I think it’s a good idea because it will annoy their god.
Matthew 6:5
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.
Thanks DG, I was trying to think of that quote.
Now, it isn’t clear to me under what code section people of, say, the Jewish faith could create a license plate. It might be under SECTION 56-3-8000. Non-profit organization license plates (Scroll down). If so, then I don’t see any specific statement in that code section that prevents such a plate design from including words.
From the looks of the code section, it is only the inclusion of the text “I believe” on the plate that makes it different from other religious plates, assuming that such plates are, indeed, available already under section 8000, and are not allowed to have writing on them.
Now, to me, the ability to issue such plates under a specific code section authorizing that plate, and only that plate, will stand or fall on the ability of the state to articulate a “secular purpose” for the code section. And the willingness of the Supreme Court of the United States to accept that such a secular purpose exists may depend upon how Justice Kennedy feels about a supposedly secular purpose that obviously involves allowing a religious expression.
I doubt, however, that the plates will be found to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporated prohibition on establishment of religion.
Left Hand of Dorkness, the fact that the plates say “I Believe” itself would be irrelevant. Believe in what?
But to superimpose those words upon the main icon of the Christian religion is to make it clear that the belief being expressed is belief in the Christian religion’s tenets. Thus, focussing on the words is irrelevant, other than the fact that they are allowed when other religious plates are not allowed to assert some special expression of faith or belief.
I don’t see how the law could pass the Lemon Test, particular item #2:
- The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
- The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
- The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
If “I believe” is given special treatment over “I do not believe”, then that advances religion. I would also say that is its “primary effect” since it is its only effect-- differentiated those who believe from those who don’t. Maybe I’m missing something since IANAL.
John, that’s going to hinge upon the “secular legislative purpose.” If one can be articulated, then clearly that purpose will end up being the primary effect, unless someone can argue that there is an overriding effect of advancing religion.
I suspect it will come down to how the Supreme Court (specifically, Justice Kennedy) views a purpose that has an effect that covers a religious area, but which is not itself directly religious. Thus, for example, one can say that the primary effect won’t be to advance religion in general, or Christianity in specific, because it won’t do anything to encourage or force someone to be Christian, or religious. The fact that the state allows Christians to profess their faith on a license plate, after all, doesn’t make an atheist feel compelled to sign up, unless the atheist isn’t allowed to profess their non-faith. And that, of course, may hinge upon what, specifically, section 8000 or other relevant code sections allow.
I would be very interested to hear what is the secular purpose of the symbol of the Christian religion. “I Believe” might be considered ceremonial deism or just some vague statement about, well, belief, but when coupled with the Christian Cross, the religious meaning cannot be ignored.
What secular purpose is granted by having separate legislation for the “I Believe” plates? If there’s already a separate law, section 8000, that allows for folks to put something on license plates, what’s the secular rationale for creating a separate law for one specific type of religious plate?
DSYoung, I don’t think anybody involved in this controversy doubts what’s believed in, nor that it’s a reference to a particularly Christian emphasis on belief as the cornerstone of religion. The fact that the phrase “I believe” could be referencing a belief in the headache-relieving properties of Goody’s Headache Powder is immaterial, since everybody knows that’s not what it’s actually referencing.
Daniel
I can’t believe the discussion about something so absurd. Who the hell cares what’s on your license plate? As long as it is:
- legible
- carries a traceable number
- proves that your vehicle is registered
I don’t give a rat’s ass what you plaster on it.
But of course, this needs to be extensively litigated, less we be gravely harmed! :eek:
Handy identifier for corner-praying religious jagoffs. Don’t knock it.
Here’s my idea: put a identification number (and the State and year of issue) on license plates. And nothing else.
Anyone wanting to make some sort of “Me Too!” statement to the public at large would remain free to affix “pro-this” and “anti-that” stickers all over their car. Anywhere they want… except on the license plates.
So other drivers know to stay at least three car lengths behind any bearer of that license plate. When the Rapture comes, you need to give yourself time to brake.
Yes, this is an encroachment on the church/state separation, much like a mosquito bite is a hemorrhage. I got no time for little battles, there are issues out there worth griddling your loins and smiting hip and thigh, but this just ain’t one of them.
Leaving behind their clothes and, presumably, their wallets. Just a reminder.
I think that anyone who puts anything on the back of their car is, well, not as I would like them to be.
To actually pay the state for the privilege of putting it on your plate is, well, even less desirable in my opinion.
But, I still see no first amendment violation here. The state of South Carolina isn’t saying that everyone must go to church, or that even Christianity is a good religion. It is just adding to the list of things that can be placed on your license plate at your own expense.
Right. I noticed the same things, but I think it’s either left best to go back to a basic plate or to require membership for all plates (save the obvious ones, like golf).
Right on! You should either be neutral (and thus all inclusive) to religions, or include them ALL. That’s actually why I think mixing religion and government is a mistake. The people who advocate that sort of thing, think that everyone believes the same. They think that if prayer returns to school, it will just be conservative Protestant Christian prayer.
To the people who are wondering why anyone would pay money for a license plate like the one proposed…let’s just say that South Carolina is FILLED with modren day Phaiasee fundies. Everything they do has to be specificly “Christian” or it’s teh EVIL!!! Heck, we’re talking about the home of Bob Jones University you know.
Trace everyone who buys one of those special tags back to the church that she or he belongs to and tax that church!
Just doing my Christian duty…