Florida residents will soon have the privilege of seeing this holy artwork on the back of Jesusmobiles, along with their numerous bumper stickers:
Believe it or not, the Florida legislature has approved this license plate. This is what Governor Crist (no, not Christ) said when asked about it:
So you don’t have a problem with Jesus on a license plate?
Crist: “I don’t. No.”
What about separation of church and state?
Crist: “If they don’t want one they don’t have to buy one.”
Is that state endorsement of religion?
“I think it … What’s it say? ‘In God We Trust’ on every single piece of monetary, coins and paper we have? I think it’s fine.”
Gee, and all this time I thought it said “In Mammon We Trust”!
(via)
So, by ignoring the separation in one place they automatically derive the right to ignore it in the next area? We’re seeing what they did and are still doing. “We’re a Christian nation, founded by Christians!” – no you’re not, because of the following facts…
“Who cares! It says so in our pledge!” – yeah, because you put it there so that you can say whatever historical distortion pleases you now.
“But our people are all for it! It’s even on our money!” – yeah, because you put it there based on what you did before based on lies.
…
proceed a few decades…
“Of course we hanged that man. He was trying to destroy our country, he was an atheist. The Bible said to do it, and as history shows, we always followed the Bible loyally, heck we’ve even had these license plates since our nation was founded…” /snark
Looking at the picture, it appears that Jesus suffered from male pattern baldness. Have I forgotten the verse in the Bible about having his hair partially shaved prior to the crucifixion?
Aside: I get a message welcoming me as a googler, and suggesting I subscribe to the RSS feed. I do subscribe to the RSS feed, which is how I got here from Google Reader – I think the filtering might need a tweak.
That’s strange. You shouldn’t be seeing anything coming from Google Reader. Sorry about that!
The difference between “In God We Trust” and this license plate is that with the motto, “God” is always argued to be a generic higher-power without the state endorsing any particular religion. God could be the Jewish God, the Judeo-Christian God, or the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. God could also be Brahma, if it needs to be argued that way to keep the motto on the paper. It’s what they call “ceremonial deism” – many evangelical Christians absolutely HATE that standard, but it’s currently the accepted practice for what religious elements a state can be seen to endorse and what they can’t.
This is not the same thing – this is an outright endorsement of a particular religion by the state. Unless they are offering license plates for every religion out there (which they aren’t – I don’t even have to look it up to be able to tell that they aren’t doing it. It would be nearly impossible in a country where people are free to belong to any religion from Judaism to Hinduism to the Church of Elvis to the Church I Just Made Up A Few Minutes Ago That Believes We’re All A Mass Hallucination Of A Half-Eaten Ham Sandwich). So this is very, very different from the “In God We Trust” watered-down platitude.
Argh – this was supposed to be a reply to Francesco down below. I hit the wrong Reply link. Sorry
Re: Church I Just Made Up A Few Minutes Ago That Believes We’re All A Mass Hallucination Of A Half-Eaten Ham Sandwich
Do we worship the sandwich, or the sandwich maker?
I’m seeing the same; same scenario.
Never mind his hair; aren’t his pecs fabulous?
Yes, and following that theme, why don’t we have the crown of thorns done out in rainbow colours?
Well, it certainly does lack for color. I mean, look at that! Would you want to put such a tacky and bland thing on your Lexus? I know I wouldn’t!
The Governor has a point.
What’s this all fuss about a license plate that one can decide to use or not on a personal property?
I find far worse that every single coin *produced* by the state has religious stuff on it, and you can’t avoid using it.
The difference?
One is a weaker target, while the other is just something you are used to.
I’d expect more of a fuss from Christians, to be honest. Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Light, on a license plate? Really?
They have it on *money*!!!
Wasn’t there something in the Bible about shoving out the merchants from the Temple?
To me, it still boils down to what we’re used to and what we aren’t, same reason why most people have no problem with the zombie Jesus story.
Since when has it matter to christians that the bible is against something that is to their advantage? Of course when it is to their advantage they ride it into the ground.
I see this as just another example an attempt to use the government to keep an error going strong. As Thomas Jefferson said . It is error alone which needs the government, while truth will stand on its own.
They put fish on the back of their cars, bumper stickers with slogans, they even have a “Jesus is my homeboy” t-shirt. I don’t think they’ll have much of a problem with this.
Fair point. What are people thinking when they order such a plate? ‘Now when I roll into the church parking lot next Sunday, everybody will know that I’m the mostest Christian of them all.’ or ‘Anyone who sees me on the road will now know that I’m safe to drive behind because I’d never do such an immoral thing as driving drunk.’
Maybe it’s ‘being Christian is all the identity I really have, so at least I can do my best to show that around.’
