Signs & Wonders: S.C. for J.C.

I'm not a Christian, but I see no problem with creating a Christian-themed plate design. South Carolina isn't forcing the design on anyone, are they? They're merely creating it as an option for those who would want it. Big deal.

I think the point here is that taxpayer funding is being utilized to manufacture the license plates, which are probably made by state prisoners. State prisons are operated with taxpayer funding. Other than that, it's much ado about nothing, as is the State of South Carolina, which will forever go down in history as the first state in the Union to turn traitor and wage agressive war against the United States of America because it wanted to preserve its so-called "state right" to engage in human slavery.

Sigh... here we go again.

Government endorsement of a particular religion or religion in general doesn not create a "Theocracy" nor does it make SC a "Christian State". The provision forbidding making a law respecting an establishment of religion is not violated because this is a law respecting "religion" not an "establishment of religion". This critical distinction seems to have been lost on both the Supreme Court and secularists over the last 60 years.

Government endorsement of religion deprives no one of their religious liberty; it does not deny them equal protection of the laws; they cannot be punished for disagreeing. It is simply a statement that SC supports and believes that these religious concepts are important.

This is just so much more anti-religion hysteria.

"this is a law respecting 'religion' not an 'establishment of religion'."

That is inaccurate because the law respects only Christian religions, constituting a sectarian endorsement. This is also the case with adding the Lord's Prayer to the civic displays. True respect for religion means no favoritism to any one religion or group of religions. If the SC legislature really wanted to respect religion, it would authorize versions of this license plate for each religion - imagine versions with the Star of David, or a Muslim star and crescent, or a Wiccan pentagram, or a Buddha.

"They're merely creating it as an option for those who would want it."

To comply with the principle of government neutrality among competing religions, the plates would have to have options other than Christianity.

In any case, WhatWouldJesusDrive? His sandals.

CARSTONIO said: "That is inaccurate because the law respects only Christian religions, constituting a sectarian endorsement. This is also the case with adding the Lord's Prayer to the civic displays. True respect for religion means no favoritism to any one religion or group of religions. If the SC legislature really wanted to respect religion, it would authorize versions of this license plate for each religion - imagine versions with the Star of David, or a Muslim star and crescent, or a Wiccan pentagram, or a Buddha"

This is almost comical. First you misunderstand the meaning of the word "respect" whic has several meanings in the dictionary. (See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/respect). It does not mean "To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem" as in "treat someone with respect." In other words, it DOES NOT mean that establishment of religions are to be treated with respect.

It means "To relate or refer to; concern." So the law means that the state cannot make laws having to do with or concerning an establishment of religion. In other words, the state cannot interfere with the church.

It does NOT mean that the state cannot endorse a particular religious belief or idea to the exclusion of others (although that is what the US Supreme Court has incorrectly misinterpreted it to mean over the last 60 years)... the state can support any good or crazy idea it wants (secular or religions, true or false, trivial or important). The fact that a particular idea happens to be unique to Christianity is irrelevant (under the original meaning of the amendment). No one has a right to be free from the government supporting ideas one disagrees with. The govt supports and endorses all kinds of ideas I find wacky. It strikes me as blantantly discriminatory that the govt is free to endorse a purely secular idea (suppose they printed only "pro-choice" tags but not "pro-life") that I disagree with but cannot endorse a religious idea that someone disagrees with. To say that is to turn the religion clause on its head and make govt hostile to religion in general.

Hopefully this is a tempest in the proverbial teapot. OK, the statement is, "I Believe". Believe in what? What else is on that plate? Maybe there should one that illustrates this famous saying:

"Everybody should believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink."
- W C Fields

To those idiots defending this stupid license plate:
You might try acquainting yourself with the concepts of "judicial precedent" and "case law," you morons. In this case, the judicial precedents set by case law on this subject dictate that government may not show bias in favor of any particular religion, or in favor of religion in general.
(Or, you might just try asking yourself the question, "Would I feel the same way about a license plate that had the Muslim crescent and star on it?" Well, would you?)

This should only be allowed if all beliefs can do this. And I include in this the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Otherwise, it should be forbidden.

Staffy1 said,
"This should only be allowed if all beliefs can do this. And I include in this the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

I completely agree! I'd put His Noodliness on my car in a heartbeat.

I don't have a problem with this: It's simply the truly ignorant voluntarily labeling themselves as such.

The old south is going to split off, secede once again. This time they will be called jesuslandia, and I suppose they're going to hope their gods are going to make it work for them.

Let's let them go, we don't need these rednex around anymore dragging down the collective IQ.

DAVID WATERS

You wrote, "State officials announced this week that they are ready to begin manufacturing a specialty license plates".

The question is, are they ready to begin or have they already started?

Then you write, "South Carolina law requires that at least 400 citizens request a new specialty plate before it can be manufactured -- and the first 170 were the legislators who initiated and approved the plate."

If it has already been "manufactured" then they have gone against their own law in that 400 citizens have not requested it, have they?

As it says the law requires that "400 citizens request" it and even tho I would suppose these legislators are citizens, 170 does not make 400, does it?

Seeing as God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, some may be surprised to find out that God looks at the person, not at the "label" someone puts on their car or themself.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Right you are, Thomas Baum.

The license plates, like the endless displays of the 10 commandments, remind me of what Jesus said about the hypocrites praying loudly in public.

As Gandhi said, "If you Christians would live like your Christ, instead of talking about him, then everybody would want to be a Christian."

And as St Francis said, "Preach the Gospel every day, and use words when necessary."

Walk the walk, fellow Christians. Talking the talk is meaningless show-off false piety.

Hello DrBill.

