Federal judge orders South Carolina to stop making Christian license plates
posted at 7:37 pm on December 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Remember this? SC wanted to offer custom plates with crosses on them, but in order to minimize the Establishment Clause risk, they figured they should eliminate the normal practice of letting some group profit by sponsoring the plates. Solution: The Christian plates ended up being nine-tenths cheaper than the others, thereby giving them special treatment in the form of a competitive advantage.
Anyway, no dice. Smells like … victory:
A federal judge says South Carolina must stop marketing and making licenses plates that feature the image of a cross and the words “I Believe.”…
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie said the case needs to be heard in court. In the meantime, the judge said the Department of Motor Vehicles cannot take any more orders for the plates…
Currie’s ruling said specifically that the DMV would have to remove any advertising for the plate on its website.
And in fact, the department changed its web page late Thursday afternoon.
Here’s the judge’s order. All you really need to read is the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 3. Exit question: More or less irritating than the atheist display in the Washington state capitol?
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 Next »
Well God forbid if we offend somebody!
Ooops, did I say God? Sorry!
Tony737 on December 11, 2008 at 7:43 PM
I don’t get it … it’s not the state endorsing religion, it’s the people buying the plates.
The war on Christianity trudges onward. I wonder if a fuss would be made if instead of a cross it was a cresent moon.
Probably not. Cajones disappear when dealing with Islam.
darwin on December 11, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Solution: Offer a completely black plate with white letters and “I Don’t Believe” at the bottom for the same price. Problem solved with no litigation.
KSgop on December 11, 2008 at 7:44 PM
This is getting waaaay out of hand.
MsUnderestimated on December 11, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Well THAT should keep the republic safe from the ravages of the Christo-nazis!
/eyeroll
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 11, 2008 at 7:47 PM
One of the plaintiffs is the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Their front page features a question of where you tax dollars are going. “Gaza Seige? Guantanamo Bay? Abu Ghraib?” with the obligatory pictures. The site’s basically what you’d expect.
amerpundit on December 11, 2008 at 7:47 PM
If they offered a non-religious plate for 9/10 the price of a sponsored plate, would the court make them stop selling that plate? If not, isn’t the court forcing the state to discriminate against religion by saying that only religious content can’t be offered at a discount? After all, it’s not that the state is subsidizing religion, it’s simply calculating a price based on non-religious criteria.
Kenrod on December 11, 2008 at 7:48 PM
They were warned by Gov. Sanford. However, I don’t see a problem with the plates. Just don’t buy one if you don’t like it.
SouthernGent on December 11, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Oh, and the judge is a Clinton appointee.
amerpundit on December 11, 2008 at 7:49 PM
I’m not sure what’s more silly – the plates themselves or the fact that someone is offended enough to sue over them.
Slublog on December 11, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Exit question: More or less irritating than the atheist display in the Washington state capitol?
Red State State of Mind on December 11, 2008 at 7:53 PM
About the same — ie: not particularly irritating.
I think the license plates were a bad idea.
I think the Festivus display is childish, but I find it mildly amusing. I know it is meant to tweak my nose as a Christian, but I just find it funny.
‘Seems to me that Christmas trees are sufficiently secular in their modern usage in this country (not to mention sufficiently non-Christian in their roots) that a public display of a Christmas tree (ok, call it a holiday) would be possible without all the rest of the religious and atheistic displays. The problem is that these folks had a nativity scene. No getting around that.
I love the Christmas season, both the secular and religious aspects, but the religious parts need to stay in people’s homes, their churches, and private property. If the nativity scenes keep getting put on court house steps and other public/government property, then the Festivus backers have every right to put up their displays, imo.
Y-not on December 11, 2008 at 7:54 PM
The latter. No contest.
“I Believe” vs. “Religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
If you don’t agree just invert the statements i.e.