But really, sarcasm aside, I think most people buying this would want to achieve is to make people think about Jesus when they see it, assuming in their religious naiveté that this will necessarily lead to an appreciation of the unparalleled suffering and the deep meaning behind it.
“The Governor has a point, What’s this all fuss about a license plate that one can decide to use or not on a personal property?”
The Governor does Not have a point.
Why put Jesus on a license plate when you can already plaster your car with any number of jesus signs?
Answer: You want the stat to validate your religion.
I don’t think there should be specialty license plates. That would solve the problem.
I wasn’t aware that revelations said we couldn’t drive a chariot without the mark of the beast on that also.
And I think they should make jeebus’s skin tone more green than blue, what with California being the sunshine state and all.
Other than that, I’m all in favour. Next up: Jeebus slots in Vegas which pay out coins with his head on after three days.
Two things about this plate:
1) He is uncomfortably close to the sun, poor fella.
2) This one is more subtle, he is somehow NOT silouhetted. Not even a mirror could minimize the effect that drastically.
Jesus: “Why hast thou forsaken me?”
Dad: “Probably because of that stupid ass laser light show. Those are for hippies.”
I think Jesus would be really proud that his horrible, painful execution can now be displayed around town on our cars.
Oh, and I liked that “Well… well, THEY broke the separation of church and state law, too! Why didn’t you yell at them?” argument. I guess it’s fine now for the government to sell a religious plate, so long as its a Christian one.
OH MY. PAGANS. ALL OF YOU. AND HOW DARE YOU PROMOTE CHRISTIANITY!
THE JEWS ARE THE CHOSEN SO GET WITH THE PROGRAM. JESUS WAS A MAN NOT WHO YOU PORTRAY HIM TO BE JUST LIKE ANY OTHER ENLIGHTENED AND SOUL.
THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITES I HAVE EVER KNOWN WERE, YOU GOT IT, CHRISTIANS. LYING AND DECEIVING HYPOCRITES.
EAT THAT ONE.
This is perfect for them. They can have license plates because of the word God on money, they can have God on money because ‘under god’ is in the pledge, ‘under god’ is in the pledge because this is a Christian nation, it is a christian nation because everyone has christian license plates.
The type of logic they are used to!
IT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION, IT IS AN EVIL DIABOLICAL NATION. AND ONE THAT DOES NOT TAKE CARE OF IT’S OWN PEOPLE CHEAP LABOR, LET THE IMIGRANTS IN AND PAY
I’m glad they’re doing this. It’ll make it easier for me to identify and avoid the morons in my neighborhood / city / workplace.
YOU KNOW. YOU REALLY HAVE SOMETHING THERE. AND I AGREE, I CAN THEN SNED SPIT BALLS TO THEM SICNE THEY WILL BE IDENTIFIED MORE EASILY. THEY WILL ALL BURN IN HELL ANYWAY SINCE THEY ARE LYING, PRETENTIOUS HYPOCRITES.
SNAKES WITH SMILES.
I AM SO EXCITED TO BE SENDING MY MESSAGES I SEEM TO BE TYPING TOO FAST AND MAKING TYPOS. BUT IF THAT IS MY BIGGEST FAULT, LUCKY ME. HEHE
Mind turning off the caps key? Around the internet, that’s considered yelling and it is also hard to read. Thanks!
I second that.
I third that (although I think the occasional use of caps is FINE… he he he!)
From January 2009: Federal Court Blocks Issuance Of South Carolina’s “Christian” License Plate In AU-Sponsored Lawsuit
From Monday: Americans United Warns Legislature Not To Mandate Car Tags Featuring Cross And Crucified Head Of Jesus
The Warning.
This battle has be fought and won already; it unlikely the outcome will be different if it goes to war again. Fortunately!
We’re going about this wrong. Gov. Crist said it himself, In God We Trust is on our money (but who cares if it was put there during the fifties to fight off the commies) and we ALL should use that to our advantage.
Jesus has a license plate, no problem. Time now for the OTHER Gods to get plates as well. FSM, Buddah, Zeus, Odin, Zod…hell, instead of crucifying Jesus can we get Buddy Christ? Personally I’d go with an elder god like Cthulhu …
You’re right, *I’d* buy a Buddy Christ one, and I’m an atheist in the UK!
…especially in Iowa – ÏA, ÏA, Cthulhu Fhtagn!
OH DID JESUS HAVE A CAR? WOW.
SO THE GODDESS IS WHERE IT IS AT.. LET’S GET THE GODDESS ISIS PLATE NEXT.
The ‘In God we trust” thing OK. Because you should realize that the quote is is longer…
In god we trust, all others pay CASH!!!
is the full quote and their aint much that is more american than that!!!
Even atheists can agree with that quote.
Why anyone would want a picture of a dead bastard zombie on their plate is beyond me.
