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
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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 »
is identification and potential shunning(not only
of atheists)
Entelechy on June 19,2008 at 9:12PM.
Entelechy:When this cross/plate issue came up,I thought
it was a great idea,however in the climate were
in now,some of my comments in the first threads
was that of a target!
Either way,Christian’s will be seen as an easy
target,or any other religious group.Pardon the
expression but,a helluva time to make yourself
known by the advertizing what you believe in,
as a rolling advertizment during the WOT!
jus sayin!————:)
canopfor on June 19, 2008 at 10:04 PM
“like to feel”, as in they are not?
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
It is a silly double standard, Jews get special treatment because we are spiritual cousins to Christians, but Muslims do not get that respect.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 10:10 PM
So, they do get respect, but you don’t want it because it claims common heritage?
Or they don’t get respect, just Christians thinking they are expressing respect?
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Muslims are related to Christians about as much as you are related to us. It all comes from the same monotheistic base.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 10:18 PM
If this case ever made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, I would love for someone to remember that in early U.S. history there were actually church services held in the Supreme Court chambers.
And, Presidents Jefferson and Madison attended church serves on federal property while in office (I think it was in the Congressional building, if memory serves correctly.)
That oughta provide a little perspective on what the founders thought about the “separation of church and state.”
cs89 on June 19, 2008 at 10:18 PM
attended church “services.”
Sorry.
cs89 on June 19, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Our founders always had a little trouble putting their principles to practice.
Just because our founders did it does not make it right.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Sweet! I’m a “you”!
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Or does the fact that all of the men you just mentioned owned slaves make it a good plan to own slaves too?
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Sorry, I assumed you were a Christian, forgive me.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 10:24 PM
This is where the train jumps the track. Instead of acknowledging the example of their lives, the argument is either that the times are no longer relevant and thus the Constitution needs changing or that they were hypocrites.
On the issues of the day that were of real dissonance, slavery for example, even those who had slaves were on record of their abhorrence of it (among the C authors I mean).
So unless you have documents lamenting their association with church services in government buildings, you are pursing an empty line of argument.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 10:25 PM
It’s the Constitutional argument I’m concerned with here.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 10:26 PM
So it was better that they went on the record opposing it and still did it.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 10:29 PM
I really need to be a lawyer. The only ones who will win here are the lawyers. If people are this stupid to take this to court, I say bill the crap out of them.
AP, does it give you any pause that none of the plaintiffs are atheists? You throw your lot in with all those other religions.
But really, if this is the problem that America is so concerned with this country has way too much time on its hands. Any organization can have a license plate if they meet requirements. The government can NOT deny an organization a plate because it might happen to be religious - no matter what religion. If the government denies it, it is a violation of the first amendment rights.
There are rules that are followed if you want a license plate. You can have any license plate that you want. If the government denies that right, they are violating the Constitution. This is no more establishment than putting ‘in God we Trust’ on the currency.
I do have one question to ask AP. . . do you take the day off for Christmas? Isn’t that ‘establishment’? You want me to make the case that you should have to work on Christmas? Separation of Church and State and all. . . you know the evil establishment myth that atheists parade around. I could argue it for you if you really want to work on Christmas.
ThackerAgency on June 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Where are they on the record opposing it?
They aren’t. Even Monroe called a day of fast while in the office of the Presidency. So did Lincoln, etc. The expression of religion has not been muted historically.
They didn’t oppose it’s expression. They opposed an evil partnership between the state and religion. Jefferson stood for freedom of conscience. And if conscience took him to church twice a day on Sundays in gov’t buildings, so be it. No one at that time thought that the expression of religion should be muted.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Your problem is that on this subject, their actions, and what they wrote in the Constitution were consistant.
No Federal Religion does not mean no religion in public, or government buildings… that is a modern interpretation, that does not follow either what they wrote, or the actions they took.
Romeo13 on June 19, 2008 at 10:33 PM
What is the Constitutional argument as you see it? Is Paul006 correct, and if so, at minimum, shouldn’t the rules applied to personalized license plates in SC be applied consistently for all religions? (I’m not sure whether or not they are in this case.)
Slightly off topic: I’ve always wanted to buy an old AMC/Jeep Gremlin and affix a personalized license plate to it that reads, “YINVU”. Only problem is that I can’t stand AMC/Jeep Gremlin’s.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 10:36 PM
I was talking about slavery
I do not advocate a purging of religious expression or from public life. I still think that there should be no official endorsement or preference by THE STATE of one belief over the other or over no faith at all.