“I Don’t Believe” vs. “Atheism hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
aengus on December 11, 2008 at 7:55 PM
I wonder if a fuss would be made if instead of a cross it was a cresent moon. – Dar
Hell no. These punks tremble in fear at the sight of a muslim. But Christians… ooops, I mean X-ians, well they just turn the other cheek, so they’re easy targets. But muslims … piss them off and it’s “I KEEEEL YOU!”
Tony737 on December 11, 2008 at 7:56 PM
No religion should be promoted by the state.
Good call.
mylegsareswollen on December 11, 2008 at 7:57 PM
My opinion on this case hasn’t changed. This ruling is fundamentally flawed, in my opinion, by mischaracterizing the plates (voluntary), the distributor (not the fed), and the intent.
Typical PC ruling, but fundamentally flawed.
Spirit of 1776 on December 11, 2008 at 7:59 PM
… the religious parts need to stay in people’s homes, their churches, and private property. – Ynot
Private property? You mean like, their cars?
Tony737 on December 11, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Please demonstrate how providing a product for sale is tantamount to promoting the causes associated with that product.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 11, 2008 at 8:00 PM
I kind of see the argument.
Solution: Market the plates at full price, but don’t limit them to only one religion. The cross, the Star of David, and the Islamic crescent are obvious choices; the state could also determine a threshhold number of signatures to add other symbols to those available. Of course, a version with no symbol would also be available.
malclave on December 11, 2008 at 8:01 PM
I suppose so. I was really thinking of stores, social lodges, private venues (theme parks), people’s lawns, etc. Non-governmental property.
Are you thinking of the guy in Indian who drives around with a nativity scene in the back of his pickup and parks in front of the court house steps in protest because they don’t allow it to be displayed there any longer? That stunt irritated me every year that I lived in Indiana.
Y-not on December 11, 2008 at 8:03 PM
It seems to me since we are required to display a license plate tag and those tags are exclusively sold by the government, manufacturing official plates with religious symbols and sayings is governmental support of religion.
If someone wants to express their religious views, they can use license plate holders, bumper stickers, novelty plates (if their state doesn’t require two), etc.
Y-not on December 11, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Personally I don’t care either way.
One Angry Christian on December 11, 2008 at 8:07 PM
So can we now go after states promoting the global warming religion?
mred on December 11, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Take that Christianists!
Lehosh on December 11, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Of course they shouldnt be allowed to sell these plates. Keep license plates secular. Why does everything need to have crosses and jesus fish on them? We GET IT, you are religious.
muyoso on December 11, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Privatize license plate design and manufacturing.
mred on December 11, 2008 at 8:09 PM
I’m waiting for the Obama plates, myself.
malclave on December 11, 2008 at 8:09 PM
What is? All of the vanity/theme license plates? We were fine for decades without crosses next to our registration stickers. We’ll be fine without them again. If you want God on your car, buy a plastic Jesus for the dashboard.
Big S on December 11, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Dude, seriously? He was talking about license plates. They go on the car, your private property? That was his point.
apollyonbob on December 11, 2008 at 8:14 PM
1) Knee-jerk reactions with only tenuous basis in law. 2) Suppression of individual freedom based on the hypothetical possibilities of offense. It’s as silly as not telling one girl she’s good-looking so as not to offend every other girl ever. Personal preferences should be allowed in a liberal society as long as they don’t harm others.
Spirit of 1776 on December 11, 2008 at 8:15 PM
FLASH…FLASH….FLASH…IN ADDITIONAL NEWS…….. Judge orders bodies of Founding Fathers exhumed in order to stand trail for hate crimes due to their establishment of a Judieo/Christian Nation.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adam, Ben Franklin, et al…could not be reached for comment.
azcop on December 11, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Privatize license plate design and manufacturing.
mred on December 11, 2008 at 8:09 PM
I agree with that idea. The courts need to stay out of religious matters entirely and let people speak and demonstrate their faith (or non-faith) as they choose.
As a Jew, I wouldn’t sign anything that had the “Arab-American Antidefamation League” (sic) as a cosigner on it. Unlike that stupid Rabbi Sanford T. Marcus.
