It's not semantic at all. It was propaganda, there's plenty of evidence they were used as such. Propaganda is not the same thing as a slogan.
Many things have had a much larger impact than religion. You remove them when they are clearly being used to represent the current government.
How about this, I propose a new dollar bill that states: "Religion is a combination of group think and delusion". It wouldn't impact you, would it?

No. Actually, I think most religions are full of hypocrisy, or at least the ones I have been exposed to. My view is that as long as you don't bother me, I won't bother you. If I am, for example, invited to someone's home for dinner and they pray, I bow my head or do what they do out of respect.

Personally, I don't really care if people want to advertise their religion on their license plates. It's just another way of knowing who to avoid.

As for Muslims and Jews and Buddhists getting their own plates, well, aren't we all just happy that Muslims and Jews and Buddhists don't want their own plates?

I know I am.

There was a time during which I would have gotten all up in arms about something like this. But why should I allow the idiot notions of people I already think are idiots get under my skin? Instead, I give it the kind of attention it deserves - I laugh. Then I come home and tell my family and we laugh. I think that's what Jesus would do.

Vanity license plates are stupid anyway. Period.

Would you pray to a tree out of respect? What about the 1st commandment?

the outside observer would probably wonder how he or she wandered unwittingly into a taste vacuum.

it's the point guyy made above that's the irritant--the these things are free in some areas. either all vanity plates are free, in which case i go back to not caring, or none are, in which case i go back to not caring. it's the suspending of the fee that violates the rules.

yeah, most vanity plates are declasse. Utterly gauche. But really harmless.

an offense against all taste and geometry, as my hero ignatius would say.

theology nor geometry, my friend...

but to this - in sc at least, y'all should realize that there's more to this than just simple religious freedom at stake...there's the political career of our dear andre bauer. see, he's been cozying up to the older crowd. the elderly. and they, those whacky elderly, happen to be predominantly christian in dear old sc. so he's offering to put up the $4000 fee necessary to get the production of the plates started, personally. all out of the goodness of his heart. what a guy.

so this is politics as usual.

as to the root of the OP - i think it's one of myriad of things that should be a blip on the radar - but if i had to offer an opinion, i would say that the license tag is a state-procured legal document. it should be boring and drab, and have a number to connect the vehicle to the owner and the taxes paid on the vehicle. i think that technically, if it's going to be pushed to religion as an issue, then let's just go back to old boring black and white, no affiliations attached tags. the religion thing is too contentious to get into, so if they have to get all pissy about it, and in this case by "they" i mean religion-oriented people - specfically of the christian persuassion, then reduce the whole thing back to square zero and let people put they're political language in the tacky-ass bumper stickers they so adore.

edit: removed/reworded some potentially inflammatory language.

I believe that granting tax exempt status to religious groups that do not spend a large majority of their income performing charitable services is a violation of separation of church and state, so you can probably guess where I stand on this.

I also marvel at the absurdity of this kind of thing. To reduce religious belief to a bumper sticker slogan, or a little fake chrome badge, or a symbol and a pair of words seems like it's cheapening the belief. I remember learning to love others in Sunday school, and what they taught us was essentially that if you are a good Christian, that others will see it without having to be told. To see someone projecting their religion via something glued onto their car or printed on a license plate comes across to me as fulfilling a need to conform. It also seems that that if someone feels a need to announce their beliefs to the world, that they are insecure in their belief and need to remind themselves as well as everyone else of it, and that they are broadcasting it to everyone to compensate for the fact that they aren't really so devout as they want the rest of us to believe.
That's different. An elected official is swearing on what they believe deeply that they will uphold their oath. You can swear in on anything.

yeah, it's absurd but it makes them feel better and doesn't hurt you, so what's the difference? Lots of people do things that strike me as absurd, but you know what? It's a free country, they're allowed to be absurd.

Perhaps it does cheapen the belief somewhat, but I don't think that they are broadcasting it to everyone to compensate, as you say. I think they do it more as a manifestation of Maslow's third need, in his hierarchy of needs. Belonging. They are broadcasting a need to affiliate with that particular group.

It is..it probably does...but here's the difference...
Mark this date on your calendar. It's one of the few times that I agree wholeheartedly with roachboy.

Why not? If it is done out of respect, where is the harm? Oh, that pesky 1st Commandment? Well, if God is in all places at all times, then couldn’t the argument be made that God is in that tree? Phhttt…whatever it takes to get through an awkward moment, that probably shouldn’t be awkward in the first place. We, with too much time on our hands, tend to over think most everything. Life really shouldn’t be that difficult. We just make it so.

Christianity is not pantheism. God resides within people according to most Christian doctrines, but god doesn't reside in all things or even all living things.

