Oh my: Federal judge finds Christian license plates unconstitutional
posted at 7:20 pm on November 10, 2009 by Allahpundit
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?
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Funny, I always thought the first amendment was meant to limit the government, not to silence the people or even states from expressing their religious beliefs.
What they should do next is propose an Islamic license plate in that state, see what the courts say.
joe_doufu on November 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Well, this is a bit like seeing a Christmas decoration before Thanksgiving. I prefer to limit my exposure to the annual stories about how Christmas is outlawed to a month. :)
AnninCA on November 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM
SO happy that America’s premier airplane manufacturer has now begun its migration to South Carolina.
My collie says:
You’re hoping that Rosie O’Donnell reads these comments — aren’t you collie?
CyberCipher on November 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM
I wonder if you can still use the lower case t on your license plate. Are lower case t’s offensive to everyone?
ThackerAgency on November 10, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Hey, the ACLU sued the County of Los Angeles to remove the cross from the County Seal. They won because the leftwing cowards caved to their demands. That cross on the seal was really scary and certainly affected the life of everyone who ever noticed it. Not.
Anti-religionists, like AP, want any religion out of the public square and safely ensconced behind closed doors so some innocent won’t get a whiff of moral values.
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 10, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Personally, I’d like the idea of an Allahu Ackbar plate. Kinda like an identifying mark, so it doesn’t look like we’re profiling.
If they can have pet license plates, and silly license plates, then Christians should be able to have a plate for their group. I mean, it’s not like they’re forced into using the dreaded religious plate.
What’s next? No more personalized checks with Bible verses on them? Cos, that’s US money a check represents….
john1schn on November 10, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Well, in Christianity, He is the Lord God. I’ll take Christianity any day.
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 (sorry, Jews win with God’s help), Damascus destroyed, 200 million man army from the east….
Sound familiar?
dthorny on November 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM
In PA, you’ll see “You’ve got a Friend in” JESUS plates everywhere.
disillusioned on November 10, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Note to ACLU:
Get plane tickets to PA ASAP must stop perveyers of peace and love at all costs!
faol on November 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Good idea, but NOT legal.
However, how many people have a older car in need of a new paint job? I’ve seen the advertising “wraps” used, and no way can it be illegal. I know I could fit the 10 commandments on the hood of my old girl. Maybe the Constitution on the driver’s side. More ideas welcome!
katy the mean old lady on November 10, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Well thank God those plates are sooo offensive. How about a bloody fetus instead celebrating the “glory” of choice.
Sarcasm!
Irenaeus on November 10, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Good analogy.
Spirit of 1776 on November 10, 2009 at 7:59 PM
if anything this violates the 2nd amendment because the State is using force to keep one from practicing religion.
jp on November 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM
I take issue with the idea that the litigation is unnecessary. Somebody has to stand up for Christians in the face of intolerance of people like you.
That being said, when I was living in South Carolina years ago, the state came up with a plate that had an inaccurate rendering of the state bird (Carolina Wren). A woman got in hot water for “defacing” her plates by fixing the artist’s mistakes. I would suggest the same thought should be done here. Let people who want to display their faith on their license plates do so by painting a Christian symbol on them.
BTW, for the record, Christians need to spread their faith through their ministry, not through what is affixed to the cars they drive. Plus, if you live in a radical leftist area like I do, you’d be likely to have your car keyed by the Allapundits of the world if you dare display a Christian symbol.
highhopes on November 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Amen! He is Lord! Of course Islam knocks him down a peg, but it’s not like they don’t care about the guy. He’s their second most venerated prophet!
And the Bible predicts none of those things. Iran and Russia are never mentioned by name, it’s a bunch of fanciful late 20th century interpretations, trying to read cold war geopolitics into jewish apocalyptic literature. It doesn’t work that way.
Keljeck on November 10, 2009 at 8:03 PM
the idea that this was the Intent of the Founders is ignorant
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?cat=HW
jp on November 10, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Good luck getting last rites in a government-run hospital.
Ronnie on November 10, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Actually, if the ACLU reads that, it won’t be just an analogy for long…
SouperConservative on November 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Only a year? They want a lifetime.
