South Carolina Christians Scream "PREJUDICE!!!"

[Sidewinder]

The hypocrisy of complaining that their rights of expression and religious practices are being obstructed while obstructing those of people of other religions...

Forgive me if I express the same amount of sympathy to a South Carolina's Christian fundamentalist who's been the victim of "prejudice" as I do to a white supremist and neo-Nazi who he steps into Harlem and gets the shit beaten out of him, i.e., NONE.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The 4000 was a deposit to get production going, not a fee on each person buying one. So no, each person doesn't need to fork over 4000 dollars.

Did the point make a flapping noise as it went flying over your head?

I know damn well the 4000 only covers the initial fee to get production going. That doesn't change the fact that a government official fronted the money to get an exclusively Christian symbol on government issued property and used his position in government to advertise that fact. Neither does it change the fact that if anyone else wants this supposed 'freedom of expression', they have to pay the 4000 dollars themselves to get production going. This is ignoring the additional money they'd have to pay to get a vanity plate for themselves, and said plate would be placed under a greater number of restrictions than a Christian plate.

The official in question used personal funds not state funds, so no problem there

Bullshit. He's a government official, and thus held to a far higher standard of impartiality and non-preference than the average citizen by virtue of his position of far greater responsibility. It is his goddamn duty to the spirit of the law of the land to show that government-issued property does not show preference to any religion and/or ideology over another, or lack thereof, not to try and find weasel loopholes to proselytize through government property.

and his public statements do not matter.

Because of your say-so? When the importance of your personal opinion reaches the level of jack shit or above here, this will become a valid point.

[General Zod]

It depends on which judge you ask but the comparison stands. The government owns, operates, and builds every public school, park, or courthouse. Comparing the constitutionality of religious displays and messages in these facilities to a government manufactured plate which is sold (?) or issued to people is totally reasonable.

Which explains why teachers are frequently fired for promoting their own brand of religious quackery in the classroom and ignoring lessons or judges are censured for trying to display the ten commandments in the courthouse? Oh wait. It's too bad all of the examples you listed actually support my point.

[American Infidel]

I know damn well the 4000 only covers the initial fee to get production going. That doesn't change the fact that a government official fronted the money to get an exclusively Christian symbol on government issued property and used his position in government to advertise that fact.

So what? It was his money and he can do with it what he pleases.

Bullshit. He's a government official, and thus held to a far higher standard of impartiality and non-preference than the average citizen by virtue of his position of far greater responsibility. It is his goddamn duty to the spirit of the law of the land to show that government-issued property does not show preference to any religion and/or ideology over another, or lack thereof, not to try and find weasel loopholes to proselytize through government property.

He was elected to represent and carry out the will of the voters (who support this proposal). You are describing the role of a state or federal judge, which he is not.

Because of your say-so? When the importance of your personal opinion reaches the level of jack shit or above here, this will become a valid point.

Don't take my word for it. Open your damn eyes and ears and you'll find tons of politicians advocating religion and anything else you can think of. That doesn't make it officially endorsed, especially if the guy doing it is just the Lt. Governor.

[American Infidel]

It's too bad all of the examples you listed actually support my point.

No they don't.

[Patrick Degan]

I was making a distinction that you have not yet grasped. Also, stating your argument once does not actually prove your point.

Oh lookee, it's trying to be clever. How cute.

At least one of us is.

Certainly isn't you, Bright Eyes.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

So what? It was his money and he can do with it what he pleases.

Yay! Repeat your claims enough times and we'll be sure to believe them!

Oh wait, we'll just continue to call your bullshit, nevermind.

He was elected to represent and carry out the will of the voters (who support this proposal). You are describing the role of a state or federal judge, which he is not.

You're right of course. I'll have to start petitioning southern elected officials to make homosexuality illegal, illegalizing mixed-race marriages, and keeping women from holding the same professions as men, as these have also been the 'will of the people'.

...Or maybe you're stupidly glossing over that little moral imperative of 'Protecting the rights of the minority'.

Don't take my word for it. Open your damn eyes and ears and you'll find tons of politicians advocating religion and anything else you can think of. That doesn't make it officially endorsed, especially if the guy doing it is just the Lt. Governor.

Get back to me when you are actually capable of addressing the point, rather than your little strawman of it.

[Covenant]

Not this bullshit again. Plates are issued for identification, they're not a billboard for your personal preferences. You want to praise Jesus on the ass-end of your pickup truck in that one last spot on your car not covered in fish, flags, or stickers?

Get a vanity plate-holder. It's cheap, it's legal, and it avoids all this stuff. You can have it say whatever you want, you just slap it on there and huzzah. If you want you could probably even put a sticker on the plate, just to be cute. But this is pretty clearly the government endorsing one religion over another by allowing preferential treatment, and thus it's illegal. If they want to have a symbol and "I believe" on their plates then I should be allowed to get one that has a Jewish Star and "I believe" or a picture of a UFO and "I want to believe" and so on. Since they are hellbent on denying other faiths, or non-faiths, from making similar advertisements they really don't have much justification in it.

