TexasCHLforum.com

With the U.S. military now placing much emphasis on insuring Muslim soldiers aren't single out for retribution in the slaughter of it's troops at Ft. Hood, it's getting a little help from the judicial system as well in making sure they aren't offended.

The above Christian oriented license plate has been banned by a federal court as unconstitutional. One plaintiff in the case was the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Go figure.

Better yet, go read the handwriting on the nearest wall.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11 ... -judge/?hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its probably that separation of church and state thing.

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.

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...

It is curious how faith-founded schools manage to get plates. It would reason these are also in violation of the First Amendment forbiding the federal govt from stating any preference of religion. Plates are state issued but still its not consistant.

I think a lot of this confusion surrounds Jefferson's non binding writings regarding "separation of church and state". There is no such law regarding "separation of church and state", only against the establishment of religion.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

Exactly ChamberC! The courts have incorrectly interpreted that fact to take away one's free speech when it comes to religion.

The problem I have with the judge's ruling regarding the license plate is that having this plate on one's vehicle was not mandatory. It's one of several to chose from. Just like the university plates, Pdubyoo pointed out here in Texas. I have a question about those. I thought you actually had to be in or an alum from that college. I don't know why, but that's just what I thought.

It's a Vanity plate, I feel discriminated against for not being able to express my religious beliefs. Now what you gonna say? It is freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion.

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 bet if it were a Star of David the ruling would have been different if there was even a law suit at all.

Oh, and when I saw this on the news this morning they also pointed out the Tennessee allows "In God we trust" on theirs.

C-dub wrote:I bet if it were a Star of David the ruling would have been different if there was even a law suit at all.

Even more so if it was something like this:

chamberc wrote:I think a lot of this confusion surrounds Jefferson's non binding writings regarding "separation of church and state". There is no such law regarding "separation of church and state", only against the establishment of religion.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

wheelgun1958 wrote:

chamberc wrote:I think a lot of this confusion surrounds Jefferson's non binding writings regarding "separation of church and state". There is no such law regarding "separation of church and state", only against the establishment of religion.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

That's the problem... you tell a lie long enough and often enough... people begin to believe that lie as truth.

The problem with many Americans is that they are ignorant. That's right, I said it... Ignorant.

Many are ignorant of the Truth... of what IS in the constitution and what is NOT. Many are ignorant of the amendments as well.

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

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.

What does the phrase mean today as it is applied in American public policy?

The First Amendment, which prohibited any "law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," has evolved into something entirely new. During the last generation, the courts, at all levels, have ruled in ways that essentially guarantee the freedom from religion, instead of the freedom of religion.

The doctrine of "separation of church and state" has been used, and is being used, to effectively purge religion from the public square. The historical perspective on church/state issues reveals a much different story. The government was to accommodate the religious communities; religion and religious expression were to be encouraged.

Supreme Court Rulings, also see the words of Thomas Jefferson.
That should explain separation of church and state for you.

Honestly, if I wanted to put the Holy Image of the flying Spaghetti monster on my CHL would you have a problem witht hat?


for more info look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We have choice in Texas. TSRA is under "organizations". Not to mentioin the "God Bless Texas", and "God Bless America" plates.
for your perusal
http://rts.texasonline.state.tx.us/NASA ... t?grpid=60" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;