From an atheist viewpoint ‘In God we trust’ might extrapolate to ‘Don’t trust’.
On a related note, I have to shed my personal motto in a few years ‘Don’t trust anyone over 30′
Oh well I’m not even a punk rocker anymore, and my science heroes are all old farts.
Ha! You never were a punk rocker if you’re under 30. Don’t get me started…
/me gets you started. Favorite Punk Bands: Buzzcocks, Dicks, Big Boys, Child Molestors, Sleazy Jesus And The Splatterpigs, Stiff Little Fingers, X (actually got to see their 30th anniv reunion gig. still rocked.), Wire, Xray Spex, Germs, Mekons, Rezillos, Undertones.
But I like jazz and experimental music more these days. Now I listen occaisonally, but I don’t squat, don’t mainline drugs, don’t have weird hair, any more. Plus I went to the dentist. Oh yeah, and I joined the army. I suck at being punk ;)
YOU GO GUY
I AGREE.
COMMIE BASTARDS THAT IS WHO
This is a great discussion, and while I do think that this further blurs the line that should be separating church and state, I think you guys are missing out on the comedic potential for vanity plates if these things actually are released.
1BIG LIE
ATHE IST
WWJD OH
IZOM BIE
MEDA MIT
ROFL LOL
NAIL DME
OUCH MAN
DAD SUX
OMG WTF
GOT WOOD
DEAD GUY
CROW BAR
EAT ME
IRN ALRG
HOLY CRP
TTNS NE1
STIL DED
this is SO much win. PHOTOSHOP RIGHT NOW. lol
That? Is HILARIOUS!
Forgot to mention that this list comes courtesy of the commenters at Happy Jihad’s House of Pancakes. Credit where it’s due!
http://hjhop.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-florida-vanity-license-plate.html
HOW ABOUT: FUBAR
Seriously… Just Passing Through FTW!!!
Let me pose an honest question:
I understand the separation of church and state to mean that the state is prohibited from establishing or endorsing or favoring one religion over another. Is that an inaccurate or incomplete definition?
For this comment, I’m assuming it’s generally accurate.
In order for this license plate to infringe on the separation of church and state, it would seem to me that a few things would need to happen:
So, my question is, how does this plate do any of that?
From the information we have, we don’t know several things.
First, we don’t know who’s manufacturing these plates, and we don’t know who’s paying for them. Is the state manufacturing them and then giving them away free of charge? Or, is a third party manufacturing them and selling them to private citizens and the state is simply the middle man?
In Michigan, where I live, there are several options for license plates, and I have to pay for the plate I want. I choose the plain one, because it’s the cheapest, but my point is that as a private citizen, I’m paying for it, not the state.
Second, even if the state is manufacturing and paying for the plates and offering them free of charge, we don’t know whether or not they are being offered at the exclusion of other types of religious plates (religious or otherwise). If they had previously denied the bid of a Muslim plate, then there’s an obvious problem, because the state is preferring Jesus to Allah.
Finally, it seems to me that this is completely optional for citizens. The state’s not requiring or even encouraging citizens to buy them (based on the knowledge we have, anyway), and this is obviously not the one and only official plate that Florida residents have access to.
Anyway, that’s my long way of saying that I’m not convinced (based on this post or the comments here) that this is an outright, clear violation of the separation of church and state, and I suspect it’s going to take a lot of lawyers and judges to decide whether it is or isn’t.
Two (honest, not baiting or trolling) closing thoughts:
Why does this bother people so much? If people want to have Jesus on their plate, who cares? Or, is it not the specifics of the issue but rather the general issue of separation that’s at stake in your minds. If it’s the latter, please help me understand where my thoughts above are misguided.
Second, that’s the dumbest and ugliest license plate I have ever seen.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads:
The exact meaning of these clauses are open to the interpretation of the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1947 that:
So, no, these plates don’t do that, technically, according to the current interpretation of “separation of church and state”, unless you argue that these plates promote Christianity, which might be a pretty good argument. But to reply to people who say “this violates separation of church and state!” by saying “no it doesn’t!” is specious. What they are really saying is “this should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state!”
Yes, in my mind.
Gotcha.
So what’s your opinion based on the current statute?
My opinion is that it is a violation of the spirit of the law, but not the letter of the law.
But to reply to people who say “this violates separation of church and state!” by saying “no it doesn’t!” is specious. What they are really saying is “this should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state!”
What is the difference between “This violates separation of church and state” and “this should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state”?
Or, did you mean to say, “This should be considered (by judges at some point in the future) …”
Yes, the latter. Obviously the Florida state legislature does not consider it a violation. In my opinion, this should be considered by judges at some point in the future to be a violation, along with “In God We Trust” on coins and paper money. Preferably near future.