In Phoenix for the last four years, a church had a Halloween Haunted House with a scene of an abortion and they did that very thing. The local media were “upset” and they found three people that complained. Any guess on their political party?
dthorny on November 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Especially if you are a late-term abortion rolled into a closet to die in obedience with Obama’s one piece of legislation while an Ill. Senator.
highhopes on November 10, 2009 at 8:06 PM
That reminds me of several years ago when my state, Maine, had the great idea of putting a lobster on the plate. Fine enough. But then they picked a design… and it was bright red. In other words, it was an image of a dead, cooked lobster.
joe_doufu on November 10, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Here’s a simple test I use to decide whether a licence plate/county seal/governor’s commencement speech/courtroom ornament passes First Amendment muster:
- Replace every mention of Jesus with Muhammad
- Replace every cross with a crescent moon
- Replace every mention of God with Allah
- Replace every mention of Christmas with Eid-ul-Fitr
If you are still comfortable, there is no First Amendment issue. It’s really that simple.
factoid on November 10, 2009 at 8:08 PM
The public square isn’t a problem, but on official state material in a manner that implies state endorsement would be a problem. It is arguable if these plates were a problem, but having the private group do it probably gets the same result a little cleaner.
dedalus on November 10, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Anyone who has watched where this has been going all the way back to O’Hair knows this is coming. It will get worse until the most persecuted people on this planet will be the Christians. It is very, very clear in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Psalms and Revelations. If you are a Christian, you know it is coming.
I just don’t think we thought it was coming so fast and possibly during our lifetime.
Ask yourself . . . who beheads? Look at scripture to see how the Christians will be executed. Now you know where the persecution will come from and who is leading it. Obama is just pushing it along faster by his acquiescing to the Moslems.
Voter from WA State on November 10, 2009 at 8:11 PM
I’m not familiar with the Constitution right to comfort. Could you explain where you found that in the First Amendment?
Ronnie on November 10, 2009 at 8:13 PM
You’re a non-Biblical, Biblical scholar.
Read Persia….Iran
Read Ros…….Russia
Better yet, read the Bible.
Nobody knocks God down a peg, sorry, God wins.
dthorny on November 10, 2009 at 8:13 PM
I’m not a biblical scholar, I’m just a student.
I thought we were talking Gog and Magog? What prophecies in the Bible concerning Persia have yet to be fulfilled?
I have read it quite a bit. Our difference is not in reading the Bible, our difference is in how we interpret it.
Amen! And there’s nothing to be sorry about!
Keljeck on November 10, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Keljeck on November 10, 2009 at 8:16 PM
If you want to see if the Battle of Gog and Magog is near, you should read “Epicenter” by Joel C. Rosenberg. It is about modern day Mideast. He overlays scripture on today’s world. He is brilliant and has served as a consultant to our State Department on Middle Eastern affairs. Not under this administration. The previous one who actually cared about the Middle East.
One of the fullfillments is the discover of oil/natural gas under Israel. Guess what was found in the last 2 years!
Voter from WA State on November 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Read Ezekiel chapter 38.
dthorny on November 10, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Wasn’t that one of Hal Lindsay’s friends who claims to have discovered oil? How has it turned out so far? I only know that it hurt Hal Lindsay.
I used to believe that the Bible prophesied about the current times. I truly do believe Christ is coming soon, but I can’t say that it’s going to happen as some people have come to believe since the 70′s. I think that the prophecies in scripture were fulfilled in their time. And I think trying to apply these prophecies in modern times to determine the day and the hour of the second coming can only be counter productive.
Keljeck on November 10, 2009 at 8:24 PM
I fail to see how this in any way helps Michelle’s kids.
Electrongod on November 10, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Interesting. I wonder if health care is passed, will St. Luke’s Hospital have to change its name?
Weight of Glory on November 10, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Then it is also unconstitutional to accept tax payer money from Christians!
JellyToast on November 10, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Here in Indiana we have “In God We Trust” plates that are just one option!!! We have other designs that are also no extra charge. Someone up above said the Allah Akbar plate is a good idea because we can see them coming. I like that idea. Let Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. have their own plate if they want it. Go ahead, but don’t mess with my “In God We Trust” plate.
Oink on November 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM
If only Christian plates were offered, then that’s a problem IMO and they shouldn’t be offered by the state.
