I Believe! I Believe!

I believe this is a violation of the First Amendment!!!!

South Carolina is always trying to enhance its reputation as a conservative crazy backwater that does things like elect Joe Wilsons to the congress and flies the Rebel Flag over its state house and stuff. Recently, the state legislature approved a version of a license plate for the state with a big-ole cross on it and the phrase "I Believe" written on it.

District Judge Cameron Currie said that the plate violated the First Amendment, which enshrines the separation of church and state.

A similar bid by a group in Florida last year did not pass state lawmakers.

The governor has made the claim that since there are over 120 different plates already available, this could not constitute a church-state separation issue. The Federal Judge totally pwned the gov in a Pot Meet Kettle kinda way:

"Whether motivated by sincerely-held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same.

"The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defence of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation."

Ha!

Source: BBC
Hat tip: Virgil Samms

Tags

More like this

There's much gnashing of teeth among the secular set these days, as South Carolina prepares to offer automobile license plates that declare "I Believe." Just in case other drivers don't get it, the specialty plates will also feature a cross, just as Florida's proposed and rejected plates would have…
For the last year or so, I've been in touch with a reporter at the New York Times about a growing trend of creationists adding global warming to their enemies lists. Tomorrow, her story â Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets â hits the front page of the paper of record: Critics of the teaching of…
Frank Beckwith, a friendly rival on the question of intelligent design and the law, was a speaker at the Greer-Heard Forum that included many other prominent peopel on both sides of the ID question. The Baptist Press News has a report on his presentation, which a reader emailed me this morning.…
We hear constantly from conservatives about "activist judges" and how horrible they are. One of the grand ironies of the Schiavo case is hearing conservatives complaining that judges aren't being activist enough while still simultaneously complaining about activist judges. It's absolute proof that…

That Currie was too hot for the Governor, I guess.

By NewEnglandBob (not verified) on 10 Nov 2009 #permalink

I think these plates are silly; in my state you can get a Jimmy buffet parrothead plate! In South Carolina you can get plates for the Freemasons, several sororities and fraternities, and yes, even a Parrothead plate. (Heck, they already have an "In God We Trust" plate) It looks like the only reason this doesn't pass muster is because it was sponsored by the governor, instead of by some other group. So, expect some group to petition the state for a similar plate. What I'm waiting for is the athiest group to petition for the "I don't believe" license plate.

How exactly does a license plate meant to ward off tailgating vampires violate the first amendment?

I suppose they would not allow someone to subvert it would they? For example "I believe" tag with "Its not butter" or "in no God" as the license plate number.

I suppose they would not allow someone to subvert it would they? For example "I believe" tag with "Its not butter" or "in no God" as the license plate number.

You'd better believe (!) they'd come up with a reason why doing that is inappropriate (if they don't arrest you first).

@a lurker: No, trying to cover up or alter any part of a plate will get you in trouble. Trust me on this one, we had a bunch of people in Alabama that got in some trouble over putting tape or whatever over the stupid slogan on our tag.

Somehow the "But they have other choices!" nonsense worked for the jerkoffs in our state.

By JThompson (not verified) on 10 Nov 2009 #permalink

This seems unconstitutional. If one was willing to make any design that a certain number of people signed off one then this sort of thing might be ok. Even then, it would be pushing it. But as implemented this is clearly a no go.

I really don't understand the need to push one's religion at every opportunity. It is almost like they are compensating for something.

I'll have you know that the confederate flag is no longer on top of the state house! It was moved to the front of the state house, which was apparently seen as some kind of compromise despite actually being more prominent at street level.

What I'm waiting for is the athiest group to petition for the "I don't believe" license plate.

The closest thing I'm aware of is a snazzy "in reason we trust" plate courtesy of the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry.

By Treppenwitz (not verified) on 10 Nov 2009 #permalink

Is the cross aflame and are there hooded figures next to it?

By MadScientist (not verified) on 10 Nov 2009 #permalink

Once again it would seem that the Gov's god is too small and weak and therefore needs this kind of exposure. Without it, no one will worship at all I'm sure.

Looks like idols for worship to me. And making a show of piety in public. The list is goes on.

If atheists go for an "I don't believe" plate, then agnostics should go for an "I'm just not sure" plate. The possibilities are endless.