US judge bans religious number plates

US judge bans religious number plates

www.heraldsun.com.au

A US federal judge has ordered South Carolina not to issue cross-adorned "I Believe" number plates, ruling it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
US District Judge Cameron Currie ruled on Tuesday that the state legislature - which last year voted unanimously to approve the number plates that also include a cross in front of a stained glass window - had clearly given favoured government treatment to a single faith in violation of the constitution.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Interesting one here... I have no love for religion. In fact, I hate it. I would almost be ready to agree to ban the number plates for the church-state separation reason.

However... when the US dollar has "In God We Trust" printed on it, then isn't that clearly a link between church and state?

The double standards of allowing God to appear on the currency, but to not allow other icons to appear on number plates is crazy.

We have different rules for number plates in Aussie and they are just as crazy. I know someone who wanted "SULACO" on a number plate. It' the name of the battleship from the Aliens movie. That person was informed they could not use SULACO, as it is an inappropriate word in Romanian. Yep, that's right... Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and yet that number plate was deemed to be offensive to Romanians.

Go figure...

www.heraldsun.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by tezzajw


So what's the issue when it comes to separation of church and state - the fact that the plates come from a state-owned department (DPS)?

What if people chose to have a private company forge their license plates with whatever they want on the plate - then how would that qualify as a violation of the separation of church and state?

Perhaps these people could purchase an affirming bumper sticker to adorn their cars? Most of the states just do these plates to earn extra revenue.

Or people could allow their actions to speak to their belief systems, and not a license plate.

Separation of church and state is a myth. The Constitution simply states the government shall not establish a religion, nor choose one over another.
In most states, a group simply needs enough commitments to buy the special tags and fill out the proper paper work to get the tags approved. Seems to me those against the tags are simply not organized, nor have enough support to get their own, so prevent others from having theirs.

I spoke too soon, there is a secularist plate. Guess they just don't believe in equal protection.

I don't think that the judge was trying to separate church and state, they were saying that there was “favoritism towards Christianity” in the law that was past. I’m sure there wouldn’t have been an issue if instead of just having a cross overlaying a stained glass window, the state also made plates with the Star of David, and other symbols of religion.

Just my two sense

reply to post by stevegmu


I say ban the Secular Humanst plate because that is religion as well. I agree that no plates should support any religion. Next thing you know you will have some dumbass driving around with Satan plates or one worshipping Bin Ladin.

Ban them all, even the environmentalist/global climate ones because that is a religion too.

reply to post by jaym19th


Has the legislature denied any other 'religious' tags, whose organizations met the qualifications? I haven't found any information stating that is the case. Only allowing the cross, and denying others would be favoritism, but that does not seem to be the case.

I have an even better idea. Privatise the making and selling of plates and then they can sell whatever plates they want. Then just set it up so most of the revenue gets kicked back to the state.

Personally, I never understood paying extra for personalized states. It is like a tax on the Narcisisitic.

If I may, it seems that regardless of the Judge's potential reasoning for the action it is nevertheless the Constitutional position.

It isn't about supporting a specific religion. The point is that in a nation which cannot legally interfere with your choice of faith, and how you express that faith, it is improper to allow public funds to express religious thought.

Remember 2 points about the "In God We Trust" issue. 1) It is a relative new development, undertaken quite explicitly as a method to crystallize the opposition to the so called "Godless Communists" of the cold-war era; and 2) The dollar, and coinage of the United States is NOT an American product. It is produce and purchased (leased, actually) from the private banking cartel known locally as the Federal Reserve.

The idea of favoritism has merit because Christianity is so deeply entrenched in the body politic, but it is a red herring. The State must have NO position on religion at all, favorable or otherwise; that is the Constitutional way, and it was well-reasoned and drafted precisely to protect religious freedom.

