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.
I like this license plate:
http://tinyurl.com/6hgwx9
or even this:
http://tinyurl.com/bbxlo
#29 – “you don’t think the State is making a statement when it approves certain plates and not others and only the state can print plates and you can only choose from the approved plates? Is that what you think?”
No, I think it is saying we’ve been asked by enough people to create X number of templates. Until it is cost effective we will have 100 templates.
So, where are you being forced to be religious or participate in a religion? Stop dodging already.
#32–pat==lets not bounce around. Slowly we go.
Vanity plates require additional payment to cover the cost, cost is not an issue.
Actually, the plates are a free speech issue and our discussion has made me think that all such religious notions are ok===as long as all religious notions and anti-religious notions are allowed all on the same basis.
I think it is bad policy for the State to promote dissension==and having said that, how is a minority religion/atheist supposed to feel about his freedoms if 60% of cars are rolling around with the religion of the local majority. Ahh, time to google for that legal case. As much as I hate it, a good legal case will describe the history and the rational of both sides which is very informative, and so far, courts have been reaching the right conclusions too.
That wheel has been rolled for us and we should take advantage of it.
xxxxxxxxxx
So, to recognize your patience==you ask “So, where are you being forced to be religious or participate in a religion?” I’m not. but the rule is the State won’t try to do it. My reaction is irrelevant.
#33 – “I’m not. but the rule is the State won’t try to do it.”
So, where is the state trying to get you to be religious or be part of a religion? Well?
#34–pat==I believe the rule is the State will not promote religion–it promotes religion when it advertises it on license plates.
This requirement is exemplified by the very attitude you display==fighting to have your beliefs supported by the State.
Whats wrong with no religion on license plates and you are free to say anthing you wish on your personal license plate holder.
Whatever is underlying the very fact that you argue for getting the State involved, is why I want it not involved.
Oh boy! Another let’s hate Christians circle jerk! Can I watch?!
#35 – “Remember that “freedom of religion” also means “freedom from religion.”
So how is the State violating your right of “freedom from religion”?
Waiting for a straight answer. If you are capable…
#37–pat==we are going in circles. I’ve been googling meantime and can’t find any cases on point to provide guidance==everything is about vanity plates rather than State Plates.
You are going in circles, but perhaps not intentionally. How can we make a straight line?
Government should stay out of religion. When it stamps out license plates promoting religion, it is violating the separation that actually allows religion to prosper in general which also includes minority religions and atheists. I don’t have to be forced into a weekend meeting with the Pope for my right to be free from religion to be violated.
#21 – Strange how the left hates religion in politics except when it suits them:
Strange how the right thinks the left 1) hates religion, which they don’t… and 2) is a monolithic group, which it isn’t.
One thing that is common across a large swatch of the left (and a trait shared by traditional conservatives on the right) is a respect for the founding father’s intention to keep the church well clear of the state.
I suppose the church can be a good force in the lives of some individuals. I fail to understand why, but some folks seem to need it.
But in terms of governing, the church is a poison to the state and must be guarded against to protect the nation from its divisive and corrosive influence.
#38 – “I don’t have to be forced into a weekend meeting with the Pope for my right to be free from religion to be violated.”
So how is your right to be “free from religion” being violated? Is it if you see a cross? A six sided star? A crescent moon? A picture of a war hammer?
#40–pat==isn’t this thread about the State issuing religion supporting license plates?
#41 – I have to be honest with you. I used to be a fraud investigator. I just followed a line of questions to determine if you were lying about your “freedom from religion” statement. I have found that you were lying. As for motive? I don’t know, or care.
#42–pat==using a technique on me huh? Excellent. What is that mechanism, any links? I love it when I fit a model. Those “colors” testing showing me I an blue-green (or whatever) was actually instructive on a small point==that other color groups honestly do think differently than I do. Very revealing.
OFTLO, that’s precisely the reason why so Communist countries outlawed churches. Nevertheless, I didn’t say the left hatged religion, I said they hated religion in politics, and pointed out an example where their opposition has disappeared because it suited them. You can also see this at electiontime when the Democrats go into black churches.
#43 – “using a technique on me huh? Excellent. What is that mechanism, any links?”
It’s called, “A pathological liar has a hard time giving straight answers to simple questions”. 😉
#44 – “that’s precisely the reason why so Communist countries outlawed churches.”
