Oh my: Federal judge finds Christian license plates unconstitutional

posted at 7:20 pm on November 10, 2009 by Allahpundit

It’s atheist Christmas!

Her ruling singled out [Lt. Gov. Andre] Bauer after he pushed a tag Christian advocates sought in Florida, but legislators there did not approve.

Bauer wanted to accomplish in South Carolina what had been unsuccessful in Florida, Currie wrote: To “gain legislative approval of a specialty plate promoting the majority religion: Christianity. Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same. The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.”

Bauer said he wasn’t surprised by the ruling and would like to see it appealed.

“I don’t expect anything different from a liberal judge who was appointed by Bill Clinton,” Bauer said. “If she wants to single me out, so be it.”

Just for good measure, the judge ordered the state to cover the legal expenses of groups like Americans United who filed suit to stop the plates. And why not? Did anyone expect these things to pass constitutional muster? The outcome’s been a fait accompli since my first post on the subject more than a year ago. Waste a court’s time, pay the other party’s fee. That’s how it usually works in law. Or should.

But cheer up. Follow the link above and you’ll see that Plan B here involves a private group of Christians registering their organizational name as “I Believe” with the Secretary of State and then applying with the DMV to produce vanity plates with that slogan — and, er, a cross. Exit question: Does that solve the constitutional problem? Technically it’s now a private group, not the state, that’s responsible for the Christian symbolism, although of course the design would have to be approved by a state agency. And if it’s not okay, then what’s the difference between the private group’s plate and the religious symbols that appear on tombstones at Arlington?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

May I remind my fellow Christians of this passage:

2 Timothy 2:23
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Don’t take Allah’s bait.

MikeA on November 11, 2009 at 6:43 AM

Why do the mouth-breathing bible-lovers gays feel a need to share their nuttiness with everyone else – …
simplesimon on November 10, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Amazing how the attitudes of the left in this thread change just by changing a few words. Let’s see how tolerant the left is now.

mwdiver on November 11, 2009 at 8:04 AM

“And if it’s not okay, then what’s the difference between the private group’s plate and the religious symbols that appear on tombstones at Arlington?” -AP

Some would suggest AP is defending the plates here. No, he’s justifying a lawsuit against the grave markers.

Federal workers will be ripping those crosses out of the ground at Arlington in my lifetime. It will be an unprecedented horror of leftist statism gone mad, but it will definitely happen.

Rational Thought on November 10, 2009

Fewer crosses for AP to pee on.

SKYFOX on November 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM

Not even remotely the same. U.S. Money is not even actually printed by the government.

Squid Shark on November 10, 2009 at 10:53 PM

The U.S. Govt. doesn’t make cars eith-

Crap.

cs89 on November 11, 2009 at 8:26 AM

Seriously, the founders were trying to make sure we didn’t have a “Church of America” with govt. financial support, religious tests for public office, etc.

Check out the Virginia state Constitution (which Jefferson was pretty involved in as well) then come back and say they would have a problem with allowing a Christian tag as one option among many.

One of the current SC tags is a “In reason we trust” secular humanist option, as found at a link above in the comments.

cs89 on November 11, 2009 at 8:28 AM

Apologies to Rational Thought. I don’t know how to properly separate your comments from mine and made it appear that one of my comments was yours.

SKYFOX on November 11, 2009 at 8:28 AM

john1schn on November 10, 2009 at 11:47 PM

Checks are not legal tender, they are a private contract between two persons with the bank acting as a guarantor.

That was my point, you arrogant prig.

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 8:42 AM

How is it that liberals sue so quick and are so successful at it, and at getting their bills paid by the other party? Conservatives never seem to be able to get into the ring due to lack of standing or some such.

Spartacus on November 11, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Spartacus on November 11, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Because we have Orly Tatiz and they have Johnny Cochrane?

There are plenty of good attorneys that Work for Conservative causes. Dont forget, we won the big one. Easily the worst reasoned SCOTUS case of the last decade, Bush v. Gore.

