South Carolina Surprise
This is interesting. A federal judge in South Carolina
“has ordered South Carolina not to issue a vehicle number plate with a Christian image and slogan.”
You may recall that, in 2008, the South Carolina state legislature approved the creation and distribution of license plates
“featuring [a] cross, a stained-glass window and the words “I Believe” written along the top.”
Judge Cameron Currie stated, in her 57-page decision, that the plate
“amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular.”
The full court order is available here.
How much do you want to bet that politicians will try to skirt the ruling, which is perfectly Constitutional, by sponsoring a ballot referendum on the issue in the next election?
– the chaplain
How much do you want to bet that politicians will try to skirt the ruling, which is perfectly Constitutional, by sponsoring a ballot referendum on the issue in the next election?
Wouldn’t help them. If it’s unconstitutional for a legislature to do as representatives of the majority, it’s unconstitutional for the majority to do by direct referendum. This isn’t like the situation where gay marriage statutes are overturned by referendum.
It’s a beautifully written decision. Naturally, Lt. Governor Bauer is promising to appeal and cursing a liberal activist Clinton appointee for overstepping her authority by trying to make law rather than interpret it.
I say it’s all the fault of godless James Madison and the liberals of the First Congress…
The federal judge made the right decision in this case.
Personally, I wish all plates were national rather than state-based like in the EU.
Do we really need vanity or organizational plates in the age when you can buy almost any symbol and attach it to your vehicle???
John:
Thanks for the clarification. I’ve got mixed feelings on the referendum thing. On principle, I don’t think I want referenda to be abolished; I think there could well be some good reasons to have them available as options. As a practical matter, though, I really hate to think of people voting on issues of rights, such as gay marriage. The fact that a majority holds a view doesn’t make it right, and it’s not right for the majority to impose its will on others just because they have the strength of numbers. *sigh* Democracy is messy.
Nightcap:
You dare call a Founding Father “godless?” Have you no shame?
Mark:
Vanity plates are annoying. I once toyed with the idea of getting one but decided that doing so would be rather childish. I’m not really enthused about special interest plates, either, even though I have one. It commemorates historic Williamsburg, VA, and the annual fee supports the preservation of that historical site, but I could live without it if the state did away with them. Still, since I have the option, I don’t mind supporting a good, secular cause for a nominal fee collected and disbursed by my secular state government.
I was about to rail against this decision as silliness, but looking at the court judgment, it probably is correct given the US constitution.
However I think they could get around it easily enough by passing some more general legislation. Something to the effect of the government can authorize personalised plates if more than 50,000 people request them, or something like that. That way it isn’t a religious law, but it achieves the same thing.
Separation of church and state. I still can’t understand why so many people fail to grasp it.
It’s not that they don’t grasp it, they just don’t care. Separation of church and state only applies to the other guy, never to your religion.
cephus is absolutely right. These are the same people who declare that the US is a Christian Nation, founded by Good Christians, for Good Christians.
Note: not all believers disbelieve in separation of church and state, and there are humanists who trample it all the same.
I’m not just poking fun at you, as usual, cl – but how does one trample seperation of church & state if one is unchurched?
Well, your question implies that only the “churched” can disrespect the boundaries, and that pretty much reeks of elitism. Do you even need me to explain why that’s a fallacious assumption?
There really aren’t any boundaries to a society where church and state are entirely separated. Church is over there, state is over there and never the two shall meet. There’s no such thing as them being too far distant, in fact they probably cannot be far enough apart.
The state shouldn’t tell the religious what to believe, the religious shouldn’t tell the state how to legislate. While some on both sides will undoubtedly be unhappy with that state of affairs, it’s the only way to be fair to everyone.
How ridiculous. So only atheists can legislate? Give me a break.
cl,
Call me naive, but I’ve never heard anyone agitate for legislating religion away, and that seems to me to be the only way one could trample S of C & S from that direction. Whereas I hear a great deal of tedious, “This is a Christian nation,”, “Our law is based on the 10 Commandments,” and “I should be able to teach religion in school as fact,” stuff.