What legal argument would you bring against it based on the current statute, beyond the spirit vs. letter? Not trolling, genuinely an honest question. And, I’d be curious what you mean specifically about the spirit vs. letter thing, because the way I read it, the Constitution sort of accepts religion as a sociological given.
Would you:
1) Argue that the statute be changed?
2) Use the current statute to demonstrate that this is a violation?
A mix of both. The spirit is that there be a wall of separation between church and state. They should not be involved with each other, except to the extent that reality (both institutions exist) demands their involvement. The 1947 ruling says the establishment clause “means at least” that federal and state government cannot pass laws that “aid one religion”. I would argue that “pass laws” should properly be “pass laws or otherwise take official action”, and the statute be changed to make this explicit.
The fact that putting a phrase on money or printing a religious license plate is not technically “passing a law” is an unfortunate loophole in the current interpretation.
The 1947 ruling says the establishment clause “means at least” that federal and state government cannot pass laws that “aid one religion”. I would argue that “pass laws” should properly be “pass laws or otherwise take official action”, and the statute be changed to make this explicit.
I hear understand what you’re saying now.
Let’s suppose that does happen, for the sake of argument.
You would have to prove that this license plate is “official action” that “aids one religion.” What would your argument look like to make that case?
Are you questioning whether a religious phrase on money, a religious phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, and a license plate depicting a religious image count as “aid”? If so, does that mean you don’t consider promotion to be aid? Or you don’t consider those things to be promotion?
It seems to me that the case would be based on what kinds of things the government is allowed to do, and not based on the definition of “aid”. But maybe I am assuming the latter is obvious, and it isn’t.
In other words, no, I don’t think I would have to make that argument. I think it is self-evident that an official state license depicting a religious image is an example of the state officially aiding one or more religions.
In still other words, I think the letter of the law should be made more specific. I am not challenging what I understand to be the spirit of the law.
I’m out of reply buttons, so I hope this doesn’t get lost in the shuffle.
@rodneyAnonymous:
Are you questioning whether a religious phrase on money, a religious phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, and a license plate depicting a religious image count as “aid”? If so, does that mean you don’t consider promotion to be aid? Or you don’t consider those things to be promotion?
It seems to me that the case would be based on what kinds of things the government is allowed to do, and not based on the definition of “aid”. But maybe I am assuming the latter is obvious, and it isn’t.
I don’t care about the pledge of allegiance because I don’t say it anyway. I’m gald to have been born in America, but I’m not about to swear my life to this or any country. For me, the “under God” part simply doesn’t matter. I understand why atheists don’t like it, but I think if I were an atheist, I would be just as apathetic about it as I am now. If you don’t like it, don’t say it. That’s what I do.
Same thing about the “In God We Trust” thing. I don’t derive my identity (as a religious person or otherwise) from what my currency says. I just spend it, and I get on with my life.
And I don’t buy the slippery slope argument that’s cropping up in multiple comments here. Given the president, congress, and justices we have (current and soon to be), I have no doubt that the separation of church is only going to get more rigid, and not the other way around.
Back on topic,
In other words, no, I don’t think I would have to make that argument. I think it is self-evident that an official state license depicting a religious image is an example of the state officially aiding one or more religions.
I don’t think this is ‘aiding’ religion in tangible, concrete form. 1) It’s not going to convince anyone to become a Christian or join a church, so no aid there. 2) It’s not going to benefit the churches financially in any way, shape, or form.
If anything, it’s aiding the state, because they’re going to be able to charge people for it.
In short, if anyone is benefiting, it’s not one religion or religion in general, but the state (by making money off the plates).
I think there’s a good case to be made that this could be construed as an instance of the government ‘promoting’ religion, although I don’t think that’s the state’s intent. But I can also see the flip side.One could argue that the state is merely making it possible for people to promote their own religious identity on their license plate. After all, the state’s not forcing anyone to adopt it in any way by making it the only official plate. There are plenty of options, and if you don’t like, you don’t have to buy it.
Another objection would be “preference” of one religion over another. I’m not sure if featuring Jesus on a license plate necessarily means that all other religions are being excluded (hence preference) or that other religious groups haven’t tried to get their spokesperson on a license plate. If it’s the latter, then there’s an obvious problem. But, if it’s the former, then I think it’s a little more grey.
=======================
At the end of the day, though, I’m really apathetic about this. I’m trying to put myself in your shoes, but it’s not working for me — no offense intended. Maybe that’s because I’m a religious person, and maybe I’m just that biased. Or maybe I really don’t care either way. It’s just one of those things I see and think, “Meh,” and move on with my life.
I think principles are important; “slippery slope” is frequently a fallacy, but in this case I think it’s useful grounds. How many times have you heard “but this is a Christian nation” used to justify the church influencing lawmaking, such as stem cell research or gay marriage? Probably not many, because you probably don’t argue with Christians from a non-Christian perspective very often. That claim is false, but it is supported by reality: look at the Pledge, look at money, etc. How many times have you heard “it says ‘In God We Trust’ on money, so this other hole in the wall is okay”? At least once, that’s exactly what Governor Crist said to justify the Jesus plates.