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Oh my: FederalSecular progressive judge finds Christian license plates unconstitutional

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 11, 2009 at 9:13 AM

For all those complaining about the expenses being paid: Isnt that what you want in Tort Reform? Loser pays…

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM

Plan B? No! Just ban it. Ban the cross. It’s even objectionable to Liberal Christians so go ahead and ban it! People should never be able to display it anywhere in the public square because it’s so objectionable. Like to wear a necklace with a cross to work at the courthouse or Congress? BANNED! I mean that little ol’ amendment says your free to worship in sanctuary. Go be a nun and cloister yourself up. Freedom means do it in private behind closed doors but never, I mean never, utter a word or display a symbol in the public square so that ANYONE knows you actually worship! That’s what the framers of the constitution meant from the beginning, it’s just that the Founding Fathers forgot to implement it correctly. Now after 230+ years we’ll correct that wrong!! /sarc

If you don’t like the plates, don’t get one. I’m not about Whale Wars but it doesn’t mean that I wanna go around to every CA Prius and strip them of their right to display it because I have to look at the freaking peace symbol for 2 hours on the 91 freeway. Hook in the iPod or switch to AM640 between 9am and 12pm and laugh at the stupidity. Anger only gets you a fast ticket to a heartattack.

Have you ever noticed how Atheist Liberals always look like the have a sour puss? They just seem unhappy and angry most of the time? Worry about everything like Chicken Littles? Complain about everythin?. How nothing’s right or works right? How they can’t wait to let everyone know how miserable they are and how miserable everything is? Yep! Ban the cross!

Sultry Beauty on November 11, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Waste a court’s time, pay the other party’s fee. That’s how it usually works in law. Or should.

You don’t know what you are talking about. The legal expenses to get PelousiCare declared unconstitutional will not be paid by the US Government, or more fittingly, by the Congressional nitwits who voted for it. That’s not how the system works.

Loser pays should be the law, but has been adamantly opposed by the lawyer lobby and their tools in Congress and blogging nitwits like Squid above.

james23 on November 11, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Its unconstitutional to give people the option of having a cross on their license plate, yet constitutional to put “In God We Trust” on every unit of our currency?

So backward.

Count to 10 on November 11, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Loser pays should be the law, but has been adamantly opposed by the lawyer lobby and their tools in Congress and blogging nitwits like Squid above.

james23 on November 11, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Loser pays would defeat the whole purpose of lawsuits in the first place. Then only those with money would be willing to sue. You can call me a nitwits all you want, if you truly want a “free market” system, free from government regulation, the courts and punitive damages will be the ONLY check on irresponsible corporations.

Furthermore, loser pays will just make juries even LESS likely to find for the big corporation.

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 9:35 AM

james23 on November 11, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Also, loser pays is already an option at the discretion of the judge in the case, that is where it should remain.

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 9:37 AM

I’m Christian and I can’t really defend these license plates. I like the idea of the private group doing it though. If environmental groups get their own plates, why not other groups?

BadgerHawk on November 10, 2009 at 7:24 PM

I’m atheist and I can’t defend the banning of these plates.

Count to 10 on November 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

I’m atheist and I can’t defend the banning of these plates.

Count to 10 on November 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

I agree, I dont see how these plates are any different from the “choose life” plates here in FL.

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Is it just me or is every hyperlink in this series dead?

Chris_Balsz on November 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM

hmmm,

A Federal Judge decides something a State does entirely within its borders is Unconstitutional.

The Fed should have absolutely no standing to say anything about licence plates in a state.

This is yet again, the Federal Government overstepping it’s authority.

Thune on November 11, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Thune on November 11, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Likely rationalization: State License plates = Interstate commerce. This has been used before to get standing in federal court for other automobile issues.

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM

It,s about time for some state to just stand up and tell these judges to stuff it.Either the 10th amendment means what it says or just get rid of the constitution all together .There is a unrest in this country that i have never felt before.These politician and judges better start listing to the people or revolution is coming .

thmcbb on November 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM

This idiot judge needs to read the constitution! NO WHERE does it ever say “separation of church and state!” Religion is mentioned only 2 times in the constitution; one states that no one can be denied a seat in congress because of their religion. The other states:
-

CONGRESS shall make no law establishing a religion, nor abridge the freedoms there of!”
-

CONGRESS IS NOT THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, NOR ANY OTHER STATE IN THIS UNION! Any state in this union CAN have religious symbols on “public” land if the people of that state/county/parish/city/town want it & the federal government has NO RIGHT to say anything about it!
-
GOD help this country, and may the founders curse all the US statues idiots out there!

