Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Church and State

Daisy wrote about an interesting development in South Carolina.

And finally, the judge says NO.


South Carolina can't issue 'I Believe' tag, federal judge rules
By Tim Smith • Staff writer • November 10, 2009
Greenville News
COLUMBIA -- A federal judge today ordered the state to stop producing "I Believe" license plates, ruling the case is a "textbook example" of a constitutional prohibition of government endorsing a specific religion.

U.S. District Court Judge Cameron Currie, who issued a preliminary injunction against the plates in December, on Tuesday issued a permanent injunction, finding the legislation creating the plates violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and its 14th Amendment.

She also singled out Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who pushed through the legislation.

"Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same," Currie wrote in her order. "The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation."
Here is my first blog post about this sordid debacle.

(I still think a bumper sticker would do just fine.)

What's your opinion? Is South Carolina moving in the right direction all of a sudden? Could this decision have a domino effect on other laws and other states?

Please leave a comment.

also posted at Man With a Muck-Rake

10 comments:

  1. I'd say without means to order a myriad of religious plates, as well as "I don't believe" plates this does sound like a 1st Amendment violation.

    Bigger question, why do you care?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Daisy blogged on this too and I commented it must be an american thing. I don't get it but agree that it is not really something for a state type body (vehicle licensing) to approve. Where do you stop? 'I'm a Satanist' licence plates? 'I am in thrall to the following sexual practices...' plates?

    Probably best to stick to stickers (so to speak)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, Rabbit, this is a uniquely American thing, the Religious Right pushing thier beliefs on the rest and eliciting an equally extreme response from the atheists for their trouble. Only in America.

    This was Daisy's post, by the way. I copied it in its entirety.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Weer'd says, "...this does sound like a 1st Amendment violation.

    Bigger question, why do you care?"


    Afre you saying the SC decision is in violation of the 1st? What about the separation of church and state?

    Why do I care, you ask. I don't really. I just find the Religious right fascinating and the fact that South Carolina legislators are resisting them even more so.

    You know I'm really interested in only one thing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with you and Daisy. This IMO was a pretty clear cut 1st Amendment violation.

    The sad thing is you anti-gunners do exactly the same thing, attempting to push your beliefs and moral values on the rest of America.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, Rabbit, this is a uniquely American thing, the Religious Right pushing thier beliefs on the rest and eliciting an equally extreme response from the atheists for their trouble. Only in America.

    Yeah, Sharia law isn't pushed on people in places like Sudan and Afghanistan. Communism wasn't pushed on people in Vietnam, North Korea, Hungary, or Poland. Even the Catholic Church has a lot of pull in Italy, does it not? This isn't uniquely American. This is a human group attribute: trying to force your beliefs on others. If you can't see that there is no uniquely American part of this, but rather it has been going on for millenia, then you definitely have the blinders on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're right Reputo. There's nothing unique about this American situation. Religious conservatives always try to force their ideas on the others, as you well pointed out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. mikeb, I wouldn't limit it to religious conservatives (unless you consider Stalin and Mao religious conservatives).

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with Reputo -- except there IS a difference between saying "I believe" and forcing your beliefs onto others. Forcing belief is not about SPEECH --but about law and views of right and wrong imposed by law. We should be able to express ourselves --and either license plates should have no messages --or many to choose from.

    My family mostly steers clear of bumper stickers --lest the "I love Jesus" car cause a bad accident --bringing shame to Jesus.

    Also, you never know when a Mudrake-type will keyscratch your car.

    Free Expression is what license plates have become in America --and as such, the judge is unconstitutional.

    There CAN be an "I don't believe" license plate, as far as I'm concerned. After all, we pay for them --and if we want to surround them with those plastic holders with a message on them, we certainly should be allowed to do THAT. As well as the bumper stickers.

    America has not seen such speech repression as the atheists want to impose these days--and do on their blogs. When they don't have a good rebuttal, they ban and delete.
    They don't want any mention of religion in the Public square --or any where it might influence others.

    ReplyDelete
  10. They don't want any mention of religion in the Public square --or any where it might influence others.

    Barb - The issue here (and what makes it a Constitutional violation) is that one religion is being represented / endorsed on the plates.

    ReplyDelete