Florida drivers can order more than 100 specialty license plates celebrating everything from manatees to the Miami Heat, but one now under consideration would be the first in the nation to explicitly promote a specific religion.
The Florida Legislature is considering a specialty plate with a design that includes a Christian cross, a stained-glass window and the words “I Believe…”
If the plate is approved, Florida would become the first state to have a license plate featuring a religious symbol that’s not part of a college logo. Approval would almost certainly face a court challenge.
Bullard, the plate’s sponsor, isn’t sure all groups should be able to express their preference. If atheists came up with an “I Don’t Believe” plate, for example, he would probably oppose it.
It’s amazing how many endless loops the “faithful” construct.
#31 – WWFSMD or What Would Flying Spaghetti Monster Do? I’ve seen others such as WTFWJD.
And the second license plate was a very religious one called goatse. You can Google that one.
pat,
A point you consistently miss is this. My right to freedom from religion is violated if I am forced to contribute money to a church. Similarly, when a state issues license plates that cost more and advertise a religion, this is at least partly on my tax dollar. Further, even if the cost is not an issue, in order for the state not to be at least considered to be taking steps toward establishing a religion, they must offer license plates for every religion in the known world as well as for agnostics and atheists. When they also offer plates that say “I doubt” or “I believe only in that for which there is evidence”, then we can talk.
MikeN,
Why do you confuse liberal and atheist? The two are completely orthogonal to each other. One may be a liberal religious person, as Jesus was reputed to have been, or one may be a conservative atheist. Or one may be anywhere else along the spectrum.
My real point though is that you think that atheists have some representation in government.
We don’t.
Nancy Pelosi is not an atheist. Hillary Clinton is not an atheist. Barak Obama is not an atheist. Denis Kucinich, etc., etc., etc.
The reason atheists so fiercely guard our freedom from religion is precisely because we have no representation to do so for us. This is the real discrimination in this land.
The LBGT community at least has some representation. The nontheist community, if there is such a thing, has none. Zero. Zip. Nada. Bupkes. Nil.
Imagine yourself with not a single representative in government who represents your views on religion.
Now. How strongly do you start speaking out for your rights?
I think we see the answer. Even when every single representative is on your side, you still attack the atheists, the least respected minority in the country. You certainly do not seem to “do to others as you have them do to you.”
Others are not your church buddies. Others are people very different from yourself. Others, for you, are probably the LBGT community, nontheists, illegal immigrants, pregnant teens, Iraqis, etc.
How are you treating them?
If you’re voting repugnican, probably not very well.
>>Similarly, when a state issues license plates
>>that cost more and advertise a religion, this
>>is at least partly on my tax dollar.
How do you figure that, Scottie? Religious adherents (or manatee lovers, or fans of the Miami Heat) have to pay EXTRA for the plates, and a portion of the additional fee offsets the cost of manufacturing the non-standard plate.
So what’s the problem?
Here’s a nice little write-up about this issue.
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/?p=709
Mr. Mustard,
Even given your prior stance on a bunch of issues, I’m surprised you come down on that side of this one. Clearly, since the state is not making these available for every known religion or for nontheists, this is an obvious display of a state preference for a particular religion.
What will you do when the wall of separation of church and state is completely torn down? What happens if the particular flavor of religion chosen is not your own? Will you be OK with either being forced into ritual mock-cannibalism or no longer being allowed to practice it? (Regardless of whether your flavor of Christianity requires munching on the body of Christ, it could go the wrong way for you.)
And, yes, I also have a problem with the godvertisements on our money and in our pledge of allegiance, both reminders of McCarthyism.
Perhaps you’d like to go back to the era of McCarthyism? Add a few more government sponsored godvertisements along the way?
Do you not see this as a symptom of our ever growing trend toward theocracy? Do you want us to become a Christian Iran? There are not major differences in the various sects of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion. Any of them would become quite tyrannical as a form of government.
Aw Scottie, you’re a little too vigorous in your opposition to (hatred of?) those who believe in God. Do advocates for other endangered species demand that Florida offer license plates that say “Save the Hicklebacked Storm Rat” (or whatever their endangered species du jour is)?
The plates aren’t promoting or endorsing any particular religion (other than a non-specific theist belief, with a cross and stained glass).
And for the privilege of putting such a plate on your car, you have to pay TWENTY-FIVE extra dollars, relieving you of any taxpayer-dollar obligation.
Truth to tell, I’m not coming down on any particular side of this argument. I wouldn’t buy one of the plates, but if somebody wants to pay $25 to declare their religiosity, OK. That will give militant atheists a way to identify which cars to “key”. This seems to be a total tempest in a teapot.
#56 – Tell it to the judge. http://tinyurl.com/5gn7kp
I guess you are more qualified than the judge? Please list your credentials &qualifications. Waiting…
#62 – “A point you consistently miss is this. My right to freedom from religion is violated if I am forced to contribute money to a church. Similarly, when a state issues license plates that cost more and advertise a religion, this is at least partly on my tax dollar. Further,”
Didn’t miss any point. Anyway, if a State is footing EXTRA costs then is shouldn’t, your right on that. If it is charging people full cost then it isn’t an issue and anyone who thinks they are harmed is just a psycho.
#65 – Mister Mustard,
Aw Scottie, you’re a little too vigorous in your opposition to (hatred of?) those who believe in God.
Untrue!! I hate religion. I do not hate the religious individuals.
Christians like to say “Hate the sin. Love the sinner.” The sentiment is similar.
As for the rest, is it not true that we do not own our plates? Do we not have to return them when we are done with them?
This means to me that they are public property in a very real and significant way. So, a godvertisement on a license plate is similar to the ten commandments (or FSM) on a courthouse lawn.
