Florida is continuing its struggle against the separation of church and state with a new promotion of religion: special license plates for the faithful. The legislature is considering a plate featuring a Christian cross, a stained-glass church window and the words “I Believe.” The sponsor of this unconstitutional measure is Rep. Edward Bullard who sees absolutely no difference between vanity plates and divinity plates. This is no doubt an effort to close the license gap with Iran, which has a “Honk if You Love Allah” plate.
Bullard insists that there is no difference between his religious plates and plates supporting a university or football team — missing the minor point that the first amendment is not written to prevent the entanglement of the state and the Dolphins. It is merely, he says, “something they believe in.”
The state already has a plate with the motto “Family First,” which funds Sheridan House, a Christian organization prompting aspects of faith.
For the full story, click here.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as they agree to allow other plates for other religions and philosophies.
Frankly, it be good revenue for the states’ DOT to have an open program for specialty plates.
I think the secular left led by the ACLU (Atheists Civil Litigation Union) willfully misconstrue “freedom of religion” as “freedom from religion.”
I see nothing wrong with it but this is not the America we grew up in anymore. We now have littered our population with insane angry people who are one email away from starting lawsuits over anything they perceive they can get away with.
Within days these one percenters will be insisting on satan plates, chicken worship plates, etc. all just to cause society more problems instead of being rational respective adults.
I always thought a bunch of bumper stickers are a nice touch! I like: I won’t think in your church if you won’t pray in my school.
Jonolan: What’s wrong with Freedom from Religion? Do have to be religious because I’m American? It seems that your ACLU vitriol is limited to conjecture. You really need to do a little research if your going to be taken seriously here. The ACLU has a long, well-known list of defending Christian Conservatives Religious Rights. What you wrote is out-right silly and grossly uninformed.
Dunder: That’s precisely the point. What gives ANY religion more empowerment and standing than any citizen. Isn’t the DMV then obligated to become a litigation machine? What happens when GOD A is at Odds with GOD B. Do we have license plate wars ?? Bumper stickers are already a fine tool for personal graffiti and don’t generally provide cause for litigation. So what’s the purpose of this move?
You don’t actually think that FL has any intention of cranking out – It’s Mecca Time! license plates do you ?
….
“I see nothing wrong with it but this is not the America we grew up in anymore.”
***********************
Like dunder I too long for the good old days. Growing up in “progressive” rural Virginia, I used to enjoy eating my lunch at the local cafeteria while watching the black patrons pick up their meals at the kitchen door near the dumpster. Friday nights, I would see grown men in white robes & hoods (after the high school football game, of course) gathering at the local discount furniture warehouse to rant against the incursion of what they called the “coloreds” being allowed to sit near them in the stadium. Funny, they voiced no opposition to the “coloreds” playing.
I also found the race baiting and walkouts at my school very exciting when desegregation was finally implemented despite the opinion 10 years earlier (“with all deliberate speed” indeed) over the objection of Governor James Linsey Almond (with the approval of US Senator Harry Byrd) who had previously declared our right to “massive resistance.” They both later recanted when the prevailing winds of the law toppled their bigotry.
My grandfather couldn’t get a conventional loan because of his ethnicity, and as the banker said “his poor English.” The store he built in 1932 still stands on the same spot and is a growing concern. I also enjoyed the fact that when I grew into manhood I had license to enter the “men’s club” of employment and order the female secretaries around when they weren’t too busy being harassed sexually or asked to wear more revealing clothing at work to impress the clients. I took great comfort from the fact that when I drank from the “white’s only” water fountain at work, I was sure I wasn’t exposing myself to coodies from other races. When I went to rural courthouses around the Commonwealth, I was proudly told by the Court bailiffs told how “modern” we had become because “negroes” didn’t have to sit in the balcony anymore, but could sit in the gallery like everybody else.
Call me anti-nostalgic, but As Carole King truly sang, “these are the good old days.”
jonolan:
You say “atheists” like it’s a crime to be one? Why so harsh?
Mespo you nostalgic softy. That was one allegorical masterpiece.
binx101:
It’s easy — when you’ve lived it.
