Do "Christian" license plates violate the separation clause?
 

Many states either have or are considering license plates the cater to the Christian crowd. Indiana and North Carolina offer a plate with the words "In God We Trust". FL is considering license plates with a cross and stained glass window with the words "I believe".

Here are a few samples

Florida rejected this design but it is the current design being considered by South Carolina.
http://www.browardatheists.com/browa...ate.56.JPG.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...GodWeTrust.jpg

http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/pl...GodWeTrust.gif

So, the big question is: Do these plates violate the separation clause?

What do I think? While this is not something I would make a case over, I find it somewhat disingenuous that these states are claiming that they aren't showing any preference towards Christianity with these plates.

I'll post more as the discussion grows.

I certainly don't think those should be the standard issue plates, but having them as an option is cool. I mean there are plates for local sports teams and animal protection and stuff like that offered in most states so why not the religious thing. But again not mandatory-because that would defiantly be a violation and not cool at all.

Of fucking course.

I don't see it as being any different from any other vanity plates.

Around here you can get license plates depicting organizations you belong to, or the logo of your favourite sports team, etc. That's not a case of the state showing preference to these organizations, but rather allowing residents to express themselves in another way.

Here is a page showing all of the different graphics available for Ontario license plates. While Christian plates aren't depicted, I really don't see how one could argue that Star Trek license plates are okay but Christian ones aren't.


I don't think a plate that's captioned 'In God We Trust' is any worse than all of your currency that says precisely the same thing.

EDIT - It is of course a different case if these plates are mandatory.

What are your opinions that these states offer no plates of other religions - Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. - yet claim that they are not showing any preference?

Well, clearly that's rubbish, but at the same time if nobody complains than I don't really have much of a problem with it. If there are people who want Jewish plates but are unable to get them, then maybe there's something there.

Initially I thought that there's probably just not enough demand for plates of other religions to make them cost-effective. That's probably still true, but I suppose if sports teams can have their own plates than it gets a bit shaky.

Recent (June 4) report on NPR: S.C. Lawmakers Back 'I Believe' Plates : NPR. Apparently there's an "In Reason We Trust" plate as well.

I see those Hoosier plates all the time. It seems half the state has them -- or at least the half that drives outside of Indiana. It's the we in "In Christian Sky God we trust" that bugs me. I don't. There are even people in Indiana who don't. I think the "I believe" slogan was probably chosen as a way to avoid this very issue. Note also that although you'd pay to say "I'm a BSU grad" on your plates, you don't even have to pay extra to advertise your Christianity in SC or Indiana.

At first...I didn't care. Big deal, right? But, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it's just one more log on the fire. Just one more toe hold in the mountain climb to creating state sponsored religion.

You want to wear your religion on your sleeve? (or, in this case, your back bumper) Fine, I have no problem with that. Seriously. What do I care?
But....that's what bumper stickers and little plastic chrome plated stylized fish are for.

you guys haven't figured out yet that what is going on here is that this is a moneymaking opportunity for the state? Here in NY there are all sorts of affinity plates that are available. If a state wants to offer affinity plates to Christians, BFD. It doesn't hurt anyone, and it raises money painlessly because some people are actually willing to pay to have a cross on their license plate.

There are custom license plate designs for all sorts of interests.

I'm actually in favor of this, because it categorizes religion as what it is: an interest. Like knitting or sailing.

I'm a model RC airplane pilot. There's no license place design for that interest. Am I being discriminated against?

Yes, I think so.

Let me answer your question with some questions. Have any wars ever been fought over which RC airplane is most superior? Have thousands of years of enslavement and torture resulted in the disagreement of frequencies? Does our modern society use RC airplaning as a guise for discrimination or demand that our legislature legislate in their favor? Do RC airplane pilots protest at RC automobile events telling them they're going to hell?

See...I would agree with that. A lot of Nebraskans pay extra for that big stupid looking red "N". (Nebraska football could probably be considered a religion) Who really cares what design is on a license plate?

However....

That sounds state sponsored to me.

I would say no in answer to the question. License plates are issued by individual states not by the federal government or specifically Congress. Here is what the first amendment says:

Ironically, if Congress passed a law prevent religious license plates someone could argue that as a violation of the first amendment.

Agreed. In some ways I agree with BOR, but if there is some sort of criteria how I can get my group to get it's own plate run, well I'd be all for that. List the criteria as to how many signatures are required and how much the state will make.

I mean how cool would it be if you could actually get a plate that is to your liking or group. So this allows Jews, Muslims, Flying Pasta Monster, Jericho Fans, Firefly Fans the ability to get their vanity plates.

yes but many state's constitutions state that they honor and abide by the federal constition and then add their own constitution articles as well.

Clearly they do show preference, and preference is the issue. There are no David Star versions, no Crescent Moons, not even a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

While one could excuse it as a reaction to demand (what Jewish person would want the David Star on the back of their Volvo?), simply not making them available at all does seem to suggest that their not even interested in appearing interested in equal representation of religions. Individual states are a part of the government and, as such, are just as prone to religious biases and interference as the federal government.

Ace, "freedom of religion" also means "freedom from religion". That can be reasonably expanded to "no government religion". No government religion means that the government, including the DMV, cannot be religious. So in actuality, it would be a violation of the 1st to have the plates. To not have them would not be a violation of the 1st.

In my understanding of the "establishment clause", it applies to more than just federal laws (Congress shall make no law...), but applies to state (and local) laws, regulations and practices as well.

So state laws, regs and practices would violate the establishment clause unless it has a valid secular purpose and does not advance or inhibit one religion over others.

IMO, these license plates fail the test.

Well.... Forum wars, yeah...

I didn't mean to get you side-tracked on what was really meant as a side-issue. My main point is in the second line of my post--this neatly puts the vocal expression of Christianity in the same category with gardening and an interest in lighthouses. I'm surprised this isn't a problem for Christians, but it's not a problem for me.

I've rethought this a few times, but here is my current stance. First, this is NOT in violation of the first amendment. You can look at the specifics and say that this applies only to Federal congressional law. I think that may be partly the intent. State and local laws were intended to allow smaller subsections of the populace to govern themselves to some degree, without federal intervention. This was very important to the founding fathers, allowing smaller subsections of government a lot of freedom. Disallowing the federal government from establishing a state religion allows freedom to stay in the US and worship how you choose.

Secondly, offering a vanity plate is not the establishment of religion. However, disallowing the option could be construed as prohibiting free exercise thereof. I agree that the lack of interest in other religions might make it unreasonable to develop Judaism plates and Islam plates, especially in that region of the country. Go to NY or CA and you might have more chance of one of those two (in MI we could probably hock enough Crescent Moon plates to make them viable). Also, due to the first amendment, the Fed doesn't really have the authority to step in on a State's right to offer such plates. As for fairness, the Constitution does not guarantee a "Right to Fairness". Life is not fair now just like like was not fair in 1776. Deal with it!

Meh! I dislike the idea, but I can't actually find anything logically or legally wrong with it.

I don't see at as getting side tracked, actually. I believe that this is the argument being used by a lot of people. And while I certainly hope that we can one day view religion as nothing more than a hobby and getting an "I believe" license plate means nothing more than putting a bumper sticker on your car, in today's environment I believe it is much more than that.

Remember, these license plates must be approved by the state legislature. To me, that's where the issue lies.

I looked a little deeper into the issue and found that there has been two important Supreme Court rulings that resulted in the federal government's restrictions against the establishment of religion applying to states. They basically used the due process clause under the 14th amendment to hold the Bill of Rights are applicable to the states. And although there is no formal "separation clause" (separation of church and state), this language was validated by the Supreme Court as well.

I would still argue that the wording on state license plate is not respecting the establishment of a religion. "In God We Trust" is printed on our money, and in the case of Florida they have about 50 different specialty plates, like this one:

http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/specialtyt...of_florida.jpg

or this:

http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/specialtyt..._the_world.jpg

I know a couple of Florida grads who think Gator football is a religion, but I beg to differ. And everybody knows North Carolina is the golf capital of the world.

In atheist circles, this is a really big issue. As far as I care, it might as well say "In Buddha's Name We Seek Enlightenment" or "Jesus was Here" (with an arrow pointing towards the continental US, for Mormons). It's all a bit stupid, but there are bigger problems to deal with, like mythology being taught in science classrooms.

Still, "In God We Trust" really isn't appropriate for a country that claims to have separation of church and state. I like Charles Darwin on the British 10 pound note, but I'd never ask that of the US.

And isn't it sacrilegious?