>go back to the era of McCarthyism?
If there’s people actively working for Al-Qaeda on the government payroll, I’d rather they be thrown out of government.
So many people compare McCarthy to a witchhunt, except there were actual witches.
#65 – MM (again),
I almost missed this in your post:
The plates aren’t promoting or endorsing any particular religion (other than a non-specific theist belief, with a cross and stained glass).
How the hell is that not any specific religion? Does it equally endorse Hindu? Buddhism? In fact, it not only endorses one religion, it endorses one sub-sect of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion. It happens to be the sub-sect with the most sub-sub-sects. But, it is very definitely endorsement of a that subset of religion that includes belief in the fictional character known as Jesus.
#66, pat,
Plainly put, the Judge is wrong.
His reasoning is that because the State mass produced them, they are fine. He then bolstered his stand by saying that many of the other special plates give money to their organization.
His first error is that quantity does not excuse wrong. The second is that not all specialty plates give money and that need not be the reason for the plate.
I tell you though, it is a scary feeling when some idiot passes you at 30 mph over the limit with a “In God We Trust” plate. Too often they also have a handicap tag hanging from their mirror. I would rather trust in good driving sense instead of wondering why they are handicapped.
#67 – pat,
#62 – “A point you consistently miss is this. My right to freedom from religion is violated if I am forced to contribute money to a church. Similarly, when a state issues license plates that cost more and advertise a religion, this is at least partly on my tax dollar. Further,”
Didn’t miss any point. Anyway, if a State is footing EXTRA costs then is shouldn’t, your right on that. If it is charging people full cost then it isn’t an issue and anyone who thinks they are harmed is just a psycho.
Actually, the grounds on which the ACLU are exactly that. Indiana is giving away the specialty plates with god, but not any of the others. So, yeah, you and I and especially the ACLU do know more than the judge. It’s likely the ruling will be overturned on appeal.
In Fl, the case is less clear. I’d be curious what happens when a legitimate atheist org applies for an atheist plate. Perhaps if an atheist org applies and is approved and given the same price as the believer plate, I might change my mind, or at least tone it down a bit.
#69 – MikeN,
> go back to the era of McCarthyism?
If there’s people actively working for Al-Qaeda on the government payroll, I’d rather they be thrown out of government.
So many people compare McCarthy to a witchhunt, except there were actual witches.
That was from so far out in left field I think is was in the 10th parking lot away. Where did Al-Qaeda come from in this discussion?
As for witches, um … freedom of religion. Wiccan is every bit as valid as Christianity.
I’m not sure what witches you were talking about. Perhaps all of the entertainers? Maybe they’re still communist sympathizers.
Burn them. Burn them.
Sorry, but you brought up witches. Perhaps the correct response appropriate for the day would be waterboard the lot of them.
#71 – “I tell you though, it is a scary feeling when some idiot passes you at 30 mph over the limit with a “In God We Trust” plate. Too often they also have a handicap tag hanging from their mirror. I would rather trust in good driving sense instead of wondering why they are handicapped.”
You are so right! LOL
#72. Yes, I see it being overturned as state is footing the bill.
In FL they probably need to set a policy that after X number of requests (fairly low #) a plate of that type will be offered. If they don’t it will eventually be overturned, or it should be.
#75 – pat,
Then, you’ll probably agree with me that in light of this statement by the plate’s sponsor, they should probably just avoid creating the plate in the first place rather than waiting for it to go through court.
#76 – It would be “less messy” to not have ANY personalized plates.
#63 – How do you figure that, Scottie? Religious adherents (or manatee lovers, or fans of the Miami Heat) have to pay EXTRA for the plates, and a portion of the additional fee offsets the cost of manufacturing the non-standard plate.
Wrong.
Indiana’s In God We Trust plates are a default plate with no extra cost, and it if standard plates are not available, you’ll get one…
…because in Indiana, the State government cannot conceive of a citizen who isn’t a Christian, and they treat their citizens accordingly.
#68 – Christians like to say “Hate the sin. Love the sinner.”
They say it… At least, the right wing extremists say it…
But of course, it’s a lie.
>>It would be “less messy” to not have
>>ANY personalized plates.
I’m with you on that one, Paddy-O. This is WAy too much hassle for absolutely no gain. I’m voting with Chuck, who said “if you want to personalize your car, try a bumper sticker”.
As to the Indiana “in G-d we trust” license plates, huh. Who knew. I guess they’re all now bitter gun owners, clinging to religion in place of their jobs! When I lived there (20 years ago), the license plates said “Wander Indiana”.
This separation of church and state becomes a NON-issue IF and ONLY IF the state will print license plates for any oganization that requests them. If there is no problem printing FSM plates, Islamic plates, etc, then the state is being equal to all. The moment the state tries to decide WHICH religion it will support over another they cross the line.
#81–thorndike ((Oh, so tempting that nickname))==I’m thinking the same as you, but would like to find a lawcase on point “because” there is a concept of something being unbiased on its face or original intent, yet still biased and illegal in its effect.
I can see a line of argument that allowing all vanity to be displayed is illegal if it coerces a person to get religious plates in order not to be singled out for a helping of good christian love?
That is the rule in much of racial discrimination laws, and I could see the argument for it here. I am also a bit leary of the Government having free speech rights. They don’t. Only we the people do.
Wikipedia does have a section on specialty plates, which these are.
http://tinyurl.com/6e3a87
Here are a couple of relevant paragraphs from the above link, leaving in the note about a missing citation:
I think Bullard is going to have a problem keeping any requests off the plates if this goes through. He should keep Pandora’s Rule in mind, “never open anything you did not close yourself.”