John,
No one said “only atheists can legislate.” He siad, “[T]he religious shouldn’t tell the state how to legislate.” Perhaps it would be clearer if you replace “the religious” with “religion”. In other words, legislation should not be based on religion.
All legislation is based on religion, because all legislation is produced and/or voted on by human beings who subscribe to beliefs, many of which are based on religion.
1. Without citations, this is just blowing smoke.
2. To echo Postman, how does one trample seperation of church & state if one is unchurched?
3. Assuming 1 & 2 are satisfactorily addressed (big assumption, btw), what relevance does that have to the discussion of failure to grasp separation of church and state?
And to answer your ridiculous reply to the Postman on this, I suppose it would be elitist for Gary Coleman to claim he couldn’t possibly block someone’s view if he were standing in front of them based on your rationale. The only way your comment even remotely makes sense is if you’re somehow implying that the non-religious are guilty of violating others’ 1st amendment right to religion. If that’s the case then again you’d have to cite evidence AND explain how that in any way would be relevant to the issue of separation of church and state which is the topic of this post.
Now of course you’ll do none of that and instead just blow more smoke, argue some tangential point or anything else but what you should be writing, but I thought I’d take a moment to lay out what your burdens are in hopes that others would see this and your subsequent avoidance of them so that MAYBE they would not waste further time with your inanity and this discussion could actually go forward instead of get mired in shit like it usually does after you arrive.
Postman,
I’ll just refer you to my response to PhillyChief.
PhillyChief,
I’m glad you did leave your comment, Philly: it’s just more support for my claim that you’re so full of your own conclusions that you can’t see anything else besides what you want to see. I always love when you go way ahead of yourself and blather on about what I will or will not do, because it just shows that instead of desiring to hear me out, you’ve already got it all figured out! In your mind, you already know what’s true, and you lament the great burden placed upon you when others refuse to conform. Alas, don’t weep! Dissent drives progress, my friend. I’ll gladly address your points one by one, not in any hopes that such will actually persuade you, but as evidence to any rational readers that my assessments of you might just be accurate.
No, my claim is either true or false regardless of whether or not citations accompany it. That you claim you only accept claims with citations is your problem, not mine. I do not need to justify my knowledge of humanists (or other non-religious persons) who’ve trampled separation of church and state to you. Your apparent lack of familiarity with both United States history and current affairs sells itself. Nonetheless, I’ll address your question both generally and specifically, lest anyone think you’ve actually presented an insurmountable challenge or argument of some sort. Far from it.
Please, for the sake of your own intellectual advancement if nothing else, just consider for a second that I might be arguing with some substance when I suggest that your ability to even ask this question is all the evidence one needs that you really are full of your own conclusions and biased preconceptions about things. “How does one trample seperation of church & state if one is unchurched,” Philly and Postman ask, yet the question itself implies the premise that only the churched can violate separation. Think for a moment if we switch the terms to “black” and “white” then switch the context a little: how does one rob a store if one is not black? Any person in their right mind would be dissapointed by such a remark? Why? Because it reflects the stereotype that only black people rob stores. Equally, your question reflects the stereotype that only the religious can disrespect separation.
And so, this leads right back to the “elitist” part of my remark, the general support for which is summarized in the following quote from Hamilton: “We, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society…” What this means is that for anyone who commits unfavorable act X while holding belief Y, we will also find those who hold belief ~Y committing unfavorable act X, just for different reasons. This is just a complicated way of saying something so elementary that a fourth-grader can grasp it: everybody’s shit stinks, and people on either side of a law can break it. Do you deny either of those? If yes, by all means jump in the clown suit. If no, then your question of how “the unchurched” can trample separation has been sufficiently answered: because those on either side of a law can break it.
Now, more specifically, note that in a recent discussion here about Obama’s pandering to religious leaders, you closed your second comment with an appeal to Socrates: “A fool tries to convince me with his words, a wise man convinces me with my own.” So, after meeting your first objection with a general principle easily grasped by most fourth-graders, I will now try to meet your objection with your own words. To recall, you asked, “how does one trample seperation of church & state if one is unchurched?” Well, in the thread I just alluded to, you yourself said,
Do you really mean to imply that only “the churched” can “prompt religious leaders to sell [their] political agenda?” If yes, you apparently confirm that you are in fact incapable of parsing reality impartially. If no, then we see that words you yourself typed weeks ago answer your question, which makes said question either rhetorical, disingenuous, or something else. Personally, I’m happy with either option.