I tend to disagree on a few points. I am not a constitutional lawyer but I am sure that there are plenty enough of them out there that have found contrary to your assertion.
""The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
To assume that the Assembly can make laws regarding state endorsements of a religion because it is not legislating "establishing" one is hilarious. It would be legislating regarding religion. Established obviously. One would not expect the State to start one! The Church of SouthCarolinaism?
This is another of your word games justifying intrusion of A Religion into the State.
There are Extremely good reasons that the Framers indicated the need to maintain religious rights and state purity from religious manipulations. As per the Jackson/Jefferson thread, certain lines have been drawn and must be respected. The radical extremists of the right, (and the left for that matter), are assaulting the wall of separation of church and state, (however you want to define it!), and that threat must be repelled. It would be an ugly thing if religious zealotry gets any further entrenched in government.
Again, these religions cannot even find commonality and peace between them, and they all call themselves 'Christian'. And they have a horrid track record on benevolent compassion for non-believers, historically.
They can not be trusted.
And if you think that you can trust them they still must be repelled. For the good of the union.
And so the reason for these words:
"The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

If you look at all the other plates available in South Carolina they make this one seem pretty vacuous in comparison. It's like having a plate that reads "I Breathe" or "I Bathe".

While in theory any other religion with at least 400 members could also have their own plates (sorry Zoroastrians), I'll bet that only Christians will be proven to be so shallow and insecure as to actually feel it necessary to petition for one.

" cornbread_r21
"If you look at all the other plates available in South Carolina they make this one seem pretty vacuous in comparison. It's like having a plate that reads "I Breathe" or "I Bathe"."

Eh. I like the latter one. Not sure I'm of a mind to square off against S.C. cops over that amount of funny, though.

"While in theory any other religion with at least 400 members could also have their own plates (sorry Zoroastrians), I'll bet that only Christians will be proven to be so shallow and insecure as to actually feel it necessary to petition for one. "

Also, frankly, conservative Christians who put that on their cars can expect special treatment. Minority religions who expressed the 'right' to do the same could only expect harassment.

I mean, really, Christians can put up a bumpersticker to express their 'righteousness' on dark country roads when they get pulled over or not...

There have been incidents when 'virtuous' police didn't approve of non-Christian religious stuff on cars... out on dark roads....

But why stop there.

If you make shows of piety *official,* why virtuous people can 'express' their 'virtue' by mistyping something at that Registry of Motor Vehicles without any of that uncomfortable 'facing the people you hurt.' stuff.

Hi, Paganplace,

"I mean, really, Christians can put up a bumpersticker to express their 'righteousness' on dark country roads when they get pulled over or not..."

Not always. I want the bumper sticker that says 'Jesus is a Liberal'. But in rural Georgia that could cause me a lot of trouble.

Well, that's not about 'Righteousness,' Arminius. That shows you're the 'wrong' kind of Christian. ie. A heretic. :)

As you've seen here, you may as well be a Pagan dy** if you're *that.* :)

I suppose this is one of those occasions where I'm kind of obligated, since my religion doesn't mean I have to pretend I'm once-born... well, Arminius's situation illustrates a simple, tragic, and messy fact.

You may *think* it's only about non-Christians, but once you set foot on that road, people.

It never ends.

Ever.

If you've ever seen two near-indistinguishably-identical brands of Protestant fighting over some stupid little thing while they all make the bride cry...

Trust me.

It never ends.

Best buy your own damn sticker.

Really.

(BTW: Our founding fathers here in America *knew* this when they designed our laws. You could still smell the blood from the turmoil of Europe over this kind of thing)

"It does NOT mean that the state cannot endorse a particular religious belief or idea to the exclusion of others (although that is what the US Supreme Court has incorrectly misinterpreted it to mean over the last 60 years)"

The Supreme Court was wise in that regard because any favortism in religious matters is dangerous to the principle of nonsectarian democracy. To give such favortism threatens religious freedom for all, even those whose religions are being favored.

"The fact that a particular idea happens to be unique to Christianity is irrelevant (under the original meaning of the amendment)."

It's very relevant in this case because it constitutes a tyranny of the majority. The same would be true if most Americans were Jewish and the SC legislature offered only a Star of David plate.

"To say that is to turn the religion clause on its head and make govt hostile to religion in general."

Government neutrality among competing religions does NOT constitute government hostility. The key to the issue is that there is no such thing as "religion" as a single entity - religious conflicts run deeper than most other conflicts, and it's dangerous for any government to take sides. In the case of the SC plates, government has only two options - either offer plates for all religions, like fallen soldiers' tombstones, or offer none at all.

In any case, the other examples in the article suggest that the SC lawmakers seek to use government to proselytize, or at least to falsely equate Christianity with civic pride.

"In the case of the SC plates, government has only two options - either offer plates for all religions, like fallen soldiers' tombstones, or offer none at all."

Just to emphasize here: in the case of going on record to cops and Registry officials, 'offering these displays to all religions' is *not* the same as staying neutral.

Plates to display aggressive majority status do not do the same thing as going on record displaying scorned-minority status.

This is one of the places where we should remember Justice is blindfolded, rather than worrying about what's immediately below Her collarbones.

(As for soldiers' headstones, the same people who want the vanity plates opposed the notion of Pagan soldiers being buried under our own religious symbols.

That's not the same as a traffic stop, mind you.

If Christians want a license plate, then give it to them. I rather doubt that Jesus would be impressed with his name on the back of a '73 Impala, but I haven't spoken to him lately.

Paganplace:

Ah yes...the ever non-popular "Don't Hesitate To Pull Me Over Born-Again Law Enforcement Official - I'm Just A Member Of A Detested Minority Religion" license plate.

On the other hand, I wonder how many mobile meth labs will be sporting one of the Christian-y ones, since, unlike some of the other plates shown, one doesn't actually have to prove membership.

(I also think the "In God We Trust" plate oversteps the line and should more properly read: "In God I Trust".)

Can we just make these available in all states already? Then I can easily identify, and write off, these drivers the same way I do those with confederate flag plates.

Actually that raises a serious theological question: when forced to choose between a license plate with the cross or the dixie flag, what would jesus do?

Pitiful, backwards southern states.

Moses said, in Deuteronomy 6:22, "The Lord showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes."

Maybe, some Christians are hoping to leave South Carolina.

"It strikes me as blantantly discriminatory that the govt is free to endorse a purely secular idea (suppose they printed only "pro-choice" tags but not "pro-life") that I disagree with but cannot endorse a religious idea that someone disagrees with."

I always find it amusing when people who don;t know what they're talking about consider themselves smarter and more competent to judge the law than the most prominent jurists and legal scholars of our time. But I'll make a deal with you, Dr. Bill. I'l support reversing longstanding precedent regarding the establishment clause if YOU support reversing longstanding statutes extending super special protection to beliefs that purport to be religiously based. After all, if a secular position and religious position should be treated equivalently, then there's no reason federal law should protect the latter from employment discrimination and not the former.

Oh, wait, what's that? You only care when your ox is the one getting gored? Figures.

DrBill21,
You're wrong about that. Simply wrong. We have a tall, two-way wall between Church and State in this country. Let's keep it that way.

esajudita wrote: "I'm not a Christian, but I see no problem with creating a Christian-themed plate design. South Carolina isn't forcing the design on anyone, are they? They're merely creating it as an option for those who would want it. Big deal."

The Big Deal is that nothing is free and someone in government used tax dollars to not only specially make these plates but design them. Now where are the designs for jewish plates or hindu plates or muslim plates? Why did the government only consider christian plates? That is establishment and done to the cost of all taxpayers in SC, christian or not. Believe me, if the only plates being made had a star of david on them you would certainly start hearing how THAT violates the Constitution, which it would.

Its always amazed me that the majority religion in this country has convinced itself that it is a minority religion, and not only a minority but also under active attack. Sounds very paranoid to me.

Glad to hear that this is finally in the courts, where it will be shown to be unconstitutional. But those who backed this have already been voted in two weeks ago, which was the real reason why this happened. When you have small minded people who do not understand American values or its Constitution being told that a theocracy is what America needs, politicians will play to that. That is all this is about, nothing more. Those who passed this bill knew it would not pass judicial scrutiny. But it served it purpose as a vote getter.

Good! These a*sholes will be readily identified on the highway as the self-righteous, arrogant bigots that they are.

This license plate is a clear violation of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment. Everyone else has the details pretty well covered. This is even more proof that, if you give the religious right the opportunity, they will force their religion on everybody else, much like the Taliban. Everyone who values liberty and the Constitution should be worried. The separation of religion and the state is under attack on all fronts (see Florida's recent attempt to remove the separation of religion and state from its constitution, among other states).

It's been my experience that those Christians who wear their faith on their sleeve (and make sure everyone knows it) are often the most inclined to be judgmental and divisive. Christ warns us against public displays of piety for this very reason, and never encourages us to have much to do with state powers, other than to pay our taxes to them.

While I personally have no problem with the idea of a Christian-theme license plate, I don't think the state should be using taxpayer dollars unless it's willing to create plates for anyone of any faith. I don't think SC is willing to do that, and that's the problem in a nutshell.

Why couldn't these Christians dedicated their time and resources to things like helping the tens of thousands of African children that die each year for lack of $10 worth of medicine or clean water?

But no. Instead we fight about fancy license plates.

What would Jesus' priority be?

Most of these arguments are either strawmen or ad hominem statements. When it comes to belief or non-belief you can argue your point endlessly, or rather until you die. It’s then that you’ll know who is right. As far as history is concerned there is no respect for the true meaning only yours and my interpretation. Good luck and smile at your neighbor.

It would be a lot more practical and less expen$ive to simply make and place a bumper sticker.

We'd all get the message(s).

Dragging the state into it just strikes me as tilting windmills and a sideshow. If someone has a strong religious faith, or any opinion whatsoever, isn't it best proclaimed by its practice rather than by words?

Speciality MV license plants are varied across the USA. Plates promoting Masons are for example available in TN and MO. "God Bless America" plates are very popular in many states. There even is probably a plate promoting paganism. If not, simpy request your plate "number" to be "Pagan On Board" or "Wicca Rocks" et al.

e.g. http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/motorv/plates/#preview

Bottom line: This discussion is mute.

These laws in South Carolina impose no "test" for public office in contravention of the Constitution. And while you are correct in noting that our foundational document does not mention God, the Declaration of Independence does. Furthermore, the connection between our system of laws and Old Testament biblical principles is incontrovertible.

Moreover, there is nothing wrong with teaching the basics of religion in high school elective classes. The clear point of crossing the line into unconstitutional "establishment" of religion would be the rejection of a license plate of or proposal for an elective class in say Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism.

I've lived in South Carolina and most of the people there are good, friendly people who mean well. Like all of us, they are saddled with what they learned from their parents.

Anyone can see what most there really "worship," especially in the Fall. All of the flags flying from the cars that bear the logos of the South Carolina and Clemson football teams tell the story. The people there are as deeply entrenched in worshipping the secular material Gods that we have created as anywhere else in America. Maybe it's a good sign that they are now equating their faith with college football in the ranking of what's most important in their lives.

Too bad the South carolina legislators, and more of the rest, don't practice what they preach.

The SC "specialty" vehicle license plate is an "option", so it is illogical to say its manufacture equates to the South Carlinian General Assembly making a law regarding an establishment of religion. In addition, David Waters implies in his article that a Christian citizen of SC does not possess the same right of "free speech" that a secular citizen does. Waters' mind is immersed in the twisted, illogical, Orwellian world of "double-think", where the nonsensical slogans "Peace is War" and "Freedom is Slavery" are treated as sacred scripture.

S.C. has long been the 5 year old of the states...it likely won't be too long before they begin suggesting secession from the Union again. This time it will be in the name of God instead of the name of slave ownership.

What irony. The former state of slavemasters is now slaves themselves to the agenda of the religious right. Full circle.

COLORADODOG said:
Good! These a*sholes will be readily identified on the highway as the self-righteous, arrogant bigots that they are
+++++++
Don’t forget name-callers. My experience is that most self-righteous, arrogant bigots are also name-callers.

Calm down folks,
First of all, the U.S. Supreme Court will get this and dispose of it, i.e. stop it. Secondly, explain to me the problem if South Carolina does secede from the Union. O, and thirdly, if it ever becomes open season on Christians the first to go will be these people and I'll have time to head for the hills.

Establishment of religion would require that the state government declare and support [pick any faith] as an official state religion. I don't think that can be accomplished by offering a license plate option with a Christian symbol on it. Offering such a plate doesn't interfere with the practice of any other religion in the state of South Carolina.

South Carolina, according to the article, requires 400 people to request a plate before introducing it as an option. Maybe a religious sect with only 399 members could argue that the policy demonstrates a preference for larger faiths over smaller ones and could constitute an establishment of religion, but the rule really doesn't favor one religion over another.

Furthermore, and I concede that this may be a bit tenuous, but the design of the plate is much too vague to really constitute establishing any official religion. It says "I Believe" and has a cross on it. But it doesn't impart anything about what particularly form of Christianity the owner of the car adheres to.

I am an atheist and a fanatic about the First Amendment, but I agree with those saying that this is not, in and of itself, a violation of anything. It would become immediately unconstitutional if the state rejected a plate saying 'I do not believe' or There is no god but Allah', etc. I would be willing to bet thousands of dollars, however, that these examples would be rejected.

faithfulservant3: "And while you are correct in noting that our foundational document does not mention God, the Declaration of Independence does."
**************

But we are not governed by the Declaration, so that is quite irrelevant. As for the foundation of the US legal system, it is based on English common law, not the Old Testament. You will find upon reading the Old Testament that it is quite hostile to ideas such as habeus corpus which are a cornerstone of Western law.

What a bunch of superstitious nonsense. People who believe this garbage should be denied voter registration cards and driver licenses. And it wouldn't be a bad idea to politely ask them to sterilize themselves, so that they won't be spreading this moronic idiocy to children. Religion, your end is coming soon (as intelligence and common sense continue to grow) but for Christianity and Islam, not soon enough, I'm afraid.

I notice that David Waters glaringly omits the fact that South Carolina offers a "Secular Humanist" license plate as well. I'm waiting for him to protest that one as promoting atheism... but I'm not expecting much.

It's really not a big deal at all other than the fact that it is reminiscent of what happened to the state at the beginning of the 20th century SC and several other southern states fell behind the rest of country when it came to issues of the future i.e. education reform etc. Culture, in this case, religion, and a fear of race, has dogged the State of South Carolina for 200 years....its nothing really new.

This obviously violates the spirit of the 1st amendment and the South Carolina constitution. South Carolina is more than welcome to secede again, a civilized divorce is better than living with irreconciliable differences, like those on abortion.

I don't see anything wrong with it. If they had said that any group over 400 could have their own plate unless it had a religious theme, then that would be wrong. So if any group with over 400 people wants a plate, they should go out and get their own. This is a manufactured controversy.

This entire article is based on utterly false assumptions on the issue of Constitutional law. I hate to say it but when it comes to opining on the subject, there needs to be a minimal level of understanding about the Const. This author fails. Others just blabber on with nonsense. The statute or regulations that allow license plates are based on interest and the number of people from the group that send in their money. I currently have a Ducks Unlimited plate where I live. It is open to groups with a special interest or cause. A religious or Christian plate is no more an establishment than the govt establishing Ducks Unlimited as their official wildlife group. In fact if you objected to the group on the basis of religion, that would be a clear violation of not only SC Const but the US Const as well. People please educate yourself before opining. You do not have to check your beliefs at the door. The original Const language was written in the face of England and the fact that the Monarch is also the head of the Church of England. Short of making the President also be the Pope or the President of a Congregation or a rabbi or ayatollah, that worry is gone. The misunderstanding and atheistic whining has taken this silliness to new levels never ever contemplated by the Const. Yes this is a Const issue and yes most of the silliness in whining about such license plates is just flat wrong. Educate yourself or shut up.

Mez:

While some religious people have attempted to redefine "secularism" as atheistic, particularly in regards to the issue of church/state separation, secular humanists aren't necessarily atheists.

Being a Christian without a church, I can say I don't really care. A license plate does not govern my belief system, and among sensible people, it does not reinforce any belief among a nonbelieving public other than stained glass windows are pretty cool.

Also, being a SC resident, I can say we lead the nation in cutomized plates. We do. You can look it up. If Christians want to give money to back up their beliefs with a license plate, they have to give their alms to the DMV.

From an artistic sense, you could fix the whole fake fiasco with an interchangable image. Everybody believes something. My preference would be an apple tree. I really like apples. I believe in their healthfulness. So there.

Dotherightthing:

David Waters' article implies no such thing. This is just your monumental persecution delusion. You are a member of the most coddled and subsidized group in America, and, yet, you endlessly complain about persecution. Now, that's pathetic.

11239:

I think your understanding of the establishment clause is seriously flawed. Christianity is a religion. The establishment clause precludes establishment of Christianity just as much as any particular form of it.

A good fix for my beloved SC is to hire DMV employees who will take the money that Christians will shell out for these plates, and then spend it on liquor and hookers. It's probably somewhere written in our 1896 constitution that we can do that. Let's not limit ourselves here.

As long as I can have my Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster plate I say go for it! Blessed by his noodly appendage! Amen@

What's next? Vanity plates that say:

Hatred is A Family Value

Castrate a Communist for Christ

Nuke a Gay Whale for Jesus

???????????????

Or,
"I believe that children are the future ..."

As a secularist, I try to lead a reason-centered life - and I hardly think a Christian-themed license plate, offered as one choice among many, is a reasonable sign of impending theocracy. If the state were to present it as the ONLY valid license plate that would be another matter - but what's wrong with allowing believers to declare themselves as believers? There's plenty of worse things to worry about than putting Christianity on the same footing as wildlife, lighthouses, education and the other things you can get specialty license plates for.

faithfulservant3: "And while you are correct in noting that our foundational document does not mention God, the Declaration of Independence does."
---

If you are correct, fs3, then why didn't Confederate South Carolinans believe in God?

(The God mentioned in the Dec. created everybody equal, remember?)

The ans. is: South Carolinans have proudly worshipped Mammon since the get-go. Their new license plate shows them once again praying to the golden calf of state, not church.

Can I get one that registers my vehicle in the reality-based community?

GROUSE1 :"A religious or Christian plate is no more an establishment than the govt establishing Ducks Unlimited as their official wildlife group."

Clearly we also need a separation of ducks and state.

GROUSE1 :"The original Const language was written in the face of England and the fact that the Monarch is also the head of the Church of England. Short of making the President also be the Pope or the President of a Congregation or a rabbi or ayatollah, that worry is gone."

No it's not. When you have an imbicile president who virtually elects himself pope and ignores the clear will of his constituency, like "W", it's a constitutional issue, and a mammoth one at that.

GROUSE1 :"Educate yourself or shut up."

". . . And as for the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution, adopted July 28, 1868, an amendment purposefully enacted with the African-American in mind, it has been used by the Supreme Court of the United States to hand the presidency of the United States to a southern Christian conservative who thinks of Jesus as his model political philosopher. This president immediately nominated a right wing Christian lawyer to the post of attorney general who has said, "We have no king but Jesus" (Pollitt, 2001). An article by Vincent Bugliosi explains that the Court had never accepted the equal protection argument in any case brought before it by blacks or in cases having to do with discrimination, and that accepting the argument in this case clearly violated both the intention and the legality of the application of the law. Those who followed the events of the presidential election in 2000, and especially the post-election political and judicial fracas in Florida, will understand the motivations confirmed by that Supreme Court ruling (December 12, 2000). Bugliosi concludes that " ... the real equal protection violation [in this case) took place when [the Court) cut off the counting of the undervotes" (2001). Equal protection? Equality? Integration? As Jimmy Carter explained the reasons for writing an account of his childhood in Georgia, "We need to recognize that the racial issue has not been dealt with" (2001). That means that something is terribly wrong in America. If "American" means living here in this land and taking part in its life and work, the African-American is the most American of any other immigrant people, but the least recognized as worthy of equal rights and equal protection under the law. Even at the height of the civil rights activity when Ralph Bunche, a brilliant black American with stellar credentials in international diplomacy for the United Nations, asked the Congress of the United States to declare lynching illegal, the request was refused. . ."
Burthon L. Mack: "The Christian Myth"

Ultimately, Grouse, it all boils down to tribalism, and all of our educations are incomplete.

These tags like simuliar ones in Florida probably are sold for an additional fee thus making money as a volintary tax for the state. With the short fall in many state budgets these tags as well as one that might say "Save The Pigs" or some other foolish idea could be allot of fun for those that have more money than IQ. I am a HAM radio operstor and could purchase a tag with my call sign for an extra fee. I need to pay my electric bill and eat so this is another foolishness I will just have to avoid. The debt of the world is killing us all and maybe solving these other problems would be a better way for the legislators to spend their time. If Christian folks just LIVE THEIR FAITH others will see they believe and tags are not necessary.

A case in point is when my home was flooded by a hurricane"s storm surge and we were with out power for a while I remember coming home to find a box of food, cleaning items and other things useful at that second in my life on at my front door. No one had to have a tag saying I BELIEVE for me to know these Church of Christ folks were believers.
Read http://allencharlesreport.blogspot.com/2008/10/thyw-worldwide-debt-is-problem.html

"Establishment of religion would require that the state government declare and support [pick any faith] as an official state religion."
-------------------------------------------

False. Read the first amendment again, carefully. It says, "religion," not "a religion."

Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that the clause prohibits government "entanglement" with religion - not just a situation wherein the government promotes one religion as the state religion.

Meepo, the issue is that the Government, by acting as a conduit for those "Funds people give to support their faith" is clearly violating the Establishment Clause. And I doubt that SC has more Specialty plates than Florida which sends a big portion of the proceeds of the Specialty Plate to the organization sponsoring the plate. If that is indeed the case, public funds would be used toward a specific religion, again, a clear violation of the Establishment clause as further interpreted by the SCOTUS.

Numerous Establishment clause cases have come beofre the court and they have consistently held that using funds in the manner described above is akin to "Government Promotion of Religion".

Flast v. Cohen
Stone v. Graham
Are 2 examples of cases related to the funding issue in which the court held that funding (not for license plates but other issues)was violating the Establishment clause.

People are free to give to any church they want. They should not be using government agencies such as the DMV as a conduit for such giving.

Tithe at your local church and decorate your vehicle with Bumper stickers, but don't expect the Government to participate in it.

@DMZ1

"11239:

I think your understanding of the establishment clause is seriously flawed. Christianity is a religion. The establishment clause precludes establishment of Christianity just as much as any particular form of it."

OK, so what part of offering an optional license plate with a Christian theme violates the restrictions on establishment religion? I think that's really the meat of my thoughts.

The establisment clause doesn't determine what consitutes a religion or a religious belief, it only describes how they should be treated in one particular context.

OK, so general Christianity is a religion. Sounds good to me. So where does the license plate option fit into the establishment clause?

Hey, Grouse 1, if you are going to admonish other readers to "educate [themselves] or shut up," you should maybe learn the difference between the words "minimum" and "minimal."

As for me, I AM a constitutional lawyer and a Christian, and you have no clue what you are talking about. Anyone who has ready any case law on the Establishment Clause understands this license plate is a violation.

This would never happen in North Carolina.

Why?

Because going to the DMV is HELL.

8-)

So what's the median education level in South Carolina, anyway? 8th grade?

Grouse1 would be correct if the SCOTUS hasn't over the last 118 years ruled on and established clear thresholds for violating the Establishment clause. Their interpretation is much broader than what you have attempted to portray. Nobody is saying you have to leave your faith at the door, but leave it out of the Government.

If 400 people signed a petition and wanted "Atheist And Proud" on their license plates would SC do that? I think not. Having said that. People of faith, are you that insecure in your faith that you have to constantly remind others of your faith? Are you afraid that your faith will be stolen from your heads? Are you afraid your faith will slither out of your heads through your ears and scurry away? One has to wonder. I use to be devoutly faithful until I started asking questions, thinking for myself and doing some research. I now see the coonishness of it all. Can you say, suicide bomber?

Precisely, Keino83. The prohibition on laws respecting the "establishment" of religion does not mean a governmental entity must designate a particular religion as its "official religion." The Supreme Court has consistently held that the key is whether the governmental action has the effect or intent of endorsing or advancing a particular religion -- or even religiosity generally. Moreover, in cases like Lemon v. Kurtzman, SCOTUS held that excessive government entaglements in religion violates the Establishment Clause.