If other religions had plates available, then it should be Constitutional, in my lay opinion. Set some (reasonable) minimum number of requests before providing them, based on costs.
malclave on November 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Furthermore, if they try taking away my plate, I’ll just move it to the front license plate holder. (Indiana only requires a rear plate.)
Oink on November 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Keljeck on November 10, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Furthermore again, why is the Federal government jacking around with a state license plate?
Oink on November 10, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Here goes the justice department pushing the muslim issue again.
bluegrass on November 10, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Dude, they have Islamic culture day in gradeschool. Remember you used to have Mexico day and the teacher would bring in tacos and a sombrero?
Now it’s Islam. They chant the sayings, teach them how to pray, etc. . . all in the name of diversity in PUBLIC schools. If you did that with Christianity, there would be a problem.
So your whole ‘switch the names’ is actually happening anyway. The first amendment actually forces the government to allow people to practice any religion any way they want (not keep people from mentioning it). This ruling is an unconstitutional misreading of what the first amendment reads.
The government can’t keep me from being religious, nor can they make me be religious. This ruling keeps someone from being religious and doesn’t make anyone else be religious.
ThackerAgency on November 10, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Hard to say. I’m still stunned that San Francisco hasn’t changed its name.
Ronnie on November 10, 2009 at 8:31 PM
These rulings are ridiculous, though this one isn’t particularly worse than the usual prohibitions on religious speech in certain public forums like school football games.
The idea that the establishment clause, which only prevents congress from passing laws, could be used to justify mandating the withholding of government money from religious groups, or from anything “tainted” with religion, seems about as sketchy as the “privacy” argument used to justify Roe v Wade.
I actually think the government shouldn’t be in the business of vanity plates, period, unless the groups that want them are willing to fully support all the associated costs (maybe they are, I’m not familiar with the programs). But its not fair to discriminate against religious plates in particular.
In fact, I would be in favor of an establishment clause that prohibited religion from being promoted by anyone accepting government money, if it also prohibited the promotion of every other idea, religious or not. But the left would never support that, because then liberal activist groups wouldn’t be able to feed at the trough anymore.
RINO in Name Only on November 10, 2009 at 8:32 PM
dthorny = right
Keljeck = wrong
There I have sorted it out for those that don’t already know.
Basil Fawlty on November 10, 2009 at 8:32 PM
The tower building (the main one) at the Univ of Texas has John 8:32 inscribed all the way across the front of it…
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
I love it…
Ltlgeneral64 on November 10, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Aw shucks. :(
Keljeck on November 10, 2009 at 8:34 PM
You’re just plain ignorant…the Bible isn’t jewish apocalyptic literature…either you haven’t read it at all because you certainly don’t sound intelligent or you’ve read it and refuse to believe that all of the prophecy in the Bible is coming true right in front of us…if you want to ignore what is happening today, you have that right. You are correct that Iran and Russia aren’t used by name, they are called by the name they were called in Biblical times. If the words Russia and Iran were used then you’d say ‘but they didn’t exist back then…’ But you better hope like hell, and I do mean hell, that you’re correct. So,what if we Christians are wrong, what have we lost? Nothing at all…but what if you are, you lose eternity…
The worst news for you atheists is that the Bible is done and we (Christians) win…
Ltlgeneral64 on November 10, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Hmmm. Perhaps tax money from Christians should also be declared unconstitutional.
Matteo on November 10, 2009 at 8:48 PM
No, the Bible is a collection of divinely inspired texts of various GENRES. Books like Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation are of the genre of Jewish Apocalyptic literature, which flourished before and shortly after the time of Christ. They are known for claiming direct revelation, and speaking about a political situation of the time in metaphorical terms. Of course, they were always more than that, otherwise they wouldn’t be divinely inspired and in our Bible. The Prophecy in Ezekiel has already been fulfilled.
Or, I’ve read it and believe that the prophecy, for the most part, has already been fulfilled.
Jesus Christ is my savior and Lord. Are you insinuating that if I don’t agree with your interpretation of a few texts that I’m going to hell? Are we going back to the Reformation?
I see what’s going on today, I just don’t see a parallel, it’s a difference in interpretation.
Oh… you think I’m an atheist…
…
I’m totally not an atheist.
Keljeck on November 10, 2009 at 8:49 PM
If people are forced to buy this plate that is wrong but if they have the right to choose it then why not?
