South Carolina Christian Right is at it again!

[ToddH]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/sclicense.plates/index.html

Would these guys just secede already like they talked about in 2004?

[HarryKeogh]

This is such an obvious and blatant violation of church and state. The courts will have no choice but to put a stop to it but hopefully they can act quickly enough before the plates are produced.

Though, even as a non-Christian, I admire the bravery of the Lt. Governor expressing his faith and how he refuses to back down. In South Carolina that is quite a difficult stand to take. The backlash will be huge!

[juryjone]

How about:

South Carolina - Dumber than Florida

or

South Carolina - We Just Don't Get It

[fuelair]

"If I were never to get elected or serve in another capacity because I pronounce my faith as a Christian, I don't have a problem with that," Bauer said. (from the link)

and I certainly hope he gets that prayer of his - I do not wish to see him functioning in any capacity.

[bokonon]

Man, I've gotta go buy me a car in SC, just so I can get me a couple of those license plates to customize.

EVOLUTN - with the stained glass painted over with a Darwin fish
FSMBLVR - ditto, with Pasta Supreme

[ottle]

Think they'd ever consider an "I Don't Believe" plate? :)

[slingblade]

The Christian plate will include the words "I Believe" and a bright-yellow cross on a multicolored stained glass church window.

Lynn's group said in a news release "that 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.

Reading the article in question helps.

[drkitten]

Reading the article in question helps.

Not as much as you might think.

I'm not sure the law is as clear-cut as you might think, and the statement that "other religions will not be able to get similar license plates expressing differing viewpoints" is not an official SC pronouncement. Far from it, in fact.

And I think that's the key question. If SC's laws are written such that any group can get a vanity plate if it's large enough --- i.e. I and four hundred of my friends could get a "Friends of James Randi" plate printed just by asking -- then it's not necessarily unconstitutional to offer some religions but not others in the name of popular demand, just like it's not unconstitutional to rent the town hall out to the local Baptists but not to the local Jews if the local Jews never bothered to ask.

The problem comes in when the Jews are told "no" but the Baptists "yes," regardless of whether that's a town hall rental or a license plate.

Are there 4,000 people who want Jesus plates? Are there 4,000 people who want atheist plates? If the answers are "yes," and "no," respectively, then I'm not sure there's a constitutional issue involved in providing Jesus plates.

The problems come in with the special privileges:


While individuals can ask the DMV to print plates for other faiths -- for a $4,000 fee -- the request would be subject to significant limits and rules not imposed for the Christian plate. Other tags could feature a religious symbol -- such as the Star of David -- but no words would be allowed.

and with the statements by the sponsors that it's a measure specifically to favor Christianity (i.e. no secular purpose).

So I think that this is PROBABLY d.o.a. when the courts look at it,.... but it's not as clear-cut as I might wish.

[Drudgewire]

South Carolina Christian Right is at it again!


When aren't they? Marilyn Manson is still banned for life from here. :mad:

[slingblade]

Not as much as you might think.

Exactly as much as I indeed thought, thanks. The article answered the question, as well as it can be answered at the moment with the information at hand.

Everyone knows already the issue is going to come up for further discussion, and what possible things might be decided, and why. In other words, that's what the article says to answer the question asked, which is all the answer we have for now.

What actually comes of it, we'll have to wait and see.






Don't start. It's a bad day for poking.

[Mister Agenda]

We already have 'In God We Trust' license plates, and a court decision that allows us to get an 'In Reason We Trust' license plate. SC has more of these individualized plates than any other state. I'm pretty sure the challenge will wind up with everyone being able to get their own 'I Believe' or 'I Don't Believe' plate if they can come up with the money. That said, I've never SEEN an 'In Reason We Trust' plate. I think we (including Wiccans, Hindus, and such) are just a LITTLE too afraid of the Christian majority for us to be wearing our alternate convictions on our license plates. Might cost a promotion or something, or get our car defaced, y'know.

[fuelair]

We already have 'In God We Trust' license plates, and a court decision that allows us to get an 'In Reason We Trust' license plate. SC has more of these individualized plates than any other state. I'm pretty sure the challenge will wind up with everyone being able to get their own 'I Believe' or 'I Don't Believe' plate if they can come up with the money. That said, I've never SEEN an 'In Reason We Trust' plate. I think we (including Wiccans, Hindus, and such) are just a LITTLE too afraid of the Christian majority for us to be wearing our alternate convictions on our license plates. Might cost a promotion or something, or get our car defaced, y'know.By whom? Xtians love their neighbors and treat others as they would be treated - the bibble says so!!!

[The Nimble Pianist]

Not as much as you might think.

I'm not sure the law is as clear-cut as you might think, and the statement that "other religions will not be able to get similar license plates expressing differing viewpoints" is not an official SC pronouncement. Far from it, in fact.

And I think that's the key question. If SC's laws are written such that any group can get a vanity plate if it's large enough --- i.e. I and four hundred of my friends could get a "Friends of James Randi" plate printed just by asking -- then it's not necessarily unconstitutional to offer some religions but not others in the name of popular demand, just like it's not unconstitutional to rent the town hall out to the local Baptists but not to the local Jews if the local Jews never bothered to ask.

The problem comes in when the Jews are told "no" but the Baptists "yes," regardless of whether that's a town hall rental or a license plate.

Are there 4,000 people who want Jesus plates? Are there 4,000 people who want atheist plates? If the answers are "yes," and "no," respectively, then I'm not sure there's a constitutional issue involved in providing Jesus plates.

The problems come in with the special privileges:



and with the statements by the sponsors that it's a measure specifically to favor Christianity (i.e. no secular purpose).