S.C. has other problems anyways, since they apply a religious test for public office.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Okay. I follow. The interesting thing is though that slavery was a compromise because of necessity. There was no division (at least on any comparable scale) about the role of religion among the fathers similar. It was understood.
Since the precedent for personalized tags has been made, tags already allow people to display parts of their identity. If Christians, in follow the set parameters, or passing a law as in SC, are denied the ability to express that part of their personality/identity, they are being discrimated against.
People who say they have the whole rest of the car don’t say that about hunters, fishers, etc. The state should not infringe on the right of expression. That’s the first point.
The second point is that is it is no way a violation of the 1st admendment. The Bill of Rights listed the reserved rights, etc, but if it isn’t in the Constitution, the states reserve it. The issue at hand is not mentioned AT ALL in the Consitution. It was only on reflection after the document, that the fathers added that Congress (ie legislative branch of the top of the central part - nothing other is mentioned) cannot make a law respecting or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If my home state passed a law that said we all get off work for 9 weeks to pray, that’s not Congress’s bizness. It’s reserved rights.
The problem with yielding on ground like this, which is easily done with the argument is based on emotion - either I don’t care either way, or d8mn the Chritians, is that is gives more precedent for the not state, reserved rights to be assumed by the central government…to the point where we have silly arguments over the meaning of the 2nd - when it is plan to anyone.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Oops, sorry FR, didn’t mean to skip that.
Sure. If they get 2000 signatures, or whatever the stipulation is for various states, more power to them. The states should represent the people.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Nah, it just makes your religion the only one valid for public expression, AP.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Not allowed. How absurd.
spmat on June 19, 2008 at 10:59 PM
I’m generally in agreement with what you’ve written, but if SC doesn’t accommodate other religions following the these procedures the same courtesy wouldn’t it then be unconstitutional even at a state level based on incorporation doctrine?
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 11:01 PM
I think that Lee and Stonewall stood under the bottom of Grant and Sherman’s feet.
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 11:07 PM
I’d say we’re basically on the same page, then. As long as it’s applied equally I don’t see how it qualifies as establishment of religion.
I hope there are enough Rastafarian’s in SC to organize their own plate, I can’t wait to see the design!
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Heh. Write, edit, write, edit - I’ve had a long running internal debate on this sort of issue. :) Let me just make it short - Yes, I think so.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 11:15 PM
How many American, probably Christian, Generals have you heard of bowing and scraping and kissing the Old Testament lately?
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Depends, evangelicals have a pretty good grip on the Air Force these days.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Religion is regaded by the common as true, by the wise as false, and by the leaders as useful.
- Seneca the Younger
Oh, that [his Thanksgiving Message] is some of Seward’s nonsense, and it pleases the fools.
- Abraham Lincoln, to Judge James M Nelson, in response to a question from Nelson: “I once asked him about his fervent Thanksgiving Message and twitted him with being an unbeliever in what was published.” Quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 138
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 11:29 PM
You wasting your time if you think you can sell your idea of Lincoln to me. I won’t say I’ve read every word of his that is preserved, but I’ve read enough. He speaks for himself pretty clearly.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 11:33 PM
It was what Lincoln said to Nelson. I never personally meet Lincoln myself. Now John McCain may have.
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 11:37 PM
A person will only believe what their prejudices will let them believe.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 11:40 PM
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.
- Abraham Lincoln
While it may be fairly said that Mr. Lincoln entertained many Christian sentiments, it cannot be said that he was himself a Christian in faith or practice. He was no disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. He did not believe in his divinity and was not a member of his Church.
“He was at first a writing Infidel of the school of Paine and Volney, and afterwards a talking Infidel of the school of Parker and Channing.
“If the Churches had grown cold — if the Christians had taken a stand aloof — that instant the Union would have perished. Mr. Lincoln regulated his religious manifestations accordingly. He declared frequently that he would do anything to save the Union, and among the many things he did was the partial concealment of his individual religious opinions. Is this a blot upon his fame? Or shall we all agree that it was a conscientious and patriotic sacrifice?”
– The New York World (1875)
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 11:46 PM
What you meant to say is that is what Steiner says Lincoln said to Nelson. Lincoln didn’t make note of that in his papers and thus it is highly doubtful as it is not consistent - he didn’t run around calling people fools, nor was he the type of man that mock some for the esteem of others.