Most of your arguments are big assumptions, so why worry now? I stated the relevance of my initial comment in my initial comment, but I get that you’re more concerned with opposing and belittling those who don’t think like you than you are with understanding them. Chaplain’s post was about certain people’s inability to respect the lines of demarcation between church and state. In these types of discussions, the fact that “the unchurched” can do the same often falls by the wayside. This happens because fundamentalists in any pack often only see errors made by fundamentalists outside their pack. You and the rest of the bunch at SI’s are perfect examples.
That’s the difference between us, Chief: although we both make pretenses to logic and reason, one of us tends to see things in black and white, and that’s you. I would say, there are instances in which Gary Coleman could block the view of the person behind him, as well as instances where he could not, therefore leave the arguing of absolutes without context to the fools.
But of course; the non-religious would never do that, right? See what I mean when I say you can’t even see the intellectual prison you’re trapped in? You apparently believe that only the religious can violate 1st amendment rights to religion, but you are simply incorrect. There’s no implying, what I’ve said here is straight fact: those on either side of a law can and do break it. Deny reality all you want, it marches on without you.
Damn, when I’m right, I’m right, huh? If only I could make predictions that good about sports teams, stocks or the ponies. Oh well.
Sorry I missed your comment, John. I probably overlooked it because it was utter gibberish. Comical gibberish though. Good stuff.
Yeah, wise move: simply assert your correctness as usual. Have you no spine, or no shame? Or are you really just too proud to ever budge an inch? Perhaps Exterminator was right; avoiding the questions preferring name calling instead is often your MO. Your strategy is as transparent as a window ChiefyBoy; except of course unto yourself and those enamored by your sarcasm and wit – your AlphaMale “I’m the tough guy here and if you disagree with me your irrational” facade. Either back up the argument you started, or go assert your perceived superiority and domination complex to somebody else. Don’t just spout a bunch of emotionally charged rhetoric then run away.
cl,
I blame myself, really, for forgetting how you answer questions.
Everyone Else,
It’s partially my fault, everyone, that you had to stumble through all that smoke. My apologies. I know it looks like cl just got stoned and started banging away at the keyboard, but that’s just the way he rolls.
Postman,
And I blame myself, really, for forgetting that you’re merely a jester like PhillyChief: a funny-guy who gets his ego stroked by cracking jokes.
Recall that it was you who began under a pretense of seriousness, then asked a question, and I answered it. Anyone who asks, “How can the unchurched violate separation of church and state” is either ignorant, disingenuous, bigoted, or worse: people on both sides of a law can and do break it. It’s that simple, and I know that all you and Philly can do in objection to that claim is make insult.
So put your money where your mouth is, Jokester: do you agree that people on both sides of a law can and do break it? Or not? If you agree, your own question is answered. If you disagree, you testify to your own foolish pride.
I find it interesting that if a reply contains even the most miniscule slight, the rest of it gets completely ignored to the point where one may actually believe that there was nothing else in the reply but the slight. I think that reveals a tremendously fragile psyche, and/or tremendous narcissism.
Don’t beat yourself up over it, Postman. It’s very difficult to not try and swat at a gnat which keeps buzzing around the dinner table but you can’t go chasing it around the house while your good goes cold or even spoils.
PhillyChief,
There you go seein’ in black and white again. What are you talking about? Postman’s comment that contained a sleight? If so, that comment didn’t get ignored in preference of the sleight; I answered Postman: those on both sides of a law can and do break it.
I realize this is hard to fathom for atheists who fancy themselves intellectually superior to “the churched.”
Blah, blah.. blow some more smoke, just like in that other thread, where you claimed your comments to T4T weren’t subjective, yet I was very quickly and easily able to supply three arguments you made that were – guess what – 100% subjective opinions, and name-calling. Big surprise.