Yes, I think most Christian doctrines would see this as akin to idolatry. But what Christians think of atheists might be worse, so what's an atheist to do when at a Christian dinner table? Pretend to be what they aren't so as not to offend? It depends on the atheist.

As a humanist, I'm inclined to "pray" along in respect of others' beliefs and practices. I look at praying as a metaphoric philosophical exercise. Looking at the "blessing" of food and abundance isn't much of a stretch for atheists to participate in. To sit out of this practice implies you are ungrateful for these things—that you are ungrateful to your host(s). What is the value in that?

Agreed. When in Rome, afterall. If I, an atheist, can bow my head in silence during the blessing of a meal in my Christian host's house, then why should it be a stretch for a Christian to respect the practices of his Druid host?

It all falls to respect. Some have it...some don't. It matters not one one bit whether you're Christian or not.

Wow...from license plates to dinner plates. We sure got off the mark, didn't we?

I just wait for them to finish, out of respect.

No. When others pray in my presence I am usually deep in thought. I am a guy, the odds are if they spend a minute praying, I am probably thinking about sex for about 30 seconds, figuring out how I can go fast (cars, motorcycle, etc) about 10 seconds, making money about 10 seconds, and sex about 9 seconds, and misc. for about one second. I don't think about the first commandment.

Aren't you Christian? I guess I shouldn't assume that you are just because you're conservative. Ustwo certainly isn't religious.

I don't belong to any religion. I do what I think is the right thing to do, I treat others the way I want to be treated, and I try to do the best I can. If there is a God I hope that is enough, if there isn't a God at least I know I lived a worth while life.

Agnostic.

Both agnostics and atheists can be accidental Christians.

I just think:

"There are known , knowns; known, unknowns; unknown, knowns; and unknown, unknowns." If that is "agnostic" color me an "agnostic":thumbsup:

Here is a link to the Boondocks segment on this, funny stuff.

Huh?

What I mean is that the morality of agnostics and atheists can by chance overlap with Christian morality.

In theory, Willravel, you could be a better Christian than some Christians out there....by accident, of course.

I don't mean to say you believe in God. I mean that your morality could display similar characteristics to the teachings of Christ, thus making you an accidental Christian.

In many ways, Jesus Christ was an accidental Buddhist.

/threadjack

OH. Gotcha. Atheists are statistically less likely to commit murder than Christians, and as such atheists would be following one of god's commandments.

they are? where does that statistic come from? or is that just euphamism for the discussion?

Exactly.

And don't forget that many atheists, myself included, are inclined to turn the other cheek and love their neighbours. But it's not like we're going to put that on our license plates.

Euphamism, but atheists do seem to be more peaceful and law abiding.
http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-121066.0.html
Speak for yourself!
http://neatplates.com/FUN_ATHEISM-IS-A-NON-PROPHET.jpg

I really don't see the value in playing the 'atheists are better than christians' game. From what I've seen, one's just as likely to be an asshole as the other.

I tend to favor the folks who are nothing. Being sure that you are 'something' tends to lead to the exclusivity and arrogance that keeps the world a flaming ball of shit.

And truthfully, atheists are just as guilty of this as Christians. In fact, relatively speaking, I'd say that atheists are more likely to be pushy and over-bearing with their beliefs than your average Christian. (Notice I put average in italics.) And I will include my own mother in that category - she is obnoxious with her atheism and it's inherent derision of theistic people, most especially Christians. It seems to me, hence, that atheists often fall into the very same traps of feeling 'special' that many Christians do.

Actually, I really don't see the point of being a-theistic, at all. To be atheistic depends on those who are theistic for its very name. It's as if the name's purpose is only to serve as a counterpoint and a thumb of the nose to theistic people. I can see how it might have served a purpose in the early days of atheism, but I think it's time to drop the name and just be nothing. :)

oh, /end threadjack

"Atheist" describes what one is not. It's like "gentile" or "non-white".

I understand that, will. Did you read my post? Why do you need to define yourself by what you are not?

We label everything and ourselves. It's what we do. It's why we have separate rooms in our homes. It's why our license plates have our states on them. It's why we name our children. We label.

Labeling isn't always a bad thing. It allows us with one word to identify ourselves with a group to which we claim to belong. Many people identify themselves by what they are not.

I am not a racist. I am not a Christian. By labeling ourselves by what we are not, we are intentionally disassociating ourselves from groups we do not want to be part of. For some of us, denying a label is a more powerful statement than accepting one. And really, for atheists, there is no word that describes us that isn't an antonym of theist.

At a personal level, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over license plates.

