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?

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.

Will, rationalism is in the eye of the beholder. Different people accept different things as rational because their premises are different. Saying you're a rationalist doesn't by itself say much more than that you believe what you choose to believe because of its appeal to your sense of rationality. There is no such thing as Mr Spock.

Rationalism is a loose philosophical system, but a system none the less. And I find it's the best description for my particular perception. I could make up a term like "reasonist", but no one would have a clue what I'm talking about.

Essentially, I try to develop my own reasoning and logical faculties and then use them to explain what I perceive and deduce. I "believe" in science, reason, and logic. I call it rationalism, you can call it what you want.

loquitur's description is apt, considering some of the most celebrated rationalists were devout Christians. They were certainly coming from different premises than Willravel is.

A good way to describe rationalism is as an exercise of logic rather than dependence on the empirical to uncover knowledge.

uh, you misread what I said, will. by christian 'oppression' I was referring to christians who say they are being oppressed by atheists and other non god-loving peoples. All that war against crassmas and bullshit likewise. capice?

And, I'm sorry, will, all vaguely supported examples aside, you still cannot say that atheists are being oppressed, either.

Yeah, I have to say I can't think of a time where atheists were oppressed as a group. Now, individuals might have met some resistance from the Church or other fundamental groups when espousing beliefs that didn't adhere to dogma (re: Galileo), but I can't say I can equate atheism with any movement designed to promoting equal treatment of oppressed people.

I have to say that this thread certainly took a turn, but I like where it's going.

I can be a lot more specific. Two cases I read about today on reddit:

Recently, a UCF student was at a Catholic Mass. When he went up for communion, he pocketed the Eucharist (wafer), planning on eating it when he got back to his seat. Someone grabbed him and tried to prevent him from leaving, and now the Catholic Church is demanding that he return the wafer. He's received death threats from theists. Why was he in mass? He (an atheist) was concerned about public UCF funds paying for a religious service.

The charge of atheism during the middle ages carried with it a sentence of death. The Inquisition killed an unknown amount of atheists.

How about this, run for president as an atheist and then tell me atheists aren't oppressed.

Will, you should read a spot of Ayn Rand. She claims to be the apostle of reason, too. Her "reason" is, quite obviously, very different from yours. It doesn't mean one or the other of you is irrational. But which form of reasoning you find persuasive will depend on your own preferences and premises - which are not necessarily rational or based on reason.

Look at it like enlightenment. There are many roads to enlightenment. Anne and I each have a different set of cognitive biases, which color or ability to rationalize and reason. I can't speak for her, but one of my goals is to remove as many of my biases as possible.

I can't stand Rand.

If dunking the koran is considered sacreligious to those that believe in Allah, then this is equal to Catholics and their blessed wafers.

I find both absurd.

As for the man in the service, I still state that there's not enough information to pass judgement. I've had people whom I did not promote tell me that they had what it takes and when tested they weren't able to pass muster. They still believed they should have gotten the promotion.

Again, I state it emphatically just because you believe you should be promoted, doesn't mean you will.

Seems that you have biases you aren't willing to remove.

The Rand thing was a joke. Jeez.

Odd, I wasn't thinking about Rand.

Let me expand past Rand. The French Revolution purported to enshrine Reason at the center of society. Two years later the revolution was devouring its devotees in the Terror. Karl Marx claimed to have scientifically analyzed society. We know where that led, too.

Logic and rationality ex ante don't necessarily provide you with good road maps of how society can be organized on a macro level. Yes, they are useful in making individual small-bore decisions, but even then things break down because humans are complex and unpredictable. Logic and rationality will help you with societal organization ex post - once something happens and you see how people react, you can evaluate why and figure it out. But trying to predict it is a hit-or-miss affair.

That's why I'm a big believer in the scientific method: quantitative analysis and experimentation. The only way to know what works is to test it and see what happens, then test it again, then test it again -- just like any scientific experiment. If it's replicable consistently and the result is roughly what was sought, then it "works." To my mind this is the way rationality should work, because it recognizes both the possibilities and the limitations of reasoning.

You can't blame Marx for what Stalin did. I'm not saying that Marx's conclusions were necessarily perfect (if there is such a thing in economic and/or governmental systems), but somehow I can't imagine Marx liking the idea of a dictator using propaganda to elevate himself to the position of near godhood in his communist society. I can imagine Marx getting pretty pissed about that, actually.
Yes, this is a perfect explanation as to why I tend to think of governmental systems from a hunter-gatherer standpoint (which is why I might seem more socialist). When I look at human organization and give it a real historical context—a context that stretches back tens of thousands of years—I see the massive inherent flaws in such crowded societies today. It's why I tend to reject outright pure capitalism. But I don't want to get into that too much.
I think it's useful.
Don't you find that the scientific method is rational/reasonable? I try to fit science in most of my perceptions of the world:
Is there another name for this that I'm not aware of?

You could sum this up kind of like this:

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please"


What does this have to do with the state-sponsored proselytizing on license plates in Indiana and South Carolina? I suppose your anti-anti-clericism kinda sorta makes the Burke-de Maistre pose understandable in this context.

I think this point should not be overlooked. As people get involved over a slogan on money or a license plate, having no impact on anything, what really does have an impact is ignored. For example, the IRS grants tax exempt status to churches and religious organizations. In order to get this special benefit your church or religious organization has to be formally recognized and validated by the federal government. If your religion does not become an officially recognized religion by the federal government, you get no tax exempt status. This is clearly a legal issue respecting the establishment of religion. Also, your church or religious organization can partake in activities normally illegal or heavily regulated, without interference by government - i.e. gambling (bingo), food service (food kitchens) and perhaps a few other things.

I think it needs to be explained the other way around: You should be rational when applying the scientific method.

The rational application of the scientific method isn't always self-evident.

Honestly, I find reason and rationale to be concepts just as hopeful and sketchy and man-made as the concept of god. If you wanna get right down there to it. I'm not sure they really exist.

well, outside of certain fields of mathematics. Algebra and calculus are perfectly rational, for example.

yes, math is rational
but people are not and I do not know that they are capable of being so

ax2+bx+c=0 and http://content.answers.com/main/cont...50c1a72038.png and such means little when you are naked and killing and fucking, rolling around in mud.

The human element can really screw things up.