• /
  • /
  • “I Believe” These License Plates Are Now Subject to an Injunction

“I Believe” These License Plates Are Now Subject to an Injunction

Jason Pitzl-Waters —  December 12, 2008 — 12 Comments

Yesterday U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie issued a preliminary injunction halting the issuing of the Christianity-endorsing “I Believe” license plates in South Carolina. The matter will now have to be resolved in court before the plates can adorn the cars of Christian believers. The move was hailed by Americans United head the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, whose organization is sponsoring the pending litigation.


I don’t see why non-Christians would have a problem with this.

“‘The ‘I Believe’ license plate is a clear example of government favoritism toward one religion,’ said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. ‘The court drove home an important point: South Carolina officials have no business meddling in religious matters.’ … Americans United brought the Summers v. Adams legal challenge on behalf of four local clergy the Rev. Dr. Thomas A. Summers, Rabbi Sanford T. Marcus, the Rev. Dr. Robert M. Knight and the Rev. Dr. Neal Jones as well as the Hindu American Foundation and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.”

Supporters of the cross-emblazoned plates have argued that they are legal since any religious group can sponsor similarly biased tags, an argument that quickly falls apart when you speak to local officials about what exactly counts as a religion.

“In South Carolina, Baptists wanted the tag on cars here and pitched the idea to Republican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer’s chief of staff. State Sen. Yancey McGill, a Kingstree Democrat, got the bill passed in a couple of days without even having a public hearing or debate. “It’s a great idea,” McGill said Tuesday, calling it an opportunity to express beliefs. “People don’t have to buy them. But it affords them that opportunity. I welcome any religion tags.” What about Wicca, commonly referred to as witchcraft? “Well, that’s not what I consider to be a religion,” McGill said.”

That sentiment doesn’t just apply to Wiccans of course, Muslims are right out too.

“Asked by a reporter if he would support a license plate for Islam, Rep. Bill Sandifer replied, ‘Absolutely and positively no… I would not because of my personal belief, and because I believe that wouldn’t be the wish of the majority of the constituency in this house district.’”

Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, who is expected to release a written opinion concerning the injunction on Monday, is no stranger to protecting the rights of minority religions. In 2003 the judge ruled in favor of Darla Kaye Wynne, a Wiccan, who was battling against exclusively Christian invocations in the town of Great Falls. There is no word if Currie will also be overseeing the actual trial (though we can all hope). Whomever presides, this case will most likely be litigated for quite some time. South Carolina has become a “hot zone” for battles over church and state issues, and things are just getting warmed up.

In Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

Jason Pitzl-Waters

Posts

  • Tracie the Red

    This plate was first attempted in Florida. Exact same design too. SC lifted it from us. :grin:

  • Anonymous

    I think that the idea is fine, if people want to put personal info on their number plate, let them.. But there should be a variation for EVERY religion or beleif.For example, I would like to see one similar plates available for muslims, buhdists and pagans…But, do people really need to share that info with the entire world?? I thought that the knowledge that you are true to yourself and your beleifs should be enough…

    • Tracie the Red

      RE: “The Laws of this country define a clear separation between church and state. This is spelled out in the US constitution…”No it isn’t. There actually is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that specifically addresses separation of Church and State.

      • Anonymous

        Ummm, I think I summed up that the literal words “separation of church and state” are not written there. I think a generous amount of clarity was poured into making it understood to people like you that “separation of church and state” is a term. Clearly needed for those less intelligent or for simplification in general- the gods only know what you need to understand.You would benefit from Studying Thomas Jefferson and his writings personal and private in working to create the separation of church and state. The term was coined by him in a letter he wrote to the Danbury babtist in 1802. It was later quoted many times by the highly educated people placed on the US Supreme Court first in 1878 but the use and understanding was more common post WW2,thank the gods (even yours). They did understand, but after all such things are required for such a profession, which you have admitted is not yours. You could read the Jeffersonian bible too- It is a better version than M. Luther’s. IMO :) This term vs literal content is something you should have learned in government in HS- I did.Pagans, are tired of being denied equal rights. Perhaps you failed to read or more probably comprehend that pagans and other religions would clearly be denied the ability to put their symbols on a plate along with christianity.I would love for it to be ok for the plate to be there, and for me to get a pagan motif of my choice too. And the satanists as well- you think that is fair don’t you?Oh and while we are at it lets change the pledge AGAIN to say under Goddess or better yet under Cthulhu. Because that would be fair and you my poor christian martyr are just all about fair aren’t you.Are there any more tossed salads or scrambled eggs out there- I could use more breakfast, and a good laugh.

  • Terence

    The one problem that most religious folk fall prey to is the idea that religious thought must be a monopoly to be successful. Being exposed to a diversity of views generally strengthens faith, I find, far more than it undermines it. I’d love to see tons-o-religions on plates, but some folk just need to corner the market, so now none of us can play.