[Darth Wong]

I know damn well the 4000 only covers the initial fee to get production going. That doesn't change the fact that a government official fronted the money to get an exclusively Christian symbol on government issued property and used his position in government to advertise that fact.

So what? It was his money and he can do with it what he pleases.

Bullshit. He's a government official, and thus held to a far higher standard of impartiality and non-preference than the average citizen by virtue of his position of far greater responsibility. It is his goddamn duty to the spirit of the law of the land to show that government-issued property does not show preference to any religion and/or ideology over another, or lack thereof, not to try and find weasel loopholes to proselytize through government property.

He was elected to represent and carry out the will of the voters (who support this proposal). You are describing the role of a state or federal judge, which he is not.

Because of your say-so? When the importance of your personal opinion reaches the level of jack shit or above here, this will become a valid point.

Don't take my word for it. Open your damn eyes and ears and you'll find tons of politicians advocating religion and anything else you can think of. That doesn't make it officially endorsed, especially if the guy doing it is just the Lt. Governor.

Ah. Appeal to common practice. I guess that made lynchings OK in the Deep South 50 years ago.

[American Infidel]

So what? It was his money and he can do with it what he pleases.

Yay! Repeat your claims enough times and we'll be sure to believe them!

Oh wait, we'll just continue to call your bullshit, nevermind.

I see the problem now. You've been in this mental jerkoff session of a forum for so long that you actually think your opinion is fact. No wonder your post is so childish.

He was elected to represent and carry out the will of the voters (who support this proposal). You are describing the role of a state or federal judge, which he is not.

You're right of course. I'll have to start petitioning southern elected officials to make homosexuality illegal, illegalizing mixed-race marriages, and keeping women from holding the same professions as men, as these have also been the 'will of the people'.

What an amazing display of ignorance and bigotry.

Get back to me when you are actually capable of addressing the point, rather than your little strawman of it.

I didn't realize that your intellectual deficiencies made my argument a strawman.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Okay, you shit-for-breath, mouth-breathing troll who should obviously have been swallowed or spat rather than conceived, DR-6, either back up your claims or shut the fuck up.

[American Infidel]

I know damn well the 4000 only covers the initial fee to get production going. That doesn't change the fact that a government official fronted the money to get an exclusively Christian symbol on government issued property and used his position in government to advertise that fact.

So what? It was his money and he can do with it what he pleases.

Bullshit. He's a government official, and thus held to a far higher standard of impartiality and non-preference than the average citizen by virtue of his position of far greater responsibility. It is his goddamn duty to the spirit of the law of the land to show that government-issued property does not show preference to any religion and/or ideology over another, or lack thereof, not to try and find weasel loopholes to proselytize through government property.

He was elected to represent and carry out the will of the voters (who support this proposal). You are describing the role of a state or federal judge, which he is not.

Because of your say-so? When the importance of your personal opinion reaches the level of jack shit or above here, this will become a valid point.

Don't take my word for it. Open your damn eyes and ears and you'll find tons of politicians advocating religion and anything else you can think of. That doesn't make it officially endorsed, especially if the guy doing it is just the Lt. Governor.

Ah. Appeal to common practice. I guess that made lynchings OK in the Deep South 50 years ago.

Public figures frequently say things that don't reflect the official position of thier office. This could be one such instance. How did you get from that to lynching 50 years ago? I'm just not getting it.

[American Infidel]

Okay, you shit-for-breath, mouth-breathing troll who should obviously have been swallowed or spat rather than conceived, DR-6, either back up your claims or shut the fuck up.

[Mr. Coffee]

Public figures frequently say things that don't reflect the official position of thier office.

There are people that frequently smoke crack, does that mean it's now ok to smoke crack? Just because people do something frequently doesn't mean it's right, jackass.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Okay, you shit-for-breath, mouth-breathing troll who should obviously have been swallowed or spat rather than conceived, DR-6, either back up your claims or shut the fuck up.

So you are openly claiming you have no intention of following the rules of this forum?

You know, I'm not a mod, supermod, or admin here, I don't have any official power. But I do have a small, one could say, almost supernatural gift of precognition. I predict... hold on, something's coming... yes, I predict that you will soon find yourself shoved unceremoniously into the Hall of Shame like the worthless little cumstain that you are. I predict that at some point in the near future you will admit, either deliberately or by process of elimination, that you have not read the rules here and do not intend to follow them. I predict that in the end you will be briefly entertaining in your pathetic little meltdown, then quickly forgotten and tossed away, like the little cardboard cone that is thrown away after you're finished eating all the tasty, yet ultimately valueless cotton candy that was placed thereon.

