"I believe" Licence Plates Unconstitutional
A judge in South Carolina has ruled that legal license plates bearing a cross and the words "I believe" on them are unconstitutional. He also accused legislators, who unanimously approved the plates of "unnecessarily draw[ing] the state into an expensive lawsuit."
I can't even begin to comprehend how these people thought such a move would be legal, especially when some lawmakers were against offering similar plates for other faiths.
This shouldn't have needed to go to court. The problem with the plates should have been obvious. Separation of Church and State, folks. It's very cut and dry on this one.
And seriously, why push so hard for it? There's plenty of ways people express their faith on their cars. Why insist on including the license plate? What possible reason could have fueled this besides a hamfisted attempt to prove that this is a Christian nation?
Well Catherine, I think you hit the nail on the head. South Carolina Law Makers sucking up to the Religious Right. The Judge will be accused of being a “Secular Activist” I’m sure. With all the Jeebus crap I have to read on peoples’ cars here in Pennslvania, I can only imagine it’s alot worst in South Carolina. The whole “this is a christian nation” B.S. will be starting up soon with the Holiday season coming…and my lovely wife won’t let put a Darwin Fish on my car. She’s afraid the “Turn-the-other-Cheekers” will key it up. Hail Eris!
The following was written by Ben Stein
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don’t feel threatened. I don’t feel discriminated against. That’s what they are, Christmas trees.
It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren’t allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
This situation was demonstrated in Justice Scalia’s comments:
Justice Antonin Scalia saw no problem with the memorial, arguing, “I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. … The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.”
When the ACLU lawyer arguing the case noted, “There is never a cross on the tombstone of a Jew,” Scalia retorted “I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”
No, not everyone wants a cross to symbolize them, and the failure to not offer license plates for all faiths was the downfall of the situation.
I don’t care if someone tells me Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah or Blessed Kwanzaa or Blessed Yule. I appreciate that they are, in the context of their faith, wishing me well. But I don’t want to be ordered to accept their faith as better or more appropriate than mine.
The problem with the state getting involved with anything religious is that the 1st Amendment clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion”. That means that government shall not play favorites among religions. And that means that whatever the govt. allows or forbids to any one religion it must allow or forbid equally to all of them. That means that if the state govt. can issue license plates (which are required by law) with a cross on them, it must also issue license plates featuring the Jewish star, the Muslim crescent or scribble, the Buddhist 8-fold path, any of a dozen Hindu symbols, any of a hundred Pagan symbols, and so on. The only way to avoid having to go to all that effort is to allow *no* religious symbols on its license plates. That’s it: all or none. This is why so very many govt. institutions have decided that it’s cheaper to choose “none”. Can you blame them?
I have to strongly disagree with your post on this one. As a Libertarian, I whole a view diametrically opposed to yours. In my opinion, as long as the person owning the plate pays for it, and as long as they meet the same requirements as any other group that wants a special license plate, then they should be allowed to do so. Not doing so is anti-religion prejudice. It should be noted, however, that I would equally support any other religion or symbol, as well as any civil rights group or belief system… in other words, if you can get together enough gay jugglers or Buddhist book-binders to get a license plate, go for it!
uhhh… that’s HOLD a different view…