There are many exceptions. In my opinion, these exceptions should be stamped out, lest they breed further exceptions. Which they do. This isn’t a hypothetical slope.
above, “that claim” = “but this is a Christian nation”
Speech advantages are given to one particular religion. Is there any evidence that every religion (and humanist philosophy) is given the same exact rights? How is this not a violation of the 1947 ruling?
What speech advantages are given to a particular religion? “Under God” is generic, as is “In God we Trust.” Swearing on the Bible is a problem… but I can’t muster what you’re referring to.
Well the Muslim deity is called Allah, the Jewish one has 72 names, but I don’t believe any are ‘God’, the Hindus have many gods, none of them called God, the Buddhist equivalent of a deity is Buddha… the list goes on. Even the generic name for a deity is ‘god’, not ‘God’. The only religion that routinely refers to its god as God is, afaik, Christianity. So “Under god” might be generic, but “Under God” is not.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation possibly under a god of some kind but maybe not, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
How many times have you heard “but this is a Christian nation” used to justify the church influencing lawmaking, such as stem cell research or gay marriage? Probably not many,
As I said, of course I’ve heard those arguments. I live in the same country you do.
And FWIW, I’m usually the ‘bad guy’ when I talk politics with other Christians, because I’m actually pretty moderate. Like you (think it was you?), I’m pro-libertarian when it comes to marriages as personal contracts. I think it’s ridiculous that heterosexual unions get tax breaks and homosexual unions (and polygamous unions, actually) don’t. So, I actually know exactly what you mean — when I take up that issue with Christian friends, I end up on the receiving end of comments like, “You need to question your salvation” which is little more than shorthand for “If you don’t change your mind you’ll end up burning in hell.” Those comments can be as painful to me as they would be to you or anyone else of your ideological persuasion.
because you probably don’t argue with Christians from a non-Christian perspective very often.
Just like you don’t argue with non-Christians from a Christian perspective very often, right?
Paul,
Thanks for your comment.
Did some wiki’ing and found this:
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898). Bellamy’s original “Pledge of Allegiance” was published in the September 8th issue of the popular children’s magazine The Youth’s Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s discovery of America, conceived by James B. Upham.
So it looks like I was wrong after. Thanks for pointing that out.
rodney:
How many times have you heard “but this is a Christian nation” used to justify the church influencing lawmaking, such as stem cell research or gay marriage?
I’ve heard it as many times as you, I would think, as I live in the same country as you do, hear the same media bantor, and hear the same televangelists on Larry King. First, let me say that I don’t consider it to be a Christian nation, and I don’t think it ever was. So you and I are actually on the same page there.
Second, although I think your perception of how evangelicals are portrayed is very accurate, I could recommend a book by Christian Smith (ironic name, really) – who’s a sociologist who studies religion in America – called Christian America: What Evangelicals Really Want. His study debunks some of the stereotypes about Evangelicals in America and confirms others. Or, by now I’m sure there’s a summary of his research online (and probably some staunch criticism as well I would think).
What I combine that kind of research with the government, legislature, and justices we currently have (and will have a no Obama-appointed justice soon), I don’t really worry about the church hijacking the state. It’s simply not going to happen, because 1) not every Christian wants that (and Smith suggests only the minority do) and 2) the state’s not going to let that happen.
So while I see what you mean in your ‘slippery slope’ comments, and I understand why it’s a concern to you, I don’t agree that there’s an imminent danger there. I suspect we’ll have to agree to disagree?
I do wonder, though, what you and others think of my “shrug it off” comments. Like I said, I have my own personal objections against the pledge and placing my hand on my heart for the anthem… so I just don’t say the pledge, and I don’t put my hand on my heart. Thoughts?
Also, “one nation under God” and “In God We Trust” may be generic as far as which religion’s god they refer to, but they are not generic as far as referring to a religious god of some kind. Any god is by definition religious.
Emphasis on “may be generic”. Paul makes an excellent point below that capital-G God is not, in fact, generic.
Above, not below.
I’m referring specifically to the speech advantage (or ‘aid’ in the words of the Supreme Court) that the license plate gives to Christianity.
A couple of points: 1) if the image itself is somehow sponsored or ‘aided’ by the government agency then all religions must be given the same exact sponsorship which is on it’s face is nearly impossible; and, 2) if the image was created and completely sponsored privately then an argument could be made that there is no particular advantage given to one religion over others but would still be in violation of the 1947 ruling since the Court states, “…neither can pass laws…which aid all religions….” No?