Thou shalt not take thy Lord’s name in vain
Or
Thou shalt not attach thy Lord’s name to vanity; i.e. emptiness.
Or
Thou shalt not attach thy Lord’s name to vanity plates.
“In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sactity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words “Jesus Christ” after the words “our lord” in the preamble, the object of which, would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst (See letter of J. M. to Mr Jefferson dated ) The opponents of the amendment having turned the feeling as well as judgment of the House agst it, by successfully contending that the better proof of reverence for that holy name wd be not to profane it by making it a topic of legisl. discussion, & particularly by making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world.”
…
“The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html
Query: What would happen if a religious sect declared General John Stark a prophet and declared holy war against the Bush administration?
Live godly or DIE!
Many of you have just profaned my holy thoughts concerning license plates. Bless you!
Jill
And of course what typically happens in the course of these discussions, is that the greater population receives the message that this is about a group of nuts trying to take away the State of Florida’s right to produce license plates with a good wholesome USA message. Again – precisely the wisdom of the founders to not permit power brokers to claim a higher authority
Why not just buy a license plate frame inscribed with the most devotional phrase one can conceive? Alas, that would not serve to summon the masses as to the terror of our secular Constitution and our need to fortify the Nation with a certified theocracy, even if it is from small “c” christians who endlessly quote scripture from the Old Testament and treat the New Testament as though it were some commie pinko pamphlet and not the primary doctrine of Christian faith.
In fact perhaps we could ask the defense department to silkscreen the Kellogg-Briand Pact on all military ordnance used in Iraq, and any bombs headed for Iran. Hey, maybe even some interpretive verse from Pastor Hagee??
Driving south from the airport last night on I-95, after spending time in NYC, I was passed by 3 guys on motorcycles doing over 100mph and none wore helmets. Florida is the Wild West for a lifelong NY’er now living there, like me. I am constantly either in a state of being dumbfounded or cynically amused by the machinations of its politicians and the weirdness of it all. Religious license plates are yet another symptom of a pathology I find hard to fathom. This is so because the hypocrisy of the “morals” chorus plays counterpoint to the unvarnished greed of the society. The weather, however, is beautiful, housing is cheap and the roads are wide.
Isn’t this just another revenue idea by the state? Wouldn’t the government generate more by requiring registration and inspection of lawn mowers? Since the state has a monopoly on registration, why not just raise the price? Perhaps lottery tickets should be sold under religious affiliations as well? I guess that might interfere with bingo night. Let’s ban 666 from the daily number while we’re at it.
The government has no business doing more than the minimum to register vehicles on roads, which is a debatable proposition in the first place. I’ll think it’s a good idea when the license plates go beyond “I believe” to “I doubt it” or “Myths are for kids”, “I evolved. You didn’t”, and “God made me an atheist” …
Indeed … that circles us clear back to License Plate Frames. Couldn’t agree with you more, the government has been indoctrinated slowly into a privatized / free market approach and believe they are in business. This is the launching pad for further corporatism of government.
JONOLAN WROTE:
I think the secular left led by the ACLU (Atheists Civil Litigation Union) willfully misconstrue “freedom of religion” as “freedom from religion.”
The ACLU does not lead nor is it involved in my atheism. The ACLU has an extensive and praiseworthy record of defending and protecting all our civil liberties, not just atheism. They would, for instance, vigorously defend your right to be so wrong in your position on this.
If freedom of religion is not also freedom from religion, then you are suggesting that Americans are free to choose from an approved list of religions, but that the choice of “none” is not an option. That hardly stands up to basic logic let alone as a legal position under the US Constitution.
Who would support such position? Certainly not liberals who readily accept atheism as a choice. I wouldn’t think Libertarians would agree either, as they don’t want a government let alone one that would tell a citizen how to conduct their religious life. Even traditional Republicans would resist the heavy hand of government controlling so personal a decision. So, who’s left? Only the religiously devout from various sects would deny freedom from religion. Since we are a nation of laws rather than of satisfying religious doctrine, the denial of all options of religious freedoms, including “from” is in error.