Confederate on November 11, 2009 at 10:33 AM

It’s about time for some state to just stand up and tell these judges to stuff it.Either the 10th amendment means what it says or just get rid of the constitution all together.

thmcbb on November 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Well said. Some governor with a pair needs to call the courts’ bluff. Refuse to honor their unconstitutional abrogation of his authority and challenge the Congress and Executive to send in the troops. If he’s really got a spine he’ll call up his Guard to defend the State’s rights.

It’s about time some governor stood up for his rights under the 10th Amendment instead of licking Washington’s loafers.

rcl on November 11, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Where is separation of Church and state in the constitution?
This judge is not enforcing a law, but something that this judge wants to be true.

JakeRightThought on November 11, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Religion is supposed to have more rights in America not less. It is a Privileged Class that should be involved directly in Politics.

PrezHussein on November 11, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Why do the mouth-breathing bible-lovers feel a need to share their nuttiness with everyone else – in this case the guy in the car behind them? I wonder if it was like this 2000 years ago when the planet was born and dinosaurs roamed the earth.

simplesimon on November 10, 2009 at 9:48 PM

all this is a result of you still nursing from your mom

GET OFF THE TEAT!!!

it will help

Sonosam on November 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM

broad tipped marker

all Christians put a small cross in a bare space and show up at court together

Sonosam on November 11, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Why do the mouth-breathing bible-lovers feel a need to share their nuttiness with everyone else – in this case the guy in the car behind them? I wonder if it was like this 2000 years ago when the planet was born and dinosaurs roamed the earth.

simplesimon on November 10, 2009 at 9:48 PM

For the same reason that people want to share the nuttiness associated with trees, or whales, or peace, or kids, or the Flag, or Purple Heart or Veteran status. If sectarian symbols are permitted on license plates, than religious symbols should be too, under Amendment I of our Constitution.

I could see your argument if the states offered no adornment on their plates, but since they have chosen to, and chosen to make money off of same, then any state which has a process to permit custom plates is bound by the First Amendment to allow petitions for religiously-themed plates.

unclesmrgol on November 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Dear Lord, please forgive our country for turning on you and spitting in your face. In Jesus Holy name, Amen.

doginblack on November 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM

The constitution makes no reference to cars or car tags. Anybody with a brain knows that.

seven on November 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Did anyone expect these things to pass constitutional muster?

Apparently 99% of the commenters at Hotair did. The party that claims to support the constitution doesn’t have a clue what’s actually in the constitution. The fourteenth amendment, for example. Conservatives would have an easier time making the case for small government if they didn’t spend so much time yammering about granting states rights — as if there’s a difference between giving power to a state and giving power to the state.

Buy a freaking bumper sticker and get over it.

RightOFLeft on November 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Where is separation of Church and state in the constitution?
This judge is not enforcing a law, but something that this judge wants to be true.

JakeRightThought on November 11, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I agree. But even if that was in the Constitution, the Fed has no power to dictate what a state chooses to do, as long as a citizens basic rights are not abridged.
More social engineering from the bench.

Itchee Dryback on November 11, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Care to share a citation or two, counselor?

james23 on November 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Likely rationalization: State License plates = Interstate commerce. This has been used before to get standing in federal court for other automobile issues.

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM

its not a standing issue, Perry Mason. Look, your cigarette break is over, time to go back to flipping burgers, counselor.

james23 on November 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM

And, by the way, the Bible predicted the attack on Christianity towards the end times along with the one world gov’t, the Jews attacked by Iran and Russia

You are such a liar!

Don’t try to twist Holy Scripture to make it say something that it doesn’t!

Where does Scripture ever say that Russia attacks israel?

IT DOESN’T.

It does say that Gog and Magog attack Israel(the people of God).

Now, who is Gog and Magog?

The Church has always taught and any scholar or historian will tell you that the descendants of Magog is the Khazars of the Khazar empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

Unless you have NEVER studied history, you would know that the Khazar empire comprised the area between the black sea and the caspian sea,to the east of the Byantine Empire and to the west of the Isalamic Caliphate.