I don’t disagree, Question-I-thority, and like I’ve said, I’m largely apathetic about this.
I do see how this could be construed as the government ‘sponsoring’ religion. But I could also see how it’s nothing more than a marketing ploy to extract more money from constituents.
I do see how this could be perceived as ‘aid,’ but as I’ve tried to point out, I don’t think there is any tangible, concrete ‘aid’ being given to Christianity by this. The church won’t gain new members, because no one’s getting converted by a license plate. The church won’t get any money out of this, but the state stands to gain quite a bit I would think. The church won’t get any perks with respect to state government (that it doesn’t already have?).
So in short, yes I understand the ‘sponsorship’ issue, and I think that’s the best argument against it given the 1947 statute. I don’t buy the ‘aid’ argument, however, because I don’t see how any Christian groups actually take away anything concrete from it.
f the image itself is somehow sponsored or ‘aided’ by the government agency then all religions must be given the same exact sponsorship which is on it’s face is nearly impossible
But it is possible.
if the image was created and completely sponsored privately then an argument could be made that there is no particular advantage given to one religion over others but would still be in violation of the 1947 ruling since the Court states, “…neither can pass laws…which aid all religions….” No?
As I said, I think it’s better to argue using ‘promote’ rather than ‘aid,’ because I can’t find any way that Christians are getting ‘aid’ via these plates. At most, some Christians are given the chance to put Jesus on the bumper of their cars…
One issue I think you’re missing, I think, is that States routinely censor what appears on license plates. Now in some ways that’s purely practical; given that designing and managing a plate release is unlikely to be cheap, they want to restrict what they produce to designs that have a market. But it’s also an (inevitable) result of it being a government initiative; there are images that no elected official would allow on a license plate.
In both cases the government is saying “This is a message that the government approves of, both financially and morally.” For license plates endorsing, say, charities, that’s probably OK. But the protection clause says it can’t endorse a particular religion in this way. That means that they *can’t* refuse my application for a Pastafarian license plate, even if they don’t think it’s a religion. Given that they’re not going to create an FSM plate (if only for financial reasons), that means they’re endorsing the religion this license plate represents.
That makes sense, Paul.
I do think, however, that the state of Florida is doing this primarily because they’re going to make money on it, not because the state wants to promote Christianity. And I think that’s the self-evident point that’s getting lost in the debate about separation.
And from my perspective, I think Christians ought to not buy any of these, because it’s just another example of the Republican party buying allegiance and pandering to a particular special interest group in order to retain its power.
Why do Christians put things on their bumpers? I don’t think you can effectively exclude or minimize that it’s for advertisement sake. Now, it may be ineffective and the state may be using gullibility to make money but when the gov gets involved in aiding that process it’s wrong, period.
I’m not convinced it’s honest.
D-d-d-d-duhhhhh…… uhhhhh, how about keeping the church from fucking around with and controlling the state?
That is undesirable to those being controlled, however much you and the other controllers miss that.
DUH!
I’m not convinced it’s honest.
Why, because I’m a religious person? That’s the only reason I can think of. With a statement like that, aren’t you just perpetuating the very same ignorant stereotypes that get directed at people like by people like me, except in reverse? What does that accomplish for either of us? In my view, it only adds fuel to the fire of mistrust that so deeply divides people who affirm your ideology and people who affirm mine.
That is undesirable to those being controlled, however much you and the other controllers miss that.
First, you’ve prejudged me. You’ve assumed that because I’m religious and because I’m playing devil’s advocate here that I’m trying to control you or anyone else. That’s silly. As I said, I’m apathetic about the license plate issue. I’m not arguing that it is a good idea and should be affirmed. I’m merely pointing out that I’m not yet convinced that it’s a blatant breach of separation based on my understanding of the 1st Amendment.
D-d-d-d-duhhhhh…… uhhhhh, how about keeping the church from fucking around with and controlling the state?
and @ rodney as well, based on a previous comment:
A question I would like your answer on:
What would you have religious people do with respect to government? For example, let’s take stem cell research. I’m not a scientist, but I get the basic scientific premise at work here.
I have serious reservations about stem cell research based on my philosophical understanding of “personhood.” I say philosophical because while my view is informed by my religious worldview, that’s not the only thing at play. I’ve also been influenced by atheistic philosophers when it comes to developmental psychology. And my opinion has also been informed by the scientific definition of “life” (not human life, just life — and I realize even that’s up for debate).
My point is not to put my own opinion on the issue up for debate, per se, but rather to ask how someone from your perspective would expect someone from my persuasion to act politically.
From your comments, I’m unsure what you would have me (as an example of a religious person) do… but I’m inferring that because I’m part of the church, my opinion on issues like this is somehow less valuable and that if I do express it politically, I’m trying to control you. Now, maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I’m reading your comments. I am one individual that is part of a larger group of individuals called the church.
