Goldwater
Entelechy on June 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM
That’s what books, the Internet, radio, TV and bumper stickers are for. License plates are for vehicle identification.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Yes they are rapidly taking away Christian’s rights to freedom of religion.
What’s next?
Concentration camps for Christians?
SaintOlaf on June 19, 2008 at 6:03 PM
No it does not. On the contrary, it shows that the state respects an individual’s right to express his religion.
Houses are for living. I guess the government should come and relieve me of all the crosses and icons on my walls too, huh? If the religions expression doesn’t interfere with vehicle identification and if I’M PAYING FOR THEM I’d like to be able to exercise a constitutionally protected right whenever i damn well please.
Darth Executor on June 19, 2008 at 6:04 PM
After carefully considering the constitutional, legal, ethical and religious implications surrounding this issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t really care how this turns out.
And no, I don’t know why I bothered commenting either.
Hollowpoint on June 19, 2008 at 6:05 PM
How can anything voluntary violate another’s rights?
The license plate are an expression of personal interests. It is no different then a Nascar or hunting or fishing tag. That SC would approve these tags is a reflection on the social identity of SC.
It would be a travesty to not allow the people of SC to determine, as per their constitutional right, the laws of their state as pertains to individual expression.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 6:05 PM
I vote we get to know the plaintiffs:
Dr. Summers objects to, and is offended by, the legislature’s approval of the “I Believe” plate, and the production and issuance of the plate, because — by improperly placing a governmental imprimatur on the Christian beliefs expressed by the plate — these activities co-opt the religious iconography and beliefs of his faith for the benefit of the state, thereby demeaning these sacred images and beliefs.
Dr. Summers also objects to, and is offended by, these activities because they discriminate against Christians and non-Christians who may wish to convey a different religious message via their license plates by affording preferential treatment to a particular Christian viewpoint, while failing to create an analogous forum for the expression of other Christian and non-Christian viewpoints.
Dr. Summers is particularly concerned that the State’s discrimination toward non-Christian believers amounts to theological bullying of members of South Carolina’s minority religious groups, and thus creates the very type of religious discord that he has devoted his life to healing.
RushBaby on June 19, 2008 at 6:09 PM
I’d like a return to Federalism.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804; cited in Berger, Government by Judiciary 293 (1997). The letter can be viewed online in the Library of Congress manuscript collection
Tim Burton on June 19, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Dr. Knight objects to, and is offended by, the legislature’s approval of the “I Believe” plate, and the production and issuance of the plate, because — by improperly placing a governmental imprimatur on the Christian beliefs expressed by the plate — these activities co-opt the religious iconography and beliefs of his faith for the benefit of the state, thereby demeaning these sacred images and beliefs.
Dr. Knight also objects to, and is offended by, these activities because they discriminate against Christians who may wish to convey a different religious message via their license plates by affording preferential treatment to a particular Christian viewpoint, while failing to create an analogous forum for the expression of other Christian viewpoints.
RushBaby on June 19, 2008 at 6:10 PM
No, but if you try to change your address number into the phrase, “I believe”, or change your legal property boundaries into the shape of a cross which passes through your neighbors yard, then you’ll run into some problems.
I don’t have a problem with that as long as there’s equal treatment, which you seem to support.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 6:10 PM
I don’t think that anyone at Hotair thinks that your “vast majority of american muslims are sitting around in bushes ready to lop my infidel head off.” If you are going to come up with a strawman try not to make it such a blatantly obvious one.
Besides all it takes is one.
19 muslims most of whom had been in America for some time murdered 3,000 Americans.
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Rabbi Marcus objects to, and is offended by, the legislature’s approval of the “I Believe”plate, and the production and issuance of the plate, because these activities advance a religious viewpoint to which he does not subscribe; are designed to create the very type of religious discord that he has devoted his life as a rabbi to healing; improperly place the state’s imprimatur on the Christian beliefs expressed by the plate, sending the message to Rabbi Marcus and believers of other non-Christian faiths that the they are second-class citizens; and discriminate against Jewish believers (and those of other non-Christian faiths) by affording preferential treatment to an expressly Christian viewpoint, while failing to create an analogous forum for the expression of an expressly Jewish viewpoint.
RushBaby on June 19, 2008 at 6:14 PM
That analogy would only work if people removed, tampered with, or designed it in such a way that the ID number from those license plates is difficult or impossible to read. These plates don’t interfere with one’s ability to use them for their intended purpose: identification.
I’m glad.
Darth Executor on June 19, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Is the process to create a personalized tag open to others to pursue. If so, this isn’t about freedom, it’s about supression.
Precisely so, Tim. I am frequently disheartened by the antipathy to the founding principles – or worst – aggression against them based on emotion, not reason.
We have come to the point where people look to the government as meaning the Pres/Congress/SC. But we must retain the powers in the proper places if the system is going to survive and not fall from 50 states to 50 subdivisions.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Rev. Dr. Jones objects to, and is offended by, the legislature’s approval of the “I Believe” plate, and the production and issuance of the plate, because these activities advance a religious viewpoint to which he does not subscribe; create the very type of religious discord that Unitarian Universalism aims to prevent; improperly place the state’s imprimatur on the Christian beliefs expressed by the plate, sending the message to himself and believers of other non-Christian faiths that the they are second-class citizens; and discriminate against Unitarian Universalist believers (and those of other non-Christian faiths) by affording preferential treatment to an expressly Christian viewpoint, while failing to create an analogous forum for the expression of an expressly Unitarian Universalist viewpoint.
RushBaby on June 19, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »