Purplehood wrote:I agree with the court. There is nothing to stop you from putting a big sticker of a cross on your car. No need to do it on a state license plate which might imply to some that a particular religion is state-supported.
Keep the government on your license plate and the religion on your bumper-sticker.
I can see your point, but how would that effect "college" vanity plates like Baylor (Baptist) or SMU (Methodist) or TCU, etc etc? A person with said vanity school plate might just really like their sports team, and may not even be an alumn or affiliated with the denomination that the school represents. Are we going to say that, since those plates are affiliated with Christian churches, that they are banned as well? I'm just curious, at what point does the "discrimination pendulum" swing the other way? Oh boy, I can hear the flame torches lighting already...
The Texas plates you mentioned are "Specialty License Plates" for which you pay an extra fee. The South Carolina plates were no-additional-fee plates, implying at the very least a state sponsorship of that viewpoint. That's how we can have the Baylor, SMU & TCU plates here without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Ahhh thanks for clearing that up. So if they make that Plate an extra Fee Plate would it be okay?
In Capitalism, Man exploits Man. In Communism, it's just the reverse
Purplehood wrote:I agree with the court. There is nothing to stop you from putting a big sticker of a cross on your car. No need to do it on a state license plate which might imply to some that a particular religion is state-supported.
Keep the government on your license plate and the religion on your bumper-sticker.
I can see your point, but how would that effect "college" vanity plates like Baylor (Baptist) or SMU (Methodist) or TCU, etc etc? A person with said vanity school plate might just really like their sports team, and may not even be an alumn or affiliated with the denomination that the school represents. Are we going to say that, since those plates are affiliated with Christian churches, that they are banned as well? I'm just curious, at what point does the "discrimination pendulum" swing the other way? Oh boy, I can hear the flame torches lighting already...
The Texas plates you mentioned are "Specialty License Plates" for which you pay an extra fee. The South Carolina plates were no-additional-fee plates, implying at the very least a state sponsorship of that viewpoint. That's how we can have the Baylor, SMU & TCU plates here without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Ahhh thanks for clearing that up. So if they make that Plate an extra Fee Plate would it be okay?
In my opinion, yes. The problem as described in the linked article and some of the links out of that article implied that the problem was that the specialty SC plate was available at no additional charge as was the standard plate. I'm swag-ing that SC has vanity plates as well (most states do), and that they charge extra for them. That implies that the state "prefers" Christianity to other religions and forms of religions, which is establishment (as specified in the First Amendment), which is why its a no-no.
In Texas, the specialty plates, including those espousing religion, are all for an additional fee, so you can have them put whatever you like on it without implying state sponsorship, so its all cool under the First.
If you can include everyone, go for it (See License plates you choose to pay extra for)
If you cant, dont do it (See trying to Cram COurt Houses with Christmas/Haunnakah/Kawanazaa/Pagen/ect displays when putting up white lights or not lights at all would be fine)
In Capitalism, Man exploits Man. In Communism, it's just the reverse
Did they have other plates for other religions? Did they have one with a Star of David for Jews, or a crescent moon for Muslims? Were those also outlawed?
If the state ONLY had a plate depicting a cross as an option, I would agree with the ruling. If they have other religious plates as an option, also for no additional fee, and ONLY the one depicting the Christian cross was banned, I have a problem with the ruling.
Personally, I have no problem with the state offering this as an option. As long as the government doesn't mandate the religious plate, there is no conflict with the establishment clause.
Just because the state offers something of religious significance that its citizens want doesn't mean the state endorses it.
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.” - Frank Lloyd Wright
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms" - Aristotle
Kythas wrote:Did they have other plates for other religions? Did they have one with a Star of David for Jews, or a crescent moon for Muslims? Were those also outlawed?
If the state ONLY had a plate depicting a cross as an option, I would agree with the ruling. If they have other religious plates as an option, also for no additional fee, and ONLY the one depicting the Christian cross was banned, I have a problem with the ruling.
Personally, I have no problem with the state offering this as an option. As long as the government doesn't mandate the religious plate, there is no conflict with the establishment clause.
Just because the state offers something of religious significance that its citizens want doesn't mean the state endorses it.
No, this was the first one. They do have a few other "specialty plates" available (http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/plate ... aspx?q=All), but this was the only one that appears to directly highlight a religion. There are a couple others that could be construed as religious in nature (e.g. - presbyterian collegiate, secular humanist, etc.), but there appears to be a fee associated with them. As I understand it, the plate that was disallowed was available at no additional charge, which is where it ran afoul of the First Amendment. There are no others that are available for no additional charge that do not carry a fee of some sort.
Kythas wrote:Did they have other plates for other religions? Did they have one with a Star of David for Jews, or a crescent moon for Muslims? Were those also outlawed?
If the state ONLY had a plate depicting a cross as an option, I would agree with the ruling. If they have other religious plates as an option, also for no additional fee, and ONLY the one depicting the Christian cross was banned, I have a problem with the ruling.
Personally, I have no problem with the state offering this as an option. As long as the government doesn't mandate the religious plate, there is no conflict with the establishment clause.
Just because the state offers something of religious significance that its citizens want doesn't mean the state endorses it.
As would I.
The problem was they were making a plate that wouldn't cost anything more than a regular plate, while they had other specilty plates that cost more.
Its like saying, 1 Dollar for plain Chocolate Chip cookies, 1 Dollar for chocolate cookies with a frosting Cross on it, and 2 dollars for a all other chocolate chop frosted cookies
Now I want a cookie
In Capitalism, Man exploits Man. In Communism, it's just the reverse
we need to go back to just plain old yellow on black and black on yellow license plates on alternating years... no more of these silly personalized license plates.... and while I'm at it, we need to go back to plain old green bank checks... no more of those sissyfied personalized butterfly checks 'ya can't even read the bank name on.... and there's just too danged many "have it your way" hamburger joints - a hamburger is a hamburger...leave it alone
I'm getting old and crotchety.... and I like it that way
surv
It's not gun control that we need, it's soul control!
Government does not need religion, and religion does not need Government.
that is not what our founding fathers thought. If need be, I can get all of the quotes for this. I would recommend getting literature/videos from a group called wallbuilders. they have done a good job collecting this information. You may be surprised that our country WAS founded on Christian values and that religion WAS suppose to be in government. I know that most folks nowadays dont know that (thank you media and the dumbing down of our education system) and even our own president, who went to college for constitutional law thinks that separation of church and state is in the constitution, but history will prove you wrong.
Col 2:8 See to it that no man takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men,according to the elementary principles of the world,rather than according to Christ.
austin received app 12/10
Processing app 12/22/08
App comp 1/26/09
Plastic in hand 1/30/09
Government does not need religion, and religion does not need Government.
that is not what our founding fathers thought. If need be, I can get all of the quotes for this. I would recommend getting literature/videos from a group called wallbuilders. they have done a good job collecting this information. You may be surprised that our country WAS founded on Christian values and that religion WAS suppose to be in government. I know that most folks nowadays dont know that (thank you media and the dumbing down of our education system) and even our own president, who went to college for constitutional law thinks that separation of church and state is in the constitution, but history will prove you wrong.
Christian values isn't the same thing as Christainity. Yes, thoses values can be found in writings of the founding fathers of that time.
Government does not need religion, and religion does not need Government.
that is not what our founding fathers thought. If need be, I can get all of the quotes for this. I would recommend getting literature/videos from a group called wallbuilders. they have done a good job collecting this information. You may be surprised that our country WAS founded on Christian values and that religion WAS suppose to be in government. I know that most folks nowadays dont know that (thank you media and the dumbing down of our education system) and even our own president, who went to college for constitutional law thinks that separation of church and state is in the constitution, but history will prove you wrong.
And I can collect just as much reflecting the exact opposite. Choose your founding fathers and run with it...
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
And I can collect just as much reflecting the exact opposite. Choose your founding fathers and run with it...
I have read what I believe to be all of the "counter" statements. It isnt simply a "pick your founding father" type argument. 90% of the founding fathers were committed Christians and expressed clearly that the foundation of this country will be on Christianity (and we could argue what that means). I am not looking to pick a fight here, just laying out the facts. Unfortunately, the majority of the claims that say that the country wasnt founded on christian values (and when I say this, I am saying Christianity as found in the old and new testament) will come from Thomas Jefferson and a few other strained examples (usually taken out of context).
If you still believe that the country was not founded on Christian values, I would recommend reading some literature from the wallbuilders organization (http://www.wallbuilders.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) as it may convince your otherwise. Then again, I have learned that mental real estate is hard to give up.
I'll let y'all have the last word on this.
Col 2:8 See to it that no man takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men,according to the elementary principles of the world,rather than according to Christ.
austin received app 12/10
Processing app 12/22/08
App comp 1/26/09
Plastic in hand 1/30/09
And I can collect just as much reflecting the exact opposite. Choose your founding fathers and run with it...
I have read what I believe to be all of the "counter" statements. It isnt simply a "pick your founding father" type argument. 90% of the founding fathers were committed Christians and expressed clearly that the foundation of this country will be on Christianity (and we could argue what that means). I am not looking to pick a fight here, just laying out the facts. Unfortunately, the majority of the claims that say that the country wasnt founded on christian values (and when I say this, I am saying Christianity as found in the old and new testament) will come from Thomas Jefferson and a few other strained examples (usually taken out of context).
If you still believe that the country was not founded on Christian values, I would recommend reading some literature from the wallbuilders organization (http://www.wallbuilders.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) as it may convince your otherwise. Then again, I have learned that mental real estate is hard to give up.
I'll let y'all have the last word on this.
I guess I simply dispute the "facts". After all, History is usually written by the winner.
BTW, I take no offense to folks having a different opinion than mine. I enjoy educated and articulate discourse. I also enjoy having my mind changed on occassion.
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
Was America founded on Christian values?
Yes, of course.
Was the Bible a Large party of writing the Constitution and Declaration of Independence?
Yes, of course
Were Some of the founding fathers for Religion being part of Government?
yes.
Were some of the founding fathers for religion being kept separate from government?
yes.
But why would the founding fathers go out of their way to make sure that the Federal government didn't go out of its way to start a church? Because they saw what has happened before when that foolishness is allowed to happen.
In the early 1800's you could be locked up for writing out against the government, but the supreme court and the people quickly got involved and said, no thats protected under the 1st (and believe or not some people argued that it wasnt).
Basically the reason we have a supreme court is to make sure laws are constitutional and to make sure that the laws match the times. It all goes back to Judicial Review. You could hang someone for stealing your horse in 1776, now we just throw you in jail, do you think we should REALLY stick to the hanging? If a bank cheats its shareholders out of some money, should we legally be able to hang them? (God is that tempting), but then if a cop pulls you over for speeding, should you get 30 lashes?
Anyway, over the years Judges have ruled that the Government or the Feds supporting one religion over another is unconstitutional, partly do to the very diverse America we live in now, and because their is some history backing it up. If you wanna be a hard core constitutionalists, the Airforce in unconstitutional because it was never outlined in the constitution, the freedom of privacy was never outline either, but thanks to Judicial review we now have it. The Second Amendment REALLY can be read by some that Firearms are for the military or only for the defense of the country (but not yourself or property), but THANKS to judicial review, we get to keep our guns (for now)
There is a very strong argument for the government supporting Christianity, but with some many religions and non religious people it would a disservice for the government to support One kind of religion over another. So yes it may seem silly to some that they wont put a 10 Commandments on public property but how would you feel if Obama started making practicing the Koran mandatory in schools (learning about it, not a big deal to me, same with the bible, judiasm ect, but pratcing or preaching are different from learning)
In MODERN times, there is just no NEED for the Government to stick its nose into religion.
And no I dont HATE your religion, Christianity is full of great lessons that can be used in everyday life (help the helpless, turn the over cheek, the golden rule) but so is Islam, Judisiam, Wicca, but do I think the government should be out there promoting any of that? no. Thats not their job, and I dont understand why ANYONE would want MORE government in their lives, let alone in their Religion.
Rant over.
In Capitalism, Man exploits Man. In Communism, it's just the reverse
Kythas wrote:Did they have other plates for other religions? Did they have one with a Star of David for Jews, or a crescent moon for Muslims? Were those also outlawed?
If the state ONLY had a plate depicting a cross as an option, I would agree with the ruling. If they have other religious plates as an option, also for no additional fee, and ONLY the one depicting the Christian cross was banned, I have a problem with the ruling.
Personally, I have no problem with the state offering this as an option. As long as the government doesn't mandate the religious plate, there is no conflict with the establishment clause.
Just because the state offers something of religious significance that its citizens want doesn't mean the state endorses it.
As would I.
The problem was they were making a plate that wouldn't cost anything more than a regular plate, while they had other specilty plates that cost more.
Its like saying, 1 Dollar for plain Chocolate Chip cookies, 1 Dollar for chocolate cookies with a frosting Cross on it, and 2 dollars for a all other chocolate chop frosted cookies
Now I want a cookie
This being the case, I agree with the ruling.
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.” - Frank Lloyd Wright
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms" - Aristotle