The church sometimes acts collectively with respect to politics and sometimes simply as individuals. What I don’t understand is why you would question the right of the church to be involved politically, especially when it comes to issues like stem cell research — because the philosophical (and theological) concept of human life is hugely important to us.
My understanding of the First Amendment is that the government can’t directly establish, prefer, or aid religious groups in their religious activities nor can the government indirectly assist any of those establishments or activities.
I don’t see anything in the First Amendment or the 1947 statute that prohibits any group (religious or otherwise) from being active politically as an institution or as individuals.
The again, maybe I’m misunderstanding you, and this is then much ado about nothing… but hopefully you can see how someone like me could interpret what you’re saying to mean all of that.
If you’re that one-sided, you’re a controller and frightening.
Not to mention being #73!
73. ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X’?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn’t agree with X’!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
(9) I’m glad we all agree…..
….
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X’, Y, Y’, Z, Z’, P, P’, Q and Q’ to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I’ve only agreed with X. Where is this going?
….
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L”, L”’ and J” are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN’T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU’VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING?
….
(177) …and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ” and BTU’ are all obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.
How am I one-sided?
Your complete inability to see another person’s point of view, for one thing. Your narcissism, for another.
Also, imho claidheamh mor’s comment (above) is a fairly good description of what you’re up to, and now you’ve just tried to side-step the issue by asking ‘how am I one-sided?’ That’s pretty much the response we might have expected a one-sided person to make.
I’m sorry that’s how I’ve come across.
Your complete inability to see another person’s point of view, for one thing. Your narcissism, for another.
I’m curious what makes you say those things about me. In an above comment, Paul pointed out how I was misunderstanding something, and I acknowledged that… If I’m coming across as narcissistic, that’s a bad thing, and I hope I don’t continue to do that.
I don’t think I’m unable to see another person’s point of view, however. If you think I am, please show me how from what I’ve said (or how I said it?).
And from claid’s comments about the argument from exhaustion — I guess I don’t realize how that applies here. What am I missing?
“From your comments, I’m unsure what you would have me (as an example of a religious person) do… ”
I’d have you mind your own business. If you don’t want to take medicine developed from stem-cell based research and use it on your self or your family, fine. But how dare you take it from the rest of us? Maybe if YOUR child was dying of a dystrophy that could have been cured by this research, then you’d reconsider. Stem cell research isn’t about taking potential lives (for embryos have NO potential for life without a womb), it’s about saving lives.
LRA, to be fair, I didn’t say I am opposed to stem-cell research. I said that I have reservations about it, and my reservations are based on my understanding of personhood. Frankly, I’m not convinced either way about stem cell research, and I’ve never taken a political stand either way (never voted on it or promoted one view over another as an activist).
Maybe if YOUR child was dying of a dystrophy that could have been cured by this research, then you’d reconsider.
I’m sure that I would.
I’d have you mind your own business
I intended my original question to be more general, not about stem cells specifically. The impression I got from one or two posts was that religious folks should stay out of politics. Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe I didn’t. But that’s why I asked the question.
Well, I’d make the same argument for abortion. Religious people are actively trying to take choice away from women. If these people disagree with it, then don’t do it. Simple as that. But don’t take the choice away from the rest of us.
Also, if they want to believe a bunch of ridiculous crap about a 6000 year old world, fine, but don’t expect us teachers to teach that crap to students in science class.
And if they believe that teenagers shouldn’t be having sex, fine, but don’t expect teenagers not to have sex just because you tell them not to and then refuse to provide real sex education to them.
See the point here?
OK SO WE WILL NOW NEED YOU GOT GET TO WORK MANUFACTURING A PLATE FOR EVERY SINGLE RELIGION OR BELIEF SYSTEM ON THE PLANET… YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF BEING A DISCRIMNATING NOW WOULD YOU? OF COURSE NOW.
SO HOW DOES THAT SHORT AND TO THE POINT ANSWER GET YOU?
SCHMUCK… OH THAT IS JEWISH FOR PENIS.
Uhh… Yiddish… there is no such language as “Jewish”… and putz means penis… schmuck is more complicated, and vastly more offensive… if you’re not Hebraic, I’d recommend not ever using it… also all-caps on the internet is generally taken as SHOUTING, it’s a BAD IDEA to use ALL-CAPS all THE TIME, it just makes you LOOK LIKE A CLOWN and significantly reduces the likelihood of your post being read… thanks.
Who exactly is “SAM PiLE” and why does he have an armless man on his license plate?
I want an electric chair in my plate or maybe a howling witch burning at the stake.
(BTW Daniel: I also got the Google reader thing…)
BEWARE………….. THOSE WHO WOULD CURSE A WITCH WILL DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH OR WORSE, LIVE TO WISH THEY WERE DEAD!!!!!
