Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Lawsuit Filed Over 'I Believe' License Plates in S.C. »

Posted by: Neophile 2 months, 1 week ago

8.9

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 99

Propped: 90

Comments: 70

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

A group that advocates separation of church and state filed a federal lawsuit Thursday to prevent South Carolina from becoming the first state to create "I Believe" license plates.

Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 70

0%
vettenut2 months, 1 week ago

It's becoming wearisome having the ACLU (Anti-Christian Lawyers' Union) types filing such frivolous lawsuits like this.
Offering motorists a choice of license plates DOES NOT AN ENDORSEMENT MAKE!!!!!
I say this as a person whose "religious heritage" going back over 480 years advocates the separation of church and state. The state should not tell us what church to join!
But then again, that's not at question in SC, is it?
And personally, I would have no problem with SC offering a license plate stating "I Do Not Believe." It could have a blank background or some other design (like a cross with a "strike-mark" across it). And that would NOT MEAN that SC is ENDORSING ATHEISM!!!!!!
These separationist "religi-phobes" are way over the line in their lawsuit filing, as exemplified by this "story."
I don't know about the Canadian Constitution, Neo, but the USA one DOES NOT PROVIDE us the RIGHT TO BE FREE from BEING OFFENDED!!!!!!
Reply
23 Replies
- 0%
  Neophile2 months, 1 week ago
  
  The ACLU has nothing to do with this case.
  Furthermore, this lawsuit is being filed on behalf of 2 christian pastors, a rabbi and the Hindu American Foundation. Not exactly "religi-phobes", as you call them.
  Reply
  15 Replies
  - 0%
    smithichie2 months, 1 week ago
    
    Seems many would overlook the religious folks who support separation of church and state and cast blame on atheists and the ACLU, it's almost a reflex at this point.
    People can buy "I believe" bumper stickers at the local mini-mart, there's no reason for the state to be peddling them.
    Reply
    10 Replies
    - 0%
      Endoscopy2 months, 1 week ago
      
      Where in the Constitution does it say separation of church and state? Everybody throws that phrase around like it is in the constitution. It is not. The clause is the "establishment" clause. The government was forbidden to set one religion above another one. The meaning at that time was one Christian denomination above another one like existed in many countries at that time.
      Reply
      9 Replies
      - 0%
        smithichie2 months, 1 week ago
        
        By offering only once choice, a Christian choice, the state is setting one religion above many others.
        
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        mrbs2 months, 1 week ago
        
        they are more then welcome to ask for their own i dont believe plate.it was asked for..nobody asked for a Islam plate or Hindu plate.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        mesodude2 months, 1 week ago
        
        Why do you want the motor vehicles bureau to hawk your religion anyway? Seems kinda tacky to me... ;-(
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        mrbs2 months, 1 week ago
        
        1 who said its MY religion.
        2 it could hardly be called hawking...its more of a statement.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        mesodude2 months, 1 week ago
        
        "1 who said its MY religion."
        --Sorry... When you made a point of referring to Islam and Hinduism as "their own [religion]" I jumped to the wrong conclusion.
        "2 it could hardly be called hawking...its more of a statement."
        --Sure it's hawking...You're pious and you're going to heaven because you believe in God and you want everyone on the road to know it and you want them to know your government sanctions your beliefs. Isn't that basically what we're talking about?
        Reply
        
        HmacComment removed: User banned.
      - 0%
        AnteUp2 months, 1 week ago
        
        Endoscopy ~
        Well shock-a-roodies - I beg to differ!
        "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" - authorship ascribed
        to Washington or possibly Adams in Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. It was debated and ratified in the Senate of the U.S. and stands today as an official description of the founders' intent.
        We were the first secular government. The government was not at odds with religion - even the separation of church and state might be construed as a policy extension of Jesus' admonition not to pray as the hypocrites do....in public!
        Many religious factions - including 19th-century evangelicals - lobbied for secular government, to protect
        themselves from the tyranny of mainstream denominations.
        Reply
      - 0%
        Natureboy2 months, 1 week ago
        
        For clarification, read the writings of Madison, who penned the clause, and check out the past two centuries of jurisprudence on the subject.
        When you have bought a vowel and gotten a clue, get back with us.
        Reply
      - HmacComment removed: User banned.
  - 0%
    Endoscopy2 months, 1 week ago
    
    neophile
    There are people who claim to be Christian who really are not. That includes ministers. Unless they can say and mean the various creeds developed to separate the heretics from the real believers they are not really Christian. There are several denominations that are not really Christian.
    Reply
    3 Replies
    - 0%
      smithichie2 months, 1 week ago
      
      Believe it or not there are Christians who don't think exactly like yourself. Some Christians find placing the image of their god on money, or in this case license plates, cheapens that god no different than if that image was used to sell cereal or condoms.
      Of course those folks aren't "really Christian" as you put it, but the flip-side is just as true when they don't consider you to be "really Christian" either.
      
