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]
And the Hebrew G-d shares his name with a land and sea deity of ancient Canaan.
Get with the program, try to keep up.
Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 10:22 PM
So an organization headed by leftists Jews going after signs of Christianity again.
It is a religious war.
Spartacus on June 21, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I really hope you are being sarcatstic.
If not F**k you.
Squid Shark on June 21, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Talmud and Mishnah, though revered, are not scriptures. For one thing, they came very much later than the Old Testament. In fact, they came significantly later than the New Testament. So why would Christianity, which “diverged” if you will in the 1st century AD, have incorporated them into their scriptures?
There are minor differences in how the books of the Old Testament are laid out and labeled compared to the Jewish scriptures, but the text is the same.
Only one by an author unknown is Hebrews. Can you see the Jewish connection even there?
John, the brother of James, the disciple Jesus loved, the son of Zebedee, fishing partners with Simon Peter and Andrew? He was pretty well known to the early churches, I’d say! The exact date the Gospel of John was written is not known, but Ignatius, who died in AD 107, wrote his Letter to the Philippians based on it, so it was obviously not written after AD 107.
But this highlights the problem you have: there’s no good reason to doubt the authorship of the Gospel of John, and the early church, which was about 1800 years closer to the time in question than you are, accepted John as the author. So why claim he was a Gentile? Only because it helps your argument.
I’m not the one confused here. The close ties between Judaism and Christianity are obvious and well-known to the world at large. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is almost comical.
I was going to ask you to explain the supposed philosophical ties between Christianity and Islam, but it’s a waste of time. You’re obviously not arguing so much as rationalizing.
theregoestheneighborhood on June 21, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Wrong, the Talmud is the “Oral Torah”, and therefore scripture.
The written form is indeed about 100 years younger than the New Testament, however there is proof of the practice and implementation of the lessons of Torah back to several hundreds of years before (since the Talmud was an Oral Tradition long before it was written).
We don’t know who wrote most of the Gospels, except for a tradition that ties certain people to certain books.
We the only authors who identify themselves are Luke (for Luke and Acts) and John in revelation. Paul for Romans, the Corinthians, Phillipians, Galatians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. After that it is all up for debate. Quite honestly we dont even really know who Luke was, traditions is that he was a follower of Paul, but his accounts seem not to match up all the time with Pauls own teachings and recountings. As for Mathew Mark and Luke and their relationship to John, I suggest you read about Synoptic Gospels.
Keep telling yourself that, I would recommends you get a Tanakh and an Old Testament KJV and read again. And then get a better translation of your Bible like the New Oxford Study Bible (one of the best for both NT and OT).
You are barking up the wrong tree if you think that this is what I think.
Christianity took several Jewish tenets and slapped it together with some Greek philosophy.
Islam took some Jewish and Christian tenets, slapped it together with Arab mysticism and adopted abridged versions of the Torah and the Gospels.
Squid Shark on June 22, 2008 at 10:11 AM
What did the founding fathers say?
Nuff said…!
J_Gocht on June 22, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4]