Regardless, if you think Jefferson was an atheist, which he himself said was a false claim put on him, and that Lincoln was an atheist, though he affirmed a divine presence, then knock yourself out.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Most absolutely true. But in the body of a man’s work, he can be read. Or as Jefferson said - a man’s religion should be known by his actions. I find it legitimately irritating when either side, or any one with an agenda for that matter, drags out not a man, but a piece of a man’s thought, and applies it to represent the whole.
Surely we all have enough intellect to argue our own views on religion, etc without dragging the preceding generations through the mud with us. They gave us the freedom to think for ourselves, Freedom of Conscience as Jefferson would call it. Let’s use it, I say.
Spirit of 1776 on June 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Spirit, everyone has been talking ceaselessly about the “actions” of the founders and how they were such good Christians.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 11:57 PM
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
- Thomas Jefferson
I dunno, maybe it’s just me but the above sounds pretty clear and unambiguous to me and not just “a piece” grabbed out of the sky.
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Jefferson was a Deist at best, definitely not an atheist though.
Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I can’t speak for others, I only try to reference them as needed to refute assertions of their behavior. If we say they were something, and they were demonstratively not, it would be to the advantage of all to work with the facts, no? I believe that the crux of the argument lies in the document itself, however, and the words there in my view, represent the intent sufficiently to stand on their own.
Spirit of 1776 on June 20, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Spirit,
We are not in dispute on the constitutionality of the plates.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 12:05 AM
It is clear. Jefferson abhorred the clergy. It’s certainly a good thing - without that visceral understanding of the damage done by clergy, a reference to the power wielded by instruments of the state, beit Inquisition or restricting press, etc; I think we can all see the evils. That’s why his V. bill was so important, and one of the things of which he was most proud.
Jefferson said, so you can see the comparison and understand his meaning - they both go together - “I am a real Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw.”
He also said in regard to people talking about him, “They wished him to be thought atheist, deist, or devil,” so even then people tried to use him for their own rhetorically purposes, to which he says, “I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another’s creed.”
So here, people use Jefferson’s words to make a convert or change creed. Ironic isn’t it? It’s like Paul supporters who do the same on Jefferson’s policies.
Spirit of 1776 on June 20, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Roger. I didn’t mean to assume disagreement…I was just butted in because I was curious about your comment vis a vis Christians and Jews. It’s an interesting dynamic to me. Anyway, night.
Spirit of 1776 on June 20, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Jefferson was a “deist”…you do know what that means right?
No wonder he hated the church.
Jefferson was no Christian..he practiced an occult, evil religion and had illegitimate children with one of his slaves.
Fortunately the majority of the men who signed the declaration of independence were godly,Christian men.
SaintOlaf on June 20, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Yes, it means that it was a category that people tried to shelve him in. Ironically, right on time, here you are 200+ years later. Don’t leave him to God, StO’s got it covered.
That’s what they said about M.Luther, no? Joan of Arc - Heresy! etc.
He hated the suppression of freedom dude. He saw America’s future as an ‘Empire of Liberty’. He’s responsible for laying the legal foundation of your religious freedom. But hey, dog him if you want. Just don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Spirit of 1776 on June 20, 2008 at 12:29 AM
It’s OK that they signed a document authored by a worshipper of the occult?
dedalus on June 20, 2008 at 12:40 AM
It was the Christian majority that decided what was written on the declaration of independence.
SaintOlaf on June 20, 2008 at 1:01 AM
A little actual thought should show you how false that statement is. Unfortunately, it’s a common misconception among many who consider themselves intellectuals, such as journalists.
Jesus was a Jew, born in Judea to Jewish parents, raised as a Jew, attending synagogue as a Jew, being baptized by a Jewish John the Baptist, who was preaching a very Jewish message of repentance. He spent his entire life ministering to Jews.
The first churches were in Judea, all the apostles were Jewish, including the Apostle to the Gentiles. Speaking of the Apostle to the Gentiles, his M.O. every where he went was to go first to the synagogues and preach to the Jews about Jesus. Only after that would he go to the Gentiles.
The Jewish scriptures are also Christian scriptures. Every writer of books in the New Testament was a Jew, with the possible exception of Luke, who was either a Gentile or a Hellenistic Jew.
That’s a lot of ties.
Now start listing the ties between Christians and Muslims. That exercise alone makes the point.