Please, by all means, prove me wrong.

[Patrick Degan]

I too forsee a very brief stay for our latest meat. Especially as he is now resorting to the Wall of Ignorance tactic and ignoring arguments wholesale.

[gtg947h]

It amazes me how almost everything on this forum seems to degenerate into name-calling eventually...

Anyways, this whole deal with license plates reminds me of the old humorous suggestion for Florida plates... the one where they just issue you a plain white plate (with numbers and a state) along with a box of crayons

[Knife]

Hmm, lets see; Freedom of Speech? It's a government license tag and it actually doesn't belong to you it belongs to the state. So there is no freedom of speech issue, you don't have the right to say what you want by graffiti on other people's property

Freedom of Religion? Show how the lack of this initiative would make a burden on the citizen to practice a religion? How does not having a 'I believe' scribbled on your plate stop you from practicing your religion? Oh wait it doesn't. It stops you from proselytizing, it stops you from using the state to endorse religion but it doesn't stop you from practicing Christianity. Granted I don't go to church, but I don't remember any reference in dogma or tradition about 'thou shall have my name on licenses to be saved'.

[Alyrium Denryle]

An imperfect comparison because the individual has sole input over thier tag and personal preferences. I believe if the other religions and secularists had the same option in religious plates or displays in court wouldn't be a problem.

Bullshit. A government official is personally fronting the money required to get an exclusively christian symbol and wording placed on a government issued plate. It doesn't matter if it was his personal money he used to do this, he still used his publically appointed position to advertise this fact.

No individual has the 'sole imput' over their 'personal preferences' unless they're willing to pay the several thousand to do so, and even then they can only express a far more limited version that the christian-plate owners don't have to worry about. It's an expression of religious preference, funded by a government official, advertised through a public presence enabled by his position in government, and placed on government property. How is this *not* an establishment-clause violation?

The 4000 was a deposit to get production going, not a fee on each person buying one. So no, each person doesn't need to fork over 4000 dollars. The official in question used personal funds not state funds, so no problem there and his public statements do not matter.

Darwin, you are an idiot.

It is an endorsement because no similar plates exist for people of different faiths, or no faith. These plates circumvent normal rules by allowing, for a probable 70 dollar fee (on top of the 4000 dollar deposit forked over by that one guy) the christian theme to be displayed. Any other equivalent plate for a non-believer or a buddhist would have to be payed for by the individual, all 4000 dollars, and would be subject to additional restrictions not levied upon the christian plates.

Christians are getting special treatment, ergo it is an endorsement, ergo it is a violation of the establishment clause.

[General Zod]

I see the problem now. You've been in this mental jerkoff session of a forum for so long that you actually think your opinion is fact. No wonder your post is so childish.

The level of self-delusional hypocrisy is stunning, but that's not surprising coming from a babyish mouth-breather of a troll who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to spend your money on anything, legality be damned. Perhaps if you stopped masturbating furiously with the bill of rights you might be able to see the flaw in your claims, but I doubt this.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I see the problem now. You've been in this mental jerkoff session of a forum for so long that you actually think your opinion is fact. No wonder your post is so childish.

Considering that I rank as one of the more conservative people in the country, this is really hilarious. No, no, this forum is not a mental jerkoff session or a case of groupthink. It's merely hostile--and with good reason--to a certain puerile and populist mixture of religiousity and capitalism which currently pretends to be conservative in American politics.

What an amazing display of ignorance and bigotry.

Or possibly it was Oni's sarcasm...

[Darth Wong]

Public figures frequently say things that don't reflect the official position of thier office.

They should not be doing so while on the job, any more than an employee of Burger King can say whatever he likes to a customer while he's behind the cashier. It's a sad day when the professionalism of government officials is held to a lower standard than that of a Wal-Mart employee.

This could be one such instance. How did you get from that to lynching 50 years ago? I'm just not getting it.

You're suggesting that it can't be a big deal because it happens so often. That's the part that applies to lynching in the Deep South 50 years ago.

[American Infidel]

It's too bad all of the examples you listed actually support my point.

No they don't.

Please, allow me to elaborate.

The public schools have been teaching religious messages and symbols in the context of instruction for years and they still do. No establishment conflict.

Public areas like parks and streets are used to demonstrate(protesting) all manner of views including those of religious organizations and religous individuals. All of which have to and can get a government issued permit. Again no conflict.

The US Supreme Court ruled that the second most recognizable Christian icon that I can think of, The Ten Commandments; cannot be mandated to be displayed in Kentucky as a religious endorsement. It also ruled that the Commandment display on public property in Texas is allowed as part of a display illustrating the origins of American law. The Ten Commandments is still a very overtly religious icon but it was allowed in this context. I believe there hasn't been any following ruling which overturns this.

