Conclusions

In their latest bid to prove that they have not yet read the U.S. Constitution, South Carolina legislators have unanimously passed a version of their state license plate bearing a cross, a church window and the words “I believe.” Now they are being sued in order to block this measure by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a multi-faith group that “work[s] to protect religious liberty in America.

[T]he perpetrators of this license plate scheme bring shame on their party and the righteous religion they wield like some blunt object.Those who oppose this measure have a wealth of good arguments. The plaintiffs, for instance, argue that this “preferential treatment of Christianity” denies an equal alternative for members of other faiths. And, indeed, a similar proposition was defeated in Florida in April.

This is not to say that opponents of the plates are proposing a multi-faith solution, where the state manufactures a multitude of license plates for devout Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, those of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye and even a plate for Atheists (perhaps with the words “I don’t believe”). Imagine what image the Rastafarians would demand on their state-sanctioned license plates.

Obviously, such a solution would be impractical to the point of absurdity. Leave aside the outrageous production and distribution costs – state troopers and traffic victims have a hard enough time discerning license plate information without any obscuring religious imagery.

This impractically demonstrates yet another reason why states should not get mixed up in the business of espousing religious beliefs or displaying religious images. The point is, the legislature only thought to offer one kind of plate, sending an unambiguous message as to what the preferred religion of the state is. It seems like a sad April Fool’s Day prank.

Those kinds of messages are precisely what the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prevents. No government, federal or state, is permitted to endorse, inhibit or become excessively entangled with religion. Religious symbols and dogmatic statements such as “I believe,” plastered across a state-authorized document such as a license plate, are a blatant endorsement of religion.

What could the motivation be for such a flagrant flaunting of state-based faith? We imagine two possibilities.

First, devoutly Christian South Carolinian constituents push this measure on their representatives because of their implacable and unquestionable desire to wear their faith on their sleeves or shout it to the hilltops. This is not unlike what similarly noble Americans do with the stars and stripes to demonstrate their patriotism. But if this is a true and honest motivation, it is unclear why their message specifically needs to be on a state-sanctioned license, as opposed to a bumper sticker (or a mural emblazoned across their entire rear windshield, for that matter). Demonstration of faith can be accomplished through less divisive or offensive means.

Or, perhaps, the reason is more Machiavellian.

Less than six months before a presidential election, in a state where the current Democratic presidential nominee won the primary by ten points, certain people in power like to manufacture political issues to rile up values-voters on election day. Only one political party stands to benefit from this sort of train wreck.

If Christianity is being made to bear the stain of partisan politics for the mere purpose of political gain, the perpetrators of this license plate scheme bring shame on their party and the righteous religion they wield like some blunt object.

[NYTimes, Telegraph, Americans United, Independent, Wikipedia]