What is or isn't sacrilegious is highly subjective. For some people this is the pinnacle of following god's command to go and make disciples of all nations, to others it's reducing god to the bumper, where one might see this:
http://mystickerspace.com/images/des...in-pissing.jpg

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

* * * * *

Subjective, yes. Printing this on money can be considered trivial and/or profane. It's money. What does that have to do with one's faith in God and it's practices?

Here's somewhere we can maybe go with this.

Let's say an outside observer with no knowledge of our culture but with a basic knowledge of the major religions saw all of this on our money and license plates. What impression of our government and religion do you think this person might get?

Theocratic rule disguised as a constitutional republic. Clearly.

"In God We Trust" on our currency, "under God" in the pledge, faith based initiatives in government, teaching creation in public science classrooms... the list goes on and on.

I think you hit on the root of the problem. This country has never separated itself from God, while some equate God with a particular church or religion the concept is a part of our history. The concept of God has been littered throughout our national history and generally in a manner not specific to a particular religion. At some point I think the Supreme court may rule on the issue of if the term God used in any official government manner is the same as respecting the establishment of a religion, personally I don't think it does. I see it as a slogan. As I understand it the slogan references the Union cause in the Civil War - indicating the side God was on. Given our history, striking the word "God" is going to be a problem. Atheist have a right to be concerned, but so do former Confederates who believed in God, as well as people who may be offended by other phrases and symbols on our currency.

Yes, a soft constitutional theocracy in the very least.

It's not just any slogan or symbol, though. I can't see someone making the argument that the pyramid on our currency is religious. It's secular in it's symbolism. This is specifically about religion.

I always assumed our motto was E Pluribus Unum ("from many, one"), which I think is fucking awesome. And it makes perfect sense, as it refers to the many states being one nation.

"In God We Trust", like "under God" in the pledge, was propaganda meant to illicit sympathy from the religious in a time of war. That's not fucking awesome. It's kinda sad, actually.

I think much of the problem stems from the fact that there are too many people in the U.S. who believe that the only source of morality comes from Christianity. It's not the Christianity, necessarily, that they want on the currency, the pledge, and the license plates so much as it is the morality. Is it not?

The atheistic humanists aren't making enough progress, apparently. How are the grassroots?

Whatever happened to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"?

They're evolving, slowly. Right now, we're concentrating on removing creationism ("Intelligent Design") from public science classrooms and back into private schools and churches where it would be more appropriate. A lot of us are still mourning George Carlin, who was one of the most outspoken atheists of the last few decades.

Whoa, whoa... are you expecting fundamentalists to read the Bible?

Yes. Let's have our RC planes storm the state capital. That'll get their attention.

You know, I never thought about that. It is pretty awesome. Who wants "In God We Trust" when you could have "E Pluribus Unum" across your licence plate.

Yeah! It's Latin (classy and intelligent), it's symbolic of the brilliant work of the framers of the Constitution, and it's already been our unofficial motto for hundreds of years (since 1782).

If it is more than a slogan, isn't it a bit ironic that God is referenced in such a secular manner as appearing on money? When they did this was the religion being respected that of capitalism? Most conventional monotheistic religions would not honor God by using the most secular vehicle available, money.

If it is more than a slogan, what impact doe it have? In my view those are just word on a piece of paper. The words, "Legal Tender" printed on some money actually has a meaning.

It was never about honoring god, it was about winning the hearts and minds of the religious. Just as "under God" in the pledge was anti-Communist propaganda, "In God We Trust" was propaganda. The people who support it being on the bills are likely ignorant of history. Or are a Jr. Senator from Wisconsin ...
The impact has been stated many times: it's a blatant attempt at presenting our government as Christian.
So is the Bible, from my perspective, but that doesn't mean it doesn't carry weight with other people.

I know, that's asking a lot. How about if they at least operated consistent with its spirit?

I guess its semantics. You call it propaganda, I say its a slogan. Either was it is not establishing a state religion.

I think that is my question, how do you separate our history and the impact Christianity has had? Many of the traditions and customs followed in this country and by our government are based on religion, how do you draw the line on when and where to remove those traditions and customs?

Who cares if it carries weight with other people as long as it does not infringe upon your rights? If a public official uses a bible to take an oath of office, how does that impact you? if it is a bible, a comic book or no book, isn't it the oath that matters?