They simply should not initiate those plates. They are breaking their own law and the thought behind that law. Government must be unbiased when it comes to religion. All religions.

If you want to place something religious on your car, that is your own private business.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but there seems to be at least one constitutional problem involved with this issue, as others have already pointed out. The state of South Carolina requires that at least 400 people of any particular interest group, religious or non-religious, must petition before a specialty license plate can manufactured. That seems a totally arbitrary limit which unfairly discriminates against members of very small interest groups.

If the state can produce license plates for a group as small as 400, why can't it produce license plates for a group of 3? In fact, SC and most other states produce individual "vanity" plates with people's intitials, or whatever, all the time. If they can produce these individualized plates, why do groups have to have at least 400 members to qualify for specialized plates? If the difference in cost to produce these smaller runs of plates is that substantial, which I doubt, then it would seem more fair to at least offer the smaller groups the option to absorb the additional costs (as is typically done with vanity plates) rather than arbitrarily deny them the same free speech rights as the larger groups.

Once again:

Speciality MV license plants are varied across the USA. Plates promoting Masons are for example available in TN and MO. "God Bless America"/"In God We Trust" plates are very popular in many states. There even is probably a plate promoting paganism. If not, simply request your plate "number" to be "Pagan On Board" or "Wicca Rocks" et al.

e.g. http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/motorv/plates/#preview

So why "pray tell" is this discussion continuing????

So much more Christian to simply construct a six foot high neon cross with Jesus nailed up and bleeding and attach it to the roof rack of the Hummer, then repaint the car to include the entire text of the New Testament. Perhaps remodel the house to resemble a manger. Divest the closet of pinstripe suits and polo shirts and dress in robes. How are we to identify the saved without visual cues of this kind?
'I believe' the family trees of many South Carolinians include an unnecessary and debilitating degree of consanguinity...

If 400 communists found each other in South Carolina and wanted to give the State money for a hammer and sickle, would the State agree? Probably not.

Me?

I would probably like an X-Files "I WANT TO BELIEVE" tag on my Dodge van.

keino83, regarding "Government, by acting as a conduit for those 'Funds people give to support their faith' is clearly violating the Establishment Clause."

No it isn't. First of all, no Christian, Satanist, Wiccan, Pagan, Subgenius, or FSM follower in his/her right mind would ever be influenced to find Jesus/Satan/Magic/Goats/Bob Dobbs/Flying Spaghetti Monster through viewing a license plate.

SC has established nothing other than a license-plate business, which has been going on here for decades. We've got lots of specialty plates, take a look: http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/PlateGallery.aspx?q=All

If there's something unconstitutional about it, and there probably is, find cause and take our state to court. But I can't care too much about it.

Also, when the first "I believe" license-plated car runs over kids, or gets busted for drunk driving, or is implicated in a car bomb, maybe we'll see it on the front pages.

What I see now, however, is an opportunity to find 400 other people willing to buy a license plate with a liquor bottle on it. Or a hanged man underneath crossed machetes, or Popeye, or Dora, or a nuclear blast ...

Oh no! Those big bad Christians are expressing their faith! Horrors!

All sorts of Christian symbols are available as bumper and car stickers for 'Christians" who want to flaunt THEIR particular brand.
The problem for the rest of us citizens is the imposition of any particular religion by State or Federal government.
Lose Separation of Church and State and step back into the middle ages, better known as the "Dark Ages".

"Oh no! Those big bad Christians are expressing their faith! Horrors! "

The problem isn't that Christians are expressing their faith, it is the fact that the government is sponsoring it.

The author says: "The South Carolina Constitution (like the U.S. version) also says 'The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' so apparently lawmakers can make or break their own laws."

Is the author suggesting that by allowing Virignia residents to select a Redskins license plate that they are establishing football as the official state sport? Or that allowing an Association of Realtors plate establishes a preference for Realtor's over unaffiliated idependent brokers? What about the Knights of Columbus plate that has been available for years? The KOC is clearly a religious affiliation group?

As long as the state doesn't establish a preference for one religion over another (I assume Jews, Muslims, Wica, etc. could also request a specialty plate with 400 signatures), then I don't really see an issue. If Muslims, Jews, or Wica requested a plate and were turned down, then I think you'd have a real constitutional issue. But the specialty plates are often for affinity groups not sponsored in any way by the state, so I think this is pressing the "establishment" issue a bit far.

FYI, while raised as a Lutheran and active in church for most of my life, I now consider myself an atheist. I have serious concerns with issues such as introducing creationism into schools, but if you're going to allow private interest groups to have specialty plates I don't see the harm in allowing a Christian plate for those who want one--provided you don't disallow plates for other religions, atheists, etc.

If someone is serious about testing this they should get 400 atheist signatures and see if they can get a plate for them. If so, then there is no establishment issue. If not, then someone should take SC to court and it should be an open and shut case.

"...but if you're going to allow private interest groups to have specialty plates I don't see the harm in allowing a Christian plate for those who want one--provided you don't disallow plates for other religions, atheists, etc.

If someone is serious about testing this they should get 400 atheist signatures and see if they can get a plate for them. If so, then there is no establishment issue."
--------------------------------------------

Not true. There IS an establishment issue, according to the federal courts and according to the dictates of the separation of religion and the state. As I've said below, the establishment clause prohibits government "entanglement" as well as establishment, according to the courts.

In addition, the establishment clause probibits government establishment of religion- not government establishment of a particular religion. That is where the "entanglement" doctrine comes from.

It is not must a matter of allowing all religious groups to avail themselves of the petition process and have their own plate. That can't happen for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to: if a religion has less than 400 adherents, they will not qualify for a plate because they cannot possibly get enough signatures to qualify; if every religion were allowed their own plate, the process of making that many plates for various religions could be too expensive for the government, etc.

Meepo, I don't think you read a word I wrote. The issue is not in the expression it is in the State involvement of said expression. If you look at your own link, portions of the proceeds go toward the organization sponsoring the plate. For example, The Ancient Masonic Plate goes to a Freemason sponsored charity. Clearly, a faith based plate of this nature would involve government "Entanglement", which has been ruled to be specifically forbidden under the SCOTUS interpretation of the Establishment clause.

