Does belief belong on a license plate?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Does belief belong on a license plate?

Article source:http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2008/05/does-belief-bel.html
-----------
Most recently, the debate has erupted in South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford could approve the first specialty license plate in the nation to feature a religious symbol—in this case a cross.

The proposed plate, which also would contain the message “I Believe,” bypasses the typical procedure for a specialty plate to be included in the bevy of options for S.C. drivers. That inclusion requires the signatures of at least 400 people.

For that reason, the Council for Secular Humanism and American Jewish Congress have threatened lawsuits if Sanford approves the plate. They say the plate’s legislative origins would equal a government endorsement of Christianity.

A similar plate declaring “I Believe” was debated in Florida this past month. But South Carolinians still have a gallery of options. “In God We Trust” is already emblazoned on a specialty plate for S.C. drivers, as well as “In Reason We Trust” (sponsored by Secularists of the Low Country) and six different odes to NASCAR.

[sharesunited]

No way. Go invest in a Jesus fish.

[cyclezealot]

11. My problem is personal

But, guess it is beyond our ability to stop. Religion is personal. I dislike seeing it flaunted so. Plus the state has no right to promote religion. Wonder if Florida has a plate for Jews or Buddhists.

[sharesunited]

19. Yes they will. They think it reduces the chance of having this stopped.

But who is going to drive around SC with a crescent on their plate????

[Dorian Gray]

75. For that reason, I agree...

I don't like the religious plates. However, if any group, could have access to this type of plate, then I really couldn't care whether everybody wanted to advertise their belief systems or not. It seems trivial and stupid. But if people want to pay extra to feel good about themselves, and everyone has the equal opportunity to flaunt their belief systems, then who am I to stop them. And if they are only doing this with the cross and not allowing other religious groups to advertise on their plates? Then SC shouldn't allow it.

[BlooInBloo]

1. If an individual wants one, so what?

[Mountainman]

6. Why would a person want one?

[BlooInBloo]

10. Who cares? I can't imagine why anyone would want tofu, either...

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

[nichomachus]

16. Big difference between tofu and this

If you don't understand that, maybe you shouldn't comment. This is about government getting involved in the business of promoting one religion over another.

[BlooInBloo]

17. lol! Fine - so force them to make plates available for every religion.

[nichomachus]

28. Or just stay out of the business all together -- simpler solution

Just like having religious folks pray at the opening of Congress. Rather than trying to make sure every religion or denomination is represented -- which they don't, by the way -- just stop it.

[BlooInBloo]

31. As long as equal protection is satisfied, it makes no difference to me either way....

and if people *want* it one way, there's nothing wrong with it. So long as equal protection is satisfied.

[nichomachus]

34. So, you think the state would issue me

a plate that says "Jesus is bunk?"

[BlooInBloo]

36. (shrug) Now the issue has changed from one about *principle* to one about *practicality*.

[nichomachus]

40. No -- I'm talking about principle

They would deny me this plate on principle. I know that and so do you. Even if we had 200,000 people who wanted Jesus is Bunk, they would still deny it.

[BlooInBloo]

41. I think you're just looking for an argument come hell (!) or high-water...

whether or not we disagree.

[nichomachus]

42. I will argue tirelessly against government becoming involved in religion in any way - yes

[uberllama42]

33. That is still and endorsement of religion

The government should not issue any license plates with any religious content. The government cannot feasibly issue license plates for every religion, because there are some which have too few adherents to justify the expense of designing and printing license plates. Should the members of those religions be subject be left out because they are members of a small minority? That would promote mainstream religions over minority groups.

The government would be forced to choose between being wasteful and being discriminatory. It makes more sense just to leave religious content off of government-issued license plates.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Feasibility is a different issue - I might agree that it's not feasible...

But in *principle*, which is what I was talking about, I see no problem with it, as long as their available upon request to any religion.

[nichomachus]

39. But they wouldn't be available to every religion

the Christians would see to that. They might allow the Jews to have one, but it would end there.

[HamdenRice]

51. So if my plate says "2FINE4U" the govt is endorsing ...

my good looks and sexual prowess?

People put all sorts of crap on their license plates. Are you saying the government endorses all those silly messages?

Are you saying that a religious message is the only message that cannot be put on a plate?

[cosmik debris]

55. Did you know that

Your hypothetical good looks and sexual prowess are not mentioned once in the Constitution.

Religion is.