And then proceeded to murder millions of their own people. 😉 Rabid atheists as leaders of countries are great, aren’t they?
#45–pat==I got THAT part, but I want to read up on your technique. Whats the more formal name of that technique? What university group developed it, or was it developed “in-house?” Was that house yours?
And, why is fraud so prevalent in the USA?
#47 – Okay. Method One, Direct questioning.
Where it was developed? It’s an long, long used method. Check with your local law school if you want to study it further.
I don’t think that Florida issuing religious license plates is a good idea. If the state were to allow Christian plates, then why not special designs for atheists, pantheists and Seventh-day Adventists?
#48–pat==Direct Questioning huh? So, what question/answer tipped you off that I was lying? As a process, I assume it is really the interaction between variances in how related questions are answered? How similar to poop and run is this technique, or what is the exact difference?
#50 “As a process, I assume it is really the interaction between variances in how related questions are answered?”
No. Not at all.
Here is an interesting story about a guy in FL who had “ATHEIST” on his plate for 16 years.
http://tinyurl.com/o8sp9
Apparently the word atheist is offensive to some.
I say that if they allow xtian plates they should allow ALL religions and atheist plates. All or none.
Why not stamp out license plates with “I am a moron” on ’em.
Belief / credulity is not something to be proud of.
#52–julieb==interesting read. Yep, all or none makes sense to me. I made an error above too. Just looking at the plate in the Heaer–I guess the whole thing is a vanity plate–not just the license number. The methodist in the piece sounds like a reasonable guy, I’m sure he would not condone throwing wrenches at guys driving around with ATHEIST plates. Doesn’t the bible call for them to be stoned?
#36: It’s not so much an “I hate Christians” circle jerk, it’s a “Freedom of Religion and/or Freedom from Religion” kind of thing.
In the early 60s, I can remember feeling like a second class citizen when, as a Catholic kid, I enrolled in a public high school (of course various flavors of Protestant were in the majority, not Catholics). That’s when I found that the other religious minority in our area, Jewish kids, felt the same way. The prayer ban happened about a year or two afterwards, fortunately.
Pat:
So, pray tell, why exactly is this not violating the establishment clause?
Let’s see:
1) License plates are required on all vehicles
2) License plates are solely produced by the government
3) License plates are official government documents
4) The government has exclusive right to decide what can and can’t be a license plate
I don’t give a DAMN whether people pay for the plates themselves or not. If you want to show how holy and righteous you are, BUY A FUCKING BUMPERSTICKER. DON’T USE THE GOVERNMENT TO PROMOTE YOUR RELIGIOUS INFERIORITY COMPLEX.
Only logical conclusion: You’re either crazy, or an idiot. I’m betting on the latter.
(And yes, I feel the same way about personalized license plates, unless the state doesn’t censor them.)
Link about Indiana case
http://tinyurl.com/5gn7kp
>>> # 31 Judge Jewdy said,
Jewdy,
I didn’t get either of those plates you posted. Can you explain? The “WWF” has either something to do with wrestling or wildlife, best I know.
>>> 53 t0llyb0ng said, on April 24th, 2008 at >>> Why not stamp out license plates with “I am a moron” on ‘em.
>>> Belief / credulity is not something to be proud of.
Atheist supremacists give me the creeps.
#31–WWFSMD–?– The problem with posting initials is they mean whatever the originator wants and it is highly context related. given this is a thread on stupid religions wanting to force their crap on everyone else ((visual group identity propaganda in this case)) I take it the license stands for “What Would the Flying Spaghetti Master Do?” but I could be wrong.
“Atheist supremacists give me the creeps.” /// I thought it was funny too, but more than a grain of truth, more like a bucket load.
#21 – MikeN,
(Sorry I only made it to 21 on the comments. More tomorrow.)
Clearly you’ve missed an important point in this once great almost nation of ours. No one, left or right, can get elected without claiming to believe in god. This is the truly unfortunate nature of our current right shifted society.
You’re so far to the right that you missed the real discrimination here. Name the atheist senators and representatives. One came out of the closet recently, but only after stating that he wasn’t running for reelection.
So, there are zero elected senators and representatives (and presidents) that were elected as known atheists or even non-theists.
What was your point?