hezekiah jones

You'll have to ask Bill why he decided to a make such a "stink" about it. He wrote the letters. But it's quite obvious to me: it's against the law.

If I'm not mistaken the Zealots were a group of religious fanatics contemporaneous with Jesus devoted to the establishment of a Jewish theocracy. The term is far more appropriate to the conservative Christians in this country bent on thumbing their noses at the First Amendment.

And you still haven't cited me any establishment clause cases in which the expression "oppressive" appears.

Once more with feeling: It's against the law.

kingcrim99

Copernicus:

Thanks for that post. If you don't mind, I'm gonna re-use the "urinating on government institutions to mark one's territory" analogy in future conversations.

Stephen Maturin

Ah, but this isn't about anyone's "freedom to buy"; rather, it's about what the government is empowered to sell. No government, be it federal, state or local, has the legal authority to act in contravention of the Constitution, in this case the restrictions on government action imposed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. For reasons already discussed in detail, that's exactly what's going on here.

How so? A government agency acts unconstitutionally, an aggrieved person or organization seeks redress in a court of law, and the court orders a halt to the unconstitutional practice. By its own terms, the U.S. Constitution trumps all other laws, and courts are the final arbiters on matters of constitutional law. That's the way it's been in the good ol' U.S. of A. for centuries.

In a perfect world, people and their democratically elected leaders would understand and embrace the benefits of keeping government out of the religion business. Obviously, we're not there yet.

But fear not; even the Constitution isn't impervious to the democratic process. Read Article V carefully, then contact your congressman and senators. Who knows? You might be able to get the Establishment Clause modified or even repealed. Perhaps you can do away with that pesky federal judiciary as well.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen Maturin ]</p>

miscreant

Not quite. The law is meant to prevent the government from endorsing any religion. You're right in the fact that they are 'just knicknacks', but they're only knickknacks of a particular faith. So by selling them, it puts the government in the position of promoting that faith above others.

You could make the same argument about almost anything that you're making with regards to license plates in terms of economics. After all, if the government was offering a bible for sale because it makes economic sense (after all, we atheist could also have the government sell our 'bible' if there was enough demand ) I doubt you would find it a trivial matter.

Plus, where exactly would you draw the line. You've already said that you would have no problem with these government agencies offering other religious knicknacks as well, whereas I would feel very put off if I walked into a government building and found it full of jesus/allah/god junk. By selling it, they implicitly endorse it.

Miscreant

copernicus

Well, that wasn't exactly my wording, but I accept the modification. Sometimes, I get a little emotional about this issue of church/state separation. I get tired of hearing Christians ask coyly "What's the problem?", as if we were shoving atheism down their throats because they can't proselytize us from a government pulpit.

Jamie_L

I think the legal/constitutional aspect has been well-defined.

Here's the reason I (and maybe others) rally so fervantly to full enforcement of this:

Government is a revolving door of people. Few people in government are really experts on government. They are elected officials, appointees, or just civil servants. The body of law is complex, and many people in government judge what they can or can't do on precedent.

So, if you allow the government to get away with a little violation in C/S separation, people in government see that as precedent. Next time a similar issue comes up, they think "well, it was okay last time. This is okay too." When that happens enough times, people start to feel comfortable with bigger violations. "It's the same thing, right. If we can do it on license plates, we can do it on courtroom walls. What's the difference?" Let this go on long enough, and you've got a much tougher battle to stop the stuff that really bugs you.

Let it go on long enough, and people will start to think the U.S. is a Christian nation, and that the Constitution is based on the Ten Commandments. If that ever happens...

Oh, wait...

Jamie

ManM

Guys,
You all have done exactly what I said in my first post. I'm looking for a deeper justification than "the law says so". Now I know how you feel when dealing with bible-thumpers.

You don't want your tax money to fund something like this, right? I can only say that I think the system is pretty messed up in that respect too. I would love to see a system where you could choose to support only the budget items you wanted. However, the way to change the budget has traditionally been through democratic channels, not the legal system. Still, again I ask: what is the qualitative difference between a license plate that says "Follow me to Church" and one that says "Save the Manatees"? I am aware that one falls under the label of 'religion' and the other under the label of 'activism', but other than names, what is the difference? Can any of you provide anything more substantial than "the law says so"? I personally do not want my tax dollars going to a company who sells environmentalist license plates, but I have no justification for taking that to court.

Also, a few of you have asked where to draw the line. As I said before, I don't think a general rule can be properly applied here. Each case should be taken individually. Personally I feel that the majority should get what they want as long as it does no harm to the minority. The law should protect the minority, but it should not give them license to impose their will on the majority.

My fear is that you are driving the government to become too divorced from the people. I am most disturbed by the fact that individuals can impose their will on the people through the legal system without any moral sanction. If there was a moral sanction then I would have no problem here, but what has been offered is "the law says so". This means as much to me as "God says so" means to you.

Bill Snedden

Other posters have already articulated many of the reasons or answers I would give to the questions posed by ManM in his OP, but I'd like to add a few of my own.

First, I want to reiterate that the plates in question are not the type of vanity plates manufactured by the state. They are the kind you might see for sale in a bookstore or gift shop. They are printed or stamped by private firms. The issue is that they are being sold by a de facto state agency.

You've raised this point several times, and it's certainly true in areas where laws don't exist. However, in this case, the law is clear. The issue is that existing law is being violated. The proper remedy in such a case is legal, not democratic.

If someone breaks into your home and steals your TV, you don't call your congressman.

It's an excellent point and I quite agree. I don't think that state agencies should be doing anything except the business of the state. While it is true, as you note, that "Save the Manatees" is not religious in nature, what business has the government in advocating or supporting causes not directly associated with the state? None. The only reason that I did not specifically object to the non-religious plates was that there was no specific legal basis to do so.

As you yourself have already noted, you have a democratic remedy available: call your congressman and try to get some legislation enacted. I'd be happy to support it in my state.

But neither should the law allow the majority to impose their will on the minority. After all, how does one define "harm"? Should you, as a member of the majority, have the right to define that for me? Shouldn't I be allowed to determine that for myself? That's precisely why U.S. law has been designed explicitly to protect the rights of the minority.

At any rate, this isn't a question of whose rights should be protected. That's already been decided. The law is clear.

I must admit I'm really not sure what you're arguing here. Individuals can only "impose their will" using the legal system to the extent that laws exist that allow them to do so. Those laws are democratically enacted (at least, ostensibly so in the U.S.), which means that, by extension, you voted for them. Therefore, by extension, the individual's ability to "impose their will" has been approved by the majority.

One last thought. As I thought I made clear in the thread you referenced, my objection to this practice is based on my belief that the vendor is an agent in fact of the state of North Carolina. This seems to me supported by the type of operation conducted at the office in question, which is about 90% state business.

This seems to me analagous to a postman selling comic books, including Chick tracts, on his rounds.

However, if the situation had been one in which the state contracted with an existing establishment, say a Walden bookstore, to operate the agency as a kiosk or separate register within their establishment, I would have absolutely no objection to the fact that the store might also sell sectarian literature or trinkets, as long as they weren't sold at the same counter.

The distinction lies in the primary purpose of the contracting vendor. The bookstore exists primarily as a private agency and essentially "rents" space to the government. The license agency, on the other hand, exists primarily for the purpose of state business. SCOTUS has already ruled that such relationships are de facto state agencies and as such are subject to the same laws and regulations as the state.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

P.S. Did I really go "ballistic?"

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Corwin

ManM.... if you ever get pulled over... possibly you might like to try this with the police?

'Yes officer I know I was going 90 miles an hour in a 45 zone.... but what's the real problem here? Can you give me something more substantial than 'the law says so?!?!?!?!?' Then I won't accept your ticket.'

Yeah... that'll fly.

Secular Elation

Well, there has been the Lemon test, in which a proposed law was examined to see if it (1) furthered or aided any particular religion or (2)had a secular purpose. Such a law had to not follow number 1 and not violate number 2.

But ManM, about the IGWT posting...would you yourself support such a proposal, even speak out in favor of it? How do you think this doesn't "harm" (whatever your particular meaning of this word is) the minority?