Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Corwin · 06-24-2002, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
Michael,
You are quite right. I would have no problem with them selling any religious material, be it Christian, Islamic, Wiccan, or whatever. And even if I did find a problem, I would go through political channels to try to get the company's contract revoked in a democratic fashion. Going through the legal system to ban such a practice is oppressive and wrong. However, I would definitely have a problem with them forcing you to listen to Oral. But anyway, I don't think lawyers have any business limiting options and taking away freedoms without a good reason. You have a case if you can show that selling religious material is oppressive. Until then, I see no reason to take away someone's freedom to buy a license plate with a religious message on it. In doing so, you are no better than those you are trying to protect yourself against.

Well hell... I'm pissed off about these lawyers coming in and removing my options to steal, loot and pillage. If they want me to stop they should go through DEMOCRTATIC MEANS and get people to vote laws against it!!!!1

Oh.... wait....

Secular Elation · 06-24-2002, 03:17 PM

ManM,

I understand you concern for keeping church and state separate but not cultivating hostility to religious expression. I would agree with your objections in this thread.

What is your take on posting "In God We Trust" on City Hall?

ManM · 06-24-2002, 03:43 PM

hezekiah jones,
Yes, it a trinket. Why bother make such a stink about it? You still haven't given me a good justification for your zealotry. What harm is being done by them offering a religious license plate as an option?

Corwin,
Please explain to me how stealing, looting, and pillaging are analogous to selling license plates. Your laundry list of behaviors are harmful and oppressive. Selling religious plates as an option is not oppressive. Given that no harm is being done, I see no reason to bring in lawyers. I think it is much more reasonable to ask the people of North Carolina what they think.

Corwin · 06-24-2002, 03:48 PM

*gets out the clue by four and prepares to apply it forcefully*

The connection between all of these behaviors is quite simple.

Stealing, looting and pillaging are all, in point of fact, already against the law. Guess what? So is the state endorsing a particular religious belief, like state approved license plates saying 'Jesus Saves.' (Jesus doesn't save a thing... if you want to believe this drivel you go ahead... just quit using MY tax dollars to support it and keep the endorsement out of MY secular, let me repeat the word SEC-U-LAR government.)

ManM · 06-24-2002, 03:56 PM

Secular Elation,
I honestly think that should be left up to the city. If a city votes to put that on their city hall, so be it. I would place the wall between church and state right at the point where a group is penalized for what they believe. I use 'penalized' here in a very loose sense because each situation has different circumstances and should be looked at separately. There is a fine line between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority. I don't know if a general rule can properly walk that line.

Toto · 06-24-2002, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
I would place the wall between church and state right at the point where a group is penalized for what they believe.

But that is not what the law says.

There are two parts to the First Amendment - the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. If you cannot be penalized for what you believe, you are guaranteed the free exercise of religion. But there is more to the law than that - the establishment clause says that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This has been extended by the 14th amendment to state and local governments and interpreted by the Supreme Court to require absolute neutrality among religions, and between belief and non-belief.

That means that no level of government can use your tax money to subsidize or promote someone else's religion. This has actually allowed religion to flourish in this country, while it withers away in Europe.

ManM · 06-24-2002, 04:05 PM

Corwin,
I've simply been asking for you to justify the law in this case.

Toto,
I place the same challenge to you. In this specific case, justify the law.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: ManM ]

copernicus · 06-24-2002, 04:54 PM

ManM, the law is quite clear in this case. Tax dollars cannot be used to subsidize or hinder religion. As far as drivers are concerned, especially outside of NC, the message on those plates is also clear. The state government approves of the Christian religion enough to furnish Christian citizens with the service of advertising their religion on a license plate. Since one doesn't see atheist, jewish, or moslem symbols, the state government does not offer that service. Now it may be that these license plates are sold for profit by a private business (which would probably not see much of a market in non-Christian symbolism), but most people aren't even going to think about that. This looks like a state endorsement of Christian religious practices, since license plates are mandated by, and associated with, the state government.

I have to say that I am completely dumbfounded by the attitude of some Christians who seem to believe that they are discriminated against because they can't get religious symbolism and/or ceremonies into government activities. What is the problem with a secular government? Everyone is free to paste religious stickers all over their cars and wave plastic jesuses from their antennas. Why do you need a religious symbol on your license plates? Christianity is in no way threatened by a religion-neutral government. Americans are widely seen as more pro-Christian than almost any other country. The only motivation I can see is that some Christians (not all or necessarily even the majority) are like dogs marking their territory. They need to piss all over government institutions so that everyone else gets their message--"WE OWN THIS TERRITORY".

Toto · 06-24-2002, 05:04 PM

Well put, copernicus.

Corwin · 06-24-2002, 05:15 PM

I agree.

I don't HAVE to justify the law any further than I have. A practice such as this does nothing more than reinforce the dominance of christianity over others. This is the defining example of what the establishment clause was specifcally drafted to prevent.

What priveliges or rights are you being denied? News flash: You DO NOT have any right at all for government to to endorse your particluar little fairy tale. Are you losing this authority? Yes. High time you did too.

06-24-2002, 04:05 PM	#17
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	Corwin, I've simply been asking for you to justify the law in this case. Toto, I place the same challenge to you. In this specific case, justify the law. [ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: ManM ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-24-2002, 03:17 PM	#12
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	ManM, I understand you concern for keeping church and state separate but not cultivating hostility to religious expression. I would agree with your objections in this thread. What is your take on posting "In God We Trust" on City Hall?

06-24-2002, 03:43 PM	#13
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	hezekiah jones, Yes, it a trinket. Why bother make such a stink about it? You still haven't given me a good justification for your zealotry. What harm is being done by them offering a religious license plate as an option? Corwin, Please explain to me how stealing, looting, and pillaging are analogous to selling license plates. Your laundry list of behaviors are harmful and oppressive. Selling religious plates as an option is not oppressive. Given that no harm is being done, I see no reason to bring in lawyers. I think it is much more reasonable to ask the people of North Carolina what they think.

06-24-2002, 03:48 PM	#14
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	gets out the clue by four and prepares to apply it forcefully The connection between all of these behaviors is quite simple. Stealing, looting and pillaging are all, in point of fact, already against the law. Guess what? So is the state endorsing a particular religious belief, like state approved license plates saying 'Jesus Saves.' (Jesus doesn't save a thing... if you want to believe this drivel you go ahead... just quit using MY tax dollars to support it and keep the endorsement out of MY secular, let me repeat the word SEC-U-LAR government.)

06-24-2002, 03:56 PM	#15
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	Secular Elation, I honestly think that should be left up to the city. If a city votes to put that on their city hall, so be it. I would place the wall between church and state right at the point where a group is penalized for what they believe. I use 'penalized' here in a very loose sense because each situation has different circumstances and should be looked at separately. There is a fine line between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority. I don't know if a general rule can properly walk that line.

06-24-2002, 04:54 PM	#18
copernicus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 1,531	ManM, the law is quite clear in this case. Tax dollars cannot be used to subsidize or hinder religion. As far as drivers are concerned, especially outside of NC, the message on those plates is also clear. The state government approves of the Christian religion enough to furnish Christian citizens with the service of advertising their religion on a license plate. Since one doesn't see atheist, jewish, or moslem symbols, the state government does not offer that service. Now it may be that these license plates are sold for profit by a private business (which would probably not see much of a market in non-Christian symbolism), but most people aren't even going to think about that. This looks like a state endorsement of Christian religious practices, since license plates are mandated by, and associated with, the state government. I have to say that I am completely dumbfounded by the attitude of some Christians who seem to believe that they are discriminated against because they can't get religious symbolism and/or ceremonies into government activities. What is the problem with a secular government? Everyone is free to paste religious stickers all over their cars and wave plastic jesuses from their antennas. Why do you need a religious symbol on your license plates? Christianity is in no way threatened by a religion-neutral government. Americans are widely seen as more pro-Christian than almost any other country. The only motivation I can see is that some Christians (not all or necessarily even the majority) are like dogs marking their territory. They need to piss all over government institutions so that everyone else gets their message--"WE OWN THIS TERRITORY".

06-24-2002, 05:04 PM	#19
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Well put, copernicus.

06-24-2002, 05:15 PM	#20
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	I agree. I don't HAVE to justify the law any further than I have. A practice such as this does nothing more than reinforce the dominance of christianity over others. This is the defining example of what the establishment clause was specifcally drafted to prevent. What priveliges or rights are you being denied? News flash: You DO NOT have any right at all for government to to endorse your particluar little fairy tale. Are you losing this authority? Yes. High time you did too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.