Muslim scriptures make some references to Christians. Who, incidentally, are referred to as “People of the Book.” Which, incidentally, is how Jews are referred to by Muslims.
In fact, I venture to say there are NO closer ties between Muslims and Christians than there are between Muslims and Jews.
Yes, technically Jews, Muslims, and Christians are all monotheists who claim to worship essentially the same God. But to assume they are all therefore essentially the same is to show an inability to reason. Christianity is very clearly descended from Judaism. This is an indisputable fact. (If it makes you feel better, you can assume a snide meaning of “descended.”) Islam is not descended from either. It is a — rather weak — attempt to “restore” the “religion of Abraham.” Now, you could argue that Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity, since it claims Abraham, the father of the Jews. But in claiming to “restore” the “religion of Abraham,” Muslims are effectively rejecting everything that came after Abraham, whether Judaism or Christianity.
So yes, there are 3 “great” monotheistic religions, but two of them, Judaism and Christianity, are extremely close, while Islam is close to neither.
theregoestheneighborhood on June 20, 2008 at 1:06 AM
You wanna let us know how you feel? Really?
Is this funny to you, Allah P?
Ugly on June 20, 2008 at 4:52 AM
It should be, it is ridiculous.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 7:05 AM
You take a few, you leave a few. I know my Tanakh looks fair different than the KJV New Testament. Also you are missing the Talmud and Mishnah.
Luke was very clearly a gentile I dont think there is any question. Since the authorship of several letters are unknown, I would not bet on it.
Also, the identity of the author of John is unclear, he may have been a Gentile Convert, or he may have been a Hellenistic Jew. However, by the time he wrote his Gospel (100+ C.E.) Christianity had diverged so far from Judaism that it was inrecognizable.
Here you confuse historic ties with philosophical ties.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 8:31 AM
yeah, Jefferson was the only Founding Father with an illegitimate baby mama.
riiiight.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 8:32 AM
It’s still stupid. I don’t care how many times I need to type that.
If you need a metal plate to profess you belief, then you’re not a Christian anyway.
The opposite of Christian is not atheist. Some people here need to understand that.
Even if the state offers the same to every other religion?
Oh, and it’s still stupid.
I think we all know your affiliation by now, but as to your question, I’ve never known a Christian to be offended by the crucifix. Catholic or not, it’s a symbol for all of us.
Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 9:50 AM
It’s a clear States’ issue.
If the law is ‘agnostic’ with respect to the nature of the group desiring the custom plate, there cannot be an Establishment violation.
Standard law, applicable to all, is consistent and constitutional - raise enough demand, pay a standard fee, done deal.
Personally, I think the whole concept of state-issued custom plates is a huge waste of time and money. If you want custom plates, you should have them made privately. At least that way you eliminate all this bullshit squabbling.
LimeyGeek on June 20, 2008 at 10:11 AM
We all do.
You really don’t know me.
And seriously, I’m sick of the stupid argument that promoting belief on a stupid piece of metal is somehow practicing religion.
It’s not.
No sh!t. You clearly think you’ve stumbled onto something profound, but nearly every single person in here understand where the words “separate of church and state” came from. You’re not brilliant. You’re stating the obvious.
That doesn’t change my position.
1. They clearly broke with normal rules when making this plate, as it is significantly cheaper than every other vanity plate.
2. Their own rules state that you need “a request for consideration on the sponsoring organization’s letterhead,” which they clearly don’t have, seeing as they didn’t make this plate for an organization (which is why #1 is true).
3. Their third and sixth reasons for rejecting plates is because they are “controversial,” which this one clearly is.
And finally, 4. After reviewing the application for South Carolina (see, not all states have the same rules), I have found that no where in there at all does it state that signatures are needed or that a certain demand must be met first.
Now, I will grant you this, it does mention rejecting them based on “low projected sales,” but it’s hard to make that case seeing as they haven’t given other plates a chance.
Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 10:18 AM
That’s because Muslims are not the cousin of Hebrews or Christians. They are the criminals that moved in the neighborhood, claimed to be part of the family, murdered people to live in their house, kidnapped young girls to rape and keep for slaves and then complained to the ACLU that the people already living in the neighborhood are treating them with disrespect.
Hening on June 20, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Supernatural forces working through their Liberal minions to keep the truth of Christ’s atonement, and God’s love from being displayed in public.
So what else is new?
