by Jesse Galef
Daniel, thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute on your excellent site and thank you everyone for being a part of this wonderful community. I already recognize some of you from FriendlyAtheist.com and I feel quite at home.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Currie ruled that South Carolina’s “I Believe” license plates featuring a cross in front of a stained glass window were unconstitutional. It was a pretty blatant endorsement of religion in general and a sect of religion – protestant Christianity – in particular.
Image from Crooks and LiarsBut how, I hear you ask, was it an unconstitutional when the state government surely MUST have supported the same rights for all religious views? Right? Oh, wait. Scratch that (from Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s blog):
When State Sen. Yance McGill was asked by the Associated Press in May 2009 whether he would support a Wiccan tag, he said, “Well, that’s not what I consider to be a religion.”
When asked about a Buddhist tag, he said “I’d have to look at the individual situation. But I’m telling you, I firmly believe in this [Christian] tag.”
Rep. Bill Sandifer also backed the “Christian” plate, but emphatically asserted that he would never do the same for a plate featuring Islamic symbols and language.
“Absolutely and positively no,” he said.
And, let’s not forget, [ed: Lt. Gov] Bauer himself also said no to the same question.
“I would not [support a tag for Islam] because that is not the group I support,” he said.
It doesn’t get much more obvious than that. These state politicians wanted to give state recognition and privileges to a certain religious group that they, themselves, support. Religious groups they didn’t personally support wouldn’t get special government treatment.
One thing I found interesting was the list of plaintiffs: The Hindu American Foundation, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, three Reverends, and a Rabbi (all go before the bar… ahem. Sorry, bad pun.) It’s a clever strategy to involve religious individuals in bringing this kind of suit. It prevents the appearance of “religion vs. atheism”.
But it’s telling that there were no atheists along with the religious individuals. I’ve come across this before – the ACLU sometimes asks not to have any atheist plaintiffs because they think it’ll damage their chances of winning. Sad, isn’t it?
It’s possible that our involvement would influence judges in these cases and attract negative public attention. What does that say about our justice system and the state of our society? Even as we fight (and win!) these battles in court, we have far to go in our culture.
laura: I wish America wasn’t so hell bent on religion.I mean the some of the brightest and... 
Ronb0116: These are interesting comments that resonate with me. I was also raised deeply religious by a very... 
Mark: Watched the video of Ed from yesterday. There were no answers, just hedging and sarcasm. You know, I... 
Arie: The thing is that in the long term that particular mindset would lead to stagnation. The Middle East has... 
Jerdog: Super long life would almost certainly amplify the differences between the haves and have-nots. Not everyone will be... 
Twin-Skies: And Jews, and Rachel Maddow, and the Dalai Lama XD 
20 Comments
they fear our raw power!
but really they’re just bigots. at least we’re winning. that counts for something, right?
In a situation like this one where one religion is being challenged by several others almost all who are involved can feel like they are rooting for their team much like sports fans do for a favored team. They may hold some contempt for some of the other teams but they know they wouldn’t get to play the persecution game without them. While atheists or non-believers are viewed as being non-team players. Atheists are viewed as enemies to many faiths as rational thought acts like acid to superstition and ruins the game for everyone.
“Which one of these is not like the other which one of these does not belong?”
I finally found a use for religion – nestled snuggly in my daily need for comic relief. Does it matter that I find even the most bland, pseudo-serious situations funny?
Not at all, in fact, the world could use more people with a sense of humor.
I tend towards the opinion that if somebody wants to have their own registration plates made privately then they can show whatever they like (provided the number is still displayed per the law). For plates made and issued by the state, though, it is different. The state has a duty not to favour any religion.
Also, if these plates were to be allowed, I’d demand the right to display an “I DON’T BELIEVE!” plate on my car.
Bet your car would receive allot more “mysterious damage” than normal if you did…
From honest, hard working, god fearing, christians? You must be joking ;-)
Don’t insurance companies call them “Acts of God?”
Is there a clause for “Acts of God’s Followers”?
That’s what Jesus fish are for, and patriot ribbons turned sideways as Jesus fish. And bumper stickers. Nobody is stopping anyone from bumper-stickering their whole car and putting Jesus on the dashboard, and dangling a cross from the rear-view mirror. Their car can wear any emblem it likes, except it is registered with the state. They can get one of those license plate frames. They can even get a vanity plate spelling out whatever they like, so long as it fits in 8 characters (such as Ibelieve) and isn’t a curse word. Why do people think everything has to come printed with the words already on it? Did they insist the car dealership sell them cars that are the Jesus model of that same vehicle? No, their car’s manufacturer doesn’t have any add-ons like that, unless you thank god for air conditioning and anti-lock brakes; they can take their cosmetic requests to a custom auto-body and pimp their ride for Jesus if they so choose. Nobody is stopping them. If that’s how they want to spend money, and go ahead and express themselves, how can anyone “support” this on a license plate? Exactly what stupidity is going on in the brain there that this seemed like a smart idea?
