COLUMBIA, S.C., Nov. 10, 2009
Judge Nixes S.C. License Plate with Cross
Image of Cross with Phrase "I Believe" Violates First Amendment, Federal Judge Rules; Same Plate Was Rejected in Fla.
-
This image provided by Florida legislature via the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida on Friday, April 24, 2009 shows a proposed design for a Florida license plate depicting a Christian cross that would be available to drivers if lawmakers pass a bill in the Legislature. (AP Photo)
-
State Fast Facts South Carolina Learn about the people, economy and geography.
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie said in her ruling that the license plates was unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion.
"Such a law amounts to a state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular," Currie wrote.
Her ruling also singled out Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who had pushed the bill approving the license plates through the state Legislature. Christian advocates tried to get the same license plate approved in Florida, but the bill did not pass its Legislature.
Bauer wanted to accomplish in South Carolina what had been unsuccessful in Florida, Currie wrote: To "gain legislative approval of a specialty plate promoting the majority religion: Christianity. Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same. The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation."
Bauer was not immediately available for comment.
The fight over the plates started shortly after Bauer helped push the legislation through in 2008. Groups including Americans United for Separation of Church and State and American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee challenged the state's ability to put a religious message on a state license tag.
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said government must never be allowed give favorable treatment to one faith above others.
"That's unconstitutional and un-American. Some officials seem to want to use religion as a political football," Lynn said, calling it an "appalling misuse of governmental authority, and I am thrilled that the judge put a stop to it."
Currie ordered the state to cover those groups' legal expenses.
© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 56 Comments
- Just another FREEDOM---THEY can strip and rob us from. This is the UNITED STATES---the LAND of the FREE---which our Forefathers faught so hard for. Our country-the USA was FOUND on Christianity! Our healthcare is being robbed from us-now our religion. What's next?? If we are caught wearing a cross around our neck we can be fined or in prison?? This world is CRAZY-People are more and more CRAZY! How much more can people take? Jesus needs to come back real soon and save us BELIEVERS!
- Reply to this comment
- If you want a religious symbol on your automobile, do it right... Grab a can of white paint and a 4-inch brush. Put one on each door.
- Reply to this comment
- First lets get our history straight, this country had Native Americans that worshipped the Creator in their own special way, but was more or less forced to change their ways to Christianity. Second look at way so many people wanted to get out of Europe, because they were being forced to belief in a religion by the government, and that belief did not sit well with them. As for these license plates, you can have them, but give the other beliefs the same freedom to "show off" their faith with out the fear of attack or harzed for that belief. We all need to learn to live together, being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and even Wicca. Didn't Jesus say "love thy neigbor as thyself" he also said "who is without sin throw the first stone"
Love and Peace to All
Rev Michael McBride - Reply to this comment
-
- Amen! He also said, "Whatsoever thou doest for the least of thy bretheren, thou doest for Me" and (a little later in the same chapter) "Whatsoever thou dost not do for the least of thy bretheren, thou dost not do for Me." Several of Christ's sermons related to discrimination of some kind and it's pretty clear He was against it.
- This is no more than another attack on the First Amendment.Socialist in action!Soon you want have a car to put a license plate on.
- Reply to this comment
- Christians need to come out of the closet and let America know we are still here. If it takes a tag, to show who the beleivers are, so be it. We are tired of setting aside our country whom OUR ancestors bled for, for these "minorites" who want to take our rights away. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!! Christians!!! Don't abandon our Lord for these idiots. Stop hiding behind political correctness and stand up for Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!! Don't play the "holiday" game. If the store you go in does not promote Christmas,walk out!!! We aren't there to purchase Holiday gifts, we want Christmas Presents!! Why does one idiot get to make this decision anyway??? Where are the ones that speak for the people...take a vote.....
- Reply to this comment
-
- "Christians need to come out of the closet"?!? You have how many TV channels, radio stations, and publications? You're not in the closet, you're just finding out that you're not the "majority" you think you are. MY ancestors fought for this country. I am not an ethnic minority. I am also not a Christian. Nobody's asking you to switch your religion, they're just suggesting that you open your eyes and read that the 1st Amendment allows for religious freedom for ALL religions.
- Isn't it enough for them that I will rot in their Hell for all eternity that they also have to ruin my short time here on Earth!
Jesus, Jesus-People! What more do you want?!
BUY A DAMNED BUMPERSTICKER!
Make sure it hasn't an Islamic theme, it will get torn off. - Reply to this comment
- It wouls be so much better if people would just act like Christians. Then they wouldn't need to have labels to let people know that they are. "By their fruits ye shall know them"
- Reply to this comment
- A vanity plate is ordered by an individual and paid for by that individual. Groups can also order specialty plates. The group guarantees the purchase of a number of plates and they are at extra expense. Any church group could order such a plate. That is NOT what happened with the SC "I Believe" plate. The plate was created and voted into existence by the SC Legislature. It was a government sanctioned plate and, therefore, a government sanctioned message. It's fairly simple to go through the DMV and get a speciality plate (extra charge) and that's what those who wish to promote their religions on their license plates should do. People can have a religious plates -- the government just can't create and subsidize them. Fair enough?
- Reply to this comment
- Don't get me wrong, I would never display such a plate on my vehicle. However, after putting my life on the line for all American citizens and their right to certain freedoms, I believe if they want to make the choice to display this, they should have that opportunity. It would be entirely different if the default state plate displayed such religous icons. That would enter the 'preference of one religion over another or non-religion' as defined in the first ammendment.
- Reply to this comment
- Licence plates are government ISSUED not government owned. Ever our currency still reads 'In God We Trust', and bills ARE government owned
- Reply to this comment
-
- And this slogan was introduced in 1957 to currency under the draconian McCarthy-era. It was never on US currency until this ultra-right-wing nonsense of the 1950's.
- by bdwilson616 November 10, 2009 3:24 PM EST
Licence plates are government ISSUED not government owned. Ever our currency still reads 'In God We Trust', and bills ARE government owned
===============================================================
DUDELY:
The god mentioned on the currency is Tubrow - the Panamanian
god of money.
- And thats why God Created BUMPER STICKERS...
Keep the church and state separate. - Reply to this comment
- Our founding fathers included the separation of church and state to keep the churches influence out of government. If you study world history you can certainly understand why. This has nothing to do with an individual wanting to display a religous simbol on their vehicle, state issued or not. exactly how is someone chooosing to display a cross on their licence plate any type of church influence over government?
- Reply to this comment
-
- Actually, most of the founding fathers included the seperation of church and state to keep the government's influence out of the church.
- you are dead wrong. Our founding fathers put that in to keep the government from interfering on religious rights. That is why a lot of them left europe in the first place. get your history right.
- This has nothing to do with separation of church and state. I see many specialty plates (as opposed to vanity plates) in my travels and it is common knowledge that these plates were not only chosen, but paid for by the car owner. What kind of fool would look at a specialty plate and assume it is some message or endorsement from the local government? I have a veterans specialty plate on my car and I am sure everyone that sees it knows it means that I am a veteran, not someone in the state government had a hidden ajenda and forces me to drive around with it to influence others.
- Reply to this comment
- I proudly served this country in defense of the freedoms granted by our constitution. However, I have never read antwhere in the constitution that any one individual or group has the right to not be offended by another. In fact just the opposite is true. Everyone has the right to speak in support of thier beliefs, including displays such as nativity scenes, religious jewelry, and even this issue. No matter whet you believe, someone will disagree with you and most likely claim they are offended. Your feelings are not protected by the constitution. Get over it.
- Reply to this comment
-
- No. If you want to purchase a non-government issued plate with a cross on it to display on your vehicle somewhere that is your right. BUT, any religious symbol on a government issued plate is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state was one of the most brilliant concepts embraced by our founding fathers. And as we look around the world and see all the strife that has occurred due to nations that infuse religion into civil governance you can appreciate all the more the brilliant thinking of the founding fathers in the concept of the separation of church and state.
- It is illegal to have a "non-government issued"icense tag on your vehicle, Vanity Plates 'ARE' government issued.
Next!!!!
- us1776, I agree totally.
In my opinion, the separation clause was the most "Eureka" moment in the annals of human history. It was a moment of clarity unlike no other before or after it. The only people it has ever affected are the same ones who wish to force their beliefs on everybody else. For 230 long years it has held. I hope it holds for another million years.
- "Everyone has the right to speak in support of thier beliefs, including displays such as nativity scenes, religious jewelry, and even this issue. No matter whet you believe, someone will disagree with you and most likely claim they are offended. Your feelings are not protected by the constitution."
But the First Amendment IS BEING PROTECTED. Now you get over that.
- I have no problem with a state having a license plate with a cross on it and the words, "I Believe." ... As long as there are license plates with symbols for Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism, and any other religious group who wants one.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Yeah, in in South Carolina, don't ya know that a license plate with "Praise Allah" will last right up to the point the fire reaches the gas tank.
- The constitution has a problem with it and that trumps all of us "Not having a problem with it." We can amend our constitution to allow religion in if 2/3 of the states agree (I think it's two-thirds).
Can you imagine such a government trying to operate? We would need to invent another word to replace "Coup". Once Islam came to power there could be no more constitution to further amend.
No, I think we leave it just like it is now, just as the framers wrote it. That way we have managed to keep our religious beliefs to ourselves as they should be.
- So, here's a way arount this. Pass a law allowing for user specified graphics to be printed on a plate. So long as no other law is broken (child porno, public nudity, etc.) That way any groups could put on whatever graphic they choose.
- Reply to this comment
- The America I grew up in allowed me to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the statement "one nation under God", marriage was a man and a woman, no one had to push "1" for Spanish, children played outside not in front of a video game, a one-income household was enough to live comfortably and cereal boxes came in one language. I'm so sick of this country trying to please everyone who yells the loudest its not funny. Ship the ACLU to North Korea and let them promote civil liberties there! Who cares people??? My "Boomer" generation will soon ceased to exist and its probably the last real generation who really cared about God, Honor and Country. Ban this; ban that, please this group, restict that one. If someone wants to put a cross on their plate, more power to them. others can put the Star of David on and no, those in the occult cannot put a pitchfork on theirs because its offensive to all and that's the way it should be. My America was better and I'm glad I had the opportunity to experience it.
- Reply to this comment
-
- The America that I grew up in understood that free people don't "Pledge Allegiance".
If you want to make yourself a servant of the state and pledge to it, go ahead.
I don't know which I like more, America becoming more and more egalitarian, or listening to you rednecks complain about it.
buenas noches, gringo.
- You can still say the statement "one nation under God"; I usually say "Gods" because I'm a polytheist. The citizens who aren't theistic usually refrain from saying "under God". I'm part of the Boomer generation -- though I'm closer to the "Beat" generation -- and I'm ecstatic that America is evolving to being closer to the actual words of the U.S. Constitution. "Tradition is nothing more than the lazy man's excuse not to evolve."
- "...hose in the occult cannot put a pitchfork on theirs because its offensive to all and that's the way it should be. My America was better and I'm glad I had the opportunity to experience it."
LOL. You old fool. A pitchfork is NOT a symbol of any occult religion I know of. Those of us who practice Witchcraft (BOO!) and Wicca utilize the pentacle for a symbol of protection and belief. The Chrisitans used to utilize the symbol as well and held the tenent of reincarnation until 553 CE. They also stole many Pagan raditions to make up their religion. Yep, everything from the idea of The Trinity (Isis, Osiris and Horus), naming a religious day "Easter" (taken from the fertility Goddess Oestre) and using bunnies and Easter eggs (symbols of fertility). There are soooo many more stolen traditions, but I know that I am wasting my wisdom on you. So many are ridiculously uneducated about their own silly religions that they hold so dear. Puh.
- The America that I grew up in understood that free people don't "Pledge Allegiance".
- Hey ToolMangler a vanity plate is an individual's own in the letters and numbers whereas a STATE license plate endorsing the Christian faith is an outrageous breach of separation. So just use the letter and numbers in the vanity plate for your fundementalist message to us all. Southerners are so dumb and annoying.
- Reply to this comment
-
- by addict42 November 10, 2009 1:45 PM EST
" Southerners are so dumb and annoying"
I never said that Yankeesor 'Westerners were dumb!!!!
But you have proved that they can be extremely annoying.
What ever happened to "FREEDOM OF CHOICE"?????
The State has eliminated my right to ride in a Vehicle without my seatbelt fastened, or on my Motorcycle without a helmet on, It is also illegal to drive in the rain without my hreadlights on and to stand in any building while I smoke a cigarette (I don't smoke). The 'State' has mandated that religious displays on public lands are forbidden (No matter who puts them there) I turns out that 'we' don't own that land (and neither do they, but they act like it). Both North and South carolina have many "Different" license tags for different prices on which you may get pictures of schools, Universitys even your company Logo, but I can't have a cross????? (Vanity Tags are made by the state and sanctioned by them also) so where is the rub?????????
The State is 'NOT" sanctioning religion by allowing different sysmbols to be displayed, It is only "SANCTIONING" my right to displa them!!!!!!!
- by addict42 November 10, 2009 1:45 PM EST
- I'm sure some of the same people who wanted this to pass were the same people who scream about their 2nd amendment right to automatic weapons; twisting the US constitution to fit their personal fundamentalist views at the expense of everyone else. Selfishness at it's absolute worst. Talk about waste of tax payer dollars...
- Reply to this comment
- If you can have a 'Vanity plate ' then how is this unconstitutional???
- Reply to this comment
-
- It is unconstitutional because there was only one choice for the symbol, which is a violation of the "nonestablishment clause" in the 1st Amendment which protects Americans from the establishment of a state religion. Had they offered the citizens the right to display whatever symbol their personal belief uses, the statement, "I believe" would have been acceptable. By the way, Atheism also has a symbol; check out the Veteran's Administration list of "acceptable" symbols allowed on a military member's grave marker. Had SC included all those symbols allowed by the Federal government -- which still isn't a complete listing, but it would be a start -- it would have been acceptable.