Hening on June 20, 2008 at 10:28 AM
The difference is that Muslims are to Christians what Christians are to Jews. Christians revere Jews almost as ancestors, but Muslims aren’t our ancestors. And we clearly don’t agree with what they’ve done with the religion.
A better correlation would be to say that Christians revere Jews but don’t get that same respect from Muslims.
We revere Jews, because we believe you are the chosen people, and the vast majority of our Bible was composed by Jews. Sure, we could be more Jewish, utilizing more of your philosophy and holy books. And if we do so, it wouldn’t only make us better Christians.
The same cannot be said of us if we adopt more Muslim theology or philosophy.
That doesn’t mean Christians don’t or shouldn’t respect Muslims. It just means our relationship to Muslims is different than our relationship to Jews.
Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM
The problem with giving Muslims their license plates is that cars are known as a “she”, “like she’s a great car”.
Because of the female gender the license plate would have to be covered, thus unread….the good news is the Muslim could own as many cars as he wants…carlygamy.
right2bright on June 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM
How does this establish a state church, of which we had seven when the Bill of Rights was ratified?
Akzed on June 20, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I thought you were an atheist? What’s this “spiritual cousins” stuff?
flenser on June 20, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I haven’t seen this question asked, but which religion, exactly, is being “respected” by this license plate?
Jimmie on June 20, 2008 at 11:07 AM
It seems that many misunderstand the concept of “separation” as being akin to communist purges.
Simply referencing a religion is insufficient to violate the 1st. The law that has been (stupidly) created merely provides a mechanism for any group to obtain customized plates.
LimeyGeek on June 20, 2008 at 11:13 AM
The Federal government issues money with “In God We Trust” on it. I can’t see why a state license plate with a cross is not acceptable, while that is.
Of course, it’s only a matter of time before the USSC “discovers” that the motto on our money violates the Constitution.
flenser on June 20, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Actually to many Protestants (myself included) the crucifix is ‘cringeworthy’. Why? Because Christ is not still on the cross. We celebrate the cross because Christ OVERCAME the cross. Christ on the cross was the worst period in time for Christians. . . and it is offensive to many Protestants.
Having said that, if there was a license plate with a crucifix, and they met the requirements, have at it. . . and the LAW couldn’t prevent it.
ThackerAgency on June 20, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Is it your contention then that Catholics believe Jesus is still on a cross?
So far as I can see, they celebrate it as a symbol of the sacrifice Christ gave the world. I don’t see why other Christians should be offended by that.
Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Which is why every single Protestant and Baptist chuch I have ever been in has a cross displayed very prominently at the front of the church, where it is often given special lighting to enhance its appearance.
It’s why an overwhelming number of Protestant and Baptist churches feature the cross somewhere in their “logo” or the sign out in front of the church or on top of the steeple or in the weekly bulletin or on the hymnals.
Is that how it works? ;)
Jimmie on June 20, 2008 at 12:50 PM
The cross is revered. . . but you won’t find a cross with Jesus hanging on it outside of a Catholic Church. I understand how you can’t see the difference - but there is one. I’m just saying what the feeling is about showing Christ on the cross.
It is another difference. Catholics believe we were saved at Christ’s death, Protestants believe we were saved at His resurrection.
It’s not the CROSS that is the problem. It is Christ hanging from the cross that is the problem. Yes, that’s how it works.
ThackerAgency on June 20, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Yeah, explain that one to God at the Pearly Gates. “We really had to commodify, abuse, rape, terrorize, mutilate and kill those people because we needed to pick more tobacco.”
Your statement was so stupid it deserves repeating. Enjoy.
The Race Card on June 20, 2008 at 1:00 PM
crucifix = Christ on the cross (you see the pope carrying a replica on occasion).
The cross by itself is not a ‘crucifix’.
ThackerAgency on June 20, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Context. No unity without compromise. Many of the fathers thought it unsustainable in the long-term and thought it would die on it’s own. Impossible to judge because of the industrialization of the North, but without compromise there would have been no ratification. Enjoy.
Spirit of 1776 on June 20, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Not interesting in adding others sins to my own, thanks.
Spirit of 1776 on June 20, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Slavery is abusive by definition, and there are plenty of accounts of masters having forced/consensual relations with slaves, as well as beating them, but I wonder what the real large-scope picture actually was?
Slavery was at one point an economically viable option, and an expensive one. How much injurious abuse would a master really subject his slaves to? He would be damaging his investment.