TexasJew on December 11, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Comrade I feel your pain.
mred on December 11, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Gov’t should stick to it’s knitting. Standard issued plates for all.
mred on December 11, 2008 at 8:23 PM
I’ve decided not to read all the input out of no disrespect for any of them. I have to say one thing based on your title…may blood run red when we must take our Constitution back. Is this what the stupid( no not ignorant) judges are asking for? I want peace… but I’m tired…. very tired.
MNDavenotPC on December 11, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Let me guess,somebody whined,like the clown that
took school prayer out of School’s when he took
it to the Supreme Court!
Well ya know,why should I be forced to stare at
some persons rear bumper,and see a religious
licence plate!————–(Sarc!):)
canopfor on December 11, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Oh, hell. If people want to pay extra for something like that let him. It’s no more offensive than all the Save the LGBT Whales crap.
Blake on December 11, 2008 at 8:25 PM
You do one faith, you’ll have to do them all, ~including Satanists, snake handlers, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Wiccans, et al, with all of the useless nonsense and needless lawsuits involved.
profitsbeard on December 11, 2008 at 8:25 PM
So, to break down your reasoning, the fact that only the government can manufacture these plates means that doing so (even though buying one is completely voluntary) is supporting a religion?
Sorry, I don’t buy that.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 11, 2008 at 8:25 PM
I believe this judge and people arguing against the plates are confused as to what the word endorse means. The word means to approve, support or sustain. These license plates may endorse Christianity, but endorsing is hardly the same thing as making a law establishing a national church or religion, which is what the establishment clause forbids. The word endorse is not even in the constitution in the first place and is a poor choice of a word to use to argue against the “separation church and state”; said phrase not being in the constitution either.
celtnik on December 11, 2008 at 8:26 PM
should read argue for the separation of church and state.
celtnik on December 11, 2008 at 8:29 PM
I’m not too up on my SC constitution but does SC forbid recognizing a religion (and this certainly doesn’t even go that far)? And how exactly does the federal government have jurisdiction over how states tag their cars?
Are they going to take my SC plate that says “In God we trust” on it?
cadams on December 11, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Feh. Render to Caesar, etc.
They can cut off tax breaks for church donations, too.
As a Christian, I demand that the government get out of my religion. And vice versa.
Joan of Argghh on December 11, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Do away with all themed and vanity plates so we are all the same as we should be!
/sarc
thomasaur on December 11, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Should a state be endorsing choice? I’ve seen those.
thomasaur on December 11, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Not a dude, actually.
I thought my other posts covered that.
License plates are made by the government (maybe even by people incarcerated by the government – do prisoners still make them?), sold by the government, and must be purchased and displayed by law. They are an official document, not a mode of expression, religious or otherwise. Making Christian plates means we need to make plates for every religion (and non-religion) imaginable. Imagine the costs. And, do you want your state to issue Satanist plates? I sure don’t.
I agree with the folks who think that this plates thing has gotten out of hand. I personally think there’s a public safety risk to having plates that are not standardized. (How do I know it’s a real plate? How easy is it to read the numbers/letters off on some of these designs?) And I think it’s a really bad idea to select some non-profit groups to support with these novelty plates (I realize not the issue here), in part because some of those groups (like many environmental groups) are pretty close to the line of being political lobbying groups.
I miss the old blue and white MD plate, the light gold and yellow Jersey plate, the blue and orange NY plate… What can I say? I’m a simple woman.
Y-not on December 11, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
When it comes to Christianity, we don’t much care about the second part, do we?
Hawkins1701 on December 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Since the US “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.
This case is not federal.
mred on December 11, 2008 at 8:42 PM
How does having a secular license plate prohibit you from exercising your religion? And, if it does assist you in exercising your religious beliefs, how is the fact that the government makes it, sells it, and distributes it not supporting your religion?
Y-not on December 11, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Fake breaking news from Bendover Backwards News (BBN).
