The short version is that South Carolina intends to issue a license plate design that didn’t work out when it was tried in Florida. This plate would have a cross and the words “I believe”. Some view this as failure to separate church and state, while the proponents see it as a free speech issue.
Personally, I hate the plate, and the very sight of it evokes the same emotions as any other obnoxious display of religious fervor. However, I would normally tend toward the “free speech” side of the argument, in that people should have the opportunity to express themselves. Many states give people the opportunity to share their hobbies, root for their favorite sports team, or support a non-profit organization on their license plates. I don’t see any fundamental reason why people shouldn’t have an equivalent opportunity to share their religious views (even if it makes me loathe them). But the way South Crolina is approaching this makes that a hard argument to stick with for two reasons:
The article says that other religions, or even (especially?) atheists, could not get a similar plate with wording. It doesn’t clearly explain why this is, but leaves the impression that there is special treatment given to the Christian design. That is just plain wrong, and undermines the “free speech” argument. If any group could create and purchase an equivalent plate, it would seem more fair. I’d like to see the state give one good reason why they’re allowing this plate design to get away with things that any other could not.
The lieutenant governor is fronting the initial deposit to have the run of plates made himself. You could say he’s doing this as a private citizen, but it’s hard to maintain that given the position that he holds in reality. If he’s at all interested in making it appear that there’s no “church and state” issue at hand, he shouldn’t get involved this way. Presumably he’s not interested in avoiding that, and my guess is that he’s happy to see some crumbling of the wall between the two entities. In fact, I’m going to go ahead and pre-judge him as a Fundie whackjob.
So which is it? A legitimate expression of First Amendment liberties, a breach of the barrier between church and state, or an okay idea that’s just being handled in all the wrong ways by the state of South Carolina?
Make them for every other faith that wants a vanity plate and I’m fine with it.
I see it the same way you do. I’m pretty damned secular, but if people want to have it on their car, that’s fine. Even if it is their license plate. Just know that you have Pandora’s Box and now it’ll be more expensive to carry plates for every denomination.
My state will issue you a plate with anything on it as long as it’s not cuss words. They also issue Indian tribe plates, but not for all Indian tribes. They issue plates for schools, veterans, POWs, and other organizations. I don’t think that is an issue of separation as long as the plate holders are paying for them. I see no problem. If you hate or loathe some or all religions then the problem is with you. It is not intelligent to hate.
Hey, if the suckers want to pay higher fees instead of just painting a cross and “I BELIEVE” on their bumpers, good. It should be at least $200 a year in government revenue, slightly easing the burden on the non-sap population.
Is that directed at me? Because I never said the problem wasn’t solely with me. Yeah, I despise overly religious people, especially ones who insist I know all about it. But I keep it tomyself, and even support their right to annoy the shit out of me. I’m tolerant in my loathing. I hope you didn’t understand my OP to have any other point of view.
It needs to be open to all religions and to non-religion as well in order to pass the SCOTUS’s “Lemon Test”. Singling out Christianity in a special way won’t stand up in court, even if some private citizen is paying for it. Why some Christians feel they need to get special treatment from the government is beyond me. Put a damn bumper sticker on your car if it’s that important.
They already offer an “In God We Trust” plate; I don’t see what the issue is here, other than the overt cross graphic. They’ll make vanity plates for any cause ya wanna name, so all the non-Christians have to do is request it and it’s done.
And there’s already a Secular Humanists of the Low Country Plate.
It already is; see the above link. Even the chiropractors have a plate. Presumably the atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, etc. are welcome to get on board any time they like. It’s all money in the SC state coffers.
Would you have to prove that you’re a current member of a church or provide some sort of documentation like the Humanists and fraternities do? I wonder how that’d go.
I doubt it; the “In God We Trust” plate doesn’t require any sort of proof that you do in fact trust in God. The Secular Humanists and the fraternities are actual clubs in real life that require membership, but there are no membership requirements for generic Christianity. Now, if it was a plate for, say, the Southern Baptist Convention, then yeah, you might be required to show that you were a member of a Southern Baptist church. But so far the Southern Baptists seem content with fish on their trunks.
And I see that the Camp Sertoma and the Elks plate makes special mention of the fact that though they are a membership-based organization, the plates are available to all SC residents. So the “I Believe” plate could be like that.
You don’t have to be a member of Rotary to get a Rotary plate, either. Or be disabled to get a Special Olympics plate. Or play golf to get the First In Golf plate. Or be a huntin’, fishin’ sportsman to get a Wild Turkey, Saltwater Fishing, or Ducks Unlimited plate.
Clearly the Rev. Barry Lynn was not in possession of the facts in the case when he said, “South Carolina’s legislature has not made a similar specialty plate available for any other faith”, and when his press release said, “…other religions will not be able to get similar license plates expressing differing viewpoints, nor can a comparable ‘I Don’t Believe’ license plate be issued.”
It’s not a question of the evil jackbooted Nazi Fundie Lege making plates available (or not) to specially chosen groups–it’s a question of a group’s mustering up the moolah to commission the plate, as the chiropractors, the Shriners, and the Square (& Round!) Dancers were somehow able to do.
Need to get a more competent research assistant, I’m thinkin’. Or maybe pick his battles better.
The non-parity issue has to do with the fact that other religious plates could not have a customized “slogan” on them, like the “I Believe” on the Christian plate. It’s not whether Jews could get a Jewish plate…it’s whether they could get one with comparable standards to the new Christian plate. This quote from the article makes it seem that they could not:
Again, all I have to go on is the CNN article. But if that’s actually true, it would certainly seem to flunk any test of religious fairness.
I suggest that we allow everyone, Christians and nonChristians, to get the phrase, “I don’t believe” on their license. The phrase is by no means specific to atheists, after all. We could then get rid of the “I Believe” phrase with no problem, right?
That’s a poor argument, JThunder. “I Believe” is clearly a phrase of more succinct relevance to folks declaring their religion than to folks declaring their political orientation, sexual preference, or lack of religion. It’s not parity to allow everyone, believer and nonbeliever alike, to put a phrase declaring belief on their plate.
If there’s true parity (anything adjustable to a Christian’s preference is similarly adjustable to any of the nonChristians’ preferences, within similar bounds of good taste), I have no objection to it. If this is a special favor being done on behalf of the community of faith, there’s a violation.
Since the only option seems to be a Christian one, I lean against it. I’d agree with the OP’s 3rd stance also. OK idea but done the wrong way. And I say this as a supporter of Civic Theism & a picket fence between religion & government.
Which is EXACTLY the issue at hand. Remember, aerodave complained that other religious groups could not have customized slogans. Even if we assume that to be true (and I’m not prepared to make that assumption), it still raises the question of whether they can ALSO use the “I believe” slogan – a slogan that is by no means specific to Christianity.
As for your contention that atheists should be allowed to say “I don’t believe” — well, why not? If you’re expecting to start an argument with me on that point, then you’re assuming way too much about what I believe on this matter.
For what it’s worth, in SC you do have to be a Mason to get a Masonic plate, and you do have to have been there on December 7, 1941 to get a Pearl Harbor plate. Not that that has much to do with much. You are not, however, required to be an endangered species to get that plate. So, some of 'em you have to be one, some of them you can just buy.
The shag is a dance. Yes, the kind of dance you do upright. It’s an awesome dance because you can hold onto your beer while you dance it.
I’m not assuming, I’m trying to figure it out. Here’s my argument:
If “I Believe” is a statement that receives special treatment (it’s allowed on license plates, whereas the statements, “I Meditate,” or “I Walk in Harmony,” or “I Reason,” or “I Don’t Believe” are not), then there’s a problem. If all of those statements face exactly the same hurdles and criteria as “I Believe,” then there’s no problem.
Do you agree with that argument?
Note that, while “I Believe” isn’t a statement unique to Christians, it IS far more significant to Christians than to (I think) the majority of Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus. Other religions place much less emphasis on belief than they do on practice. Extending this to them is about as generous as extending to Baptists the right to place, “I follow religious dietary rules” on their license plates.