I started to mention that this is a straw man, but you don't believe in naming fallacies do you? :)

[nichomachus]

13. So, they can feel superior

and hope to get special treatment from right-wing religious police officers.

[liberalhistorian]

23. Ummm........maybe because they're religious, which they

have every right to be? By the same token, one could ask why you would want a political one or a bumper sticker or anything like that. You have the right to do that if you want and so do they, it's that simple.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

48. but the state doesn't sanction my bumper stickers

and I'm not required to have one by law. But license plates are a different matter. By offering a Christian plate, I feel this is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, since it is saying, basically, that Christianity is sanctioned by the state, where other faiths may not be.

[Meshuga]

59. Exactly n/t

[Unvanguard]

58. So will they let ALL religious beliefs be represented?

Judaism? Islam? Agnosticism? Atheism?

[stray cat]

2. I have no problem if people want it as freedom of speech

[nichomachus]

8. No, it's not freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is the ability to put on a bumper sticker proclaiming to the world what you believe. I have no problem with that. The problem here is the state getting in the business of promoting one religion over another or over no religion at all.

I believe too -- I just don't believe in what those people believe in.

The government should not be in this business.

[stray cat]

15. you can buy specialty stamps from the post office

[nichomachus]

18. Yeah -- don't agree with that either

[nichomachus]

30. Could I get one that says "Jesus sucks?" -- I'm thinking that someone

would be opposed to my "free speech."

[Squatch]

3. They're fine with me...

let's me know who I should be giving a WIDE berth.

[cynatnite]

4. Can I have an athesit license plate? n/t

[uberllama42]

38. What, the regular, non-religious plates aren't enough for you?

:P

[DJ13]

5. Unless Atheists and Wiccan believers get plates too its wrong

[ZombieHorde]

12. I don't know about Wiccans but...

From the article:

“In God We Trust” is already emblazoned on a specialty plate for S.C. drivers, as well as “In Reason We Trust” (sponsored by Secularists of the Low Country)

[China_cat]

44. We have "In Reason We Trust" on our vehicle.

[Milo_Bloom]

7. As long as people can have satanic, athiest, etc.. it is all good.

[stray cat]

9. As a specialty plate you have alot of freedom

[TomInTib]

14. I don't like it, but I will do anything to keep from getting pulled over.

[Kutjara]

20. Actually, only the name of the state and the license number...

...belong on a license plate. Quite why people need to festoon their vehicles with messages about whatever bee is buzzing around in their particular bonnet, I'll never understand. Isn't it enough that they plaster their cars with bumperstickers shouting to an uncaring world about how their offspring was "Lunchroom Monitor of the Day at Elmer Fudd Elementary"? Isn't it enough that they also have "vanity" license plate holders telling everyone they're "The World's Greatest Mom" or "One Tough Hombre"? Aren't even the truck testicles enough? Do we have to have 500 different ways of saying "I'm desperate for attention" on the license plates themselves?

I thought the whole purpose of a license plate was so that a vehicle could be identified in the event of a crime, accident, or emergency. Why then are we so intent on cluttering up our plates with so much useless crap that they become unreadable?

[Captain Angry]

21. Holier Than Thou.

If you need to prove your piety, and it takes a license plate to do it, you're on the wrong track.

It seems to me that the money people waste on this license plate could have gone in the collection plate.

[Taverner]

22. I have a big problem with this

And if I were still a Christian, I would have an even bigger problem with this.

Let's forget, for a moment, all of the ethical implications of this - the harassment that this represents.

If I were a Christian - I would see this as a big distortion of the majority of Christians beliefs. Isn't there that verse about fasting and praying in public?

And don't things like this soil the image of Christians around the world? It seems to reaffirm the conception that Christians are bull-headed, illogical, condescending bullies. It says "I am Christian. I am better than you." Is that the message that Christians really want?

[TZ]

26. You make a great point

IIRC, there is something about Pride being on of the seven deadly sins, and what is this, but an overt show of Pride.

[murielm99]

24. Why not?

We have bumper stickers. I see nothing wrong with this. I wouldn't do it myself, because I don't feel the need to parade my faith. But if others want to, it is all right with me.

[Taverner]

25. Because it is offensive

And there isn't an alternative for Freethinkers.

Of course, I wouldn't like a picture of an atom and the words "Bright" any more...

[trotsky]

29. And even if there were an alternative for everyone...

it would still be a divisive force, not a uniting force. Religion divides.