In the latest debate over religious licence plates,
the lobbying groups, for the ‘Lizard People’, are
outraged, that their latest licence plates depicting
a small picture in the corner,”We Love eating Frogs”,
have sent PETA into a tizzy,and PETA is demanding that
the Supreme Court steps in,and pulls the Lizard Peoples
plates,arguing for the frogs!
More details,as the come in!————–(Snark!)A Hem:)
canopfor on December 11, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Doesn’t that mean that Michigan’s citizens could decide all of its plates will display a crescent moon, Florida might choose a Star of David, California might choose a pentagram.
I don’t think that’s what state’s rights are meant to allow.
Y-not on December 11, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Because states have been bound to most of the Bill of Rights, and the judge has found a First Amendment issue.
dedalus on December 11, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Y-not on December 11, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Because what makes America, America is “We the people” are the government; we pay the for it’s infrastructure, the worker’s salaries and other assorted red tape, and for our license plates. If the citizens of South Carolina, or any state want to have crosses on their plates they should allow to do so, as long as it doesn’t violate the establishment clause, which it doesn’t. Like I said above, supporting or endorsing a religion is not the same thing as passing a law establishing it, not even close.
celtnik on December 11, 2008 at 8:49 PM
“I don’t think that’s what state’s rights are meant to allow.”
The Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
mred on December 11, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Darwin fish, perhaps?
Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 8:51 PM
“Because states have been bound to most of the Bill of Rights, and the judge has found a First Amendment issue.
dedalus on December 11, 2008 at 8:46 PM”
Yes stuck his federal nose where it does not belong.
mred on December 11, 2008 at 8:52 PM
And this all established a state religion how, exactly?
“but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” -US Constitution
Little Boomer on December 11, 2008 at 8:53 PM
Owning a car needing a plate is not holding public office. You went to government schools right?
mred on December 11, 2008 at 8:55 PM
OK, I’m not persuading anyone, which is fine.
My concern is that this pushing on this state-facilitated religious symbology through license plates, Ten Commandments displays, Nativity scenes, and the like is going to lead us to a very bad place — no religious displays of any type anywhere that others can see or, alternatively, an expensive and offensive route of “equal time” to fringe and deeply offensive sects.
Why you want to involve government in this issue is beyond me.
Merry Christmas.
Y-not on December 11, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Sarah Palin and religion, these two threads should go on into the wee hours.
thomasaur on December 11, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Lets see. No one forced to buy one of these plates, right?
So, this would be up to the state on whether it is offered.
I’m not seeing where the first amendment comes in here. Is there a portion of the state constitution the prohibits the state from doing this?
Couldn’t you have a private enterprise that conforms to all state regulations make truly custom plates? That wouldn’t be unconstitutional, right? How is this different.
Count to 10 on December 11, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Except the lack thereof.
spmat on December 11, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Thank you, fixed it!
apacalyps on December 11, 2008 at 9:08 PM
I do think that this is an overreach of federal powers. The state of SC determines who, what, when, where and how residents of the state drive, get licensed and register automobiles. The federal court is wrong and the state had better remember why they started it the first time.
belad on December 11, 2008 at 9:14 PM
IT,S ABOUT TIME THAT SOMEONE OR SOME STATE STOOD AND SAYS TO ALL OF THESE MORRON JUDGES GO TO HELL WE WILL NOT STOP SEND IN THE FEDS AND TRY TO MAKE US STOP.
thmcbb on December 11, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Ridiculous. If I have the right to get a tag that says “I Love Cats” then I should have the right to get a tag that says “I love Jesus” but no, that’s too much free speech. Nude dancing, that’s protected speech, and so is flag burning, but not religious expression. This kind on foolishness turns the establishment clause on its head AND THE JUDGE KNOWS IT.
The state either bars ALL personalized plates, or none. The establishment clause does NOT FORBID religious expression, it forbids the government from FORCING religion on citizens.
JustTruth101 on December 11, 2008 at 9:17 PM
What happened to States’ rights?