The Khazars officially converted to judaism in 740 AD. And they were an extremely powerful empire for hundreds and hundreds of years. Eventually the Russian and Byzantine Orthodox Christian empire defeated them and they fled west into poland, germany etc.

Both Christian,JEWISH and islamic scholars all agree that the khazars are the descendants of Magog and Meshech.

Flavius Josephus claimed that “Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians. According to Josephus the Greeks called the Scythian land MAGOGIA(Ant., bk. I, 6).

The Scythians also known as Askuz or Ashkenaz,occupied the land betwen the Black Sea and the caspian Sea and later became known as Khazars.

Rabbi Petakhiah in his travelogue Sibbuv ha-Olam, concerning the conversion of King Bulan to Judaism, makes mention that the kingdom was that of ancient Meshech.

The Khazar King acknowledged their descent from Togarmah.Togarmah is the grandson of Japheth who sired MAGOG,TUBAL,MESECH,GOMER etc.
Togarmah is a son of Gomer, and brother of Ashkenaz and Ripath (Gen 10:3; I Chr 1:6)

King Joseph ben Aaron, King of the Khazars, writes:

“You ask us also in your epistle: “Of what people, of what family, and of what tribe are you?” Know that we are descended from Japhet, through his son Togarmah. I have found in the genealogical books of my ancestors that Togarmah had ten sons. These are their names: the eldest was Ujur (Agiôr – Uyghur), the second Tauris (Tirôsz – Tauri), the third Avar (Avôr – Avar), the fourth Uauz (Ugin – Oghuz), the fifth Bizal (Bizel – Pecheneg), the sixth Tarna, the seventh Khazar (Khazar), the eighth Janur (Zagur), the ninth Bulgar (Balgôr – Bulgar), the tenth Sawir (Szavvir/Szabir – Sabir).”

YOU NEED TO CHECK YOURSELF AND YOUR SLANDER OF CHRISTIAN RUSSIA!

Russia is not ruled by Gog(satan) and RUSSIA IS NOT MAGOG.
Russia is THIRD ROME and the CENTER of Christianity in the world! How dare you slander the Christian Church in your ignorance!

Another vital important thing you are missing is that Gog and Magog attack Israel and it is 100% clear in the Bible that THE CHURCH IS ISRAEL! St Paul clearly addresses the Church calling them THE ISRAEL OF GOD. Why do you ignore the scripture?

MaximusConfessor on November 11, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Steve Doocy brought up a great point on Fox and Friends…why not just remove the cross from the plate. But, really is it necessary to have an I Believe plate? Couldn’t you just put a bumper sticker on your car? Why bother with something so silly? We get all crabby when Atheist make a big stink over Christmas trees, etc?

Buelldawg on November 11, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Care to share a citation or two, counselor?

james23 on November 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM

I am sorry, I think the burden of proof would be on you, you want to change the system of tort recovery that is as old as English Common Law.

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 1:40 PM

its not a standing issue, Perry Mason. Look, your cigarette break is over, time to go back to flipping burgers, counselor.

james23 on November 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM

The statement was that Federal Court does not have jurisdiction. I was making a note that interstate commerce has been used in the past for this kind of thing.

And 2 other things:
I dont smoke, I quit after my first deployment.
and
Like most military people not on duty I am not working today, hence I have all the time in the world.

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Hey Allah, if you knew anything about the Constitution you would know it’s the FEDERAL government that can’t do things with religion. Not state governments. You are an idiot.

Living4Him5534 on November 11, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Apparently 99% of the commenters at Hotair did. The party that claims to support the constitution doesn’t have a clue what’s actually in the constitution. The fourteenth amendment, for example. Conservatives would have an easier time making the case for small government if they didn’t spend so much time yammering about granting states rights — as if there’s a difference between giving power to a state and giving power to the state.

Buy a freaking bumper sticker and get over it.

RightOFLeft on November 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Apparently you don’t understand that same Constitution very well either. Please re-read my comment above yours about how, if the state allows the petitioning to put any message on a license plate, they have to allow the petitioning to put religious messages on a license plate. Again, if you can put a whale on a license plate, you can put a cross.