    • Tracie the Red

      Dragondaddy, read the entire first part of the First Amendment again.”Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”This is describing only what CONGRESS will or will not do, in terms of establishing an official American religion, or interfering with an American citizen’s right to practice their religion. This amendment actually restricts Congress a great deal – no establishing a national religion, and no butting in on a citizen’s religious practices. And they applied those legal shackels to themselves, and there were reasons for that – look at what had been going on in England and what would inspire them to write such an amendment. But – here’s the rub: the First Amendment refers only to Congress.However, what the states do is not addressed here. This is limited only to the federal government. This amendment does not deal with what the individual states can or cannot, will or will not do. And is a state government not also “the state” in terms of the phrase “separation of church and state?” The word “state” is certainly not limited to only the federal government. Also, please note that religion and church are not the same things. The phrase “separation of church and state” is just too vague and covers entirely too much territory for an overly simplistic analysis and execution. There are nuances here that keep Constitutional lawyers well-fed indeed. ;)

      • Tracie the Red

        By the way, I never CLAIMED to have studied any law.All I said was that there were nuances there that kept those who HAVE studied Constitutional law in business.Do not put words into my mouth that were not there.I have a copy of the US Constitution hanging up in my living room. I grew up with one hanging in my living room. I have read the text of the Constitution several times. I have posted it in my blogs. I even grew up in the Nation’s Capitol and been to the National Archives where the original is housed. The Constitution may have been adopted by the states, but it still limits the things Congress can or cannot do, and anything that the Constitution does not cover is left up to the states. As the 9th and 10th Amendments state:Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. NoteThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.That actually IS part of the text of the Bill of Rights, not “separation of church and state.”Here’s a note on the 10th Amendment:Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People under ConstitutionNote well this. Anything not expressly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People. Although this amendment is very liberally interpreted, it is one of the tenets of the Constitution. This amendment is also known as the States’ Rights Amendment.Seems pretty clear to me. Congress cannot form an official religion (which is different from a church) and they cannot prohibit the free exercise of a religion. (I would think that any religion that is willing to consecrate gay marriages, for example, would be jumping for JOY at this idea – because that then means the federal government cannot pass a Constitutional law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman only.)What the States do is up to them. Now…I think pagans just get entirely too panicky over Christians having any right to do pretty much anything and when things like this come up, pagans assume that people are going to be burning at the stake. You say “Wake up!”I say “Calm down!”Geez. Now, if anything, this license plate issue is a freedom of speech issue. Or do Christians not have the right to that either? Jeez. If pagans just want to take away every religion’s rights but their own and those they approve of, how is that any different than what they say the Christians are doing?

        • Anonymous

          I wonder what the laws are concerning after-market alteration of similar custom plates? So long as the legally identifying features are unobscured (such as the actual license number, and any tag renewal stickers), is it OK to place a big old sticker on the plate?Wouldn’t it just *gall* this plate’s proponents if folks bought them, and then slapped a pentagram sticker over the cross? Oh, and let the sticker be highly reflective, for maximum effect![I may just have to research my state's laws concerning plates...]

  • Tracie the Red

    I’m sorry, but the phrase “separation of church and state” do not appear anywhere in the US Constitution.If it does, show me where it is.

  • dragondaddy

    The Laws of this country define a clear separation between church and state. Having religious symbols on any state sponsored or mandated item, i.e. a license plate, is a clear violation of that. This is spelled out in the US constitution and United States Code, and supported with countless federal court decisions. This isn’t even an issue of all or nothing with religious symbols. Symbols of religion simply do not belong on anything required by the state. While you may choose among license plate designs the fact is that plates on a car are a legal requirement. This puts the entire issue in clear violation of church state separation. That one religion is being shown preference over others even even more intolerable. While many people do not know that Wicca is a legally recognized religion in the United States and has been so since the late 1980′s, it is even more unforgivable that Islam, one of the world’s largest religions, is also being denied. In my not-so-humble-opinion, the courts need to shoot this down and fast.Blessed ####ing Be

  • dragondaddy

    “No it isn’t. There actually is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that specifically addresses separation of Church and State.” Tracie the RedGiven Constitutional amendments are considered part of the Constitution I would beg to differ. It was my understanding that the first sentence of the first amendment did specifically address church state relations in the language of the time period in which it was written.”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” 1st amendment, United States Constitution

  • Anonymous

    Tracie,I do not think you have studied any law. Surely you understand “seperation of church and state” is a way to commonly refer to the purpose of the ammendment It is essentially a laymans terminology.It is in the constitution twice, the second time addresssing the protection of the seperation to be applied to making certain there would be no requirement of religion for the purposes of running for or holding any political office.I think it is sad if you do not understand that the constitution was adopted by the states. That it addresses congress shows that it was meant to apply to laws governing the US as they are created with congress.The civil war is over, we don’t need another one over religous intolerance. The southern states tried to use state rule to overide anti slavery legislation too- It wont work for religion either. It only took a couple years for the emancipation proclamation to essentially birth the 13th ammendment. In this case the ammendement already exists and already rules over all US states.It is my dear the US Constitution, not something the states can choose to ignore, follow at will, nor over ride!!-Wake Up!