This issue really confuses me. What people think they should have, meanwhile they do not need. How is this the state’s obligation to provide them the option of expressing themselves on their tag? That’s what t-shirts, buttons, and checkbooks are for. These people are too dumb. They have their freedom of religion, freedom of speech. This is not a case of well if you don’t believe, don’t get one. Why are people so stupid?
I don’t know that it’s a sign of disfavor toward atheists that none argued against the license plate.
Either, a) only religious people argued against them (unlikely, but perhaps possible…)
or b) atheists were going to but didn’t for some reason.
Taking b) as more likely, it could simply be that having religious people argue against a nominally “pro-religious” government measure was more effective than having people who aren’t “pro-religious” do so. I don’t think it has to be a function of atheism’s general disfavor.
Granted, it might be, but it does make sense to me that the strongest way to argue against something is to get those who are “supposed” to agree with it to disagree. It shows that people have wrongly judged the support *for* an idea in the first place, rather than the backlash *from* it.
I don’t have a problem with people displaying their beliefs – we do it with bumper stickers all the time. It’s more the exclusion of other religions/non-believers that I find offensive.
I know that in some states, you need to get a certain number of people to pledge that they would buy a certain design of license plate in order for the state to spend the money to produce them. Alumni clubs do this for sports teams all the time. Why dont’ the athiests band together to get an “I don’t believe” plate made? How many athiests are there in So Carolina?
The fact that atheists were left of of the petition is probably more likely because judges and juries in America are predominantly theists who have preconceived ideas about what an atheist is and are prejudiced against them. That being the case, better for the other plaintiffs for atheists to step back – a possitive result is more likely.
“The fact that atheists were left of of the petition is probably more likely because judges and juries in America are predominantly theists who have preconceived ideas about what an atheist is and are prejudiced against them.”
I don’t want to be a party-pooper, but I’d be quite interested in seeing some kind of evidence for that assertion, especially the bit about judges. I think the broad statement that the bulk of US judges are prejudiced against atheists is a serious claim, and I would take it quite seriously if good evidence were provided.
Also, thanks for giving Daniel a break! I’m sure he could use one…
What I find higly frustrating is that these elected officials (who swear to uphold state and federal laws and respective constitutions) apparantly feel NO COGNITIVE DISSONANCE WHATSOEVER in saying “I like this group and I will support it” and “I don’t like this group and won’t support it” in the same breath, all the while violating the separation of church and state in the process.
They are seriously OK with that. Naw. Really. It’s cool, y’all.
It’s one thing to have a cross-stitch pillow with your favorite bible verse in your office. It’s another to promote religion to the exclusion of other religions. Tax dollars at work, people.
Abraham Lincoln was wrong; South Carolina should have been allowed to succeed for the Union.
Its has probably cost the American federal government more time and money to integrate the former Confederate states into the union, then West Germany paid to integrate East Germany.
There is arrogance to this license plate. The user is making statement that their religious belief makes them better then everyone else. But static and census information show, the most religious parts of the America are also plagued with the worst social problems; teen pregnancy, crime, low test scores, high rates of sexually transmitted diseases and poverty.
The belief that religion makes people and societies better may be one of the biggest consumer fraud stories of all time.
South Carolina does have its advantages, low taxes, nice beaches, mild winters, Charleston, and inexpensive real estate. I know some friends, who would love to move there, but they have school-aged children and South Carolina has some for worst public schools in America.
Thank you Jesus.
I’m a native of SC and currently reside here.
All I can say is this is nothing more than pandering by the state’s Republican Party to the gullible religious types who have come to dominate the state’s demographics. Bauer is an even bigger dirtbag than Sanford and I think he and every other politician involved had to know that this would never fly in court. It does give him and every other politician running for governor next year ammunition to use to get the base energized about “activist judges” and unnecessary “federal intrusion”. Don’t forget that there is a huge chunk of the population here that still views the Civil War as a noble struggle for state’s rights that will eat this up.
Also don’t forget that this is the same state whose Republican Party in Charleston censured Senator Graham for seeking bi-partisan solutions on certain issues. I can walk anywhere in the state and have an angry tirade triggered at the mention of his name for not being a “true” conservative (despite his 90+% rating by groups that track that sort of thing). Joe Wilson will get re-elected in a landslide next year because he “had the guts to stand-up for the president and is a true patriot” (remember that his democratic challenger is a Marine Corps veteran of Iraq).
The wingnuts in charge and that make up the electorate love the US versus them model and it works every time.
Thats odd when all of Alabama’s tags say “god bless america” still angry about having to drive around with that on my car.
2 Trackbacks
[...] South Carolina rules religious license plates unconstitutional – The smoking gun of the case seems to this: When State Sen. Yance McGill was asked by the [...]
[...] the establishment of religion. The Associated Press, The State and The Charlotte Observer report. Unreasonable Faith and the New York Times weigh [...]