[TZ]

32. Now now, Trotsky

You are just being "bitter and dysfunctional"....;-)

[HamdenRice]

52. So if I put something silly like "2FINE4U"

and the government is endorsing my looks and prowess? People put all kinds of crap on license plates.

You seem to be saying that the only messages the government should forbid on plates are religious ones because in your view it's divisive.

Now that would indeed be a violation of the First Amendment because it would discriminate only against religious messages.

[trotsky]

53. You are failing to understand a distinction.

This does not surprise me, given your track record.

A vanity plate is something the person puts on a regular plate.

A special plate is issued by the state. It implies a religious endorsement - the state has "approved" a religious message.

But please, I wouldn't want to keep you from joining up with the Pat Robertsons of the world. They love this stuff, and hate people like me who oppose it. It doesn't surprise me that they have an ally in you.

[TZ]

54. theory confirmed,IMO..n/t

Don't bother asking me HR.

[Dorian Gray]

76. You are comparing

a vanity plate to a pre-printed cross on a plate.

It is different.

I don't think that anyone here would have a problem with someone making a vanity plate with I Heart Jesus. But, having the pre-printed cross plates is more problematic, especially if various other religious plates are not made available.

[ZombieHorde]

49. Why would a picture of an atom be undesirable?

[cosmik debris]

27. Does anyone believe that the state will give equal treatment

to ALL religions?

Does anyone care whether the state gives equal treatment to all religions?

[Evoman]

74. The funny thing is, that if the state DID give equal treamtent

(i.e. they printed plates with all religions, including Islam, Satanism and Wiccan), the first people to want it shut down would be christians.

Christians will NEVER accept equal treatment, apparently.

[Dorian Gray]

77. This Christian would.....

[Evoman]

78. Ugh, you caught me broad brushing.

I make an exception for many liberal christians (but not all of them...I'm sure, by some of the postings here, that some people here probably fit in with my statement).

[Dorian Gray]

82. I knew what you meant.....

no worries. We're all guilty of it at times! :)

[nichomachus]

37. It's not about free speech. It's not about being "religious." It's about

trying to break down the wall of separation -- just one more wedge in the wall. It's a lot like the "In God we trust" on the money and the "under God" in the pledge. It's a relentless effort to mix the state up in religion to turn the US into a "Christian country." This is their goal -- and every little bit helps push them toward a theocratic state. If you give in on this, then you'll be faced with another attempt next month and then another and then another.

You can't appease them, because they will be back for more tomorrow.

[China_cat]

43. As someone else said

Get the cross plate...with 'itties' as the rest. Or 'ampon'. Or 'ush'

Also, 'I believe...' could be paired with a LOT of different bumper stickers placed right under the plate. Enough of that type of thing and I don't think it'll last long.

Examples:

I believe
religion is a crock
in the flying spaghetti monster
Darwin was right
the rapture is not an exit strategy
homosexuality prevents abortions
atheism is a non-prophet philosophy

[EV_Ares]

45. I have a problem with it. These plates are part of State monies and it is

a mixture of religion and state. Religion needs to stay private between a person and their church.

[yy4me]

46. I don't need to know the faith of the guy in front of me, all I need

is to know that he can drive and not slam on the brakes, I rear end him and it will be my fault.

The only thing on a plate should be numbers and random letters. No causes, no religion,no baloney.
I guess it is a big deal in some places.If I remember, Indiana has a religious plate.
Then of course there is New Hampshire with their "Live free or Die" motto. Plates should be neutral...but then, I probably should be too.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

47. I Believe-this violates the First Amendment

Establishment clause. By using the cross, it is showing a state endorsement of that religion. If they had had simply the term "I Believe" it would pass muster, as no particular belief system would be singled out.

[and-justice-for-all]

50. I find it tacky and tasteless...

what kind of person needs to wear their religion on their sleeve? ridiculous and absurd.

I have about 10 magnetic bumper stickers that I switch around, I do not need a licence plate to express my view.

If tax dollars paying for these plates, I think a law suit is needed.

[MedleyMisty]

56. I can't vote

Because if it went through the normal channels and got the 400 sigs, I wouldn't care - it's not like they're putting it on the standard plate that everyone has. It doesn't bother me if someone else has the option to choose a plate like that if they want.

But the bypassing normal procedure thing is bothersome. And there's not an option for "I don't have a problem with religious specialty plates that went through the standard procedure to become specialty plates but I do have a problem with the religious plate skipping the signatures part."

