It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US judge bans religious number plates

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
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?


TESTIFY!

I am so with you on that one.

What's next, anatomically correct dildos dangling from whip antennas?




posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
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?


A private company can't issue a plate. they can issue a plate for the front of your car with a nice slogan on it or whatever if you live in a state that does not make you have plates on the front and the back.

In order to tag a vehicle, the state dmv has to issue the plate, so a private company could not do as you suggest.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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


Agree.

If the state issues the plates then even those who are not Christian are compelled to drive around with a cross, a stained glass window, and the words "I believe" on their cars.

I'm a Christian, but I believe in the separation of church and state. It works both ways. Churches are also protected by this Constitutional provision from undue state interference in their practice of religion.

I certainly wouldn't want to have plates that said "There is no God" on them imposed on me. If you open the door to one then you have to allow the others.

The state has no business imposing religion in any form on secular matters.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I always thought that "In God We Trust" on US money was somewhere between irony & sarcasm, in as much as many people wouldn't get how chuckle-worthy to do so is.

Edit to change to 'chuckle' another synonym for 'small laugh' that was auto-edited to s'n-word! WTF?

[edit on 11/11/09 by Bunken Drum]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


What led you to believe these were the design for the regular state tags? These were specialty tags people pay extra to get, not the standard-issue tags. They wouldn't have been forced on anyone.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
This issue is not as clear cut as it seems. First of all, a US FEDERAL judge issued this ruling, telling a STATE what they can and can't do. In fact, if you follow the wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution:


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.


the wording is VERY CLEAR. It says CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Congress did not make the license plates, the state of S.C. did.
The First Amendment is where the concept of "separation of church and state" comes from. There is NO mention of separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution.

The FEDERAL judge CLEARLY overstepped his bounds in issuing this ruling.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by ProfEmeritus]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Of course you are correct, however, if I recall correctly, nearly every state has a Consitution that is very similar - and in some case - nearly identical to the Federal constitution.

It may not be, in the final analisys, appropriate for a Federal judge to rule on a specific state matter, but the essential giudeline is the same.

Perhaps SC is different.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Of course you are correct, however, if I recall correctly, nearly every state has a Consitution that is very similar - and in some case - nearly identical to the Federal constitution.

It may not be, in the final analisys, appropriate for a Federal judge to rule on a specific state matter, but the essential giudeline is the same.

Perhaps SC is different.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 

I stand corrected. I just read the whole article more thoroughly.

If people can order vanity plates with almost anything on them, I don't know why they can't state their religious views.

I was thinking the religious symbols would be on the standard-issue number plates, which would be a whole different issue.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 





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.


The License Plates are made with prison labor. Prison Labor is paid an hourly/daily wage by the state. The Public funds the prison system. Public Funds are in fact used to make the plates.

That the design of the plate might be paid for by a group, and that the State makes a profit off of selling the Plate to the public still does not stop Public Funds being used to pay the prison labor that makes them.

I don't make the rules but the rules are the rules.

Here in Florida we used to put the county a car is registered in on the plates, until it became apparent that people from small outer counties were being specifically targeted by criminals when they visited Florida's major cities.

In this day of increasing intollerance towards others it's probably not a good idea to stand to far out from the herd!



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Can you provide a link stating the special tags cost more to make than the standard issue ones? I couldn't find anything. If they don't cost more to make than the regular ones, where's the problem?



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Can you provide a link stating the special tags cost more to make than the standard issue ones? I couldn't find anything. If they don't cost more to make than the regular ones, where's the problem?


Once again the problem is the S-T-A-T-E uses P-U-B-L-I-C...F-U-N-D'-S to P-A-Y the P-R-I-S-O-N...L-A-B-O-R!

This would then constitute the State using Tax Payer Funds to create a religious item for sale to the public.

The speciality plates are available to anyone who requests one.

The profit off of the plates does not go into the Prison Budget that pays for making the plates. That comes directly from the Tax Payer.

Additionally law prohibits the sale of items made with Prison Labor to the general public. The Prison actually makes the plates for the State. The State sells the Plates.

It's not possible to privately commission having goods made for private sale to the general public utilizing prison labor.

The state is not going to allow private companies to make license plates as license plates are a source of revenue for the state.

Revenue and Taxes are two different things.

Taxes pay for prison labor, not the revenue that prison labor generates for the State.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Where are the links for the laws stating is is illegal for the state of S. Carolina to use public funds in a religious manner? The state of S. Carolina provides grants to churches and religious organizations through faith-based-initiatives, does it not?



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Where are the links for the laws stating is is illegal for the state of S. Carolina to use public funds in a religious manner? The state of S. Carolina provides grants to churches and religious organizations through faith-based-initiatives, does it not?


Actually the Law Books are in something called a Library. You aren't allowed to talk there! Well unless it's very quietly.

The Courts have ruled on the matter, on the side of the Constitution. Justice has been served.

File an appeal if you don't like it buddy!



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Really? Laws can only be found in law libraries? Last I checked, every law passed anywhere in the US can be found online. Perhaps you were unable to provide the law in question, because one does not exist.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Really? Laws can only be found in law libraries? Last I checked, every law passed anywhere in the US can be found online. Perhaps you were unable to provide the law in question, because one does not exist.


If you need a secretary hire one friend. I can check links for you for the amazingly low cost of $3,000.00 per week.

The Courts have ruled, they ruled Constitutionally, why on earth is there an obligation on my part to provide you with the laws you are the one who is challenging?

Google away my friend, you are the one unhappy with the ruling not I!

Unreal.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


You are the one who said using state funds for the plates is illegal. I challenged you to prove it, and you could not. You made the statement, not I. The burden of proof is on you.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


You are the one who said using state funds for the plates is illegal. I challenged you to prove it, and you could not. You made the statement, not I. The burden of proof is on you.


You funny, ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it my friend!

I gaurantee you the Federal Judge who made the ruling didn't do it off of what he looked up on the Internet.

Besides B'nai Brith has an excellent Law Library why don't you just walk downstairs and ask the Librarian. Oh wait they went home at 5:00!

Ask her tomorrow. I really don't have an overwhelming need to prove to you what a Federal Judge has already ruled on.

News flash for you there Steve, unless your Federal Judge it doesn't matter what you think, and unless you are a Federal Judge ruling against me, I have no need to prove anything to you.

I am raising my price to 4,000 a week by the way!



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


You are the one who said using state funds for the plates is illegal. I challenged you to prove it, and you could not. You made the statement, not I. The burden of proof is on you.


You funny, ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it my friend!

I gaurantee you the Federal Judge who made the ruling didn't do it off of what he looked up on the Internet.

Besides B'nai Brith has an excellent Law Library why don't you just walk downstairs and ask the Librarian. Oh wait they went home at 5:00!

Ask her tomorrow. I really don't have an overwhelming need to prove to you what a Federal Judge has already ruled on.

News flash for you there Steve, unless your Federal Judge it doesn't matter what you think, and unless you are a Federal Judge ruling against me, I have no need to prove anything to you.

I am raising my price to 4,000 a week by the way!



Where is your evidence? The judges ruling didn't say anything about the illegality of using public funds to stamp a cross on a license plate. He stated the license plates violate the establishment clause.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 


That's nice Steve.

Hey isn't it great, the U.S. Court's are finally following the Constitution for a change.

No wonder your so bummed!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join