      Reply
    - 0%
      Natureboy2 months, 1 week ago
      
      "There are several denominations that are not really Christian."
      Of course, none of those denominations would be the one that you belong to, right?
      Religion is like farts - your own never seems to stink as much.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        RickyDawkins2 months, 1 week ago
        
        *cues atheist fart joke
        Reply
- 0%
  jordan112 months, 1 week ago
  
  Stop yer dang yelling. Neophile merely informed of a situation about license plates. Why are you 'assuming' what neophile thinks about that? And where did it say anything in the piece about the ACLU?
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - 0%
    Endoscopy2 months, 1 week ago
    
    Could it possibly be that he makes posts belittling Christianity and conservative views?
    Reply
    3 Replies
    - 0%
      Neophile2 months, 1 week ago
      
      On second thought, maybe you're right, Endoscopy. Maybe states should put religious symbols that people consider sacred in positions where they're likely to be rear-ended.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        AnteUp2 months, 1 week ago
        
        Neophile ~
        LOL! Can you imagine the entire USA like a Disneyland
        bumper car ride? Presents a rather unique picture of
        a 21st century Holy War - no?
        Like an elderly, and socially prominent, neighbor I met
        when we first moved here to the Northeast. Wanted to let
        me know that it was ever so 'portant that you attended
        "the right church" - that was "right" as in correct.
        Put a plate on your car announcing your faith in one of
        the "wrong" relgions and you could come out of the market
        to find nothing but a battered hunk of junk!
        This whole concept of religious state-issued plates is
        a total non-starter to me.
        Reply
    - 0%
      wtagg2 months, 1 week ago
      
      What does Christianity have to do with conservatism? They are completely unrelated.
      Reply
- 0%
  walden32 months, 1 week ago
  
  Vette-
  No offense, but did you read the story?
  "Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed the lawsuit..."
  No ACLU.
  Reply
- HmacComment removed: User banned.
0%
oneironaut4202 months, 1 week ago

FTA:
"But a Methodist pastor who joined the lawsuit, the retired Rev. Thomas Summers of Columbia, said the plate provokes discrimination.
'I think this license plate really is divisive and creates the type of religious discord I've devoted my life to healing,' he said."
Indeed it does. It furthers the atmosphere of separation between those who believe, and those who don't. Is that what this country really needs right now?
Reply
15 Replies
- 0%
  TOD3962 months, 1 week ago
  
  Did you stop to think that maybe those who want to state that they believe and can pay the extra fee for the plate might be an encouragement to those who want to believe but would like to see more positive re-inforcement?
  Stating "I believe" on a plate does not provoke discrimination. It merely states an opinion of the owner of the plate. Unless a car that enters a parking lot at Wal-Mart gets preferential parking spaces if they display the plate. THAT is discrimination. This lawsuit was designed to see who can get thier 15 minutes of fame.
  Reply
  14 Replies
  - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.13 Replies
    - 0%
      mrbs2 months, 1 week ago
      
      or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
      Reply
    - 0%
      TOD3962 months, 1 week ago
      
      Exactly WHY is the state wrong for allowing people to put "I believe" on a license plate? What laws are being broken?
      Is this the separation of church and state thing? That doesn't apply. Unless the state forces people or collects money in conjunction with a religous orginization, no laws are being broken. If you feel a little threatened by seeing a license plate that says this, then don't look at them. There is nothing wrong with this idea. Those of you looking to find fault are doing just that, looking to find fault where none exists
      Reply
    - 0%
      jordan112 months, 1 week ago
      
      the State is wrong to put it on their license plates!>>>>
      I disagree. 'Vanity plates' are an expression of the plates owner, not an expression of the state. Now if the state put it on everyone's plates, you'd have a point. But as it stands, that's clearly not the case.
      Reply
      10 Replies
      - 0%
        AnteUp2 months, 1 week ago
        
        jordan11 ~
        Christians are not exactly an endangered species.
        Even with the vanity plates - you cannot put whatever
        you want on them. I just see a real distinction between
        having a Christian cross, or the Star of David, etc.displayed
        rather than a beaver or a whooping crane.
        Why, at this time in world history when religion has
        become a flash point, do we want to go down this road?
        Wear it on your neck - put it on your dashboard - put
        it in your front yard, but don't ask our system of
        government to get involved.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        jordan112 months, 1 week ago
        