Funny how the right to choose thing is so limited in its scope to baby killing. Forget school choice or what license plate you want to use.
CWforFreedom on November 10, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Idiots.
These people are mentally ill. There is no doubt about this.
Itchee Dryback on November 10, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Athiests are losers. Just get a life, people.
bluelightbrigade on November 10, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Waste the court’s time,pay the other party’s fee.”Except if the other party happens to be Sarah Palin.
DDT on November 10, 2009 at 8:57 PM
This judge is full of crap!
MCGIRV on November 10, 2009 at 8:58 PM
When can I order my Rastafarian plate? You know, the one with a pic of a lit joint, and the slogan I BE WASTED.
Exit ? — Wondering if profile stops are gonna be a problem, or if a pic of the plate could be used as a DEFENSE in traffic cases.
/AllahP mode off.
GnuBreed on November 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM
I disagree with you as many of the prophecies in the Bible are for the present time as well as time future of us.
Besides:
1Corinthians 8:2 “And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.”
Basil Fawlty on November 10, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Two words: God cooties. All of this “separation of church and state” nonsense is foisted on us by people who are illiterate (because they do not understand the true meaning of the First Amendment) and – for being so much more mature and rational than us believers – terrified that a cross might infect them or something.
Laughably, really.
You’re more than free to be an atheist. Albino monks will not show up on your door step and drag you to Mass. Really.
Just don’t pretend that no one else can express their beliefs in public.
englishqueen01 on November 10, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Personally, I want to know why the people who preach tolerance always want to force my religious beliefs into the back of the bus. I don’t remember the last time a Christian went to court to challenge an atheist’s right to believe in nothing.
john1schn on November 10, 2009 at 9:23 PM
They are offensive to Muslims. I believe they are banned as crosses in most Gulf states.
BL@KBIRD on November 10, 2009 at 9:23 PM
All I can think after reading this is how sad that some people are driven to a lawsuit over something like this. How sad are these people that seeing a religious tag makes them froth at the mouth??? Good gravy.
di butler on November 10, 2009 at 9:26 PM
The Constitution has been turned upside down. It is supposed to support free exercise.
Up is down down is up wrong is right and right is wrong
CWforFreedom on November 10, 2009 at 9:26 PM
MHMDSUX
bannedbyhuffpo on November 10, 2009 at 9:27 PM
We’ve got a funny definition of “unconstitutional” these days.
LibTired on November 10, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Someone is preventing you from putting a bumper sticker directly above your plate with a cross and the words ‘I Believe?’ Of course not.
Laughable, really.
Just don’t pretend that your gripe is you can’t get it in a State sanctioned form.
GnuBreed on November 10, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Move it to the BUMPER STICKER.
While awaiting the Appeal….
JayTee on November 10, 2009 at 9:42 PM
Anyone else ever notice that the Islamic Crescent Moon and Star must have been drawn by a two year old? How can a star be in front of the moon?
BierManVA on November 10, 2009 at 9:43 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
It pains me to agree with AP on this one. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It is clear that the law (order, edict, etc) that authorizes the plates respect the establishment of Christianity.
Christians should just stick with the fish on the back of the car anyway. More noticeable.
BierManVA on November 10, 2009 at 9:49 PM
“State” as in a single state? Or federal property? I would rather take the position of the Framers who might have a problem if this was federal. They didn’t seem to make an issue that of the original states many (I believe 9 of 13) had established state religions. They kept the federal government out of that business which is consistent with the language of Amendment I.
Since when has license plates been federal property…?
anuts on November 10, 2009 at 9:50 PM
One of the first lessons children teach parents is to ‘pick your battles carefully’. Both sides of this issue could benefit from learning that lesson. Just keep pushing trivial efforts in support of and opposition to Christianity and, very likely sooner rather than later, someone is going to transcend the petty cat-fighting and do something really uncalled for…
Knott Buyinit on November 10, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Just because we know that God loves us and we think you should know that He loves you too, whether you believe that or not, or care about it or not.
That’s why.
God bless you.
SouperConservative on November 10, 2009 at 9:51 PM
I don’t share many Christians’ views about proselytizing, but frankly, every time an atheist goes to court because of the Big Bad Cross, they are doing the EXACT same thing that they accuse Christians of.