Well, so what? I'll tell you.
This decision proves that the wall erected by the separation clause is not absolute and exceptions can be and are made for very religious icons like the commandments on public property.

What does this have to do with vanity plates?
We have established that the plates are public property but religious icons and messages can be allowed in some circumstances. I understand that a vanity plate is not a display like the one ruled on in Texas; so a different, more context appropriate reasoning should be applied.

I've been arguing from the beginning that the personal, elective, expressive nature of the vanity plate should merit the application of free speech protections (if other faiths and non-faiths had the same plate options). Also consider that a small cross on a plate and a generic profession of faith amounts to a much less significant and inflammatory symbol than the Ten Commandments, or Jesus on the cross; so it should fit within the scope of what is a reasonable public expression under the law.

Christians are getting special treatment, ergo it is an endorsement, ergo it is a violation of the establishment clause.

It's true. I have agreed from the start that the special treatment, in the form of limits on the plates of other faiths, is a violation.

You're suggesting that it can't be a big deal because it happens so often. That's the part that applies to lynching in the Deep South 50 years ago.

Okay, I see what you mean.

[Darth Wong]

The US Supreme Court ruled that the second most recognizable Christian icon that I can think of, The Ten Commandments; cannot be mandated to be displayed in Kentucky as a religious endorsement. It also ruled that the Commandment display on public property in Texas is allowed as part of a display illustrating the origins of American law. The Ten Commandments is still a very overtly religious icon but it was allowed in this context. I believe there hasn't been any following ruling which overturns this.

The Supreme Court has ignored concepts written in the constitution before, with the most famous example being the 19th century Dred Scott decision that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." This sounds like another case of such a deliberate ignorance: only a liar or a religious fanatic could seriously claim that any part of American law is based on the Ten Commandments. Have you ever read those commandments? It's a lie, and by endorsing it as a legitimate claim of the basis of the American legal system, SCOTUS was an accessory to this lie.

I've been arguing from the beginning that the personal, elective, expressive nature of the vanity plate should merit the application of free speech protections (if other faiths and non-faiths had the same plate options).

There is no practical way to make it equally flexible and convenient for everyone, unless they figure out a way to produce user-specified custom graphics on license plates for cheap.

You're suggesting that it can't be a big deal because it happens so often. That's the part that applies to lynching in the Deep South 50 years ago.

Okay, I see what you mean.

OK. Now how about the other bit I posted, concerning the obligation of a person working for the government to keep his private beliefs and opinions out of his job? If I were a minimum-wage drone working for McDonald's, I could get fired for telling a fat customer to go on a fucking diet. You do not have full freedom of speech when you're on the job.

[Patrick Degan]

Please, allow me to elaborate.

This should be amusing.

The public schools have been teaching religious messages and symbols in the context of instruction for years and they still do. No establishment conflict.

Because those are taught in a larger context and not with the object of advancing religion which is a constitutional no-no. In any case, this is a red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

Public areas like parks and streets are used to demonstrate(protesting) all manner of views including those of religious organizations and religous individuals. All of which have to and can get a government issued permit. Again no conflict.

Which is a red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

The US Supreme Court ruled that the second most recognizable Christian icon that I can think of, The Ten Commandments; cannot be mandated to be displayed in Kentucky as a religious endorsement. It also ruled that the Commandment display on public property in Texas is allowed as part of a display illustrating the origins of American law. The Ten Commandments is still a very overtly religious icon but it was allowed in this context. I believe there hasn't been any following ruling which overturns this.

Because in a display showing other icons and symbols of law, no one religious interest is being advanced. Once again, this is a red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

This decision proves that the wall erected by the separation clause is not absolute and exceptions can be and are made for very religious icons like the commandments on public property.

Which is an utter red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

What does this have to do with vanity plates?

Despite your inane twaddle on the matter, nothing whatsoever —no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise.

We have established that the plates are public property but religious icons and messages can be allowed in some circumstances. I understand that a vanity plate is not a display like the one ruled on in Texas; so a different, more context appropriate reasoning should be applied.

We have established no such thing. You wish to believe there is an equation between license plates and public spaces but this comparison simply is not valid as a few court decisions and the recent backdown of Florida's legislature over First Amendment conflict issues to their own proposed Christian license plate measure demonstrates.

I've been arguing from the beginning that the personal, elective, expressive nature of the vanity plate should merit the application of free speech protections (if other faiths and non-faiths had the same plate options). Also consider that a small cross on a plate and a generic profession of faith amounts to a much less significant and inflammatory symbol than the Ten Commandments, or Jesus on the cross; so it should fit within the scope of what is a reasonable public expression under the law.

Wrong. There is a considerable difference between a content-neutral public display and an official state document being issued with a clear religious symbol and one favouring a particular sect.