        Why, at this time in world history when religion has
        become a flash point, do we want to go down this road? >>>>
        I'm sorry, but I don't see what you're seeing.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        AnteUp2 months, 1 week ago
        
        jordan11 ~
        The thread is geting old, but if you pop by again, I
        would ask if you think post-9/11 Muslims feel very
        comfortable in our nation?
        Not since Kennedy had to defend his commitment to the
        USA above his Catholicism, have I seen a time when ALL
        of our politicians have had to publically PROVE their
        their religious devotion. "God Bless" used to mean so
        much more before it became a MANDITORY campaign slogan.
        Because they can and do say it - does it make them good
        people? Absolutely NOT. But they MUST say it - huh?
        That's what I see and I don't like it.
        I see people's religious faith praised when it is
        used as a battle cry - in the USA? That's got to be a bad thing.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        jordan112 months, 1 week ago
        
        I can only speak of what I've seen in my community. Hate crimes against Muslims spiked after 9/11, but their neighbors came to their defense. When one of their places of worship was defaced, the community helped clean it up, and scores of people left flowers on the steps. I believe that here in Seattle, Muslims know that most of us aren't against them. How other areas handle it, I couldn't say.
        I understand what you're saying about religion & government. I really do. It's disgusting the way one has polluted the other. But in the case of the car plates, I honestly don't see that as a statement from government. I see it as a statement from the owner.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        AnteUp2 months, 1 week ago
        
        jordan11 ~
        I thank you for your response. I think we'll have
        to agree to disagree on this one, jordan11.
        Maybe Seattle is a more enlightened area - that's
        a good thing.
        Reply
      - 0%
        wtagg2 months, 1 week ago
        
        I agree that this is about choice. The citizenry should be allowed choice in their domain.
        The government tends to want to make the decisions for its citizenry. The citizen should be able to make the choice and allow whatever power that may be to judge and reflect upon that choice.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        0%
        wtagg2 months, 1 week ago
        
        I think if someone wants to make a choice in the matter, let them. Maybe the state or federal government. depending, should provide a disclaimer, but I am for allowing the choice to be made.
        Of course, choosing is something that goes beyond this fairly petty matter. Governments should not be in the business of making choices for its citizenry.
        Reply
      - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        HmacComment removed: User banned.
0%
cptnkrk2 months, 1 week ago

I had an plate in indiana that had the phrase "In God We Trust" and when I moved to Colorado it was fun to watch people physically react to the plate.
Now my plate says "Denver Broncos" and I get hateful stares from raider fans.
People will get angry no matter what. So just let'em. This is America we are free to be offended.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  AnteUp2 months, 1 week ago
  
  cptnkrk ~
  Okay - where does the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, or what ever
  agency is involved in issuing plates in S.C., get there
  budget to operate? Would that be the TAXPAYERS?
  I think that is undeniable true. Yes - the car owner pays
  for the actual plate but the agency is supported by money
  collected from ALL the taxpayers. You have heard of "Not in my name"? - Well, "not on my dime"! It is an unnecessary
  controversy - will cause nothing but harm, and should
  have been rejected immediately. Americans should know better.
  Reply
0%
jordan112 months, 1 week ago

The plates belong to the car owner. The lawsuit is ridiculous, IMO.
Reply
0%
walden32 months, 1 week ago

Ok by me as long as the government offers plates that promote devil worship, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam.
SC should offer a plate that says, "Asalam Aleikum." I wonder how that would go over.
Anything other than equal opportunity is the promotion of one over another.
Reply
16 Replies
- 0%
  TOD3962 months, 1 week ago
  
  Well then waldo, fork over the $4K and get your plate. That's all that is between you and making sure that equality is met. Unless you don't agree that it should be YOUR $4K being handed over. Then, as I suspect, you are strong on words, and weak on actions.
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    walden32 months, 1 week ago
    