Frankly, if it pisses you off, so be it. You sound exactly like the Mohammedans with your intolerance of Christians.
john1schn on November 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Just keep your eyes on the road. If your staring at my license plate pondering my nuttiness, the public would benefit by having you no longer driving.
anuts on November 10, 2009 at 9:55 PM
your should be you’re
anuts on November 10, 2009 at 9:57 PM
BET YOU’RE RIGHT.
alliebobbitt on November 10, 2009 at 10:37 PM
License plates are license plates, not bumper stickers.
Quebec had the brilliant idea in the 70′s to only require a rear license plate. That opened the pandora’s box of cheese – everyone put everything as a front license plate from political view to FU*K WINTER to sports team logos etc etc etc.
Ontario now has custom plates with Raptor logos, Maple Leaf logos, veteran poppies, etc etc. I hate it all.
Dave Rywall on November 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM
It’s all designed to get your sizable panties in a wad, snookums.
ddrintn on November 10, 2009 at 10:48 PM
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
I still don’t see the Constitutional problem with these plates; what am I missing?
Is Congress involved somehow, establishing a federal religion?
If the answer is ‘no’ (and it is), why is there a problem?
Midas on November 10, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Lip service. What teaching of Jesus is part of Islam? If Muslims consider Jesus a prophet, why do they heed none of His prophecies.
In fact, Islam officially claims to recognize many of the prophets of the Bible, including Moses, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. But they recognize none of their prophecies. So it’s just lip service.
For example, if Muslims truly considered Isaiah to be a prophet, they would study the prophecy of Isaiah. If they truly considered Jesus a prophet, they would be acquainted with the Gospels.
Instead, the whole of the scripture they recognize is the Koran, and the various hadith associated with it.
There Goes The Neighborhood on November 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM
They have no respect for the people who pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes to support the dependents without any consideration that maybe their faith has a superior aspect that makes them more efficient in general.
Sonosam on November 10, 2009 at 11:01 PM
FIFY!
Tim Burton on November 10, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Words matter. The Constitution says nothing about a “wall of separation” between church and state. It says exactly two things: Congress shall make no law 1) respecting an establishment of religion, or 2) prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Every judicial ruling that interferes with the free exercise of religion violates the Constitution it purports to enforce.
Prohibiting prayer in schools, for example, claims to prevent the establishment of religion. But in doing so, it interferes with the exercise of religion.
This really should be obvious, and it’s encouraging to see so many make basically the same point. But when you see such a level of obtuseness (obtusity?) on the part of supposedly intelligent judges, you have to wonder what agenda is driving them to ignore the obvious.
There Goes The Neighborhood on November 10, 2009 at 11:22 PM
I was just discussing the basic idea behind these issues with a student this morning. Somewhere along the line the phrase “Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof” became “Congress (or the states or anyone else for that matter) shall not recognize the existence of a religion, even if it is the majority because the MINORITY may be offended” NEWS FLASH AP – you do NOT have a right to not be offended! You do have a right to not be told what religion you must practice, they are NOT the same thing! The Founders always understood that freedom of conscience can very easily co-exist with a government that recognizes and is influenced by the religion of the majority of its subjects. If they didn’t Washington would not have added “So Help Me God” to the end of his oath of office.
Govgirl on November 10, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Neither are license plates. They are commissioned by state governments and manufactured by either private companies or by (to a lesser extent) prisoners incarcerated by the state.
I’m sorry, what was that point you were trying to make?
john1schn on November 10, 2009 at 11:47 PM
America is safe from license-plate theocracy!!
Execrable, miserable sophists we have for judges.
Axeman on November 10, 2009 at 11:55 PM
I got here late, and don’t have time to read all the comments. I’m not sure how the federal Constitution applies to state law in this case. If it’s a First Amendment issue, it seems that says something about what Congress cant do.
Buford Gooch on November 10, 2009 at 11:56 PM
So you have a problem with the weekly mail out by Sears? The weekly mail out of your local grocery store to convert you to a customer…or how about the daily advertisements in the paper to convince you to buy at whatever store…or buy whatever shirt.
How about the car emblem on every automobile promoting their car, aren’t they trying to convince you that their car is the best…yet you are concerned when someone has a license plate?