So I think that this is PROBABLY d.o.a. when the courts look at it,.... but it's not as clear-cut as I might wish.


Yes, but this isn't the protocol executed in this case.

From the article:

"The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Bauer's willingness to pay the deposit "more deeply confirms this is a government-sponsored program."

"I don't believe that these license plates will ever be on any car in South Carolina, because I think our Constitutional claim is so strong," Lynn said.

South Carolina's legislature has not made a similar specialty plate available for any other faith, he said.

While individuals can ask the DMV to print plates for other faiths -- for a $4,000 fee -- the request would be subject to significant limits and rules not imposed for the Christian plate. Other tags could feature a religious symbol -- such as the Star of David -- but no words would be allowed."

Whereas any community can get together and submit a request (with the money up front) to the DMV for a vanity plate, the Governor took it upon himself to bring the legislature into the mix, thus obfuscating the 1st amendment.

This is clearly at odds with the establishment clause.

[JFrankA]

Well, I want an "I believe" licence plate: but, only if my plate numbers read


WTF


:D

[Phase Inverter]

We already have 'In God We Trust' license plates, and a court decision that allows us to get an 'In Reason We Trust' license plate.

I've never SEEN an 'In Reason We Trust' plate.


Here's both:

http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/plates/InGodWeTrust.gif http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/plates/plate1.jpg

[Shalamar]

Hmm.. I want either:

A license plate with the Jedi Symbol, and the phrase: May the Force be with you

Or

A picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with the phrase 'May you be touched by his noodly appendage.

[ShowerComic]

Wait a minute, the article says the Lt. Gov. is fronting the initial $4,000 for the plates, but starting up a specialty plate with another invocation would cost an individual $4,000. ??

While individuals can ask the DMV to print plates for other faiths -- for a $4,000 fee -- the request would be subject to significant limits and rules not imposed for the Christian plate.

Or is it for each new religious plate, the Lt. Gov. is donating the startup cost ?

[roseglass]

We already have 'In God We Trust' license plates, and a court decision that allows us to get an 'In Reason We Trust' license plate. SC has more of these individualized plates than any other state. I'm pretty sure the challenge will wind up with everyone being able to get their own 'I Believe' or 'I Don't Believe' plate if they can come up with the money. That said, I've never SEEN an 'In Reason We Trust' plate. I think we (including Wiccans, Hindus, and such) are just a LITTLE too afraid of the Christian majority for us to be wearing our alternate convictions on our license plates. Might cost a promotion or something, or get our car defaced, y'know.

Sad, but true. I don't know if people realize that the climate in the old home state is such that differing opinions aren't just shot down, they shot down the opinionated. I didn't even know about the "In Reason We Trust" plate either, while I don't stay in SC alot, I grew up there and never heard of the plate's existence until I read this thread.

There already is a popular movement towards succession building in the state. If Obama is elected, and I learned this while I was visiting my family and listening to the political talk in town, that cog will probably go into full gear. Not sure where it would go, but unlike many states, it has at least one deep water port, nuclear processing facilities and receives international income from companies like BMW.

Title 2, Chapter 5 of the South Carolina Legislative Code allows for the state to succeed from the Union if the US is every attacked again by terrorists or if there is an emergency breakdown of any sort that is covered by that code. SC was also the only state to successfully remove FEMA's leadership during Hurricane Hugo, and FEMA usually isn't involved in natural disasters in the state as much as they are others.

Thanks for the update!

[The Nimble Pianist]

Wait a minute, the article says the Lt. Gov. is fronting the initial $4,000 for the plates, but starting up a specialty plate with another invocation would cost an individual $4,000. ??



Or is it for each new religious plate, the Lt. Gov. is donating the startup cost ?


The Lt. Gov. is fronting the DMV the cash and will be reimbursed when (and if) sales of the vanity plates equal the loaned amount.

What I still don't understand is why the Lt. Gov. got the legislature involved to begin with. There has to be some missing info here that we're not being told. The link implies that all an individual (or group of individuals) must do to start a new vanity plate design is to either get some 400 pre-paid orders from citizens or (do as the Lt. Gov. did) front the DMV with $4,000.

This is where I'm getting concerned (and tentatively side with the Citizens for the Separation of Church and State). Why was there a bill even brought to the legislature in the first place concerning these vanity plates if the legislature typically has no business in the protocol of new design implementation?

[maxfrost]

There already is a popular movement towards succession building in the state. If Obama is elected, and I learned this while I was visiting my family and listening to the political talk in town, that cog will probably go into full gear. Not sure where it would go, but unlike many states, it has at least one deep water port, nuclear processing facilities and receives international income from companies like BMW.


So, in other words, not only has South Carolina the ability to produce and transport WMDs, but the inclination to do so, under certain conditions--such as, a democratically-elected President that they don't approve of. Hmm, didn't we invade Iraq for less cause?

[Mister Agenda]

So, in other words, not only has South Carolina the ability to produce and transport WMDs, but the inclination to do so, under certain conditions--such as, a democratically-elected President that they don't approve of. Hmm, didn't we invade Iraq for less cause?

'Loosens tie nervously. Bead of sweat.'

[Mister Agenda]

Here's both:

http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/plates/InGodWeTrust.gif http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/plates/plate1.jpg

Thanks for filling in that little gap in my life. Maybe I'll get one of those next time. The one on the right, I mean.

[roseglass]

So, in other words, not only has South Carolina the ability to produce and transport WMDs, but the inclination to do so, under certain conditions--such as, a democratically-elected President that they don't approve of. Hmm, didn't we invade Iraq for less cause?

Strange times.