But at the same time, I am glad to see the Americans United for Separation of Church and State taking the issue on by challenging the SC law in federal court. I agree with their position that it clearly violates the establishment clause by providing preference to Christianity over other religions (and non religions) regardless of whether the license plates are free or not...it still represents a government "sponsored" activity that serves no secular purpose.
And, it is from seemingly insignificant violations of the Constitution that larger violations can grow.

I think 'nothing' when it comes to the question of religious preference describes an atheist quite well, actually.

I am not talking about labeling as a concept. I am talking about the label of atheism. I do not believe in theistic entities, but to label myself as not a non-believer in theistic entities, in my mind, only lends strength to the concept that there could be theistic entities because I am taking a stand against something that I purport doesn't exist. It seems...inessential to my own definition of my beliefs. Unlike racism, why would I define myself in relation to something that I don't believe has a shred of existence in my world?

I understand that, perhaps, this need is related to the preponderance of religious belief out in the world and there was a time in my own life when I more closely identified with the concept of atheism. Then I dabbled with agnosticism for a while. But recently, I have just let go of all of it. I am not a theist, I am not an atheist, I am not an agnostic, I am nothing. And it's quiet here. :)

I define myself as a rationalist. I just happen to be atheist.

I'm sure that minorities always seem pushy and overbearing. I'm sure many people think homosexuals are pushy and overbearing. What they may not realize is that it's a reaction.

People who are secure in who they are don't have the need to get pushy. Not usually, anyway. I'm a minority and no one has ever accused me of being pushy. which isn't to say I'm secure, but that's a different issue...........

I know of a few people who might disagree, including:
http://www.core-online.org/historyphotos/martin2.gif

People who are marginalized and abused can often find the motivation to fight for equality.

being assertive is not equal to being pushy.

Sheesh, you're not going to play the martyr card, are you? How ironic.

Compare the struggle for equal rights among homosexuals and other minority groups on a meaningful point by point basis with those of atheists and then maybe you can make that analogy. But you can't - which is very keenly illustrated in the fact that no meaningful social movement has had the luxury of so spending so much time evaluating the intelligence level of the people who are oppressing them. Atheist oppression is pretty much encompassed by the statement, 'Christians don't like us.' Everybody else really doesn't give a damn.

I don't like that christian 'oppression' horseshit, either, but where does one start and the other end? You have to see that they feed into each other. They are sustained by each other. At least christianity is a real belief in 'something.' I don't see the point in making an effort to proclaim, 'I don't believe in that thing and I'm going to name myself in defiance of that thing...that I don't believe in.' Just seems silly to me.

But I am taking the discussion way off course, and I apologize. I would start another thread on the topic if I didn't feel like I have wasted far too much of my time on this discussion already. No offense! I've just got a ton of stuff to do, heh...

I never thought of MLK Jr as being personally pushy. By all accounts he was a pretty together kind of guy. And I gotta tell you, Will, comparing yourself to MLK smacks a bit of....... hmmmmmmm, what's the word? Grandiosity?

Seriously, though, a bit of tolerance all around is probably the best advice. Life's too short, and there are too many things that are really important, to agonize over whether the state is using religion as a moneymaking opportunity by selling vanity plates. I understand the "foot in the door" argument, but really, license plates? I can't see the rise of theocracy lurking behind license plates.

I have a pretty decent list of bookmarks of news stories that feature mistreatment of atheists by theists, but all you really need to do is google it.
Atheism was a capital crime in Rome, and many theorize that tens of thousands of atheists were put to death. The Dark Ages in Europe featured atheists being persecuted by the Catholic church, which often included torture and death.

CURRENT state constitutions that feature anti-atheist provisions: Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. It's no uncommon, in the US, for atheists to be barred from holding public office.

“I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic,” George H. W. Bush.

Just recently, a young man had communion at a publically funded college and decided to take the communion wafer (Eucharist) instead of eat it. He has been attacked by the church and has had death threats from anonymous theists.
http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html

So please, don't act like atheists are just people who some people disagree with. Atheists have been persecuted throughout history and are still persecuted today.
There are plenty of secularist organizations, but the ACLU is really all we need, and they have been trying to help.
Yeah, the crusades and inquisition were clearly blown out of proportion. How dare people suggest that Christians oppress people?
No they don't, at least from my perspective. But that's not even a little bit relevant.
Again, atheist is a term to describe what one is not. I am a rationalist. If you read nothing else in this post, I hope it's that.

That wasn't my intention at all. I was directly addressing your assertion that "People who are secure in who they are don't have the need to get pushy."

People who are feeling oppressed often have no choice. I'm not comparing the black equality movement to any supposed atheist movement, but I'm sure anyone can see that some atheists are pushed around a bit.