Look around, there are thousands of more secular advertisements to entice you, then church ones…but somehow your sensitivity is offended by church and not a grocery store…tells more about how sensitive, and focused you are on minor things, and you overlook what is happening everyday around you.
You will sit for hours watching commercials on TV, but don’t let anyone mention Christianity…
right2bright on November 11, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Exactly, the constitution was written to basically limit government, not citizens…it was created to stop exactly that which is happening.
right2bright on November 11, 2009 at 12:04 AM
For the record, I’m an atheist that thinks this is stupid. If people want a cross on their license plate that’s fine. If they want to put one on mine, that’s when I have a problem.
deewhybee on November 11, 2009 at 12:24 AM
True right2bright but hope and change says:
Obama 3:16 Let us “break free from the essential constraints” in the U.S. constitution.
Basil Fawlty on November 11, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Religions are tax exempt.
HeroesforGhosts on November 11, 2009 at 12:43 AM
Judges have been using a piece of crap sophistry called the Lemon Test. It has 3 points (but it uses words rather stupidly)
1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
With common sense, we can satisfy these criteria: 1. The idea was to allow a number of different plates to express one’s lifestyle. 2. Really? It’s a license plate! How many
converts do you expect to see? 3. Dude! It’s a friggin’ license plate! Are you off your meds?!
It uses “religion” as if it were a thing and not a class of things, and it uses “secular” as if it and “religion/ious” were complements. A casual look at the dictionary will tell you that secular is not the absence of religion, but not being overtly and specifically about religion. Which providing people with a variety of premium plates is not, in just includes a plate that expresses a personal attachment. No sane person outside the rarefied atmosphere of law would suggest that a license plate “advances” anything.
By interpreting the Lemon law as if “secular purpose” and “religious motivations” are exclusive, they are mangling the very idea of what “secular” means. John Kerry advocated a “religious motivation” for welfare in 2004, but I doubt that he would concede that means that welfare has no secular purpose. The dems wanted to get the clergy on board and thus motivate people by their religious conscience, but I doubt that they’d like to see Obamacare struck down as not having “secular purpose”.
States have a secular purpose in issuing premium plates–more revenue than they could get with drab two-color plates. It’s rather possible that with faith-expressing plates they could get a certain segment to pay more for their plates than would care to purchase any other type of decorative plate. Thus the idea is the same, raise more money by offering an enticement for premium plates.
In any number of cases decided by the idiot Lemon Test, it’s not as if there were no possible secular intent by which the will of the people could be upheld–just none that the judge is willing to buy. They, after all, are our last bastion and hope against theocratic license plates!!
Axeman on November 11, 2009 at 1:10 AM
It’s the idiot Incorporation argument. First, you take a war, put in motion by a federal justice striking down a free-state law, and commenting that the founders never intended blacks to be equal to whites, and thus they will never be equal. Then you have thousands of citizens fight and die and lose limbs in this war to unite the nation. You have the states ratify an amendment that says that states give up the discretion to discriminate based on race–and 100 years later, federal judges get to argue that all state laws are subject to federal review under constitutional principle called “Incorporation”. So we started with state laws being struck down, and we end with it.
Equivocation without end, amen.
Axeman on November 11, 2009 at 1:26 AM
http://www.veteranoutrage.com
while you like it or not this country was founded by bible believing christians..
but as the entire usa tried to get rid of christians
soon you will only be left with
leftist
communists
atheists
Islamic jihadists
Radical hindus
Environmental wakos
The only ones who actually obey the laws are the christians and the jews..
So if you think its bad now..
Just you wait until all of the christians are gone..
then your new utopia will be realized..
Just exactly like you wanted it to be..
HELL on EARTH..
veteranoutrage on November 11, 2009 at 1:45 AM
FIFY, just like I did for Joe….
Tim Burton on November 11, 2009 at 1:47 AM
Now think, if they add just one more license plate here, it means possible theocracy. Excessive entanglement with relijun.
Axeman on November 11, 2009 at 1:47 AM
No.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232265973374&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Voter from WA State on November 11, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Well, atleast its not the first time in American history Christmas has been outlawed:
NeverLiberal on November 11, 2009 at 3:11 AM
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
I’ll mark Christian on my next tax return with a note saying I’m tax exempt and see how far that gets me.
jimmy2shoes on November 11, 2009 at 6:41 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »