Florida considers allowing religious symbols on license plates

[Ladewig]

CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/24/license.plate.ap/index.html)

Florida drivers can order more than 100 specialty license plates celebrating everything from manatees to the Miami Heat, but one now under consideration would be the first in the nation to explicitly promote a specific religion.

The Florida Legislature is considering a specialty plate with a design that includes a Christian cross, a stained-glass window and the words "I Believe."

Rep. Edward Bullard, the plate's sponsor, said people who "believe in their college or university" or "believe in their football team" already have license plates they can buy. The new design is a chance for others to put a tag on their cars with "something they believe in," he said.

If the plate is approved, Florida would become the first state to have a license plate featuring a religious symbol that's not part of a college logo. Approval would almost certainly face a court challenge.

The problem with the state manufacturing the plate is that it "sends a message that Florida is essentially a Christian state" and, second, gives the "appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.


It is a way to generate revenue (users pay an extra $25) and I am always in favor of optional taxes, but it is kind of strange. I personally don't see it as running afoul of the First Amendment because the other optional plates that the state offers (http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/specialtytags/) are not necessarily endorsements of NASCAR, sea turtles, organ donation, space shuttle memorials, or the Boy Scouts.

.................
ETA: in an effort to get the story up quickly, I missed the part where part of the $25 will go to specific agencies related to the theme. In this case, it would be an Orlando-based nonprofit that supports faith-based schools activities. Still, it is completely optional.

[Darth Rotor]

[The problem with the state manufacturing the plate is that it "sends a message that Florida is essentially a Christian state" and, second, gives the "appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
Right, just as the problem of having a Gators emblem on a plate sends the message that Florida is a football state. (Wait a minute, maybe it is. :p Football is a religion in Florida, or is practiced as devoutly as one, particularly High School and College football.)

Maybe Mr Simon ought to consider what percentage of Floridians are practicing Christians, then what fraction of them would bother to spend the money on this feature, and then ask himself who this message would be received by? Other Floridians, in the main. Preaching to the choir, such a problem. :rolleyes:

Will he next object to churches on so many street corners in Florida constituting the appearance that Florida is a Christian state? ]

Howard, I've got news for you: Florida is substantially populated by Christians. (Pick a flavor. When I last lived there, you couldn't drive three miles without tripping across another Church of What's Happenin' Now on yet another street corner.)

Pissing up the wrong rope, this one.

DR

[madurobob]

Wow - I thought the rule in FL was that if you had enough people sign up (250?), you could get a plate that represented almost anything. They already have pro-choice/pro-life themed plates, why not overtly religious plates as well? Whatever it takes to get people to give the State more money.

I don't see how this harms anyone and don't see how, given the variety of plates already available, that one might be mistakenly believed to be endorsed by the State.

FWIW - I've never understood themed plates or vanity plates. I just don't get it. Why would I want such a thing?

[Darth Rotor]

FWIW - I've never understood themed plates or vanity plates. I just don't get it. Why would I want such a thing?
We have an accord. (Wait, I don't own a Honda, that's my mother. :cool: )

DR

[Beerina]

I've never understood...vanity plates. I just don't get it. Why would I want such a thing?

Would that I could legitimately get: 12INCHOLUV

[madurobob]

Would that I could legitimately get: 12INCHOLUV
Well, you couldn't in NC since we only allow 8 characters. We did apparently let this one (http://jalopnik.com/341617/personalized-plate-slips-by-north-carolina-dmv) in, tho.

[Meadmaker]

What a hideous idea.

In order to survive constitutional scrutiny, you would have to allow any religious device, which means the state would end up losing money because they would have to create logos for every religion anyone comes up with. I can't wait to see the Rastafarian plate. And since it's Florida, there will of course have to be a Santero plate. A beheaded chicken perhaps?

Is it really necessary to use license plates for advertising, anyway? I've decided I really hate all those state-sponsored mobile bumper stickers, with or without religion. If you want to show your love of Jesus or the Florida Gators, buy a bumper sticker.

[madurobob]

In order to survive constitutional scrutiny, you would have to allow any religious device, which means the state would end up losing money because they would have to create logos for every religion anyone comes up with. I can't wait to see the Rastafarian plate. And since it's Florida, there will of course have to be a Santero plate. A beheaded chicken perhaps?

I don't think so. Before a plate is offered it has to be requested and there have to be a minimum number of people signed up to get the plate. So, the State ensures it will not lose money on the deal. Most states have dozens of themed plates, none of which are purported to suggest state sponsorship of the idea represented by the theme. So, constitutional scrutiny does not appear to be an issue.

Just how many rastafarians do you think would sign up for that plate? I don' see it happening.

ETA: FWIW - NC has over 100 themed plates. One is "I'd Rather Be Shaggin". Yeah, apparently its a dance, too. We also have a collegiate themed plate for the University of Florida. WTF?

[Irony]

What a hideous idea.

In order to survive constitutional scrutiny, you would have to allow any religious device, which means the state would end up losing money because they would have to create logos for every religion anyone comes up with. I can't wait to see the Rastafarian plate. And since it's Florida, there will of course have to be a Santero plate. A beheaded chicken perhaps?

Is it really necessary to use license plates for advertising, anyway? I've decided I really hate all those state-sponsored mobile bumper stickers, with or without religion. If you want to show your love of Jesus or the Florida Gators, buy a bumper sticker.

Not necessarily, if they rejected any plates for religious reasons they would be in trouble, but there's no reason they should have to allow plates that don't meet their standards for purely secular reasons, such as lack of interest.

[Meadmaker]

Not necessarily, if they rejected any plates for religious reasons they would be in trouble, but there's no reason they should have to allow plates that don't meet their standards for purely secular reasons, such as lack of interest.


They would be walking a fine line, though. They would basically have to allow any religious plate that met minimum interest standards, and didn't violate obscenity or other similar provisions. My guess is that states with huge numbers of themed plates have some that aren't very popular, so if they allowed a "National Arbor Day" plate, they would have to allow a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" plate.

I'm not saying it's unconstitutional to allow the believer plate, but if you do, you're just asking for trouble, and who needs it anyway? Oh, well. I guess anything for a few bucks in the state coffers.

[FM21.105]

Why is Florida in the news about this? Indiana ALREADY has plates that read "IN GOD WE TRUST" on them. I hate seeing them when I drive down I65, but what can I do? It doesn't bother me in the least bit (Now, when I see a "google WTC7" sticker, thats a different story...)

[madurobob]

My guess is that states with huge numbers of themed plates have some that aren't very popular, so if they allowed a "National Arbor Day" plate, they would have to allow a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" plate.

I'm sure they do, too. But, I'm also sure FL would love to have all different religions flocking to the DMV and signing up followers for themed plates. Thats simply more high-priced themed plates and fewer low-priced regular plates.. more revenue to play with. In a way, this very public proposal to allow the xtian plate may be a marketing ploy.

(and in contradiction to what I said earlier, I might very seriously consider a FSM plate if NC offered one)

[ceo_esq]

Why is Florida in the news about this? Indiana ALREADY has plates that read "IN GOD WE TRUST" on them. I hate seeing them when I drive down I65, but what can I do? It doesn't bother me in the least bit (Now, when I see a "google WTC7" sticker, thats a different story...)

You hate seeing them but they don't bother you in the least?

[Ladewig]

I don't think so. Before a plate is offered it has to be requested and there have to be a minimum number of people signed up to get the plate. So, the State ensures it will not lose money on the deal. Most states have dozens of themed plates, none of which are purported to suggest state sponsorship of the idea represented by the theme. So, constitutional scrutiny does not appear to be an issue.



I think Meadmaker has an interesting point. In no other area (tax exempt status, right to marry people, etc,) does the state say "your religion must have at least this many followers before you can have the same rights as Christian denominations."

[Jon.]

I think Meadmaker has an interesting point. In no other area (tax exempt status, right to marry people, etc,) does the state say "your religion must have at least this many followers before you can have the same rights as Christian denominations."

They're not saying it here, either, are they? I was under the impression that the Christians, just like the Pastafarians or the Santerites (Santerians? whatever), have to meet the commitment threshold.

[Dragoonster]

My first thought was similar to Meadmakers in that it would be shot down unless plates for "enough" other religions were also offered. That different plates need enough supporters to be made is an interesting twist, but I think the state would hold the burden here.

My memory is awful so I can't remember similar examples, but this sort of thing sounds vaguely familiar (in that a court or even SCOTUS heard it).

[bokonon]

As I probably stated the first time this made the forum, if it wasn't for the fact that the extra fee goes to faith-based schools (which is where I think this may not pass constitutional muster) I wouldn't have a problem with the plate. It's a perfect excuse to get a designer license plate frame to frame your designer license plate, and complete the "I believe" to make your credo crystal clear.

[slingblade]

One thing that bothers me about it is the quote in the OP:

"Rep. Edward Bullard, the plate's sponsor, said people who "believe in their college or university" or "believe in their football team" already have license plates they can buy. The new design is a chance for others to put a tag on their cars with "something they believe in," he said."

I don't have to "believe" in my college or football team. They're real and can be engaged with the senses. I can, however, support them.

I realize it's just semantics, but it seems an important distinction to me, somehow.

[madurobob]

I think Meadmaker has an interesting point. In no other area (tax exempt status, right to marry people, etc,) does the state say "your religion must have at least this many followers before you can have the same rights as Christian denominations."
I'm not sure I follow. If FL requires all new themed plate requests to have 250 plate purchasers lined up in advance, how is it that this discriminates against non-xtians (they had to meet the minimum as well)? I don't see that as discrimination, I see it as sound fiscal policy: the plate has to at least pay for itself. The whole idea behind themed plates is increased revenue to the state. A 250 minimum is not an undue burden.

Its not as if members of groups throughout the state have no other way to show their support. The state isn't refusing anyone a license plate on religious grounds. I'll bet, though (I hope...) that FL has tougher restrictions on TE status as a religious organization than it does for issuing themed license plates.

I think you're falling into the same trap of assuming that the State allowing a religious themed plate is tantamount to state sponsorship of that religion. Its not. No more than NC having a "University of Florida" themed plate suggests NC sponsorship of UofFL.

[madurobob]

I realize it's just semantics, but it seems an important distinction to me, somehow.
I had the same thought. He equivocates on "believe"; using one meaning when speaking of collegiate plates and another for his dear xtian plate. Its a sad ploy he feels he has to make in order to win the discussion.

Still, I have no problem with FL allowing the plates to be sold. I have no problem with them offering KKK or Soviet-era USSR themed plates if enough people sign up.