    "Lynn said his group would not have opposed the "I Believe" plates had they been advocated by private groups. State law allows private groups to create specialty plates as long as they first collect either a $4,000 deposit or 400 prepaid orders."
    See the difference Tod is that the plate was pushed by legislators, therefore it's a government action.
    Weak on actions? How long have you been going to your same job, same boss, same office and been complaining about it the whole time?
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      TOD3962 months, 1 week ago
      
      The last time I complained about my boss was in 1989. That was the day I said I can do it better. I then started my own business. But what does my complaining about a boss have to do with anything?
      Legislators pushed this plate to become available, but are they pushing anyone to use them? Legislators only do work like this for two reasons: 1. to get re-elected by satisfying the majority of their constituents, and 2. putting money in their pockets. Either way, this plate will not endanger one human, will not deprive anyone of any rights, and it might, it just might, help someone who sees it and is having a hard time with life.
      But go ahead Waldo, take away that person's one glimmer of hope. Here they are, lost their job, can't fill up the Escalade, wife won't get the cosmetic surgery, and you are going to take away the one thing that might prevent them from spending their last dollar on a lotto ticket. i hope you are proud of yourself...
      Reply
- 0%
  CaptainLucid2 months, 1 week ago
  
  Amen to that. I have always believed that the best way to combat public worship is not to deny it but to embrace it but demand equality. I am an atheist and think the whole public worship thing is silly. Even jesus preached that one should be cautious of those who pray in public because they seek personal glory and that true believers pray in private. I would probably not get a plate featuring Islam or Satan for two reasons. First I as fun as it is to dick around fundies I don't feel like spending $40 or so to do it. Secondly I like my current ride. It ******ed the hell out of me when someone keyed it. I am 99% sure of who did it but they were section 8 and are no longer in our neighborhood. I don't want some "christian" who thinks that by going to church once a week absolves then of being a total prick the othe 6 days and 23 hours.
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    TOD3962 months, 1 week ago
    
    "I don't want some "christian" who thinks that by going to church once a week absolves then of being a total prick the othe 6 days and 23 hours."
    Quite a ridiculous statement.
    "I am an atheist and think the whole public worship thing is silly. Even Jesus preached that one should be cautious of those who pray in public because they seek personal glory and that true believers pray in private."
    OK, let me get this straight. First, you state: I am an atheist, and then you proceed to cite, as reference, lessons taught by an authority figure you don't believe in, "Even Jesus preached that one should be cautious of those who pray in public"
    Your argument loses credibility at this point. Either you are an atheist, and Jesus was just another man whose teachings and opinions carry no more weight than my own, or you are truly a Christian who is confused.
    
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      wtagg2 months, 1 week ago
      
      Your response typifies much that is wrong with current religion. Whether someone believes in a human that some deify has nothing to do with that person believing that the actions and words of that person having importance. Because I didn't vote for a particular person doesn't mean that I can't recognize actions the elected person may have done that were good for the people they represent.
      You seem to have an attitude that Jesus is your exclusive worship symbol and no one else is allowed the consider the man's words and deeds.
      Narrow vision doesn't even come close to describe your point of view. Your position prevents individuals from reading and coming to the conclusion that they would like to believe.
      No wonder our country is in the position it is in.
      Jesus was for everyone, not some exclusive click. Who are you to make this judgment? You have committed the sin of pride.
      Reply
- 0%
  AnteUp2 months, 1 week ago
  
  walden3 ~
  Good point. This may be a first for me - I am going to
  post a statement made by RONALD REAGAN. They are wise words
  that pertain to this debate.
  "We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief. At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral."
  When a state within our union issues license plates with
  religious icons displayed it has, IMO, crossed that fine
  line. Are there not enough ways to display your religious affiliation without involving our government?
  
  Reply
  9 Replies
  - 0%
    Natureboy2 months, 1 week ago
    
    "Are there not enough ways to display your religious affiliation without involving our government?"
    Odd that public display of one's religiousity has become so popular, so pivotal. For those who actually seek to walk the difficult path to Godhead, whichever path it be, their attention would best be placed on the path, not on advertising to the world at large that they have embraced a belief system. The process of announcing one's piety to the world, of wearing it on one's shirtsleeve, would seem to be what they themselves would characterize as "worldly."
    But much of modern Christianity focuses on "I believe." By contrast, their holy book's first words are "In the beginning, God..."
    Is there a disconnect?
    Reply
  - 0%
    lvrofwolves2 months, 1 week ago
    
