Front Page arrow Conclusions arrow Separation of Church and the DMV
Cartoons by Marlette
TheSequitur.com Sections
Front Page
Nation
World
Culture
Progress
Conclusions
Cartoons by Marlette
TheSequitur.com Blogs
Morning Coffee
Fire In A Theater
Bonnaroo News
Administration
About Us
Submissions
Corrections
Advertising
Donate
Opportunities
New at TheSequitur.com
Most Read

Join other friends of TheSequitur.com at MySpace. 

TheSequitur.com Feeds

Support TheSequitur.com
Separation of Church and the DMV Print E-mail
Share:
Delicious
Digg
NewsVine
Reddit
Stumble
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Written by the Editorial Board   
Sunday, 13 July 2008

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


Bonnaroo News at TheSequitur.com

 
Banner 2 Banner 1 go!

Share:
Delicious
Digg
NewsVine
Reddit
Stumble
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
< Previous   Next >
Comments

You must javascript enabled to use this form

I take issue with your article's tone, which could be summarized in its statement, 'Those kinds of messages are precisely what the First Amendment's Establishment Clause prevents.' If one looks at the actions of the Founders who wrote the First Amendment and ratified it, many actions point to the fact that they had a much different perspective on the meaning of 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...' It is doubtful the leaders at the time would have considered a symbolic license plate design akin to establishing a religion.

Consider the following, which is quoted from the Library of Congress web site:

(Article about the Proposed Seal for the United States)
On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams 'to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America.' Franklin's proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea. Jefferson first recommended the 'Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . .' He then embraced Franklin's proposal and rewrote it. Jefferson's revision of Franklin's proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task.

It should be noted that Jefferson is the one usually being quoted when 'separation of church and state' is raised. Study of Jefferson's action as President and governor of Virginia can reveal that we mis-use his metaphor today. Consider the opinion of former Chief Justice Renquist:

'there is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation. ... The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging, and it should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... History must judge whether it was the Father of our country, Washington, plus the majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate who were correct in their understanding of the First Amendment, or whether it is a majority of the Court today.'

Images of the Jefferson/Franklin correspondence mentioned above can be found here:
[www.loc.gov]

Posted by History Matters, whose homepage is here on 07/14/2008 at 07:52

 1 
Page 1 of 1 ( 1 Comments )
©2007 MosCom



TheSequitur.com Home | About Us | Submissions | Opportunities | Donations | Advertising | DMCA | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
The Sequitur Media family of Web sites: TheSequitur.com | MorningCoffeeBlog.com | FireInATheater.com
Copyright 2005 - 2008 | Sequitur Media, LLC | All Rights Reserved