South Carolina must stop marketing and making license plates that feature the image of a cross and the words “I Believe” while a lawsuit challenging the plates’ constitutionality goes forward, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie issued the temporary injunction after an hour-long court hearing in which opponents argued that the plates, which depict a stained-glass window with a cross on the left hand side and the words “I Believe” across the top, violate the separation of church and state.
Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State had sued state officials on behalf of two Christian pastors, a humanist pastor and a rabbi in South Carolina, along with the Hindu American Foundation, after a bill creating the license plates sailed through South Carolina’s Legislature.
“We here from the federal government and to help you.”
In a previous post on this subject I opined that the plates were fine in that the phrase “I believe” was sufficiently neutral that it could not be considered an endorsement of a specific faith. Those who wish to proclaim their atheism would be free to get plates that say “I do not believe.”
I must now regrettably retract that opinion. I was not aware that a cross and stained glass window were depicted on the license plates. That’s not vague anymore. That’s an express endorsement of Christianity and as such it crosses the line separating religious neutrality from state support or endorsement of religion.
What happened to the “Free exercise” part of the first amendment. If South Carolina cannot make these plates, it should not be able to make any special plates for any other cause either, otherwise that’s unconstitutional too.
Free exercise means you have the right to practice your religion. It does not mean you have the right to demand state endorsement for your religious beliefs by placing them on a license plate. The question of “other causes” would depend on what those causes are.
If its someone wanting to put Allah Akbar on a place then your right. They can’t do that. On the other hand if it’s something that is religiously neutral, like a plug for organ donors or a plate identifying the driver as a war veteran that does not run afoul of the establishment clause.
In 4 above “place” should read “plate.”
I agree with Ad Orientem.
“It does not mean you have the right to demand state endorsement for your religious beliefs by placing them on a license plate.”
If the car owner is paying for the plate, then I fail to see how it amounts to ‘state endorsement’. You would make a stronger case in opposing the legal status of Christmas Day and Easter Day as public holidays.
Well then, we had all better get cracking and remove all the religious symbols off of veteran’s grave markers! While we are at it, we should remove the ten commandment tablet images from the SCOTUS doors. Those things actually ARE publicly funded, unlike vanity plates that are individually paid for.
Those opposing this free expression of (non-sectarian) religious belief seem to have forgotten that when the private letter written by Jefferson reassuring the Danbury Baptist Association that there would be no official Christian denomination of the United States, most of the town halls in New England were convened [i]in[/i] the local Church and many of the individual states had an official State Church. The meaning of the words in that private letter have been twisted so far out of context and misapplied so badly that a free people have been denied the excercise of their religion in the public square. The first line of the paragraph containing the phrase “a wall of separation between Church and State” begins with these words:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,â€
How does the purchase by private individuals of a license plate expressing their religious belief at their own expense indicate that a man would be required to give an account of his religious belief to anyone or the government?
Freedom of Religion does [i]not[/i] mean freedom [i]from[/i] religion!
If the radical anti-christian bias that passes for “religious freedom” today had been envisioned by the founders and the people of their day, the Constitution would never have been ratified. Clearly, if there were states that had official state Churches at the time of the ratification (and there were), the interpretation of law today is skewed far far from the actual meaning of the phrases to those who wrote them and enacted them into law.
Connecticut did not disestablish its official church until 1818. Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833. In point of fact, it was not until 1947, when Everson v. Board of Education went to the U.S. Supreme Court, that the 14th Amendment was seen as incorporating the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause and as applying to the States, and thereby prohibiting state and local religious establishments. So, appealing to Jefferson’s private letter as some sort of evidence of the founders intent to bar religious expression by States and towns is not factually accurate.
Again, freedom of Religion does [i]not[/i] mean freedom [i]from[/i] religion!
“Again, freedom of Religion does not mean freedom from religion!”
Come on guys, we have the greatest freedom in the world to put any logo we choose on our cars. No state has ever asked us to not plaster fish and crosses all over our cars.
Our freedom is in no way abridged if the state determines that it will not provide the adornments. Our Christian bookstores will provide them. And many of them are in good taste. Wouldn’t you rather have your money go to the Christian bookstore than to the state?
If you want it on your license plate, get a nice frame from your local Christian supplier.
#11, I agree with you. Here in Michigan, since we are a one plate license, there is no problem. We can display most anything we want to on the front plate holder, (generally speaking no indecent phrases or very bad language may be displayed – I think!!).
[i] If the car owner is paying for the plate, then I fail to see how it amounts to ‘state endorsement’ [/i]
But what’s on a license plate also implicates the state. That’s what titillates drivers about vanity plates that say OK4 SX, IV Q, BIG PNS, or (for your rear-view mirror) 3M WOJ8.
People could wear these messages on lapel pins. But having the state emboss them on a license plate is far more fun—precisely because it involves official action by the state.
What would look crass and tacky on your lapel becames wickedly cool on your license plate because you’ve gotten the state to say it.
So what do you say about the religious symbols on veteran’s grave markers and the ten commandment tablet images on the SCOTUS doors?
I say we have the freedom to pay to put religious logos on our vehicle license plates if we so choose. In fact, I think we have a right to do so if we choose. We are paying for the plates. If the state provides the plates gratis, that is different.
Sick-Tired [#15]: Comment #14 is not a general statement about what constitutes impermissible state endorsement. My point was simply that the state can be implicated in a potentially problematic way even though the car owner pays for the license plate.
The problem is that if the state is going to allow vanity plates it should not be picking and chosing which worldviews it allows people to have. This is anti-Christian bias pure and simple and that is why it is objectionable.