I don’t view the Fathers’ acceptance of slavery as “compromise”, but rather as resignation. Simply put, no philosophical principle or collection of words upon parchment can magically counter the fallibility of man. The economics of the situation won the day, the Fathers’ were resigned to this ugly truth, yet looked forward to the day when the practice would naturally expire. Slavery had a shelf-life, and they knew it.
LimeyGeek on June 20, 2008 at 1:18 PM
We don’t put a cross on our money. Even in 1861, we didn’t go that far.
I hope you’re right.
RightOFLeft on June 20, 2008 at 1:56 PM
The main difference being the empty cross. Though the principle is still the same. If Protestants really wanted to revere Christ’s resurrection as opposed to His death, they’d feature the empty tomb or something like that, not the thing that killed Him.
Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 2:20 PM
So a motto of trusting in God is significantly better than a picture of a cross?
Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 2:33 PM
At least “In God we trust” is kinda abstract, whereas a cross is most decidedly Christian in context.
It’s all pretty daft, IMNSHO
LimeyGeek on June 20, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Understandably, but for an atheist, it’s all discriminating.
Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 3:31 PM
True. You could try considering “God” as a metaphor.
LimeyGeek on June 20, 2008 at 3:38 PM
And if you’re so inclined, then maybe you’d consider the cross a metaphor as well.
Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 4:38 PM
A little harder to swallow, but I can try.
If I gave a rat’s arse about this whole kerfuffle, that is ;)
LimeyGeek on June 20, 2008 at 5:03 PM
I can’t put it any better than LimeyGeek already did, so ditto.
RightOFLeft on June 20, 2008 at 5:12 PM
I am not an athiest, you jackass, so shut your damn trap.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Even the Founding Fathers were not good with supporting one sect over the other, the cross is just an instrument of Roman torture and execution to me, so I see it as an endorsement of one faith over the other. “In G-d We Trust” is quite non-sectarian, for fellow Monotheists of course.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Apologies to the rest of the board for that last post.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 5:35 PM
I guess it varies from day to day, depending on the topic under discussion.
flenser on June 20, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Because you’re Jewish, right?
flenser on June 20, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Fair enough. I agree with you that this is all ridiculous.
And as I said to him, it’s still discrimination if you’re an atheist, no matter how abstract, and if you’re willing to be generous and accept that “God” can be a metaphor, then there’s no reason you couldn’t do the same for a cross.
Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 5:37 PM
But at least you are a consistent idiot.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Whatever your interpretation of the Establishment clause, I think the S.C. Constitution (despite having a word-for-word rehash of the Establishment Clause) provides a little more protection for this brand of stupid than the federal Constitution.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 5:55 PM
What about the fact that God is spelled out? Is that seen as offensive?
Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM
It is to me, but I dont much care for His name being on anything.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 6:01 PM
I can see a little water has gone under the bridge since this comment, but…
I think the practice of the founders is quite relevant to the thoughts behind the words in our Constitution. Personally, I don’t think I would buy the cross plate, but opposition to it on “separation of church & state” grounds appears silly when you look at the historical context of the Constitution, as I alluded to earlier.
Incidentally, I once attempted to purchase a vanity plate with “1Lord” as the characters, and was rebuffed by the Nevada DMV. Maybe I should hire a lawyer- Nah.
cs89 on June 20, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Yeah, the cross is a metaphor for Christianity. Would it be offensive if I had the exact same license plate, only it said, “I don’t believe?” It’s such a contentious issue, the state is better off not getting involved.
Like I said, I’d like to see the silly “In God We Trust” scrapped. Realistically, it’s not going to happen.
RightOFLeft on June 20, 2008 at 6:02 PM
I think my point was that religion should not be banned from public life, but public funds and authority should not be used to promote it either.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM
That’s what I figured.
I honestly wonder when we’re going to see that taken off anyway.
Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 6:04 PM
However, it is not something I oppose. I do not write His name, but others doing it is not against my belief.
I dont normally carry cash, so it is a fairly moot point.
My goy wife does it for me :)
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 6:07 PM
The false notion thar Islam shares monotheistic roots with Judaism and Christianity needs to go in the dumpster, lIke the “religion of peace” BS.
.
“Allah” was the name of the moon god worshipped by Babylonians and various Arabs at the time Mohammed was making his opinions into a religion.
Right_of_Attila on June 20, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »