Suit filed over South Carolina 'I Believe' license plates

A group that advocates separation of church and state filed a federal lawsuit Thursday to prevent South Carolina from becoming the first state to create “I Believe” license plates.

The group contends that South Carolina’s government is endorsing Christianity by allowing the plates, which would include a cross superimposed on a stained glass window.

Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed the lawsuit on behalf of two Christian pastors, a humanist pastor and a rabbi in South Carolina, along with the Hindu American Foundation.

“I do believe these ‘I Believe’ plates will not see the light of day because the courts, I’m confident, will see through this,” said the Rev. Barry Lynn, the group’s executive director.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, Religion & Culture

20 comments on “Suit filed over South Carolina 'I Believe' license plates

  1. libraryjim says:

    I wondered how long this would take.

    Jim Elliott <><

  2. johnd says:

    “The group contends that South Carolina’s government is endorsing Christianity by allowing the plates, which would include a cross superimposed on a stained glass window.”
    Well then, what about the Sons of Confederate Veterans tags? By allowing the sale of these plates, is S.C. endorsing the Confederacy since the tag contains the stars & bars?
    Give me a break!!

  3. dcreinken says:

    Does the bill permit Muslims to get license plates that say “Allahu Akbar” or “I believe” with a sword and crescent moon?

    Or Jews to have the Shema or “I believe” and a Star of David?

    or athiests to have “I don’t believe”??

    If not, then how is this NOT state sanctioned support of a particular religion?

    License plates have a primary function of indicting the license of a vehicle. Anything else shouldn’t be on them. Individuals are free to decorate their car with any bumper stickers they choose.

  4. Ad Orientem says:

    I rarely agree with the left wing wackos. But this time they are right. This is not even a close call.

    ICXC
    John

  5. dcreinken says:

    John, am I the left wing whacko you agree with – or do I have to sue to become one. 🙂 Just kidding. Friday humor. I know how whacko I am. Oh, when I went to Irmo High School, I did write a letter to the editor trashing folks who trashed those who went to a Christian concert during their lunch period. My issue isn’t public dsiplays of religion, but state sponsorship being used for same, or one particular faith being singled out over others.

    On a more conversational note: as a native South Carolina, I can understand how my former state did this. I’m still surprised though that it sailed through the Legislature without debate . That wouldn’t have happened when I worked for the Legislature in the 1980s.

    Dirk Reinken

  6. dcreinken says:

    From the last paragraph of the article:
    [blockquote]Another of the ministers, the Rev. Robert Knight of Charleston, said the plates cheapen the Christian message.

    “As an evangelical Christian, I don’t think civil religion enhances the Christian religion. It compromises it,” Knight said. “That’s the fundamental irony. It’s very shallow from a Christian standpoint.”[/blockquote]
    Some might say (both left and right) that the C of E is living proof of this. Then again, others (not us left wing whackos) looking at TEC might say that absence of civil religion is no guarantee, either. . . .

  7. Cennydd says:

    Want to express your religiousity on your car or truck? Put a church sticker or decal on it! Voila! Problem solved!

  8. Paul B says:

    I certainly hope that the humanist pastor doesn’t have a “Secular Humanists of the Low Country” plate.

    There’s also an “In God we trust” plate.

    Hope they go after those, too.

  9. The_Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    I have to admit I snorted when I first read the head line. I got the mental image in my head of Agent Mulder’s flying saucer poster that said, “I want to believe.”

    That’s probably not what they were shooting for…as it were.

  10. Christopher Johnson says:

    Up in Maryland, just about any Christian church that wants one can get a specialty plate. Some of them have crosses galore. If you want to order the Episcopal version, the Diocese of Easton has a link to apply for one here.

  11. Christopher Johnson says:

    I screwed up the Easton link above. The correct one’s:
    http://www.dioceseofeaston.org/licensetags.html

  12. NewTrollObserver says:

    Guess which state has an [url=http://lowcountry.humanists.net/IRWT.html]”In Reason We Trust”[/url] license plate?

  13. Daniel Lozier says:

    I just pray that once we’ve completely banned God and Jesus Christ from every part of our “state”, God does not completely withdraw His hand of blessing from our nation.

  14. Jeffersonian says:

    I agree with those who say this is an inappropriate use of state resources. Want a religious statement on your car? Get a bumper sticker.

  15. Chris Hathaway says:

    This would be a good excuse to get rid of all specialty plates. A vanity plate is all one needs, if you are inventive enough, to proclaim smoe message with your plate, and there can be no charge of state sponsorship there.

  16. Lapinbizarre says:

    Johnd asked (#2) “Well then, what about the Sons of Confederate Veterans tags? By allowing the sale of these plates, is S.C. endorsing the Confederacy since the tag contains the stars & bars?”

    It’s not quite the only reason for this particular plate, Johnd – not that sons of Confederate veterans are all that thick on the ground in SC nowadays – but ceasing to endorse the Confederacy has been a long, difficult withdrawal for quite a few South Carolinians, politicians not least. Take a look at the Confederate flag, no longer on the Statehouse dome, but still flying slap in front of it, or check the tangled web of the finances underpinning the restoration of the Confederate submarine Hunley, down in Charleston.

  17. LeightonC says:

    States have already opened the door on this from child advocacy, the environment, veterans, etc. — all secular “causes”, now we’re talking about censoring content based on religion. A smarter way for SC to have handled this would’ve been to include all religions/denominations in the law. Bottom line: It’s voluntary and it’s also another revenue stream for the state.

  18. Cennydd says:

    #16: The Hunley is being restored as a monument to all Confederate servicemen who died in the war, just as they were memorialized by the battlefield monuments. And the Union servicemen were memorialized in the same way. Two of my mother’s great uncles served in Company B, 122nd NYSV Infantry, from Onondaga County, while another was a Confederate Marine who served at Drewry’s Bluff.

    There’s no favoritism here.

  19. libraryjim says:

    I agree. Let’s get rid of ALL vanity plates. [url=http://www.taxcollect.com/Content.aspx?ContentID=291&CommandID=2&DeptID=12]Florida’s specialty plates[/url] number well over 100 (36 being sports teams!), with more being considered each legislative session. That’s way too many.

  20. Lapinbizarre says:

    I refer you, Cennydd, to “How senator steers sub under radar: Hunley costs spiral to nearly $100 million as McConnell helps funnel money” by John Monk in the May 14, 2006 issue of “The State”. “The State’s” archive is only accessible on a subscription basis, but an excellent synopsis of Monk’s well documented investigative journalism, giving basics of the extensive shenanigans with taxpayer money involved in the Hunley restoration, may be found here:

    http://charlestonwatch.com/2006/05/government_by_stealth.html

    I repeat, “check the tangled web of the finances underpinning the restoration of the Confederate submarine Hunley”. $100,000,000 (the recent, extensive renovation of the SC Statehouse cost only $62,000,000 and very little, if anything, was stinted on that project) is a great deal of money, Cennydd. Yes, there’s favoritism here. A great deal of it.