Suit filed over S.C. 'I Believe' license plates
We read:
"A group that advocates separation of church and state filed a federal lawsuit Thursday to prevent South Carolina from becoming the first state to create "I Believe" license plates.
The group contends that South Carolina's government is endorsing Christianity by allowing the plates, which would include a cross superimposed on a stained glass window.
Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed the lawsuit on behalf of two Christian pastors, a humanist pastor and a rabbi in South Carolina, along with the Hindu American Foundation.
Source
As I understand it, these plates are simply something you can choose as an option. They are not compulsory for all. So the State is simply providing a product that you can buy. How does that represent the establishment of a religion? An established church has the wages of its clergy paid by the State. I see no sign of that here. (H/T Kenn Gividen)
11 comments:
"The group contends that South Carolina's government is endorsing Christianity by allowing the plates, which would include a cross superimposed on a stained glass window."
So by "allowing" the plates and not suppressing them, they've violating the Constitution? Gee, all these years I thought the Constitution forbade the suppression of religion!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yep. Still there…
ENDORSING a religion is not a violation of the constitutional restriction on the government IMPOSING a religion.
In other words, a state can endorse religions however much they like, as long as they don't force people to adopt any one of them (I think they could even force people to use these license plates, as screwing one on your car doesn't make you a member of any religion).
Why not avoid the whole issue by reverting to what license plates are supposed to be - a simple identification of the vehicle.
You're exactly right anon2. License plates should not carry ANY message, (political, religious, sports, etc.) that is not necessary for it's intended purpose, which is simply to identify the vehicle, and of course it's main purpose, to generate revenue for that state.
Having said that, we all know that there's no such saying in the constitution as "seperation of church and state". The Left long ago decided that the actual words in the constitution don't really mean what they say, which is why they want it to become "a living document", meaning, we can change the meaning of words any time we want. It wasn't the first time the Left has invented words that aren't in the constitution. (abortion, privacy, etc.)
We have "GOD BLESS AMERICA" tags here in Alabama - God's Own Country, BTW - for FREE.
It's an alternative to the "Stars Fell on Alabama" tag that pinko-atheist-serving-time-for-corruption ex-Governor Don Seigleman's wife dreamed up when they wouldn't let her change the state song to "Stars Fell on Alabama".
It's all about the freedom of expression, Y'all!
Screw the atheist. If it was a verse from the koran on the plate it would have been ok with these freaks.
It would depend on which Koran verse was used.
Mobius
Just because the state allows something doesn’t mean that it endorses it!
Otherwise, if the state allowed a Church, Temple, of Musk to be built, some would consider that to be an endorsement.
The other Mobius, AKA Dave Jones
Talk about absurd:
SOUTH ROYALTON, Vermont. — A few days before St. Patrick's Day (2002), Carol Ann Martin was decked out in a pale green dress and bright green headband with shamrocks and leprechaun.
The occasion was not a corned beef and cabbage festival but a hearing before the Vermont Supreme Court at which Martin's lawyer argued that she should be allowed to have "IRISH1" on her license plate.
The case arrived at the high court after the state Department of Motor Vehicles said: the plate violated its rule against references to ethnic groups.
"The people of this state want to have words or phrases on their license plates that are positive and meaningful to them," Martin said after the hearing. "What's wrong with 'Irish'?"
It's a fight seen in states around the country as they grapple with where to draw the line between free expression and words that might offend or serve as an invitation to trouble.
Wait a minute, South Carolina makes available "In Reason We Trust" plates sponsored by the Secular Humanists, so I don't see how this case can hold any water in court. Unless, of course, it becomes just another example of the anti-Christian double-standard.
"...which is simply to identify the vehicle, and of course it's main purpose, to generate revenue for that state."
And generating revenue for the state is the main purpose of these voluntarily-chosen-by-individuals "vanity" plates. No clergy having their wages paid by the state here.
Post a Comment