Quite the contrary. The ACLU’s legal history points to their striving to make “none” the only choice in a public venue.
As I said, I see no legitimate problem with the license plates as long as it’s not limited to just specific religions and/or philosophies.
rcampbell,
Your argument is spurious. Nobodies has suggested that such plates be mandatory. It’s a voluntary endeavor and one that costs extra to take part in.
janolin:
Don’t trip running from your own words. You specifically said “I think the secular left led by the ACLU (Atheists Civil Litigation Union) willfully misconstrue “freedom of religion” as “freedom from religion.” We do have right to be free “from” religion, as well as the freedom of religion, and that is what rcampbell called you on. Which is it then do we or do we not have the right to be free from religion?
A friend wrote me privately concerned that I needed to edify a previous comment about the Old and New Testaments.
My comments above were not to nullify one and propose the other, or denigrate either set of subscribers. I was merely attempting to point out that the small “c” christians, a mostly secular political group with little knowledge of scripture from a theological perspective … search the most obscure passages from the Old Testament as opposed to quoting the central doctrine of what they propose to be their faith.
Again, I want to be clear – I am mocking secular political machines that pretend to be Christian fellowships.
mespo727272,
Let me clarify my position since I’ve failed to communicate with you. By “Freedom From Religion” I meant freed from exposure to religion. That is what the ACLU is striving for – IMHO.
Where is the problem with someone of faith having a religious license plate? You don’t have to have one. On the other I don’t see where the atheists have the right to say one of the faith can’t have one.
Jill,
How about…
“There are your enemies, [the Neocons and the fascists]. They are ours, or this night Molly Stark sleeps a widow.”
Regards,
Bob
“Religion . . . is an instinctive attitude peculiar to man, and its manifestations can be followed all through human history.
A creed is a confession of faith intended chiefly for the world at large and is thus an intramundane affair, while the meaning and purpose of religion lie in the relationship of the individual to God (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) or to the path of salvation and liberation (Buddhism).”
["The Undiscovered Self," C.G. Jung, CW 10, par. 512, 507.]
“The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html
Given how intangible the concept of religion is, me thinks Madison was referring to creed.
Nonetheless,
Thou shalt not attach thy Lord’s name to vanity plates.
Bob,
You left out a vital part of the quote from Jung, one that ruins your entire argument…it actually reads”…the relationship of the individual to God AS EXPRESSED ON METAL PLATES ATTACHED TO MOVING VEHICALS…”. I believe Jung wrote this after seeing a pink Escalade with the twin religious symbols; 1. of the goddess, Mary Kay and 2. her consort represented on the metal plate simply as: He Reigns.
Liked your ideas!, and Patty C., like your “take no prisoners” approach to pharmacy!
Jill
janolan:
I have no problem with expressions of religion on your vehicle. Put all the little fishes or Greek letters or Stars of David that you like on your bumper. I object to the State sanctioning one or any religion or no religion for that matter. Putting it on license plates places the imprimatur of the State on a religious expression and it is patently unconstitutional. By the way, I do have a constitutional right to be free from exposure to religion, as I may leave any private function where such expressions are taking place. I should not be forced, however, to leave the public highways to avoid such expressions. I take it you agree that I have a right to be free from religion since your clarification did not address that point. I suppose you want the same right since even you are an atheist to various other religions (Janism, Buddhism, Poseidon worship, Baalists, etc.), and would not want to be forced to experience that spirituality against your consent.
Bob,Esq:
What do you call a religion where all of its followers have died or abandoned it? It’s mythology. So much for universal truths, or divine beings. Is Woden still patrolling the Teutonic forests? Think Zeus is still hiking Mt. Olympus? Interesting how everybody is an atheist to some religion, or even most religions.
mespo727272,
By your argument churches could have cross and mosques could have Call to Prayer since you see or hear them.
Also, I’m actually a pantheistic Pagan.
I don’t have a specific problem with the worship of any God or Spirit.
Despite your atheistic assertions, it’s NOT unconstitutional to have religious icons or sayings on state provided items or property. It is only unconstitutional if such things are limited to only one – or possibly a limited few – religions or sects.