Nothing will ever beat this license plate!
http://www.coolpl8z.com/pl8z/final/coolpl8z_a55-rgy.jpg
hahahahahahahaHAHAahaHAHAAaa
now dat’s funny!
HAAAAAAAAhaahaaahahahaaahaa! That rocks! Thanks for the laugh!
“I think it … What’s it say? ‘In God We Trust’ on every single piece of monetary, coins and paper we have? I think it’s fine.”
This is exactly why I oppose “In god We Trust” on the currency, and “under God” in the pledge. Existing excursions across the line of separation are frequently used as justification for further incursions.
Look, anything that will further identify radical Christians so I can stay the heck away from them is fine with me. Let them pour more dollars into Florida’s economy by buying these novelty plates while giving me an obvious way to identify them.
And Just Passing Through? Genius.
That is an awesome comment.
Can’t take the credit for that one; the commenters over at Happy Jihad’s House of Pancakes brainstormed the list. I’m just passing on the funk.
http://hjhop.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-florida-vanity-license-plate.html
it’s too bad i don’t live in florida… i’d get one that says CTHULHU and confuse everyone.
Psst… in most of the modern world, swastika = Nazi. It doesn’t matter if there is a “real”, older use of the symbol. That’s what it means now. Sorry Hitler ruined it.
Do whatever you want but don’t be all indignant when people misinterpret it.
if the modern workd never sees anything but people ignorantly equating the swastika with negative things, they’ll never learn anything but that the swastika was associated with negativity. the way to get back at hitler for co-opting the swastika is to use it for the reasons that it was used before hitler was ever around. if you don’t like it, you’re welcome to your ignorant opinions, but don’t expect me to stop using the swastika as the holy symbol it really is.
I would say ignorance is thinking you can reclaim the swastika by using it as a forum avatar after Hitler used it as the symbol of an ideology that just about ruined the world.
So yeah, good luck with that.
thanks, with people like you around, i sure could use it.
bgrulker has a point. Just because you want a symbol to mean something, doesn’t mean you can make other people see it that way. Try telling the Hollocaust survivors that you “don’t use it that way.” Don’t get me wrong. You’re entitled to believe that it has a different symbolic meaning than other people think it does. But as far as giving it a good name after the way Hitler used it? Not gonna happen. And “get back at hitler for co-opting the swastika”? Hitler is dead. He’s already accomplished his evil. Too late. Using the symbol positively can’t change anything he did or change the beliefs of modern nazi followers. It would only make them angry.
Let me put it a different way. I find publicly-displayed swastikas to be offensive. I find publicly-displayed “dude it’s totally facing a different direction and at a different angle, you should change your perception of the symbol” swastikas to be slightly more offensive.
You have an interesting website btw, mr. swastika… And by interesting, i mean unusual. Lol. Nice.
@ przxqgl
Dude you could have picked another symbol other than the Swastika. Im sure there are thousands of groovy symbols you could have used. Your logo is over the top and I dont care what excuse you use to justify it, it is offensive and as long as you use it you are a clown.
I think you should lose the fucking swastika.
Agreed.
@ przxqgl
In other parts of the world, the swastika is more often seen as a holy symbol. In the western world, the majority will associate it with Nazi Germany no matter what spin you put on it. Making that connection between yourself, whatever your intentions, and arguably the evilest man in history, is at the very least foolhardy – you will win no friends and influence nobody. You’ve been told on here that people find it offensive. I’m guessing if you use it elsewhere you’ll get a similar response. Continuing to use it shows a basic lack of consideration for your fellow human-beings, just like the man who murdered 6,000,000 jews did, because he believed he was right too.
Exeunt Godwin, stage left.
AND I THINK THE CHRISTIANS SYMBOLS ARE CULT EVIL, SO WHY CAN’T ANYYONE USE WHATEVER SYMBOL THEY WISH TO??? DISCRIMINATING ARE WE???
GIRLTROPICAL
Stop using all caps. Seriously. It’s irritating.
‘In god we trust’ – that’s what all the banks did, no?
Speaking of dollar bills, what’s that whole pyramid thing on the $1 note about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_one_dollar_bill,_reverse.jpg
It’s a Mason’s symbol. It comes from established imagery of the Renaissance in which sight was the pinnacle of sense. For further reference, check out George Chapman’s poem, “Ovid’s Banquet of Sense”.
I have to say is this is wrong on many levels.
You know, it doesn’t bother me all that much. I mean, if I want to put a FSM (flying spaghetti monster) tag on my car, then more power to me, right? :)
Pingback: Chaz’s Lifestream » Blog Archive » Daily Digest for 2009-04-30
If I were a Floridian, the first thing I do is go out and get a Jesus license plate that says:
“BRB LOL”.