The only thing I’ve left out is the obvious — if the state doesn’t permit customized backgrounds on its license plates, then it’s under no obligation to allow a religious background.

Why should I have to buy a bumper sticker when someone else can get their message on the plate itself?

unclesmrgol on November 11, 2009 at 2:24 PM

MaximusConfessor on November 11, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Russia is the Christian center of the world?

Just when I think I’ve heard the dumbest pronouncement from you ever, you outdo yourself.

cs89 on November 11, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Hey Allah, if you knew anything about the Constitution you would know it’s the FEDERAL government that can’t do things with religion. Not state governments. You are an idiot.

Living4Him5534 on November 11, 2009 at 1:43 PM

It’s that pesky 14th Amendment, which, coupled with the 1st, requires that States observe religious freedoms outlined in the 1st Amendment. This is well settled law. The part the lefties frequently forget is the “free exercise thereof” part of the 1st.

We long ago stopped being “these United States” and became “the United States”.

unclesmrgol on November 11, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Best: no vehicle licensing whatsoever.

Better: 2-color plates like in most other countries. No slogans, no images. Close the whole can of worms.

Mark Jaquith on November 11, 2009 at 4:28 AM

Yup. Let’s get it started. No specialty plates, no extra money for states. Because the state doesn’t need to be involved in advocacy anyway.

Make the scatter-brained atheists be consistent. If it’s “advocacy” or “promotion”, we don’t need the government “promoting” anything on license plates. It’s government propaganda.

That’s the problem with conservatism, liberals can actually whip themselves up to believe something like that. Still though, if they’re going to use words stupidly and pretend they are smart, we’re only demurring to their wisdom. No promotion of NASCAR is needed on license plates, they’re doing fine already.

If they argue “free expression” then they really are the double-thinkers I suspect them to be. Everything else is “free-expression” but printing a religious license plates is an “excessive entanglement” with “religion”.

I really don’t care. I don’t have bumper stickers of any kind on my car–and only a Jesus fish when they were popular (I’m fonder of symbols than slogans.) before all the fish-fighting symbols (started by in-your-face atheists no less).

Look, I’m somewhat of a socialist, but I advocate for conservatives and traditionalists because the media shuts you guys out. The left also believes in “noble” subterfuge because people don’t know what’s good for them, and I believe in a social contract–besides their idea of “justice” is extremely flighty and based on nothing and their erstwhile nihilism can’t hold any of their concepts together anyway.

Axeman on November 11, 2009 at 2:30 PM

cs89 on November 11, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Apparently YOU are one saying dumb things.

Look it up.

Russia is the largest Christian country in the world.

Orthodox Christianity is the State Religion.

Christians have more freedom in Russia than they do in the United States BY FAR!

This unconstitutional atrocity that this judge has committed here would NOT happen in Russia!

In fact exactly the opposite happens there.

People get fined and jailed in Russia for INSULTING THE RELIGION OF RUSSIA: Orthodox Christianity.

In Russia, they do not teach kids that we are animals and there is no God…they teach Orthodox Christianity in the Schools in Russia.

In Russia, jews,muslims and atheists are treated as second class citizens and have to be very careful to not insult the Christian religion or they will fined and imprisoned.

In Russia, homosexual parades are NOT allowed.
Vladimir Putin(a devout Orthodox Christian)recently forbid homosexuals from holding parades in Moscow and has recently established a new holiday, national babymaking day.

Cs89 you have all your facts backwards.

Russia is the largest Christian country in existence and is the center of Christendom. This is why we have endured so many attacks by the enemy(70 MILLION martyrdoms in the last century)but thanks to Vladimir Putin have emerged from this mess again as a Christian country and the center of Christendom.

Russia IS rightfully Third Rome because the Russian King married the Byzantine princess,developed Byzantine ceremonials and took the title of Tsar(Caesar) after the fall of Byzantine New Rome(Constantinople)in 1453.

MOSCOW THIRD ROME:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai7Jg-m6Gss

MaximusConfessor on November 11, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Russia is the largest Christian country in the world.

Orthodox Christianity is the State Religion.

Christians have more freedom in Russia than they do in the United States BY FAR!