I cannot say I fault anyone who says "I don't want my taxes used to promote some other religion" but I feel it would be wrong to promote ANY religion whatsoever. The government MUST remain indifferent to religious pressures; unfortunately religion is too easy to use to get votes, hence here we are.

Oh look, thin skin. You guys go ahead and bash religion all you want. Obviously alternative takes on it or its relationship with the current ruling class is not allowed.

post removed because the user was engaged in partisan political trolling

[edit on 11-11-2009 by RoofMonkey]

reply to post by tezzajw


My wife's native language is Romanian...she never heard of SULACO

reply to post by Maxmars


Like I asked before - What if people chose to have a private company forge their license plates with whatever they want on the plate - would that qualify as a violation of the separation of church and state?

Originally posted by Maxmars
The dollar, and coinage of the United States is NOT an American product. It is produce and purchased (leased, actually) from the private banking cartel known locally as the Federal Reserve.

Fair enough, to some extent. I don't understand why a government allows the control of its currency to be in the hands of private bankers though. Mob bosses should be jealous of that magnitude of racketeering.

I'm not sure on US law but is it a requirement for witnesses to swear on the bible in a courtroom? "Raise your right hand and swear on the bible to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you God"? I've probably seen too much TV, as I don't think this would be mandatory for witnesses to do.

Either allow all religions to do what they like with number plates, or ban them all from screwing around with the format.

reply to post by Maxmars


Maybe S. Carolina is different than Virginia, but here, specialized plates do not cost the state any extra, as the groups who sponsor them pay for them. Public funds are not used, which is one of the reasons the plates cost more. The state isn't promoting Christianity, the group who sponsored the tags are.

How about this tag?-



Or this one?-



link

I suppose that as long as the people of any state are OK with it, and no public funds are used, not much can be said against whatever people want to put on a license plate. Most states where I have lived considered license plates THEIR property which you only pay for to use as a registered vehicle owner of that state. It might not be that way everywhere.

Knowing the way our government loves to roll, I bet they contract the service out to some for-profit outfit anyway.

As far as our currency goes; well, they pretty much have been doing this since 1913. The government continuously tells us this is a good thing.... of course, they would say that, considering if they didn't, they would never get the job.

Since we are all about banning what people pay for and put on the vehicles can we at least ban the testicles people put in their trucks/cars?


I don’t know about other states but in this one if you want a special (not normal issue) plate you must pay extra and the money extra money goes to a certain organization. The state does not cover any of the cost they simply produce what is being asked to be produced.

If the people are paying extra for a certain tag I see no reason it should be banned. If the state is covering the cost then some organization needs to take over and get their portion for the order of the tag.

Raist

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by jaym19th

 

Has the legislature denied any other 'religious' tags, whose organizations met the qualifications? I haven't found any information stating that is the case. Only allowing the cross, and denying others would be favoritism, but that does not seem to be the case.

Good luck driving around in S.C. with a Muslim license plate. Your car would be destroyed in minutes not to mention you would probably be lynched.

reply to post by tezzajw


You may also affirm to tell the truth, one of our presidents, franklin peirce did this when he was sworn in.

As some Christians would actually be offended by swearing as it was taught against by Jesus, this was and is allowed.

Also atheists might have an aversion too.

Originally posted by tezzajw

However... when the US dollar has "In God We Trust" printed on it, then isn't that clearly a link between church and state?

The double standards of allowing God to appear on the currency, but to not allow other icons to appear on number plates is crazy.

I think that the religious crowd merely take the central concept of a creator or 'God' and develop an elaborate system of unfalsifiable belief and tradition around it and call it a religion.

A 'creator' of reality is not intrinsic to religion... that is, unless you believe the universe is timeless. The big bang is in essence a 'creator' or better yet, a creation, without speculation.

You know... not everyone who says "God Damn" is religious. As a matter of fact, most people who ARE religious don't say it.

I spoke too soon, there is a secularist plate. Guess they just don't believe in equal protection.

Is this a joke, or do you not understand what secularism is?