    AnteUp,That is a good statement by RR except for the free to act on their belief, that cannot go against our laws. American laws must be above any religious 'law'
    I asked RickyD to post a story- Florida considers Christian license plate 'I Believe', a few months ago, but he said there wouldn't be any interest.
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/24/license.plate....
    in this article it say: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.
    Seems the ACLU got involved in this...
    Reply
    7 Replies
    - 0%
      AnteUp2 months, 1 week ago
      
      Ivrowolves ~
      The last line, "And walking this fine line requires
      government to be strictly neutral", clarifies whether our
      state or federal government should play ANY role in their
      freedom to act on their beliefs. I mean, Christians and
      Mormons, and other faiths I'm sure, make proselytizing part
      of fulfilling their commitment to their God - but our
      government must not participate or facilitate them acting on
      THAT belief - IMO.
      
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        mrbs2 months, 1 week ago
        
        but at the same time the govt cannot prevent lawmakers from doing so up to and including the creation of the plate.if said lawmakers felt the need express himself by voting for the plate and it passes the govt is not allowed to prevent it.
        Reply
    - 0%
      jordan112 months, 1 week ago
      
      gives the "appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference," >>>>
      It didn't give that appearance to me. Now if they denied a plate that said the driver was of a different belief, then I'd see the point. But I don't see that here. Perhaps the ACLU should have given that a try before assuming what others would think. (And mind you, I give monthly to the ACLU. But in this case, think their logic is flawed.)
      Reply
      4 Replies
      - 0%
        RickyDawkins2 months, 1 week ago
        
        Freedom from religion just as important as freedom of religion, if not more so.
        The ACLU is right on the money here.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        jordan112 months, 1 week ago
        
        You're preaching to the choir, RickyDawkins. But IMO, a vanity plate does NOT speak for the government. It speaks for the guy who bought the plate.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        mrbs2 months, 1 week ago
        
        actually freedom from religion dose not exisit
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        jordan112 months, 1 week ago
        
        lol, of course it does. You can't have freedom "of" without freedom "from." I'll leave you to ponder that riddle.
        Reply
0%
HowieWowie2 months, 1 week ago

I don't think any license plate should make reference to anything religious. This reminds me of our Florida, Choose Life, licence plates. So annoying!
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  mrbs2 months, 1 week ago
  
  .
  
  Reply
0%
mrbs2 months, 1 week ago

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
the entire phrase INCLUDING the second half witch gets forgotten about applies to everything including the public square,courthouse,town hall,and any other place or item you can imangine.
Reply
0%
Mdiar2 months, 1 week ago

No issue with plates that say something political or religious as long as those wanting them pay the full costs of manufacturing the plate and you have the option of whatever religion or political belief being on the plate that you want.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  mrbs2 months, 1 week ago
  
  the only difference in this one was because of the overwhelming request for it the state waived the first 400 rule witch the Lt governor offered to put up.
  Reply
0%
Natureboy2 months, 1 week ago

One of the overlooked ironies in all of this is the mixed message of wearing your christian faith on your bumper, license plate, etc.
"But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments."
It would appear that the Pharisees are alive and well!
Reply
0%
thaw2 months, 1 week ago

"i believe in the separation of church and state"
only $4000.00

Reply
0%
MIGUNI2 months, 1 week ago

the seperation between church and state was to prevent the church run state like Romen Catholic church in Europe back then, now we try to say anything supporting christianity and the 3% atheists jump up and down, we don't want religious icons displayed on federal land ect, well let us see what is going to happen when they start pulling the crosses from Arlington National Cemetery, it is up to the individual to pay for a vanity plate made by prisoners who have found religion after committing a crime, and the Darby county suit about teaching creationism in schools took place in a court that had on the front in large letters , Justice is the strongest pillar of God, I was amused to say the least, I don't have any bumper stickers on my car as I don't like them but I don't tell others don't put them on your car,
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  smithichie2 months, 1 week ago
  
  "what is going to happen when they start pulling the crosses from Arlington National Cemetery",
  What crosses?
  Don't feel bad, VP Cheney made the same mistake, and he flies nearby Arlington on a regular basis.
  http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/images/ANC_sur...
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    smithichie2 months, 1 week ago
    
    Dick Cheney, in accepting the GOP nomination for VP in 2000 said, "Arlington National Cemetery, its gentle slopes and crosses row on row".
    Funny thing is, there is no such image at Arlington. Maybe he had just seen "Saving Private Ryan" and was thinking of the Normandy Cemetery, in France?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_American_...
    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/re...
    Reply