I think it's the not going through normal channels that makes it religious endorsement by the state. Personally, if people came and said "We want this specialty plate" then I think it would just be the state approving a plate that people wanted, not a religious endorsement.

[cosmik debris]

57. Equal Protection Under The Law

Is not dependent on the number of signatures you can get.

[undeterred]

60. A woman in my neighborhood has a sign in her frontyard with Scripture on it.

I've gone past it a million times and I couldn't tell you which verses it is, but its an expression of her belief and an invitation to faith. My beliefs are different, but I am not offended by hers. And for all I care, she has the right to display a statement of faith on a license plate, on a tshirt, on a sign in her front yard, a bumper sticker, or tatooed on her forehead. It does not offend me.

[uberllama42]

61. The objection is not to a conspicuous display of faith

It is to a government endorsement of Christianity. If a woman wants to put a sign on her lawn, good on her. As long as she doesn't put it on a streetcorner, blocking the view of an intersection, or violate a contract with her homeowner's association or something of that nature, she's perfectly within her rights.

The same goes for a T-shirt, a bumper sticker, or a tattoo. But a license plate is issued by the state, and putting a cross on a license plate constitutes a government endorsement of Christianity. The state is using resources to promote a particular religious creed, which violates the First Amendment. The same principle which protects a person's right to put scripture on her lawn (or tattoo it on her forehead) also bars the government from making such an endorsement.

[undeterred]

62. A license plate is simply an identification of a vehicle.

If people are allowed to suggest the actual identification numbers and letters, use vanity frames, and apply bumper stickers- and if states are allowed to have mottos on the plates- I see no reason a person can't choose a common religious identification. To me it doesn't connote a 'government endorsement' any more than the plate numbers are endorsed as lottery choices.

[cosmik debris]

63. It could not be done without government assistance

That is what makes it government endorsement.

If you require the government to assist you in your expression, that is not constitutional.

[undeterred]

64. I pay a lot for those plates.

[cosmik debris]

67. You pay the government to provide them to you.

In essence, the government is selling religion. But only the religion that has the government's stamp of approval.

[Silent3]

65. You do realize that this isn't just like a personalized plate, don't you?

The state government has designed and commissioned a religious graphic, one meant only for Christians. Having the choice to "take it or leave it" doesn't erase the favoritism being shown to one religious group. Lawsuits are apparently required to get options for other groups -- the state government obviously has no interest in representing anyone but Christians unless and until forced to do so.

Much better than crass favoritism toward one religion, or the silliness of trying to erase such unfairness one belief (or lack thereof) at a time with lawsuits trying to force an array of declare-your-particular-faith options, is for the government to simply not get involved in this crap in the first place.

[undeterred]

68. So design an ATHEIST plate

With all the bullshit going on in the country, this is the issue you get worked up about? License plates?

[Goblinmonger]

71. License plates

being something issued by our government should be secular. That is the role of the government. Period.

[Silent3]

79. I'm fully capable of multi-tasking my resistance to bullshit

Just because there are plenty of other more important issues on the table doesn't mean I can't take a few moments here and there to post my opinions on lesser issues as they are brought up.

You seem to be "wasting time" on this apparently unimportant issue too, in case you hadn't noticed.

That you'd even say "So design an ATHEIST plate" shows you completely aren't paying attention. I don't have the authority to issue license plates. I can design one as much as I like, but I can't stick it on my car without government approval, approval I'll never get for anything other than a plate design the government decides to adopt and issue itself.

I shouldn't have to sue the government or pass a new law to balance out Christian favoritism that never should have happened in the first place.

[Goblinmonger]

66. that plate is government property

not the persons. thats why you can't put "FUCK U" on a vanity plate because the government has an interest to not have obscenity on their property.

Likewise, they shouldn't be endorsing a religion with their property. Just because you don't HAVE to have this version of the license plate means nothing. The only option they have is a Christian plate so that is an endorsement of that religion (and religion itself which is a violation) over the other religions that they don't have plates for. This isn't complex constitutional law.

The ability so many have in this country to just allow the theocracy to creep on never ceases to amaze me.

[undeterred]

69. Some people see theocracy everywhere

and have developed as much of a persecution complex as the fundies.