Our country is really starting to s*ck.
ex-Democrat on December 11, 2008 at 9:17 PM
How about we go back to the single license plate design for each state. I myself stick with the standard michigan plate.
nobleclem on December 11, 2008 at 9:30 PM
If South Carolina started a church in which membership was optional, that would still constitute state endorsement of a religion. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment applies as much to Protestant Christianity as it does to anything else.
No State has the “right” to violate the rights of its citizens—this decision is laudatory. It’s too bad that the Supreme Court doesn’t exhibit the same vigilance repealing acts of Congress that violate the IVth and Xth Amendments.
hicsuget on December 11, 2008 at 9:39 PM
My mistake: I meant “IXth and Xth Amendments.” Ed needs to fix the Preview button–it doesn’t fulfill its intended function when you’re posting while intoxicated.
hicsuget on December 11, 2008 at 9:49 PM
This is like the Playboy Channel; Comcast doesn’t condone it, but if you want to pay extra for it, they’ll provide it. Maybe not the best example, but if you don’t want a Christian license place, don’t buy one, you douche.
MsUnderestimated on December 11, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Booyah.
RightOFLeft on December 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM
How do we get from an admonition to the US Congress not to make religious laws… to a STATE not being able to sell a license plate?
In fact, does not the SECOND part say that Congress could NOT stop a State from making a religous plate?
The Amendment is about the FEDERAL government, by any fair reading…
Romeo13 on December 11, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Sorry, but some of the origional States had STATE religions at the time of the Founders…. clearly this is about FEDERAL Power… and was specificly left to the States.
Romeo13 on December 11, 2008 at 10:11 PM
“If South Carolina started a church in which membership was optional, that would still constitute state endorsement of a religion”
Dude read the BLAGO Establishment BLAGO Clause:
The US “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
State’s rights BLAGO head!
mred on December 11, 2008 at 10:12 PM
A bunch of people need a hand full of valuim. If you want to pay for the plate have at it. If enough people want to buy one that is pink and says “I’m a Weener” do that to.
For goodness sake quit getting your back up in the air over a license plate. Atheist are sensitive.
Big Orange on December 11, 2008 at 10:13 PM
We have a bumper sticker which says: God Bless America, even if it is illegal.
Who knows the guys in prison might become a believer when he stamps out the plate…
wepeople on December 11, 2008 at 10:19 PM
What? South Carolina isn’t starting a church … it’s not “establishing” a religion, it’s selling license plates that people buy. When a state legislature passes a law that deems a particular religion the official law of the state and the governor signs it, you might have a case. Otherwise no.
Essentially, people are being discriminated against solely because the plate they want has religious connotations.
darwin on December 11, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Tempest in a teapot. Don’t we have bigger problems? Let’s all have the same friggin’ license plates (no vanity or specialty plates at all).
ddrintn on December 11, 2008 at 10:19 PM
More on the establishment clause from the Bush-appointed (and Christian) Judge John E. Jones III:
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000297
RightOFLeft on December 11, 2008 at 10:19 PM
so, this judge thinks that “Equal Protection” gives a New Right?
The reading of the First on this subject enjoins Congress from doing somthing… it does not delineate a Right…
Romeo13 on December 11, 2008 at 10:29 PM
That is correct, but the Constitution has been amended since the time of the founders. Some of the states proceeded to violate the rights of individuals through the institution of slavery, and thus it became necessary to amend the founding Document. The XIVth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights to all Americans, superseding state law where state law violated said rights. Thus, constitutionally, in present-day America, no state can violate the rights of its citizens.
My initial argument, incidentally, was more moral than legal. The sovereignty of any government body comes about only insofar as said body serves to protect the rights of its citizens, and no state that violates the rights of its citizens has a moral right to continue to exist. (Cf: Declaration of Independence, Operation Iraqi Freedom)
hicsuget on December 11, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Atheists’ G-d: man made laws. Nice penumbra asshat!
mred on December 11, 2008 at 10:36 PM
It’s not just him. It’s pretty much every judge in America (if they don’t want to be overturned on appeal).