This unconstitutional atrocity that this judge has committed here would NOT happen in Russia!

In fact exactly the opposite happens there.

People get fined and jailed in Russia for INSULTING THE RELIGION OF RUSSIA: Orthodox Christianity.

MaximusConfessor on November 11, 2009 at 2:57 PM

‘nuf said. Caesar and God all rolled up into one. I think I like our system better, even if they don’t like crosses on license plates.

unclesmrgol on November 11, 2009 at 3:05 PM

It’s that pesky 14th Amendment

unclesmrgol on November 11, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Actually it’s not. It’s the expansion of the 14 Amendment to eclipse the 10th amendment, called the “Incorporation Doctrine” based on an continual expansion of the idea of “equal protection” under law. You see if you allow people to have religious license plates atheists have become “un-protected” or something. SC has a license plate that says “In Reason We Trust” by an SC Secular Humanist organization that in no way identifies itself on the plate.
(However it’s a stupid point, which I will belabor below.)

But no matter how many times a day an anti-theist might see a secular humanist plate, they become “unprotected” when they see a religious one.

Now, the contradiction. If I can reason something, but suggesting that I then have to trust the product of that reasoning is actually to throw doubt on the process. So what value does trust add to the equation? You’re actually suggesting that you can reason X and be wrong–thus the value of trust is questionable. Or if you reason right, what did trust add?

It is a statement of faith. Rationalism will win. Thus, before the Turing proved the Halting problem, if we believed that reason would empower us to sort definite solutions from undefined conditions, we were still wrong. It is actually a statement that not resorting to well-meant platitudes is the way to go–so the statement as a platitude is rather contradictory.

If we accept that it is a statement of faith, then, as a government produced license plate it advocates a replacement of a trust in God with a trust in man’s capacity to reason. And thus advocates against religion. And so is a government advocacy against religion, which wouldn’t pass #2 of the Lemon Test if cases were ever decided on that side.

Thing is I see removing these license plates as equally as petty and overbearing as having to remove the religious license plates.

Axeman on November 11, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Why do the mouth-breathing bible-lovers feel a need to share their nuttiness with everyone else

simplesimon on November 10, 2009 at 9:48 PM

But the state cannot define it as “nuttiness” or otherwise they are in violation of Lemon Test principle #2. So, that hardly characterizes a position that the state could hold.

Perhaps you can delve into your own motivation to share your nonsense…

Axeman on November 11, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Caesar and God all rolled up into one.

No it’s called SYMPHONY between Church and State. The State cannot interfere in the practice or beliefs of the Church and the Politicians are all members of the Religion of the Country and protect the Religion.

Because America does not have this(except for the State religion of Atheism)..America will surely fall and will soon become a communist country.

BTW,

The Constitution of the United States ALLOWS official state religions for each individual states.

This judges decision is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and if people here care about what is going in their country they will surely revoke the illegal decision of this judge.

MaximusConfessor on November 11, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Why do the mouth-breathing bible-lovers feel a need to share their nuttiness with everyone else

simplesimon on November 10, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Perhaps for the same reason mouth-breathing athiests do? Maybe it just something about mouth-breathing and not about the religious issues.

MikeA on November 11, 2009 at 3:20 PM

FIFY, just like I did for Joe….

Tim Burton on November 11, 2009 at 1:47 AM

Sorry, turn it back…it was to limit all government. It addressed what was federal and states, but he intent was to limit government interference with our lives…the burden was on the government to prove their case. We are innocent of breaking any law until proven guilty.
That extends to we are free until restrained by any of the government agency’s…some are good like Police and road rules…and many are bad like health care and license plate restrictions…
Please, ask before you use my words and change them…and if you don’t, remove my name and replace it with yours.

right2bright on November 11, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Federal workers will be ripping those crosses out of the ground at Arlington in my lifetime.

Rational Thought on November 10, 2009

I second that prediction. It’s odd because the judgments taken together seem to be arguing a slippery slope, while saying that there is no slippery slope on the other side.

Thus, they can go further up the hill, and the only danger is to slip down toward religion, the hill never crests and they’re never in danger of sliding down another slope–but by this they are treating religion as special, and the impetus to get as far away from its entangling vines as possible does serve as a cumulative suppression of religion. We’ve still got a little more to go up the hill to get a little more distance from the entangling vines of religion…just a couple more steps.