OK, I can’t type tonight. That should have been “By your argument churches couldn’t have cross and mosques couldn’t have Call to Prayer since you see or hear them.”
janolan:
I guess I wasn’t clear. Private individuals and institutions can have whatever they like displayed, including churches and mosques. That’s why I don’t object to fishes of Greek letters or Wicken displays. The objection is to State sponsored public displays of religion or paganism or atheism for that matter. I should not have to see State promoted religious thought of any description since it is by its nature an endorsement and hence divisive.
Mespo, you were correct in calling jonolan out – he thought he was being witty and clever in likening the ACLU to his imaginary
‘Atheists Civil Litigation Union’.
The point of the Constitution, Civil liberties, the Women’s Right’s Movement, and the ACLU is choice i.e. freedom.
No matter what, whether it’s religion at issue or no religion – it makes no difference.
Jonolan, get a clue – Wake up or Shut up.
p.s Your creepy thumbnail mask thing-a-ma-gig coupled with your commentary is very telling – in a black n’ white kinda way…
not good, in my view.
jonolan,
I did think about what you wrote. I can’t agree with the crack about the ACLU and feel it’s off point. Bob was joking about license plate wars, but only barely. I know the state of Florida isn’t going to allow an “I Heart Satan” vanity plate. The state does not stay neutral and thus ends up endorsing religion(s) it chooses. Bumper stickers allow private individuals to state their beliefs in no uncertain terms. They really are open to anyone of any belief or no belief at all.
Jill
Jill,
What is a ‘“take no prisoners” approach to pharmacy?’
If an explanation requires foot-noting a joke; I apologize in advance.
Regards,
Bob
Mespo,
“What do you call a religion where all of its followers have died or abandoned it?”
A ‘Mything link?’
“It’s mythology.”
That’s what I said.
“So much for universal truths, or divine beings.”
How about archetypes of the collective unconscious?
“Is Woden still patrolling the Teutonic forests? Think Zeus is still hiking Mt. Olympus?”
In a non-spacio-temporal manner of speaking; yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
Regards,
Bob
jonolan,
“Also, I’m actually a pantheistic Pagan. I don’t have a specific problem with the worship of any God or Spirit.”
A pantheistic pagan with no problems?
How about the Easter Bunny and those god-damned Easter eggs?
And another thing; who started the myth about dolphins being superior to frogs?
When Moses needed help freeing the Jews from Egypt, did God send a bunch of attention-craved sell-outs like the dolphins?
No.
He sent frogs; The Big Guy’s first attempt at making humans — at least according to C.G. Jung.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Jill,
“I know the state of Florida isn’t going to allow an “I Heart Satan” vanity plate.”
Yet service of process on Satan can now be effectuated by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to Lord Scalia.
http://www.harbornet.com/folks/honan/satan.html
“I heart His Lordship?”
Regards,
Bob
Bob,
You have a wonderful humor (are you a pitta? If so, you can purchase cooling digestive teas on line:) )! Patty C. went medieval on pharmacy with her post on the ethical doctor who refused to treat some sleezy “untouchables” who deserved to die anyway….
I’ll definitely check his lordship’s link but please count me out of that collective!
Jill
Bob,
I forgot to add that I loved the plague of frogs!!! After reading today’s posting on Yoo I suggest soothing digestive teas all around.
Best,
Jill
Liked your ideas!, and Patty C., like your “take no prisoners” approach to pharmacy!
——
Hardly medievial – I would be asserting my property rights.
If a pharmacist did not wish to fill my prescription, I would expect him/her to hand the scrip back to me, so I could fill it elsewhere.
Hi guys. The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls. Help me! Looking for sites on: Genital herpes outbreak natural solution. I found only this – symptoms of rectal herpes outbreak. Contagious adolescents may say primary cultures fresh as mrsa, pseudomonas, enterobacter, and serratia, herpes outbreak. Not due viruses to postherpetic, attracting zoster with a option or case, or remodeling yourself in a such penis can wear groups, herpes outbreak. With best wishes
, Marland from Bulgaria.