[Goblinmonger]

70. Couple things

1. Nice ad hom attack
2. the government is printing a license plate with christian (and only christian) symbols on it. Pardon me for thinking this is a sign of creeping theocracy. What would it take for you to think this is a violation of the 1st amendment? Perhaps it would be different if it weren't YOUR religion?
3. the use of the term fundamentalist to describe atheists is logically unsound and is offensive as many people have pointed out many times. I would expect that someone on a progressive web site would realize that and stop using it.

[Silent3]

80. "In God We Trust"...

...on our money.

"One nation, under God" in our pledge.

The near 0 probability of being openly atheist in the US and gaining any position of power higher than town council.

Yes, must be my imagination.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Would the state also print up Star of David license plate with

"Hear O Israel" written on it? How about a Star and Crescent license plate with "In the name of God the beneficent, the merciful" on it? How about a Rosary license plate with "Hail Mary Full of Grace" on it? A Buddhist license plate with "Follower of the Eightfold Path" written on it?

It's state sponsorship of religious symbolism. If fundamentalists want to wear their religious affiliation on their car, they should spring $5 for a bumpersticker like normal people.

[Evoman]

73. This is a fucking CLEAR CUT violation of your CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT!!

Whether you don't mind it, or whether it bothers the hell out of you, doesn't matter one fucking bit. The problem is that it is ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE HIGHEST LAWS IN YOUR COUNTRY.

Now what are you going to fucking do about it?

If you accept this, then your no better than fucking Bush. Yeah, I said it. Bush.

[Zebedeo]

83. Nah

What would be a violation of the First Amendment is if the state singled out religious messages for banning, while allowing nonreligious messages. To do so would be to violate the rights of free expression of drivers who prefer to make a religious statement. The U.S. government is prohibited from censoring the speech of its citizens. Your country may not have this right, but we in the U.S. regard it as one of the most important individual rights.

If you are thinking that allowing drivers to choose a religious message on their plates is a violation of the "establishment clause," think again. The state is not forcing anyone to buy or use the specialty plates. They are entirely voluntary and are chosen only by people who want to have this message on their vehicles. This in no way establishes a state religion.

There are, of course, numerous other countries that do have state religions. Perhaps your anger would be more productively directed at the citizens of those countries.

[Goblinmonger]

84. You might want to google "excessive entanglement"

and endorsement. If there were multiple options, that would be one thing, but this is government property which gives special consideration to those of the christian faith. If people want to express their faith they can buy a bumper sticker or put some stupid thing on the personalization of the license plate. The state should not be putting crosses on their license plates.

[Zebedeo]

89. You regard the license plate on your car

as "government property"? Where do you get that idea?

[Goblinmonger]

92. Do you have the right to do whatever you want

with your license plate? Can you put whatever sticker you want on it? Can you cover it up with duct tape so that the numbers can't be read? NO. Because it is government property. It's a government tag that shows you have licensed the vehicle to drive on government roads. You can't really be this obtuse.

[Zebedeo]

100. Personal insults are unproductive.

They tend to reduce discussion to childish name-calling.

The fact that one is not permitted to cover a license with duct tape, obscuring the numbers, in no way leads to the conclusion that a license plate is "government property," as you claimed, or to the conclusion that a cross and the words "I believe" on a license plate make the license plate an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

If, as you contend, license plates are "government property," then why do you suppose the government does not prosecute those dining establishments whose interior walls are festooned with license plates? Is there any other form of "government property" that citizens are allowed to appropriate for such purposes?

[Goblinmonger]

101. I called you obtuse.

You are complaining about THAT being a personal insult? Lighten up. On edit: I actually said you couldn't be that obtuse, so I was giving you credit.

1. The fact that you can't do what you want with a license plate would indicate that it isn't your property. There are states where you can't have license plate frames around them. Surely this would be a violation of free speech if it were your property.

2. It is a plate the state issues and this state is issuing plates with ONLY Christian options available. Read the Lemon test. It seems pretty clear.

3. The license plates that are festooned on those establishments are expired plates. I do believe the state tells you to destroy them. Draft cards are/were government property, but I would think once you are out of the draft, you could do whatever you wish with the card.

4. Why are you so bent on supporting a state-sponsored Christian love fest? Why can't you admit that this isn't the government's job?

[Evoman]

87. But doesn't the state put money into it?

I thought the state wasn't allowed to use goverment money for the promotion of religion.

Regardless, am I ever happy to live in Canada where I don't have to put up with that sort of religious bullshit.