16, then the state should stop the practice entirely.
Br Michael is right. If the state allows vanity plates, then it has no interest in controlling free speech, other than to curtail indecency or libel.
Re # 10 & 15
[blockquote] Those opposing this free expression of (non-sectarian) religious belief seem to have forgotten that when the private letter written by Jefferson reassuring the Danbury Baptist Association that there would be no official Christian denomination of the United States, most of the town halls in New England were convened in the local Church and many of the individual states had an official State Church. [/blockquote]
As you noted, at that time states were still sovereign. The Bill of Rights did not apply to state laws or constitutions. This changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment. By the time the 14th amendment passed however all of the states which had at one time had one, had already separated their “official” churches from the state.
[blockquote] While we are at it, we should remove the ten commandment tablet images from the SCOTUS doors. [/blockquote]
Nonsense. They are there along with many other famous lawgivers honored on the walls and frescoes of the building. That’s a straw man argument at best. The SCOTUS has addressed the subject of permissible display of religious symbols in public places many times and while I might quibble with some details I think they have generally struck the right balance.
I can think of no country on Earth where there is a greater respect for religious freedom and tolerance than this one. My urgent desire to keep the government out of the religion business is not to protect the state or anti-Christian malcontents from religion. It is to protect US from the state and anti-religious malcontents. Once you allow the camels nose under the tent flap you will never get it out.
I have almost nothing kind top say about Bob Jones University. But they are dead on in their refusal to even claim tax exempt status. Once you accept any benefit (no matter how small) from the state, you give the state the means to blackmail you somewhere down the road.
Ad Orientem, please show me where in the constitution there is the wording “seperation of church and state”. It does not exist. The courts have ruled that. but I don’t recall voting for a judge. Activist judges are ruining our country in an attempt to make a pablum like society with no direction. In your #4,how soes my having a right to purchase something amount to a state endorsement?> It doesn’t. The state is just selling me a symbol. Should any Christyian symbol be illegal? We are to blame for this mess because3 we haven’t had the guts to stand for our God. You are not helping any by justifying this. If the state should not do this then they should not do any private group plates for shriner, masons, or knights of columbus. Why, the masons and shriners are a religious organization just as much as knights of columbus.
#15 Sick & Tired of Nuance says:
Are we actually paying for the plates? I’d need a lawyer to answer this for me, but my impression was that we were paying a fee to the state in return for the legal license to own a car, and the state issued us a plate to indicate that the car was so licensed. It’s like when you pay for a movie ticket, you’re not actually paying for the little slip of cardboard; the little slip of cardboard is simply a token indicating that you’ve paid for the privilege of seeing that movie.
A quibble, granted.
On the more general issue, I think that it’s reasonable for the government to make provisions for Christian symbols if there are also provisions made for non-Christian symbols; much like the veterans’ grave markers may be marked with symbols of many different religions. The key point is that the government cannot be seen to endorse any one religion over any others.
Of course, just as with the veterans’ grave markers you run into a problem of where the line is drawn. I seem to recall that they recently added Wicca (symbolized by a pentagram) as one of the options, to some controversy. How significant does a religious movement have to be — and how is that defined — before it warrants being added to these various lists of options?
I don’t think you can make a hard-and-fast rule about that, but I do think the courts are capable of making plausible decisions on a case-by-case basis.
Ad Orientem [#20] & Sick-Tired [#10]: In discussing Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, let’s keep in mind this fundamental point: Jefferson’s “wall of separation” language goes well beyond the text of the First Amendment, which prohibits any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” The “wall of separation” is a controversial later gloss on the constitutional text.
Ross [#22]: States charge a discrete fee for vanity plates. The fee is high enough so that the states make a profit on the plates.
It seems to me that once the state opens up a forum, like allowing special plates to support special causes, it cannot then bar plates to with a religious expression in the forum simply because they are religious. Otherwise it is a restriction of “free exercise.” Clearly, the state does not have to provide for any vanity plates, but once it does, it should not discriminate either against religion or non-religion.
[i] Once the state opens up a forum, like allowing special plates to support special causes, it cannot then bar plates to with a religious expression in the forum simply because they are religious [/i] —Brian [#25]
Agreed. If the state has truly “opened up a forum” to affinity groups that meet certain criteria, then religious groups should not be excluded merely because they’re religious.
Some example of defensible criteria: group has a lawful purpose; neither the group’s name nor its proposed design is obscene; and group members would be likely to buy at least 100 license plates. But if those were the [i]only[/i] criteria, the state might end up making license plates for an “Aryan Research Group” or a “KKK Historial Society.”
Here is (as best I can tell) the current South Carolina order form: http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/forms/MV-95.doc. It offers a wide range of special plates, including plates for the Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, Bob Jones University, Camp Sertoma, Carolina Panthers, Choose Life S.C., Delta Sigma Theta, No More Homeless Pets, Kiwanis, Share the Road, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Square Dance, Working for the Wild Turkey, and . . . [i]Secular Humanists of the Low Country[/i]. Let no one say South Carolina license plates lack diversity! Not sure what to make of “Shag.”
I would also like to point out that when he wrote that infamous phrase, Jefferson was assuring the members of the Danbury Baptist Convention that they had a RIGHT to attend and cast votes at state political conventions, and influence state and local government policy, in spite of what the state was saying: that since they did not belong to the official State Church (Congregationalists) they had no say.
In other news,
I support states going back to ONE official license plate.
Peace
Jim Elliott <>< Florida (where we must hold the record for most 'official' plates!)