You are trying to parse the word "establish" to fit your argument, when there is over 100 years of established legal precedent that tells us exactly how to interpret, legally, the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

CCNL wrote: "Speciality MV license plants are varied across the USA. Plates promoting Masons are for example available in TN and MO. "God Bless America"/"In God We Trust" plates are very popular in many states. There even is probably a plate promoting paganism. If not, simply request your plate "number" to be "Pagan On Board" or "Wicca Rocks" et al.
e.g. http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/motorv/plates/#preview

Thanks for the link. Here is a link to the SC license plates (which do not include "I believe" but does have an "In God We Trust", which is the national motto so can probably pass constitutional muster as it has on currency:
http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/PlateGallery.aspx

And a link to who may apply for a special SC license plate:
http://www.scdmvonline.com/dmvnew/forms/RG-504.pdf

So why "pray tell" is this discussion continuing????

Because if you read the rules on how license plate requests are made and approved you find in SC that there are two methods. The first is an organizational request. The organization must be charitable/non-profit. So for example the Masons, Shriners, Clemson University, etc, can all ask for a license plate. And those organizations can have those license plates restricted to members of their organization if they wish, so for example if you are not a Mason you could not get the Mason's license plate.

The other way for licenses to be defined is through legislation, as the "I believe" plate came about. Its design is done by government, not some outside organization. Therefore a religious license plate was created by government to the exclusion of all other religions. That is establishment and blatantly unconstitutional. If some church had requested the plate I doubt there would be an uproar since it would have required the church identify itself on the plate and clearly be a plate for the organization requested by that organization. But in the case of the "I believe" plate, it was requested by government through legislation, not some non-governmental organization's request. And so the government established a religious tag in clear violation of the establishment clause.

As I said before, I think this was a stunt to get votes and was never meant to get past the courts. The voting is over and I'm sure it helped those who voted for the plate get reelected. When the courts strikes it as uconstitutional no one will scream except the fundies who once again were fooled into voting for those they thought would create their theocracy and deliver us to the apocalypse. And once again they are sorely mistaken. Wait another 2 years to see what other stunt SC elected officials use to get the votes of the brainless fundies.

Christianity and all other religions are for the uneducated, undereducated, poorly educated, illiterate and ignorant. If "believers" spent just 10 or 15 minutes googling the bible, they would quickly find out that the entire book is a myth, fairy tales, with virtually no historical corroboration except for a few gov't officials like Herod and Pontius Pilate, although the stories associated with the historical personages are made up...just like santa claus. Therefore, if the bible is made up, so is the concept of god. Certainly, people who had no idea of the workings of the world would not have some mystical access to the secrets of the universe. God became an answer for all things people couldn't answer 2000 to 5000 years ago. Stop worrying about the license plates and let go of the whole god and religion business. Then maybe we can move forward in a civilized manner without all the voodoo.

DavidMcKittrick wrote: "As long as the state doesn't establish a preference for one religion over another (I assume Jews, Muslims, Wica, etc. could also request a specialty plate with 400 signatures), then I don't really see an issue."

But a specific christian group did not "request" this plate. The legislature of SC voted to make the plate. That is clear government establishing a religion since plates for other religions were not voted for if they were ever considered.

DavidMcKittrick wrote: "If Muslims, Jews, or Wica requested a plate and were turned down, then I think you'd have a real constitutional issue."

The legislature voted to put a single religion's mark on its property (or did you think you owned the tags on your car?). Te unconstitutionality of that cannot be more obvious.

DavidMcKittrick wrote: "But the specialty plates are often for affinity groups not sponsored in any way by the state, so I think this is pressing the "establishment" issue a bit far."

If a church group had asked for this then you might have a case. If the church group's name was on the tag you'd have more of a case. But this is not what happened so comparing it to a group like the KofC is not even close.

I'm not religious, but I'm not part of the crowd that screams 'separation of church and state' at every expression of faith. There is a time and place for everything.

That said, I don't think Jesus would be especially edified to see his name displayed next to the tailpipe of '69 Plymouth. There are more appropriate places.

"(The God mentioned in the Dec. created everybody equal, remember?)"

Since the signers differed in their religious beliefs, we can't assume that "Creator" referred to the Abrahamic deity. The capitalization in documents of the era was not consistent, and the term Creator is vague enough that it can apply to natural forces. That may have been a deliberate choice.

In any case, the issue here is not the Declaration but the Constitution, which does not mention any religion's deities or doctrines. Subsequent court rulings have established the "secular purpose" test, and the measures listed in Waters' column strongly suggest a sectarian purpose to treat Christianity as SC's unofficial state religion. That's not necessarily theocratic in practice, but it sure is theocratic in spirit.

So consider the state legislature to be a group requesting a special plate thereby fulfilling the requirements of the law.

To wit:

The SC Christian State Legislature Association

I happen to be a believer and a Christian. And what really annoys me about these people who keep trying to push Christianity is how it so often backfires. They push something like this and then when confronted, they end up casing more trouble than they are worth. For example, when they push some special God thing and people object, then they come back with something like "Well, we have 'In God we Trust' on the money or 'under God' in the pledge" (and I am old enough to remember when the latter was NOT there). Then peopel who never thought about these before come up with a law suit to change them. Why not let sleeping dogs lie? I would much rather go with the words "They will know we are Christians by our love" rather than by our license plate. For those who believe in Jesus, He had it right when he had them show him a coin after they tried to trick Him into being against taxes -- "give to God the things the are God's and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." He said not to confuse the two, why should we?

CCNL writes:

Speciality MV license plants are varied across the USA. Plates promoting Masons are for example available in TN and MO. "God Bless America" plates are very popular in many states. There even is probably a plate promoting paganism. If not, simpy request your plate "number" to be "Pagan On Board" or "Wicca Rocks" et al.

e.g. http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/motorv/plates/#preview

Bottom line: This discussion is mute. (SIC)
*************************

Not at all. The discussion is noisy.

Oh, please. There was no "first Confederate state."