RightOFLeft on December 11, 2008 at 10:37 PM
14th, ensured that States did not mess with Rights granted by the Consitution.
This “Right” was never in the Constitution, it was a prohibition from the Feds getting involved in Relgion… much as many of the other things in the Constitution are Limits on Federal Power, without creating a Personal Right.
Words have meanings, and I’m really tired of Judges, creating from whole clothe, things those words don’t say…
Kinda like the whole Natural Born Citizen thing… its clear what the intent is… and yet they totaly disregard it…
(and I say this as an Agnostic, who would not have one of these license plates anyway…)
Romeo13 on December 11, 2008 at 10:38 PM
In the US constitution fool. Ain’t no license plate in the US constitution fool
mred on December 11, 2008 at 10:40 PM
If Vermont were selling plates that said “Hail, Satan,” you’d be up in arms, citing First Amendment issues. Your religious prejudice has blinded you to the obvious legal principle at issue here.
Any official cognizance taken of any religion constitutes establishment unless equal cognizance is taken of all other religions. If they’re not also offering plates with the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s visage, it’s a First Amendment violation.
hicsuget on December 11, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Left out those fetal tissues at 9 months by a penumbra.
mred on December 11, 2008 at 10:44 PM
I don’t believe in Gaia. Knock off your “global warming” religion. Start with the NYT, BBC, NPR, and et al.
mred on December 11, 2008 at 10:47 PM
There is not one article or amendment that abrogates, modifies or reverses any thing in the First Amendment inasmuch as the free exercise of religion is involved. All it says is that the FEDERAL government cannot establish ONE faith as a National faith. You who who think you know the Constitution are stupid if you think otherwise.Oh and the 14th Amendment is not what you perceive it to be, either. It does not block states rights. You’d like it to be so, but read it again as it is written.
MNDavenotPC on December 11, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Au contraire…My right to be free from government imposition of your religion became a part of the Constitution as soon as the Bill of Rights was ratified. Cf. Article V.
As for the “whole clothe[sic]” allegation, the writings of Locke, Jefferson, and other pertinent figures make it quite clear where the Founders stood on this issue. Some theory of constitutional interpretation is necessary, and “Originalism,” for one, is on my side.
hicsuget on December 11, 2008 at 10:49 PM
We do, of sorts…Its a plate that states “In reason we trust” made just for the atheists. I’m serious, I live here and have seen it.
MechEng5by5 on December 11, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Well done, mred! You managed to be even less coherent than the typical HA commenter. I’d suggest you be given some sort of prize, but I would imagine that your own inability to communicate intelligently is reward enough.
hicsuget on December 11, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Not by a penumbra; by the text: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”.
hicsuget on December 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I didn’t understand the problem. Why didn’t they just offer the plates at full price? I know some would object, but they were entirely optional.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 10:57 PM
If I am muslim, can I get a jihad license plate?
paulsur on December 11, 2008 at 10:58 PM
First, you have no idea who I am, or what I believe in so to presume you know how I would react to any situation is an indication of the lack of respect you must hold for anyone who doesn’t adhere to your views.
Secondly, there is no “obvious” legal principle at issue here. If it was that “obvious” we wouldn’t be talking about it, or having judges staying license plates.
Perhaps it’s your zeal and prejudice against religion that blinds you. I seriously doubt the intent of the 14th Amendment was to enact gay marriage, and strike down license plates and nativity scenes. The intent was to to give former slaves full recognition … and not to prevent the atheist’s constant worry of a budding Christian Theocracy … which no doubt a license plate with a cross will be more than enough to start.
darwin on December 11, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Not good enough–it still constitutes the use of government property to proselytize for a particular set of religious (dis)beliefs. (License plates are government property–if you don’t believe me, try moving out of state without returning your old one.) Either there must exist a license plate for every idiotic sect and cult, or there must exist a license plate for no religious viewpoints at all.
A better solution would be to buy a bumper sticker.
hicsuget on December 11, 2008 at 11:01 PM
This was my point exactly.
hicsuget on December 11, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »