Secularism, the seperation of church and state, as championed by the United States, is exactly what helped religion to flourish in America. Religion is supposed to be a safe haven of irrationality, wherein people may find peace for their souls or free themselves from the shackles of injustice casted by whatever is passing as rationality in these times. This abundant freedom for private citizens is only possible precisely because government at all levels is forbidden from mingling with it.
1:15 – Uh, no. Public institutions were not meant to be for that purpose by the Founders. The Founders wanted Americans to have the absolute right to religious freedom in private – a freedom that government could never infringe upon simply because it's the freedom of a private citizen. Hence, secularism, the seperation of Church and State is a protection of two concepts intrinsically linked with each other: religious freedom and privacy.
S.A. not bad. I personally believe in a higher power and I am disheartened by atheism and satanic advertisement. In fairness everyone should be allowed to personalize their plates, let us get it out in the open so we know who is who. If you want a plate with a lynching more power to you. I know who I won't be asking for directions or accepting rides from. After all the is the kind of stuff that allows Americans to still feel as if they have liberty.
You have either misinterpreted your own quote or worse... you are intentionally misleading people. Your quote is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and it really means a separation of state FROM church NOT a separation of church AND state. That juncture is crucial imo. The quote was meant to keep Government out of religious business and does NOT imply vice versa.
@SirKanti1 ESTABLISHMENT of religion means that there shall be no establishment of a Church of America, like a system of the church of England. It has nothing to do with repression of religion expressionism.
"I don't believe in any particular god, but having a plate that says atheist on my car seems silly."
Yes but I would never begrudge you the option of having a plate that said that -- however silly it may be. The point is not whether it's silly, the point is whether it's right to try to force people to stop.
that is a dumb argument. I don't care what you believe or don't believe. The purpose of all of this Prohibition has nothing to do with protecting those who don't believe; it is simply testing the waters on the part of the Government, how "cute" they can argue an offensive argument, and how FAR they can push us to offende those who do believe in Faith-
It's about control, not about "fairness-"
You "think" you are so brilliant; but most Intelliects and Liberals-And atheists
this federal opressor has no right to dictate policys to us. dosent her $ say "in God we trust"? noones seems to have a problem with that being printed on $ they are forced to use but some stranger payin extra to get an "I believe" plate for their own personal vehicle is unnaceptable. this forced union is filled to the gills with hypocritical double standards.
the lawsuit has no validity. it claims these tags are "state sponsored" and "taxpayer supported" and thats just not true.
well the point i was trying to make is that this whole thing was started by people living in SC. It would be impossible for anyone who doesn't live there start this lawsuit, they wouldn't have standing. Basically someone in SC felt that these license plates violated their rights, the judge may hav no problem w/ the plates themselves, only that someone is offended by them somehow. It's rediculous but somehow people are.
it dosent matter if some asshole is offended. we believe in a lil thing called the 1st amendment and free speech. oviousley the feds have no use for it.
I am offended by satanist symbols and american flags but you dont see me tryina get em banned and sue somebody over it.
Yea, SC needs to fire whatever attorney's represented them in this case, it definatley could be a 1st amendment case. A license plate isn't really any different than a bumper sticker w/ a cross on it, which isn't illegal.
"Yea, SC needs to fire whatever attorney's represented them in this case, it definatley could be a 1st amendment case. A license plate isn't really any different than a bumper sticker w/ a cross on it, which isn't illegal."
A bumper sticker issued by the government shouldn't appear to endorse any religion. This is what the judge ruled on. If one doesn't like the law, all one has to do is lobby congress to change the law explicitly.
@averylbrooks Technically, the First Amendment never applied to the States until the 14th Amendment, and, as such, one could argue that the state still has the authority to establish or sponsor any religious activity within its borders.
Christian conservatives use religion to try to legislate on abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and tons of other things. Christianity is ridiculous, and Christians are the ULTIMATE bad neighbors. It doesn't matter if they were here first and managed to put their footprints all over a supposedly secular country.
are you aware that the Bible actually condemns Christmas. This is why the churches rely so heavily on their followers not reading the Bible. They would be exposed totally, as they are being now.
Christmas was originally called Winter solstice - look it up - and look up 'yule' celebrations also.
that time of year is still called winter solstice..just like the spring eqinox around the time of easter...these are cosmological markers of the presession of the earth through the year...these have always been themes for festivals throughout the world due to agricultural concerns...the christian holidays or "holy days" which is where the term comes from was placed close to already existing celebrations for convenience..and no the bible does not condemn holidays...your misinterpreting scripture.
I really like this one. The concept of separation of church and state was to save the population for religious persecution, not remove all religion from the state. If they are going to deny that license plate they should also take the ten commandments down from every courthouse and wipe 'In God We Trust" off all the money. I respect anyone's right to their choice of religeon and everyone else should have the same courtesy and not be a complete ass about it. Thumbs up.
They SHOULD wipe "In God We Trust" off of money and the Ten Commandments from courthouses. Because the majority of Americans have been Christian, Christians have easily managed to put their mark on a government that was supposed to be not influenced by religion. Why are the Ten Commandments there? Maybe because people (wrongfully) associate religion with morality. Our laws couldn't be further from the rules found in the Bible. Now people are waking up to the poison of religion. Moving forward.
The funniest thing is, if anyone does their history, they'll find that most of these 'christian' holidays originate from pagan celebrations anyway lol.
One thing I have noticed over the years is that athiests and those of other religions never refuse bonuses or rest days with full pay due to christian 'holidays' LOL - yet they're quick to insult christians. Maybe they should think about this next time a holiday comes round and work through holidays, especially considering they don't believe?
I know too many athiests who just celebrated the birth of Christ??????? I think they're confused.
Christmas started out as a celebration of the birth of Christ, and many people still consider it that. But it has changed, and it is a very commercial holiday. It doesn't matter where it came from, it could be anything. It's totally incidental that it's Christian. I know that Jesus Christ was probably not a real person, with no contemporaneous mention of him by anyone throughout history. Celebrating Christmas is just not very Christian. I couldn't care less about Jesus. I love presents. Got it?
You are wrong - christmas is not a christian celebration, its a pagan one, which originally involved human sacrifice, orgies including children, and many other things. The church adopted it to gain more followers.
Anyone who thinks its a christian celebration and still celebrates it is a hypocrite.
groups still perform human sacrifice and it has never been done "only" on the winter solstice but rather anytime they wish to perform their black magic rituals... the solstice is one of many astrological dates used in the solomonic rites of blood baptism....there are thousands of winter solstice celebrations throughout the world in many cultures for many reasons other than christian....history is not so B@W as you would "like" it to be to fit your argument of anti-christian rhetoric..
if this was also aimed at me, I don't recall stating that sacrifices only take place at winter solstice. Other religions may well celebrate other things, but as you might be aware, this was about the church. Thank you for your input.
On slang: what about "By Jove," of calling someone jovial, mercurial, saturnine, the astrology implicit in disaster or consider or influenza? Even the phrases "Beware of the Dog" or "on the other hand" come from pagan Rome, as do many reflections and cautions taken by our founding fathers in establishing our republican government.
Conserving our culture is conserving more than our Christian heritage, it is conserving our pre-Christian heritage too. Perhaps the older is the better part.
So far as holidays go, there's nothing necessarily Christian about it. Nor is the Christian religion so interwoven with the calender, nor with speech (at least not to the exclusion of other creeds) as you suppose. After all, Isn't Thursday named for Thor, and Friday for Frey? Isn't July named for Julius Caesar and August for Augustus? Do you not realize that even Christmas has pagan roots, having to do with the solstice and that the early church celebrated the birth of its savior at other times?
This video spurs me to say so many things I doubt I could fit them all in one Youtube comment box.
To start, can we, as lovers of liberty and proponents of civil society please agree that asking for any personalized symbolism on a mandatory government-issued identity tag is at least a little ridiculous?
For my part, as an atheist, I have no trouble with the idea that people could ask for a cross on their license plate, so long as I have the option not to have one.
Just to clarify one thing, "Separation of Church and State" IS found in the Constitution. The 1st amendment says "Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion...". The term "separation of church and state" is just a shorter name for that law. It's just like the phrase "double jeoprady",that phrase isn't in the constitution word for word but it sums up a clause in the 5th amendment.
You make a valid point, but you should be aware that phrases, whether they appear in the language of the US documents or not, can just as well derive from the substantial body of written commentary and debate that went on about these principles before and after the documents were written and adopted. I think SA is right about Jefferson's remarks.
Yes but "separation of church and state" does sum up the meaning of the 1st amendment. And I don't know if he's right about Jefferson's remarks for 2 reasons. a, Jefferson himself was NOT a Christian, and b, Jefferson's philosiphy of law is "living constitution" which means he wanted lawyers today to interpret the constitution for today's world not the 1700's. If our country becomes filled w/ many muslims, jews & others, he would say we should respect their religion and not offend them.
Who would say we should respect and not offend a possible Muslim majority, Jefferson or the Southern Avenger?
It is easy to assume too much or overstate the case of what Jefferson would say should be done in our day. He, like any other man would have some standards of decency and would surely object, whether on reasoned or emotional grounds to some things in the America which is now so changed from what he knew.
SA makes good points. This license plate issue is ridiculous in so many ways.
I heard someone say that in order to get one of the license plates you had to pay for it, so it is rediculous since no one's tax dollars would pay for it. But one thing that always goes noticed w/ these court cases is that someone in SC was offended and took the state to court. Avenger blames the judge, but she only rules on how constitutional the plates are. There is a rat in SC, it's whoever filed the lawsuit against the license plates in the first place.
Im sorry, but i cant support this video. The seperation of church and state is more important then you seem to believe it to be. I agree that this issue with the plates is really not something important, but i just dont like the overall tone you used here which seemed to be going down the "this is a christian nation" road. Yes, christianity is a part of american culture, but so what?
Even if you pay for the plates, taxes pay the time of the people who work on their production, for the equipment that produces them, for the artist who does the final design, etc, etc. So in the end, even if the equipment was paid off and the 30 bucks covered the cost of labor, it's still the use public property--my property--to produce something that I may or may not agree with. If I can't use it for whatever kind of plate I want, regardless of signatures, it's unconstitutional (and immoral)
to clear any confusion this plate just like many other themed plates already avaliale in SC has to be requested and cost an extra $30. it dosent go on everybodys and you have to pay for it yourself.
if the jews or muslims want their own special plates all they gotta do is collect enough signatures and advance orders to start production.
I should also note that you have the freedom to choose not to put your license plate on or use someone else's money to express your religious beliefs. It's just that such a freedom is in a more general sense and on that level, we all have the freedom to pool our money, elect management, and have you arrested for using our money to express yourself.
I fail to see how there's a difference between expressing your religious values through public institutions and others expressing their non-smoking values through public institutions. I agreed when you noted, in your video about smoking, that civilization is self-governance and the less we can govern ourselves, the less civilized we really are. As the owner of your car, you can spray paint a huge cross all over your car; why the need to force the license plates through my taxes?
to clear any confusion this plate just like many other themed plates already avaliale in SC has to be requested and cost an extra $30. it dosent go on everybodys and you have to pay for it yourself.
if the jews or muslims want their own special plates all they gotta do is collect enough signatures and advance orders to start production.
so if i was jewish they would make me get a Christian-themed license plate ???? i mean if the Christian-themed license plate was optional i guess that would be okay but forcing it on every one isn't
I sympathize with the argument, Jack, but aren't we getting carried away with these special license plates? After all, we are talking about licensing vehicles! Just do a simple license plate with the state motto or bird, whatever. They way they used to. I fear a liberal judge will grant the Muslims a crescent moon plate. Now that would suck.
espunde, you have me confused with someone else. I responded to some anti-Christian person who noted that among his insults. I am a bible believing Christian and my church, like thevast majority of Christian churches is not a million dollar corporation. I think your comment about Jesus and the moneychangers is right on. i hope I'm not hurtinbg you, but I feel that modern day name-it-and-claim-it teachers are like those moneychangers. Cash 1st, then the Lord.
Most Churchesare not multimillion $ operations. A church cannot be involved in politics or try to influence votes, but it can take a moral stand on issues. Finally, why am I wasting time one someone who is so obviously bigoted?
The State shouldn't be in the business of advertising political, religious or any other kind of view/theme through a licence granted to individuals. Just print the plate, put the State's name and motto on it, and be done with it.
You,Sir, are to be pitied. You are in my prayers whether you like it or not. may God Grant you the peace you so sorely need. There is no need to argue aor discuss further; your mind is currently made up.
I can see why you call youself paulCynic. Christianit is not blind faith or mindless obedience, it is a relationship with ahigher power. Those who call themselves Christians and teah persecution or hatred of other are not Christians, merely appropriating the name for their own purposes. Bitterness and cynicism eataway at peace and hapiness. Whatever you think of Christians ofany stripe,try to put a little love in your heart. God loves you please let Him show you
Is anyone's tax dollars going into the creation of these plates? If not, why not propose other plates to balance out instead of preventing people from buying vanity they want. I've seen plates in my state that feature non-profit organizations like United Way. So should these be banned as well? As long as someones liberties aren't being trampled, the only way would be through some subsidization or tax then I believe vanity plates are fair game.
Its just a comeuppance for the Theological tyranny imposed on persons of non-Christian faith that goes back to as far as Christians murdering Christians over whose interpretation of the Bible is Correct. Too bad the Gnostics were pacifists, as their extremely violence competitors wiped them out. You know, burning them alive, chopping off heads.. etc. The kind of thing you still see in ultra religious countries, and used to see in this Nation--hence the murder of Joseph Smith and his followers.
Christians are victims only of their own violence recalcitrance. When allowed to substitute their blind faith for secular law, they have always chosen to violently and sadistically murder those who question their reason and actions. Although not unique to Christianity, any violent dogma will do the same; Christianity does not get a free pass because of it. Nobody is persecuting Christianity, we are merely defending our right to a peaceful life.
Poor Christians, I feel so sorry for their activist groups and churches (which are often staging grounds for political movements) are often tax exempt. They are in such horrible danger of being persecuted and prevented from praising jeebus in the privacy of their own multimillion dollar churches. What hope is there for them???
So basically you don't think its an establishment of religion if only license plates with Christian overtones are made available but no others because Christians make a greater % of the pop. and they make a greater contribution. Clearly the greater the % of the pop. a group has, the more entitled they are. Plus, no other group of people has ever contributed anything to our culture. Not our language, our sciences, our music, our agriculture, our philosophies, our art, etc etc etc.
I cannot wait for the inevitable day when Muslims are the dominate world faith, not because I am a Muslim, but it will put the Dominant Is Right view into perspective for so many Christians. They'll suddenly start chanting, as they are doing now in Europe, "We must separate Faith from Government!" as their way of life will be subject to a more violent religion with a stronger political constituency. Silly, silly, Christians, and their need to be victims. You're really just setting yourselves up
Some of these extremist even lash out at other Christians. Christians should see that, that these people aren't just interested in expressing their beliefs in a public manner, they have very specific beliefs they hold and they have little regard for you if you belong to a different denomination, or have different political views (no matter how slight). What stops them when they are finished setting the precedent against us "non-Christians"? Your different? They put you in the same group as us.
In this particular case, this is clearly state-sponsored religious preference for one religion. It is not just another vanity plate. If it was just another vanity plate, this whole case may not have even come up. Also, those that brought the lawsuit are not atheists but other religious people, including Christians, who find great value and a constitutional basis for not having state-sponsored religion.
Another important thing to note is that the first amendment bars the NATIONAL government from infringing upon the liberties therein, it specifically mentions congress. Presumably my state of Florida could adopt Roman Catholicism as its state religion, or Presbyterianism, or Baptist, etc. Though someone could probably bring up the 14th amendment and its equal protection clause, but how could one apply an amendment that only mentions congress to the states? Questions, questions...
Actually it cannot. The Federal Supreme court has decided that the Constitution applies to all levels of government, and all persons within the borders of the United States. Yours is an argument dealt back in the 50's and 60's when States argued the right of Segregation. Sorry, but States are subject to the Constitution as well. Nice try though.
If we accept that the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the States (its original intent did not mean to do this, but we will accept it anyways), all that does is prevent the States from having a state religion, it does not prevent religion from entering the public domain. I may not be religious at all and in fact find it to too often be a bad thing, but if we go by original intent than this is the way things should be...until an amendment is passed that changes 'of' to 'from'.
You mean the activist Warren Court took liberties with constitutional interpretation and extrapolated a right to non-discrimination which doesn't exist in the constitution. In addition this amendment was forced on the South by radical republicans who then segregated public schools in D.C.see Southern ManifestoI'm sure they meant the 14th amend. to proscribe segregation. Yours is a weak argument, not backed up by evidence, law or history, just that the law is what SCOTUS says it is.
Making a license plate with a Christian cross on it creates an implied endorsement of a particular religion by the state government.
There is plenty of bumper space left for a bumper sticker if you want to express a religious view.
"Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" creates a separation of church and state. It is this separation that GIVES us freedom of religion.
South Carolina having a cross on as one of their license plate options is not an establishment of religiion. Unless South Carolina passes a law stating Christianity is the state religion than they are not violating the first amendment.
I think your logic is flawed on this one, Jack. I love your video column but in this case, I think you're wrong.
The SC license plate essentially amounts to tax-payer advertising for Christianity. When you advertise for something, you endorse it, which is what the state is doing here. Your arguments about Christian culture are probably right, but the state is still endorsing a specific faith in this case, which I believe is unconstitutional.
As an atheist I dont really care as long as anybody can do it. What I mean is if I believe in allah I should have the right to put that on my plate. Or if I believe in Odin or Zeus. The problem with most christians is that they believe their religion should be the only respected one. Look at that courthouse thing in Washington. People bitched cause there was an atheist sign next to an christian one. Christians want their belief and only their belief in America.
What's so offensive about a license plate? I've seen cars covered with Jesus stickers and it doesn't offend me, and I'm not religious. Sucks for that lady who has to judge through Christmas.
Also wanted to point out that our system of months were derived from Pagan ideologies of the Romans and/or Greeks.
Yeah in Florida we have options and I agree with your comment that this should be the least of people's worries especially if the their are other non religious options for lps.
Overall this is a good video. However, I have to agree that the license plate is establishing a religion by a state. I do think the Separation of Church and State is abused by numerous atheists.
Imagine for a moment every person were to walk around with a chain around his or her neck with a numbered plate issued by the state identifying that person with a number. Perhaps it might be appropriate in the prison system but not in a free society.
One suggestion to this ugly mess is to eliminate state issued license plates. But how are we supposed to identify millions of vehicle from one another you ask? Simple. Each vehicle has the manufactures "VIN", unique to each vehicle. Like human fingerprint. The concept of license plates is yet another system of control by the state.
Your money going to a piece of metal with some paint resembling a cross should be the least of your worries considering the other retarded things taxpayer money goes toward.
And it is one of the least of my worries, but still worrying none the less. It's also more the business of people who live in South Carolina than mine. But no self respecting Christian would be ok with public financing of atheist merchandise and rightfully so. The fact that atheists are a minority doesn't make it any different. The majority does not have the right to trample over the rights of the minority.
i am don't believe in religion, however i love god.. agnostic i suppose.. i do however think that in no way does this customizing of a license plate have any church state mingling.
However if the state license plate was solely offered with a cross i would find that very hateful of the Christians two their neighbors. It would be no different than a Muslim forcing a christian two we're their symbol. but of course this has nothing to do with the first part... good vid
wait wait wait....is the "i believe" license plate a choice? he wasn't clear on that. is it like one of the few you could choose from? cuz that would be fine by me. or is it to become the official new license plate. i'm an agnostic, and wouldn't like being forced to drive around saying "i believe" when i don't. doesn't mean i feel i'm entitled to a "i don't believe" plate, and i don't care if other people have that choice in license plate, but it shouldn't be THE PLATE.
I think the issue is that if they give people the choice of getting a Christian license plate, then they have to provide license plates for all religions (jewish, muslim, buddhist, surrealist, rastafarian, atheist, etc., etc. ad infinitum).
The license plate is/was designed to identify a vehicle, and is essentially for official state business only. Christian drivers can express their beliefs with any number of bumper stickers, placards or signs.
I don't think the state should be putting that on license plates, especially in the belt buckle of the bible belt. Choosing that plate calls upon institutions that should be intentionally seperated. Who's to say that a police officer running your plate might give you special treatment for being of the same faith as he is.
It's just not something that belongs on a license plate. It's fucking tacky. License plates are for police use, not religious expression.
I'm an atheist but I agree with the Avenger here, whether we like it or not Christianity is a big part of American culture and people have a right to tacky mascots whether its a sports team or jesus.
If a state was primarily Jewish or Muslim would it be okay to put a star of david or a crescent moon on a license plate? It seems like christmas is a time for conservatives to get all worked over how christmas and christ are important while the rest of the country scratches their heads in dismay and does not really care. Maybe it is more of a Southern thing. I live in one of the most liberal cities in the US that is voted the best place to in the US to celebrate christmas and has a lot of Jews.
yes it would. if the people want it they should be allowed to have it. I personally love crescent moons. it is a symbol of liberty here in SC and many other parts of Dixie. if the jews or muslims want their own plate all they gotta do is collect enough signatures. most christians arent affended by other symbols. why are most atheist so offended by ours?
I have actually heard folks say that the first synagogue was here in SC. dont know if its true but ie heard that more than once.
Yes, the line has been blurred from its conception. Arbitrarily drawing the line here and there is what makes it so. Without ever drawing the line, there would be no line. This is only one of many drawn lines. There must be something of more interest to debate..
The licence plate is not a government endorsement of religion. It's a way of expressing a personal right to religion that we all have. Those atheist idiots need to mind to there own sad lives and leave every one else alone.
Correct as usual SA. The only thing more funny than a hypocrite Christian is a hyopcrite Atheist. Many non-believers feel that they are "enlightened." Yet, we see that they can't tolerate differing opinions. Open minded indeed.
What they don't have enough bumper stickers for "the bible hugging, in your face, I'm Christian"s? Now they got to issue special licence plates for them too?
I'm Christian as well, but I keep my faith at home and in the Church where I feel it belongs. Religion is a private matter.
They are, but this video was lazy and relied on emotional appeals to "folkiness" and "culture" instead of argument the actual issue at hand: state-sponsored religious advertising.
You argued against your-self in this video. While the "I believe" is a fundamental right of expression, yet you completely discount anyone that is different and base it on an appeal to tradition and argumentum ad populum. While this is favoritism no matter what you base it on thus establishing religion in government. If those "fundamentalist" where not so dammed pushy there would not be "pushy atheists". America is as live and let live as you make it to be.
I try to be civil with people's irrational beliefs, but please, don't spend public money for it. If all of the additional costs associated with these plates are charged when you order them, fine, but don't subsidize them with general public funds. I might be polite regarding silly beliefs, but it rubs me the wrong way to pay for them.
What I disagree with is how uses the picture of Annie Laurie Gaylor without actually taking anything she says at all. He makes no comparison whatsoever. I find that duplicitous.
I do wish that my fellow Americans of irreligious sensibilities would not feel compelled to litigate everything. If you wish to live without religion in your life then you're generally successful of avoiding religion in all but the most superficial sense. Heather MacDonald has an excellent thread on this matter over at the Secular Right Blog--which I would heartily recommend to any fans of Hume, MacDonald, Derbyshire, et al.
Yes, but not all the people of the state agree to this plate. I mean, what if San Francisco had a license plate that had a giant dildo on it? I'm sure SOME people in San Francisco would mind.
Your examples of little trees and birds are not very convincing because they are not very exciting subjects. Religion, however, is. It's like putting an aborted fetus on a license plate in a pro-life state. You're feigning ignorance of which things are offensive and which things aren't.
Personally, I don't see a point in maintaining the outward expression of one's faith to others. In my experience, it's usually the loudest promoters of an idea or faith that are usually the most unsure of it as a whole.
I'm gay and a pagan, and I just find expressions like these to be tiring on the eye and useless to argue over. Mainstream religions and social groups will do what they darn well please no matter who gripes the loudest anyways. Look at the KKK, if you want proof of that.
Why the fuck are we letting the biggest assholes of either side of an argument dominate the face of one position or another. We, the level headed middle-of-the-roaders, need to start pushing back at these loudmouth shit heads.
For the record, I don't like the idea of the religious license plate. Go ahead with bumper stickers and license plate covers but it's these little steps that we ignore along the way to the big steps that then don't look so bad.
Don't all of these controversies considering religion beg the question...why is the state even involved? What is the need for license plates? I, a law abiding citizen need to allow the government to identify my vehicle? For what lawful purpose?
I always look at separation of church and state as defined by the 1st amendment. Nothing more. The vast majority who uses that term tend to be the biggest violators of that term. The concept of state vs fed is something I'm learning more on and it's part of a continuous shaping of my views. A few years ago, I'd be upset about this license plate, mistakenly applying a separation defined on the fed level to the state level. (more)
Is there a difference between a state establishing a religion and a state providing an option for a religion that would deem far more beneficial to the state than any other religion? I imagine it's optional where they'd charge more to have one. The extra money going to the budget. If so, then it would be pointless to make them for other religions where there aren't enough of to bother making them. No economic sense behind that.(more)
While this is fine for Carolinians, it wouldn't fly in California and isn't that the beauty of handling things on a state level? To know and believe that each state isn't and shouldn't be a carbon copy of each other?
Good Lord! What is the fricking problem here? Excellent essay, Jack! If we can have state birds, corn, the Statue of Liberty, state trees, pro-abortion, that's right I said pro-abortion, and everybody accepts what is considered American, sex smattered all over the T.V., perverse values everywhere, then why by heaven, or by earth, can we absolutely not have a Christian symbol? Right on! Why is it we have to put up with what we object to, but they don't have to put up with what we *may* hold dear?
What it comes down to, my friend, is what value we place on something is being determined by the government! We say violations of our principles is unnatural, while we hold to unjustifiable principles, restrictive -- such as encouraging early-teen sex, promoting homosexuality, worldly music at school -- and certain politics, like spending being shoved down our throats.
What the fricking devil is objecting to what basically doesn't officially exist, while our values are pummeled mercilessly.
Now we're having contra-parentis rules and regulations and laws shoved down our throats, such as the fact that you have to relinquish your child to the government for certain hours a day, you can't determine or guide about child abortion, or keep sex 'education' non-worldly without explicit intervention. Since when did I forgo my progency to a federal arm?
Your thoughts make the blind see and the seeing blind. Thank you, sir!
Seems like the Freedom From Religion movement is going so far as to push that public profession of beliefs become illegal. I guess they don't realize that this would make even our atheist founding fathers like Jefferson roll over in their graves.
Also the idea that Citizens other faiths or Beliefs are Foreigners In a Christain Nation Simply Divisive. Yes Christainity is A Majority, So Are White People , Do you Declare that we are a WHITE NATION!
Yes, Christians Cant Practice their Religion With a State Issued Crucifix on their Car. Please.
I personaly see no gross breach of Chruch-state seperation here.
But the issue Becomes You Open Pandoras Box,
Would Christian allow the State to issue plates with Muslim, Satanist, or Pastafarian Symbols? Yes this is a Vaild Argument. It was George Washington that said 'The United States is in no sense founded upon Christian Doctrine' !
You're also on shaky ground, esp. if you're a politician, if you try to justify doing something or enacting some law just because "God says so". As a secular American, those arguments obviously don't work on me, and to use those as a basis for argument in debate should not be allowed. I say, if you believe that strongly in "protecting" marriage, don't argue against it simply because you think God hates gays or gay marriage. Instead, give us concrete secular reasons why.
While I disagree that this is still a Christian nation (more like a multicultural or inclusive nation of many faiths), I will agree that groups like FFRF and the ACLU have gone a little too far in their arrogance. Separation of church and state is a good overall principle, regardless of whether it's actually constitutional. I see separation of church and state as meaning absolutely no theocracy, and politicians can't invoke the name of God to justify things like wars in the Middle East.
I've never seen anyone argue this so eloquently, Jack. Well-done. You are be one of the few truly academic, nonpartisan and intelligent conservatives I've come across over the Internet or seen on TV. You don't just spout talking points like so many conservatives in this country. Of course, you're no ordinary conservative. I'm no ordinary liberal, either, having many liberal view on social issues but actually being a libertarian socially and a moderate liberal on economics. Tough on crime.
I'm agnostic, and while I have heavy disdain for religion (its historical excesses and some of the stupidity in these sacred texts that should just be left out and replaced with good old moral principles), I still tolerate my fellow religious Americans. However, there's always this ongoing battle insid me: do I try to convert people to stop being so religious so society can advance and stop putting superstition above progression, or do I just leave them alone? It's a tough one.
Wrong again. Comparing the statue of liberty license plate with the christian cross is simply wrong. One is a symbol of one of our country's most famous landmarks (which was donated by france) which is located on ellis lsland which is a part of new york. the other is a religious symbol that is not exclusive to one state. A religious symbol should not be forced upon a population who didn't ask for nor need it. Stick with south carolina symbols or mottos on the plates.
Nobody's forcing anybody to have religious symbols on their license places. These religious symbols were placed on license plates as a matter of personal preference.
Unfortunetly I DISAGREE with SA on this one. He wouldn't be singing the same tune if Michigan decided to put the muslim cresent on their licence plates.
Thanx SA! We're simply controlled by anti-Christian New-left bigots. Religion is not private; I am what I believe, and tough luck if some don't like that. I pay for my Licence plate! What next? We can't wear crosses or publish religious works? I get offended everyday by what I see on TV shows, by universities spending our tax money on radical leftist indoctrination, by the insults of atheists and youtube haters, and by my "union" spending millions of our dollars supporting gay-marriage ads.
The lady pictured is Annie Laurie Gaylor. I like her position in which that the government should not be in the business of promoting religion or irreligion, but to remain neutral. I think that is the key motivation behind pursuing the court case.
Furthermore, any idiot that need to display his or her faith via government allowance is pretty insecure. When bumper stickers and fish decals aren't enough, you've got yourself a bona fide nutjob.
Sure there are people out there who claim to get offended at seeing religious stuff, but that's not the point. The situation with the Christian plate is the same with the crap going on in Washington state right now. If you allow one view of religion to be displayed via gov't means, you must allow all other views. To only pick one or two is discrimination. THAT'S why church and state should be separate; the gov't should not be in the business of helping people express their religious beliefs.
Just b/c the United States is primarily Christian does NOT mean the government is. The license plates are nothing really, the key point here is that just b/c the majority of the country is one religion does not mean that they should push their values onto others through the government. You'd be singing a different tune if the US was 40% Muslim and 20% atheist, agnostic, etc. Just because those people aren't Christian does not mean they should put "In Allah We Trust" or "In No God We Trust."
Actually, the first amendment clauses concerning religion only refer to the federal government ("CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment..."), not to the state governments. At the time of the founders Virginia and Massachusetts had state churches and they needed guarantees that the federal government would not interfere with them, hence the first amendment rights. So, since the SC government is not a part of the federal government, it is not doing anything unconstitutional.
Do not get me wrong, I am not religious and I do not support what the South Carolina government was trying to do, since I am an anarcho-capitalist. I am just saying that the Constitution does not prohibit it.
The only problem I have with the "Christian Right" is when they overstep their bounds and try to paint their ideals as Republican ideals. The two don't always mix.
In this case, no skin off my nose. As I don't agree I should have to pay taxes on my car, I don't think there should be a license plate either. Tax the actual drivers license instead of a car, then you are actually taxed for usage of the road instead of ownership of property.
True, that is another form of government double dipping into what is not theirs...
In terms of Gas, I can drive a truck on his ranch but I still have to pay tax on it? I don't really like that with the gas tax. But no matter what you do for a public road usage fee, there will be a hole where some will slip though, so the government will just take all the money they think they can get. It's quite sad really.
Jack, as usual, is again correct.
WestSkier11 1 month ago
I am an Atheist or Non-theist as I like to say. And, I agree with Jack on this issue. It is, after all, an intellectual argument.
atchisrj1 3 months ago
Secularism, the seperation of church and state, as championed by the United States, is exactly what helped religion to flourish in America. Religion is supposed to be a safe haven of irrationality, wherein people may find peace for their souls or free themselves from the shackles of injustice casted by whatever is passing as rationality in these times. This abundant freedom for private citizens is only possible precisely because government at all levels is forbidden from mingling with it.
therealaj123 7 months ago
1:15 – Uh, no. Public institutions were not meant to be for that purpose by the Founders. The Founders wanted Americans to have the absolute right to religious freedom in private – a freedom that government could never infringe upon simply because it's the freedom of a private citizen. Hence, secularism, the seperation of Church and State is a protection of two concepts intrinsically linked with each other: religious freedom and privacy.
therealaj123 7 months ago
Let's just break the law and bring back the "I Believe" License Plates back anyway. There's nothing Judge Cameron can do if we disobey her.
GreatAuntCayce 1 year ago
S.A. not bad. I personally believe in a higher power and I am disheartened by atheism and satanic advertisement. In fairness everyone should be allowed to personalize their plates, let us get it out in the open so we know who is who. If you want a plate with a lynching more power to you. I know who I won't be asking for directions or accepting rides from. After all the is the kind of stuff that allows Americans to still feel as if they have liberty.
trevaan7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In response to SirKanti1
You have either misinterpreted your own quote or worse... you are intentionally misleading people. Your quote is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and it really means a separation of state FROM church NOT a separation of church AND state. That juncture is crucial imo. The quote was meant to keep Government out of religious business and does NOT imply vice versa.
remyllebeau77 2 years ago
what? you say that separation of church and state isn't mentioned in the Constitution?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Its the very first line on the bill of rights for Christ shake
SirKanti1 2 years ago
@SirKanti1 ESTABLISHMENT of religion means that there shall be no establishment of a Church of America, like a system of the church of England. It has nothing to do with repression of religion expressionism.
GermanConquistador08 1 year ago
whatever happened to a simple blank tag? It seems like a waste of money to use state funds to add the additional equipment for all specialty plates.
I don't believe in any particular god, but having a plate that says atheist on my car seems silly. I guess they are going on the argument of equality.
The speaker on the video cites history as a reason to have the cross. Should S.C. have a slavery plate too? or Secessionists, or lynchings.
nicowens0419 2 years ago
"I don't believe in any particular god, but having a plate that says atheist on my car seems silly."
Yes but I would never begrudge you the option of having a plate that said that -- however silly it may be. The point is not whether it's silly, the point is whether it's right to try to force people to stop.
Ishpeck 2 years ago
that is a dumb argument. I don't care what you believe or don't believe. The purpose of all of this Prohibition has nothing to do with protecting those who don't believe; it is simply testing the waters on the part of the Government, how "cute" they can argue an offensive argument, and how FAR they can push us to offende those who do believe in Faith-
It's about control, not about "fairness-"
You "think" you are so brilliant; but most Intelliects and Liberals-And atheists
Are not so smart
poitrenaud 2 years ago
Why all the animosity at the judge, some South Carolinians are the ones who started the lawsuit.
Odyssey54 2 years ago
this federal opressor has no right to dictate policys to us. dosent her $ say "in God we trust"? noones seems to have a problem with that being printed on $ they are forced to use but some stranger payin extra to get an "I believe" plate for their own personal vehicle is unnaceptable. this forced union is filled to the gills with hypocritical double standards.
the lawsuit has no validity. it claims these tags are "state sponsored" and "taxpayer supported" and thats just not true.
803honda 2 years ago
well the point i was trying to make is that this whole thing was started by people living in SC. It would be impossible for anyone who doesn't live there start this lawsuit, they wouldn't have standing. Basically someone in SC felt that these license plates violated their rights, the judge may hav no problem w/ the plates themselves, only that someone is offended by them somehow. It's rediculous but somehow people are.
Odyssey54 2 years ago
it dosent matter if some asshole is offended. we believe in a lil thing called the 1st amendment and free speech. oviousley the feds have no use for it.
I am offended by satanist symbols and american flags but you dont see me tryina get em banned and sue somebody over it.
803honda 2 years ago
Yea, SC needs to fire whatever attorney's represented them in this case, it definatley could be a 1st amendment case. A license plate isn't really any different than a bumper sticker w/ a cross on it, which isn't illegal.
Odyssey54 2 years ago
"Yea, SC needs to fire whatever attorney's represented them in this case, it definatley could be a 1st amendment case. A license plate isn't really any different than a bumper sticker w/ a cross on it, which isn't illegal."
A bumper sticker issued by the government shouldn't appear to endorse any religion. This is what the judge ruled on. If one doesn't like the law, all one has to do is lobby congress to change the law explicitly.
averylbrooks 2 years ago
@averylbrooks Technically, the First Amendment never applied to the States until the 14th Amendment, and, as such, one could argue that the state still has the authority to establish or sponsor any religious activity within its borders.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@rtgoodson As long as one assumes the 14th Amendment to be non-existant or invalid, maybe.
therealaj123 7 months ago
One is Issued by the State, and the Bumper Sticker is optional and not part of the Registration of a Vehicle.
I believe in God, and Faith; BUT honestly,
A LIcense Plate should be Standard, black, Blue, White, Red, Yellow--with Numbers, Letters
and Skip all the Slogans, Anti-Slogans, University Mascots, Patriotism-
Put whatever you want on your car with a Sticker-
"I believe in Jesus" also; but a License Plate has but one purpose: State Registration-
Put your slogan anywhere else.
poitrenaud 2 years ago
best part: 3:05-3:17
jjaaee 2 years ago
Christian conservatives use religion to try to legislate on abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and tons of other things. Christianity is ridiculous, and Christians are the ULTIMATE bad neighbors. It doesn't matter if they were here first and managed to put their footprints all over a supposedly secular country.
JerryRSun 3 years ago
I agree also, the church is not a good thing. Especially the RC church.
They don't follow the word of God - in fact, they do the opposite. Anyone who has taken the time to read the bible will know that.
Your knowledge is based on a limited understanding of religion. True believers resent being judged by the actions of any church.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
are you aware that the Bible actually condemns Christmas. This is why the churches rely so heavily on their followers not reading the Bible. They would be exposed totally, as they are being now.
Christmas was originally called Winter solstice - look it up - and look up 'yule' celebrations also.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
that time of year is still called winter solstice..just like the spring eqinox around the time of easter...these are cosmological markers of the presession of the earth through the year...these have always been themes for festivals throughout the world due to agricultural concerns...the christian holidays or "holy days" which is where the term comes from was placed close to already existing celebrations for convenience..and no the bible does not condemn holidays...your misinterpreting scripture.
functionalschizophr 2 years ago
I actually said the bible condemns christmas. You're misinterpreting my words.
gangstagrannie 2 years ago
I really like this one. The concept of separation of church and state was to save the population for religious persecution, not remove all religion from the state. If they are going to deny that license plate they should also take the ten commandments down from every courthouse and wipe 'In God We Trust" off all the money. I respect anyone's right to their choice of religeon and everyone else should have the same courtesy and not be a complete ass about it. Thumbs up.
audreax 3 years ago
They SHOULD wipe "In God We Trust" off of money and the Ten Commandments from courthouses. Because the majority of Americans have been Christian, Christians have easily managed to put their mark on a government that was supposed to be not influenced by religion. Why are the Ten Commandments there? Maybe because people (wrongfully) associate religion with morality. Our laws couldn't be further from the rules found in the Bible. Now people are waking up to the poison of religion. Moving forward.
JerryRSun 3 years ago
The funniest thing is, if anyone does their history, they'll find that most of these 'christian' holidays originate from pagan celebrations anyway lol.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
One thing I have noticed over the years is that athiests and those of other religions never refuse bonuses or rest days with full pay due to christian 'holidays' LOL - yet they're quick to insult christians. Maybe they should think about this next time a holiday comes round and work through holidays, especially considering they don't believe?
I know too many athiests who just celebrated the birth of Christ??????? I think they're confused.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
Christmas started out as a celebration of the birth of Christ, and many people still consider it that. But it has changed, and it is a very commercial holiday. It doesn't matter where it came from, it could be anything. It's totally incidental that it's Christian. I know that Jesus Christ was probably not a real person, with no contemporaneous mention of him by anyone throughout history. Celebrating Christmas is just not very Christian. I couldn't care less about Jesus. I love presents. Got it?
JerryRSun 3 years ago
You are wrong - christmas is not a christian celebration, its a pagan one, which originally involved human sacrifice, orgies including children, and many other things. The church adopted it to gain more followers.
Anyone who thinks its a christian celebration and still celebrates it is a hypocrite.
Enjoy your presents.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
Neat.
JerryRSun 3 years ago
groups still perform human sacrifice and it has never been done "only" on the winter solstice but rather anytime they wish to perform their black magic rituals... the solstice is one of many astrological dates used in the solomonic rites of blood baptism....there are thousands of winter solstice celebrations throughout the world in many cultures for many reasons other than christian....history is not so B@W as you would "like" it to be to fit your argument of anti-christian rhetoric..
functionalschizophr 2 years ago
if this was also aimed at me, I don't recall stating that sacrifices only take place at winter solstice. Other religions may well celebrate other things, but as you might be aware, this was about the church. Thank you for your input.
gangstagrannie 2 years ago
great art! pretty soon "christ"mas trees will be illegal, it's pissing me off
Isawanangel1X 3 years ago
Amen Brother!
voteDRNO 3 years ago
On slang: what about "By Jove," of calling someone jovial, mercurial, saturnine, the astrology implicit in disaster or consider or influenza? Even the phrases "Beware of the Dog" or "on the other hand" come from pagan Rome, as do many reflections and cautions taken by our founding fathers in establishing our republican government.
Conserving our culture is conserving more than our Christian heritage, it is conserving our pre-Christian heritage too. Perhaps the older is the better part.
GBanville 3 years ago
So far as holidays go, there's nothing necessarily Christian about it. Nor is the Christian religion so interwoven with the calender, nor with speech (at least not to the exclusion of other creeds) as you suppose. After all, Isn't Thursday named for Thor, and Friday for Frey? Isn't July named for Julius Caesar and August for Augustus? Do you not realize that even Christmas has pagan roots, having to do with the solstice and that the early church celebrated the birth of its savior at other times?
GBanville 3 years ago
This video spurs me to say so many things I doubt I could fit them all in one Youtube comment box.
To start, can we, as lovers of liberty and proponents of civil society please agree that asking for any personalized symbolism on a mandatory government-issued identity tag is at least a little ridiculous?
For my part, as an atheist, I have no trouble with the idea that people could ask for a cross on their license plate, so long as I have the option not to have one.
GBanville 3 years ago
Just to clarify one thing, "Separation of Church and State" IS found in the Constitution. The 1st amendment says "Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion...". The term "separation of church and state" is just a shorter name for that law. It's just like the phrase "double jeoprady",that phrase isn't in the constitution word for word but it sums up a clause in the 5th amendment.
Odyssey54 3 years ago
You make a valid point, but you should be aware that phrases, whether they appear in the language of the US documents or not, can just as well derive from the substantial body of written commentary and debate that went on about these principles before and after the documents were written and adopted. I think SA is right about Jefferson's remarks.
GBanville 3 years ago
Yes but "separation of church and state" does sum up the meaning of the 1st amendment. And I don't know if he's right about Jefferson's remarks for 2 reasons. a, Jefferson himself was NOT a Christian, and b, Jefferson's philosiphy of law is "living constitution" which means he wanted lawyers today to interpret the constitution for today's world not the 1700's. If our country becomes filled w/ many muslims, jews & others, he would say we should respect their religion and not offend them.
Odyssey54 3 years ago
Who would say we should respect and not offend a possible Muslim majority, Jefferson or the Southern Avenger?
It is easy to assume too much or overstate the case of what Jefferson would say should be done in our day. He, like any other man would have some standards of decency and would surely object, whether on reasoned or emotional grounds to some things in the America which is now so changed from what he knew.
SA makes good points. This license plate issue is ridiculous in so many ways.
GBanville 3 years ago
I heard someone say that in order to get one of the license plates you had to pay for it, so it is rediculous since no one's tax dollars would pay for it. But one thing that always goes noticed w/ these court cases is that someone in SC was offended and took the state to court. Avenger blames the judge, but she only rules on how constitutional the plates are. There is a rat in SC, it's whoever filed the lawsuit against the license plates in the first place.
Odyssey54 3 years ago 2
Im sorry, but i cant support this video. The seperation of church and state is more important then you seem to believe it to be. I agree that this issue with the plates is really not something important, but i just dont like the overall tone you used here which seemed to be going down the "this is a christian nation" road. Yes, christianity is a part of american culture, but so what?
zpt4xzpt4x 3 years ago 2
Even if you pay for the plates, taxes pay the time of the people who work on their production, for the equipment that produces them, for the artist who does the final design, etc, etc. So in the end, even if the equipment was paid off and the 30 bucks covered the cost of labor, it's still the use public property--my property--to produce something that I may or may not agree with. If I can't use it for whatever kind of plate I want, regardless of signatures, it's unconstitutional (and immoral)
Kaiouss 3 years ago
to clear any confusion this plate just like many other themed plates already avaliale in SC has to be requested and cost an extra $30. it dosent go on everybodys and you have to pay for it yourself.
if the jews or muslims want their own special plates all they gotta do is collect enough signatures and advance orders to start production.
803honda 3 years ago
I should also note that you have the freedom to choose not to put your license plate on or use someone else's money to express your religious beliefs. It's just that such a freedom is in a more general sense and on that level, we all have the freedom to pool our money, elect management, and have you arrested for using our money to express yourself.
Kaiouss 3 years ago
I fail to see how there's a difference between expressing your religious values through public institutions and others expressing their non-smoking values through public institutions. I agreed when you noted, in your video about smoking, that civilization is self-governance and the less we can govern ourselves, the less civilized we really are. As the owner of your car, you can spray paint a huge cross all over your car; why the need to force the license plates through my taxes?
Kaiouss 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to clear any confusion this plate just like many other themed plates already avaliale in SC has to be requested and cost an extra $30. it dosent go on everybodys and you have to pay for it yourself.
if the jews or muslims want their own special plates all they gotta do is collect enough signatures and advance orders to start production.