Which is one of the reasons I think Slippery Slope is probably one of the weakest brands of “fallacy” out there–our COURTS use it! “No, it’s not an establishment, per se–but it’s like a thicket that gets you all wrapped up and when it has you immobile enough, BANG!, up pops a church.”

When you’re saying that you can always take steps one way, but not the other you are basically creating the ratcheting mechanism needed for a slippery slope. Definitely saying that because we’ve reached point X, we will inevitably reach point Y by some propagation mechanism is probably fallacious. If we don’t know that force of propagation, to suggest that there must be one because we’ve reached point X is probably the case in which SS is sharpest as fallacy. But we see the method and manner of propagation: some fools are feeling “un-protected” because the government is complicit in creating a license plate for religious expression!!

There is one slur that underlies all this: you can’t trust religious people to stop at license plates and expression. Religious irrationality is something that we’ve been trying to get away from and it is something that will drag us back into the Dark Ages if we don’t guard against it. But ever advancing the rationale of this slur is not “inhibiting religion” because the judges just don’t think so.

On the other hand, we can expect that people who have named themselves “rational” will be “rational” and can be trusted to have our best interests at heart, because they are rational and they say they do. (Something I’m beginning to formulate as “Intentional Fallacy”. It is impossible for any of my actions to result in X, because I am not for X.)

Axeman on November 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM

People get fined and jailed in Russia for INSULTING THE RELIGION OF RUSSIA: Orthodox Christianity.

MaximusConfessor on November 11, 2009 at 2:57 PM

As well they should…an abomination of a religion…do you still sacrifice young virgins at the altar?

right2bright on November 11, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Allah, as a conservative of some stripe, that you might have read an activist opinion that ends with the disclaimer: “This is not an activist opinion because this court is not an activist court.”

And if you have seen this enough, you know 1) that judges are going to do this. And 2) it doesn’t make it any less activist because the Jedi mind trick doesn’t really work.

Observing #1, you can successfully predict that there might be a disclaimer at the end of an activist decision. But, along with #2, it doesn’t make it any more right that they made that decision, simply because they argued to themselves that they made it correctly.

Thus that you predicted that the license plate would fail the Lemon Test is a separate question from whether it should . Along with that disclaimer, in those opinions that I have read with the Lemon Test usually contains something to the effect that the court is not convinced that their decision will inhibit religion.

I’ve read enough LT decisions that I can predict BOTH, but it doesn’t make me happier with either self-satisfied find-some-rationale-for-saving-the-people-from-their-own-decisions-rather-than-demurring-to-popular-vote pronouncement. The courts have established themselves as filters for the people to express their will in votes.

Patting yourself on the back because 1) you’re happy with the outcome and 2) you predicted it is no way to defend a republic from its potential oligarchs based on a similar sentiments among the expert class.

Axeman on November 11, 2009 at 3:48 PM

It must be such a relief for atheists to no longer have to worry about being offended by a car in front of them with a license plate bearing a cross.
I guess they can resume their belief in nothingness, secure in the belief that God doesn’t exist and that once again their whiny bit*hing has made Christians think they’re schm*cks.

katiejane on November 11, 2009 at 4:01 PM

MaximusConfessor on November 11, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Do you not see the disconnect between citing Russia as the “center of Christendom” and in the same post refer to relatively recent martyrdoms there?

Oh, and Putin may be Orthodox, but he’s also KGB. Not exactly the next Constantine.

cs89 on November 11, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Apparently you don’t understand that same Constitution very well either. Please re-read my comment above yours about how, if the state allows the petitioning to put any message on a license plate, they have to allow the petitioning to put religious messages on a license plate. Again, if you can put a whale on a license plate, you can put a cross.

The only thing I’ve left out is the obvious — if the state doesn’t permit customized backgrounds on its license plates, then it’s under no obligation to allow a religious background.

Why should I have to buy a bumper sticker when someone else can get their message on the plate itself?

unclesmrgol on November 11, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Someone else isn’t using the state to promote their religion. How much simpler could this issue be? Buy a bumper sticker.

