Your whole argument is based on flawed logic and inconsistent reasoning that ignores the issue of how such a custom license plate can constitute “establishment of religion” when it’s purely voluntary and offered on the same terms as other custom license plates.

theregoestheneighborhood on December 12, 2008 at 2:53 AM

Yes, I am a Liberal–but in the Lockean/Jeffersonian sense, not in the Rooseveltian/Clintonian sense. Thanks for noticing.

What you fail to grasp is that, while the Christian license plates are voluntary, they are government property provided by the government. This case is no different than government creation or sponsorship of a church in which membership is voluntary–it is still government endorsement of a religion.

The First Amendment protects a religious bumper sticker (or any other form of expression) sold by a private actor to another private individual and displayed on said individual’s private property. The same First Amendment prohibits a form of religious expression created by the government, offered by the government, or displayed on government property.

Remember, a government that can endorse Christianity can just as easily endorse Islam, Satanism, or atheism. Leave theocracy to the Iranians, please.

hicsuget on December 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM

This particular government property is paid for by the person who buys the tag. The state offers the opportunity to pay a little extra for the tag and get one customized for a particular group, with a message and perhaps a picture. You pay the extra, you get the extra custom feature. You’re not just allowed to opt out of the custom tag. You have to actually request the custom tag in order to get it.

No one claims a custom tag constitutes a government endorsement of the message on the tag. Until it’s a Christian message, and then the usual hateful suspects wrap themselves in flags of First Amendment Concerned Citizens and pretend that the government has just endorsed and established a church.

Clearly, you’re the one who can’t grasp the situation. Which explains this howler of an argument:

This case is no different than government creation or sponsorship of a church in which membership is voluntary–it is still government endorsement of a religion.

So, allowing some Christians to pay a little extra for a custom license plate that shows a Christian message, just like other people pay a little extra for a custom license plate that shows their message, is exactly the same as the government establishing a church but not requiring you to be a member of it.

Sure you don’t want to rethink that argument?

You also don’t grasp the First Amendment. It does not prohibit religious expression by anyone or institution of government, which is why our money says, “In God We Trust”, and we have invocations at public events and open Congress with prayer.

The First Amendment prohibits 2 things: (1) establishing a state church, and (2) restricting the free exercise of religion. Minor religious expressions or allowing individuals to express themselves in religious terms clearly do not establish a state church, but restricting those expressions does fall afoul of the second part of the First Amendment.

theregoestheneighborhood on December 12, 2008 at 2:53 AM

Waaah the secularists are out to get you.

You want to display your religion, go get a damn bumper sticker. The less religion in the government (Christans, Jews, Muslims), the better off we all are.

A Axe on December 12, 2008 at 2:59 AM

TGTN, Clearly, you were wrong when you said, “even a liberal should understand.”

The only exception I could see is some sort of 14th amendment argument but the 14th amendment is rather vague.

LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 12:47 PM

How about Article VI, section 2?

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thank you, I will have a nice Christmas, such a great holiday that predates “Christ”.

LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Why even throw that in? It’s such a cheap shot. I’ve been around and I know that’s code for disdain. Christmas is in memory of the birth of Christ, therefore, the celebration, by it’s very definition, cannot predate Jesus Christ.

But to elaborate, if people are involved in supernatural death worship then it would be useful to know that when I am on the same road as them.

See, I don’t understand your logic here either. This might be hard to understand. But, since the world is here, there are only two choices. Somebody made it, or it made itself.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

Please elaborate, is right. Looks like your post was a very bad attempt at sarcasm.

Please elaborate. Thank you, and I hope you have a nice Christmas.

apacalyps on December 12, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Thank you, I will have a nice Christmas, such a great holiday that predates “Christ”.

But to elaborate, if people are involved in supernatural death worship then it would be useful to know that when I am on the same road as them.

Remember what happened when we let it up to South Carolina to decide if they wanted to have human slavery or not? No State has the leeway to violate rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

hicsuget on December 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM

History and what the constitution says many times are too different things. The Constitution prevents the Federal Government from discriminating for or against religions thus “Congress shall make no law”, with Congress of course being the US Congress, since the federal government does not mandate what type of government each state has, if it applied to all governments it would state something like “the right of the people…shall not be infringed”. State governments, according to what the constitution says or actually does not say, can pass laws regarding religion. The only exception I could see is some sort of 14th amendment argument but the 14th amendment is rather vague.

I believe anybody who believes in such nonsense, espcially to want to put it on you car, should be tagged so other drivers know they’re dealing with irrational people.

LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Please elaborate. Thank you, and I hope you have a nice Christmas.

I believe anybody who believes in such nonsense, espcially to want to put it on you car, should be tagged so other drivers know they’re dealing with irrational people.

LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Huh?

How about letting the State of South Carolina decide if they want these plates or not?

That’s about it, isn’t it.

rightwingprof on December 12, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Remember what happened when we let it up to South Carolina to decide if they wanted to have human slavery or not? No State has the leeway to violate rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

How about letting the State of South Carolina decide if they want these plates or not?

That’s about it, isn’t it.

Seriously, where does it end? Do the muslims get to have a plate now? Do the Jews?

You directly describe muzzling individuals who choose these license plates over others as victory?

You are a pathetic person.

Your whole argument is based on flawed logic and inconsistent reasoning that ignores the issue of how such a custom license plate can constitute “establishment of religion” when it’s purely voluntary and offered on the same terms as other custom license plates.

theregoestheneighborhood on December 12, 2008 at 2:53 AM

Yes, I am a Liberal–but in the Lockean/Jeffersonian sense, not in the Rooseveltian/Clintonian sense. Thanks for noticing.

What you fail to grasp is that, while the Christian license plates are voluntary, they are government property provided by the government. This case is no different than government creation or sponsorship of a church in which membership is voluntary–it is still government endorsement of a religion.

The First Amendment protects a religious bumper sticker (or any other form of expression) sold by a private actor to another private individual and displayed on said individual’s private property. The same First Amendment prohibits a form of religious expression created by the government, offered by the government, or displayed on government property.

Remember, a government that can endorse Christianity can just as easily endorse Islam, Satanism, or atheism. Leave theocracy to the Iranians, please.

We feel really good about what’s happened today,” said Rev. Thomas Summers of of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which opposed the plates.

Hahahaha….oh, please. Whenever you hear a title like “Reverend” it automatically gives the whole thing a lack of credibility. I get a kick out of these folks who refer to themselves as “Reverend,” as if they are representing Christians. Most Reverends I hear about are liberal and take anti-God stances. Reverend Al Sharpton, Reverend Jackson, they don’t speak for me that for sure. I don’t even think it’s biblical for a minister to use the title “Reverend.” As far as I know, the word is found only once in all the Bible, and is in reference to God, not man. Reverend Thomas Summers of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, hahahaha… you stay classy, Thomas.

A federal judge issued a temporary injunction during a court hearing Thursday after opponents said the plates violate the separation of church and state.

Yup. That’s how they do it every time. Use the so-called “constitutional separation of church and state” myth — even though no such phrase is found in the U.S. Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence, which are America’s primary founding documents.

What’s next? Allahu Akbar?

Exit answer: Neither. I’m not required to go to Wa. State’s capital and purchase a copy of that atheist ‘me too’ tantrum, and I don’t live in S.C.

The nation, nay, WESTERN CIVILIZATION will now collapse in on itself because of this verdict in 3…2..1…

;-)

This country is doomed.