The Confederate States of America was formed by seven states who sent representatives to a provisional Congress in Montgomery, Alabama in February 1861. South Carolina was one of them. It wasn't "the first."

It was the first to secede from the United States, but that happened in December, 1860, two months before the Confederacy was created.

Somehow, when "journalists" try to manipulate me with crap like this, I'm not going to be receptive to what else they say.

If you have a coherent case against the license plate, present it. This blatant attempt at prejudicing your readership says you don't have one.

I am not really all of that concerned about the slogan. It's the symbol of the cross that rankles; though not on constitutional or humanist grounds. The non-literate nit wits currently masquerading as religious fundamentalist Bible-thumpers (though certainly not alone amongst religions misuing the image of a cross or some other symbol for pecuniary as well as for some professed 'faithful' purposes) always seem to miss the inherent blasphemy involved in promoting the craven idolatry of image worship and of promoting false Gods. Though certainly different, it is a similar concept to that of demonstrating the ultimate disrespect to our nation's flag by reducing it to an article of clothing, commercialized decals/coverings or to a tattered and fluttering car window accessory and calling the practice evidence of true patriotism, whatever that entails. Go figure; and, by the way as a native South Carolinian my nomination for the next state-sponsored license plate slogan would be "God Bless Piggly Wiggly. It Saves." b

BLDLCC :"I am not really all of that concerned about the slogan. It's the symbol of the cross that rankles;"

Bill Hicks said it better than just about anybody:

"You think if JFK came back to earth he'd want to see everyone wearing guns around their necks? *proceeds to mimic shooting JFK*"

I don't see where there's any reason to get worked up about this. There are specialty plates by the hundreds (thousands?). This one seems no different, and I don't take a "Bird Watcher" license plate as somehow a government endorsement of that activity.

As an atheist, were I inclined to get annoyed by such things, I would be more likely to complain that my money says "In God We Trust." However, it really makes no difference as to its acceptance as currency, and it does not seem like that big a deal. Just like the plates.

Given what we've learned about South Carolina police, I do think there is some potential for harrassment of minority religions if they utilized such plates, but that's another topic.

Hilarious isn't it? The idea that one state among many will choose to become a theocracy and declare that G-d, is THE G-d and only G-d.
I find that the most ardent Christian, really does not understand the meaning of what it means to be such a person. Yeshua, was certainly an anarchist, communist, and for that matter a radical with beliefs that would scare the bejeezus out of most people.
The Bible that we have is the most fought over book in the history of the world, not only for theological reasons, but political ones as well.
What was left after the dust settled, was a kind of mish-mash that reflected the political views of one Constantine, who happened to be "emperor" at the time. He who meddled in the formation of the church, then let the bishops fight among themselves to work out the theology of the time, was politically astute and did not recognize any other religion other than the church he formed for political purposes.
Now we have a group of people who are basing their religion on rebellion, who are trying to create a theocracy in of the United States. Will they succeed? NOT! For the Supreme Court will certainly take up this case as one of many, again to support the notion that this is an inclusive,
not exclusive country.
By the way, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and the people who support the Protestant faith, are in rebellion because of someone named Henry the Eighth, wanting to marry against the wishes of the Pope and because he could not have his way formed his own church, the Church of England, and then started to have his own bible written.
We are a bunch of hypocrites for Yeshua, did not even start his own church, he was born, remained and died a Jew. So much for the Christian faith.

The U.S is fast becoming the nation of the devil from a very godly nation. These Christian plates are just a response to the ungodliness that is happening around the country. 48% in California voted to approve gay marriage. That is almost unthinkable before.

No doubt this nation will burn very soon. Nobody wants that to happen but that is the law of God -that evil will PERISH.

A series of wars is in the offing and I think it is best for conservative Christians not to take part in it. Right now, God is NOT on our side. We will be defeated.

This nation must repent first to win wars again.

Thanks to South Carolina coz God will NOT completely abandon this nation.

Will SC approve a wiccan license plate - with a pentagram in place of the cross or an inverted cross? If they won't (and I doubt that they would) then it is clear that SC is establishing or supporting the Christian religion. Do ANY of the posters here supporting a Christian plate also support seeing on the roads of SC a wiccan plate? I would like to know the answer to that one.

No need to get worked up over this: this plate sends the same message as an "I am an Idiot" plate would.

Should there be plates with a David's star too? Or the sentence "There is no God"? Because the latter is my standpoint, and if Christians can shove their faith into my face and annoy me, I might do likewise to them. I think we can find 400 people in SC who would support a license plate saying "There is no God". (Do you see now how impertinent and self-righteous it is to force your beliefs on everyone everywhere?)

Nice, light-hearted piece of satire here. A State offers a number plate with nice fully clouds, a Christian cross on a nice stained-glass window, and the affirmation "I believe", and this somehow constitutes "establishment of a religion"?? Maybe it consitutes "a religious test for qualification to a public office"!!

South Carolina is not:
1) Forcing anyone to carry these plates on their motor vehicle;
2) Charging higher registration fees for those who carry other plates;
3) Displaying a message like "we believe", or "you should believe", or "why don't you believe" on the plate, but the purely personal, individual statement "I believe".

If a car rego plate emphasised, say, a particular industry or product that is connected to the State's regional economy, I doubt there would be an objection, even from workers in competing industries. I see no essential difference here.

SNSB18 - as I Christian, I answer "yes" to your question. I am perfectly content to support other car owners having wiccan, atheist, or even satanist licence plates if they choose. I take not offence at the fact that others choose to have different beliefs to mine. I may feel sad for them, but its their decision.

SPIDERMAN2 generally sounds just like the Taliban, if we only replace "Mohammed" with "God" or "Jesus." If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. This is not about being pro-Christianity or anti-Christianity, it is about being pro-Theocracy or anti-Theocracy. Theocracies, throughout time and spanning diverse religions, have proved to be the most repressive and cruel regimes imaginable. Let's honor both God and the wisdom of our founding fathers and keep religion out of our government.

To grouse1 -- where your argument falls apart is that it was the state legislature who decided to offer this plate, not a ground swell of requests from SC citizens. This is government-sponsored religious expression, which is absolutely forbidden under the First Amendment.

BAC