RightOFLeft on November 11, 2009 at 4:02 PM

It must be such a relief for atheists to no longer have to worry about being offended by a car in front of them with a license plate bearing a cross.

katiejane on November 11, 2009 at 4:01 PM

At least until that heathen driver pulls a gun on them in a fit of road rage that could’ve been stopped by a moment of prayer…

hawksruleva on November 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Doofpundit really is clueless.

By his standard, since churches have to register with the state as non-profits, the state is therefore promoting religion and should deny any churches the right to exist.

TTheoLogan on November 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM

It must be such a relief for atheists to no longer have to worry about being offended by a car in front of them with a license plate bearing a cross.
I guess they can resume their belief in nothingness, secure in the belief that God doesn’t exist and that once again their whiny bit*hing has made Christians think they’re schm*cks.

katiejane on November 11, 2009 at 4:01 PM

You may have hit on something there. Think of all the problems that could be eliminated by pretending they don’t exist because they are invisible! They seem to believe it works, i.e. MSM ignoring news they don’t care for.

jodetoad on November 11, 2009 at 4:49 PM

It’s time for that idiot judge to be overturned and sent to a re-education camp.

BottomLine5 on November 11, 2009 at 7:24 PM

Why do the mouth-breathing bible-lovers feel a need to share their nuttiness with everyone else – in this case the guy in the car behind them? I wonder if it was like this 2000 years ago when the planet was born and dinosaurs roamed the earth.

simplesimon on November 10, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Jesus called it The Great Commision, to go into all the world to preach the Gospel.

MaximusConfessor on November 11, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Wow, where do I start? read Ezekial 38,39 again…slowly.

Israel is the church? Read Ephesians chapter 3. Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

The bible clearly states the Jew and the gentile or anyone that accepts Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, as sinners saved by God’s grace are the church.
John 3:16, Ephesians chapter 2, Romans chapter 2…..

dthorny on November 11, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Someone else isn’t using the state to promote their religion. How much simpler could this issue be? Buy a bumper sticker.

RightOFLeft on November 11, 2009 at 4:02 PM

How do you know the whale or the kid or whatever symbols the state allows on the plates doesn’t constitute a religion.

I just invented a religion, and its icon is the whale. Ok, take whales off the plate, right?

If citizens can petition to use the real estate on the plate to depict secular themes, then, under the “free exercise thereof” doctrine, other citizens should be able to petition for the same to depict religious themes.

The only solution is for the government to not allow inspirational messages or thematic plates, and to return to putting just the stuff on a plate that is necessary for law enforcement — the state’s name and the registration number.

If the state allows any other symbols upon the plate, then they must allow religious symbols as well.

I think that, upon appeal, Americans United will wind up paying the bill instead.

unclesmrgol on November 11, 2009 at 9:21 PM

Checks are not legal tender, they are a private contract between two persons with the bank acting as a guarantor.

That was my point, you arrogant prig.

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 8:42 AM

Again, you ignorant dork, they represent US funds. Maybe you should actually go check with a bank before you post. A check is an IOU, payable to the presenter in US funds. Nobody EVER said they were legal tender. And again, license plates are commissioned by the state, and manufactured by private companies and by captive contract labor in state prisons.

If you’re going to be an idiot, at least be an entertaining idiot. That’s how Obambi became president.

john1schn on November 11, 2009 at 9:38 PM

john1schn on November 11, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Epic Fail, again.

They represent US Funds but are not the medium of exchange they are a contract to provide the funds (which are the actual legal tender). License plates may be manufactured by private companies but they are an instrument of the state. They are NOT a private instrument between two persons.

So, Personal Checks do not equal license plates. Do you understand now or do I need to speak more slowly?

Squid Shark on November 11, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Simple, Simple you are so predictable. You can’t answer regular questions and I am not surprized that you hate the bible and those who follow it. Why does it scare you and what causes the hate in you to attack Christians. I didn’t see you attack Muslims so I was just wondering.

garydt on November 11, 2009 at 10:53 PM

I think Simple justs from one thread to another to avoid answering any type of question. He/she claims to be so wise but has no answers,, what an empty suit.

garydt on November 11, 2009 at 10:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3