[uberllama42]

88. Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a law providing busing services to Catholic schools. Justice Hugo Black laid out the meaning of the Establishment Clause as they understood it:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

By allowing this design, the state is using tax money to promote a particular religious creed. Subsequent cases after Everson have moved around a little bit on what types of aid can be given to religious institutions, but it's still pretty clear that using state funds to express a particular religious belief is unconstitutional.

The government would run afoul of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment if it tried to ban religious bumper stickers. There is no compelling state interest in stifling that particular form of private expression. Closing off the possibility of expressions of faith on license plates is not a violation because it leaves sufficient alternate channels to express religious belief (magnets, bumper stickers, window decals, etc.).

[HamdenRice]

85. "Clear cut"?

Maybe rather than just asserting it, you could argue that point. What is the text of the First Amendment? What Supreme Court interpretations would ban voluntarily chosen religious symbols on license plates?

What, precisely, is your constitutional argument?

Do you really think that someone who disagrees with you on this is self-evidently "no better than ... Bush"? I suppose that Stephen Carter of Yale has a view of this that would be different from yours and that I would probably disagree with, but would that put liberal law professor Stephen Carter on the same level as Bush?

What is your argument?

[Evoman]

86. I thought the establishment clause was pretty clear on this.

And I thought that there is sufficient agreement (precident) judicially for forcing the state to be completely neutral towards religion, most recently with that moore fellow.

Regardless, I was exaggerating somewhat when it came to the "worse than bush". That was an emotional appeal that had no place in my post. Good on you for catching it.

[HamdenRice]

90. I think it's important to think about how complicated these issues really are

Well, thanks for admitting that everyone who disagrees with you isn't as bad as Bush.

I also think that it's important for all of us to understand how the Constitution, including the First Amendment, actually works. So, first of all, let me ask a question that is a bit obvious to constitution scholars (and hope I don't sound pendantic for asking), but why do you think the First Amendment applies to South Carolina? The text of the First Amendment religion clause is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

For nearly 150 years after it was adopted, it was read literally: it only applied as a restriction on what Congress and the federal government could do. The states were not bound by the First Amendment, and several had "established churches."

If Congress is not creating this license plates, why would South Carolina doing so violate the First Amendment?

[salvorhardin]

91. The 14th Amendment is generally seen as trumping states' rights...

The 14th Amendment is generally seen as trumping states' rights in matters where the states contradict Federal laws and guarantees.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend14.htm

So yes, the First Amendment does apply to the states.

[Goblinmonger]

93. OK, now you are just yanking people's chains

You can't seriously be telling me that you don't think the bill or rights applies to states, can you. I mean, you have heard of Incorporation, right? Due Process Clause? Google Gitlow v New York.

[cosmik debris]

95. He is following the lead of

Justice Thomas who still holds to the 19th century interpretation of the first amendment.

Isn't it ironic that on a progressive message board we would find someone so ultimately regressive and ultra conservative? That's HR for you!

[HamdenRice]

96. I was trying to see if anyone knew this

apparently, most don't.

What year was the Constitution adopted?

What year was Gitlow decided?

[uberllama42]

97. The Constitution was 1787

Gitlow was 1925.

Where are you going with this? The Establishment Clause has been incorporated for no less than 61 years.

edit: corrected subject line

[Goblinmonger]

98. Or most people are just sick of responding to you.

You might want to consider that, too.

Is this some kind of constitutional trivia contest?

[cosmik debris]

99. He's just testing us to see if we are up to his standards.

Standards straight from the Soviet Archives!

:)

[trotsky]

94. The current legal standard is the so-called "Lemon Test"

from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971):

Lemon test

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Regarding a special religious license plate:

1. FAIL
2. FAIL
3. EPIC FAIL

[Bill McBlueState]

81. Do people not understand what license plates are?

Many of the people who are "okay" with these plates seem not to understand what license plates are.

They are different, in what I thought was an obvious way, from bumper stickers and yard signs. It's really surprising how many people fail to grasp the distinction.

[pegleg]

102. It shouldn't even be an issue as long as others are allowed

to express beliefs on theirs. People that have problems with this are people who have problems with just about anything.

[Goblinmonger]

103. This isn't a personalized plate

It is the one being printed BY THE STATE. And there are no other religious options. I have problems with violations of the first amendment and with creeping theocracy. YMMV, I guess.

[pegleg]

104. then I have a problem with it too