803honda 3 years ago
so if i was jewish they would make me get a Christian-themed license plate ???? i mean if the Christian-themed license plate was optional i guess that would be okay but forcing it on every one isn't
sexfanatic 3 years ago
I sympathize with the argument, Jack, but aren't we getting carried away with these special license plates? After all, we are talking about licensing vehicles! Just do a simple license plate with the state motto or bird, whatever. They way they used to. I fear a liberal judge will grant the Muslims a crescent moon plate. Now that would suck.
hwgatw68 3 years ago
espunde, you have me confused with someone else. I responded to some anti-Christian person who noted that among his insults. I am a bible believing Christian and my church, like thevast majority of Christian churches is not a million dollar corporation. I think your comment about Jesus and the moneychangers is right on. i hope I'm not hurtinbg you, but I feel that modern day name-it-and-claim-it teachers are like those moneychangers. Cash 1st, then the Lord.
acivilwarjunkie 3 years ago
Most Churchesare not multimillion $ operations. A church cannot be involved in politics or try to influence votes, but it can take a moral stand on issues. Finally, why am I wasting time one someone who is so obviously bigoted?
acivilwarjunkie 3 years ago
The real churches are not multimillion dollar corporations you mean. The passage where Jesus overturns the moneychangers' tables comes to mind.
espunde 3 years ago
The State shouldn't be in the business of advertising political, religious or any other kind of view/theme through a licence granted to individuals. Just print the plate, put the State's name and motto on it, and be done with it.
FunnyHedger 3 years ago 2
Paul Cynix;
You,Sir, are to be pitied. You are in my prayers whether you like it or not. may God Grant you the peace you so sorely need. There is no need to argue aor discuss further; your mind is currently made up.
Deo Vindice
acivilwarjunkie
acivilwarjunkie 3 years ago
I can see why you call youself paulCynic. Christianit is not blind faith or mindless obedience, it is a relationship with ahigher power. Those who call themselves Christians and teah persecution or hatred of other are not Christians, merely appropriating the name for their own purposes. Bitterness and cynicism eataway at peace and hapiness. Whatever you think of Christians ofany stripe,try to put a little love in your heart. God loves you please let Him show you
from the showme state, ACVJ
acivilwarjunkie 3 years ago
Is anyone's tax dollars going into the creation of these plates? If not, why not propose other plates to balance out instead of preventing people from buying vanity they want. I've seen plates in my state that feature non-profit organizations like United Way. So should these be banned as well? As long as someones liberties aren't being trampled, the only way would be through some subsidization or tax then I believe vanity plates are fair game.
banemaler 3 years ago
This is another liberal abuse of the 1st amendment to silence and persecute us Christians.
acivilwarjunkie 3 years ago
Its just a comeuppance for the Theological tyranny imposed on persons of non-Christian faith that goes back to as far as Christians murdering Christians over whose interpretation of the Bible is Correct. Too bad the Gnostics were pacifists, as their extremely violence competitors wiped them out. You know, burning them alive, chopping off heads.. etc. The kind of thing you still see in ultra religious countries, and used to see in this Nation--hence the murder of Joseph Smith and his followers.
PaulCynic 3 years ago
Christians are victims only of their own violence recalcitrance. When allowed to substitute their blind faith for secular law, they have always chosen to violently and sadistically murder those who question their reason and actions. Although not unique to Christianity, any violent dogma will do the same; Christianity does not get a free pass because of it. Nobody is persecuting Christianity, we are merely defending our right to a peaceful life.
PaulCynic 3 years ago
Poor Christians, I feel so sorry for their activist groups and churches (which are often staging grounds for political movements) are often tax exempt. They are in such horrible danger of being persecuted and prevented from praising jeebus in the privacy of their own multimillion dollar churches. What hope is there for them???
Harikus 3 years ago 2
So basically you don't think its an establishment of religion if only license plates with Christian overtones are made available but no others because Christians make a greater % of the pop. and they make a greater contribution. Clearly the greater the % of the pop. a group has, the more entitled they are. Plus, no other group of people has ever contributed anything to our culture. Not our language, our sciences, our music, our agriculture, our philosophies, our art, etc etc etc.
Harikus 3 years ago
I cannot wait for the inevitable day when Muslims are the dominate world faith, not because I am a Muslim, but it will put the Dominant Is Right view into perspective for so many Christians. They'll suddenly start chanting, as they are doing now in Europe, "We must separate Faith from Government!" as their way of life will be subject to a more violent religion with a stronger political constituency. Silly, silly, Christians, and their need to be victims. You're really just setting yourselves up
PaulCynic 3 years ago 2
Some of these extremist even lash out at other Christians. Christians should see that, that these people aren't just interested in expressing their beliefs in a public manner, they have very specific beliefs they hold and they have little regard for you if you belong to a different denomination, or have different political views (no matter how slight). What stops them when they are finished setting the precedent against us "non-Christians"? Your different? They put you in the same group as us.
Harikus 3 years ago 2
In this particular case, this is clearly state-sponsored religious preference for one religion. It is not just another vanity plate. If it was just another vanity plate, this whole case may not have even come up. Also, those that brought the lawsuit are not atheists but other religious people, including Christians, who find great value and a constitutional basis for not having state-sponsored religion.
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago
Another important thing to note is that the first amendment bars the NATIONAL government from infringing upon the liberties therein, it specifically mentions congress. Presumably my state of Florida could adopt Roman Catholicism as its state religion, or Presbyterianism, or Baptist, etc. Though someone could probably bring up the 14th amendment and its equal protection clause, but how could one apply an amendment that only mentions congress to the states? Questions, questions...
espunde 3 years ago
Actually it cannot. The Federal Supreme court has decided that the Constitution applies to all levels of government, and all persons within the borders of the United States. Yours is an argument dealt back in the 50's and 60's when States argued the right of Segregation. Sorry, but States are subject to the Constitution as well. Nice try though.
PaulCynic 3 years ago
If we accept that the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the States (its original intent did not mean to do this, but we will accept it anyways), all that does is prevent the States from having a state religion, it does not prevent religion from entering the public domain. I may not be religious at all and in fact find it to too often be a bad thing, but if we go by original intent than this is the way things should be...until an amendment is passed that changes 'of' to 'from'.
tfboyle 3 years ago
You mean the activist Warren Court took liberties with constitutional interpretation and extrapolated a right to non-discrimination which doesn't exist in the constitution. In addition this amendment was forced on the South by radical republicans who then segregated public schools in D.C.see Southern ManifestoI'm sure they meant the 14th amend. to proscribe segregation. Yours is a weak argument, not backed up by evidence, law or history, just that the law is what SCOTUS says it is.
espunde 3 years ago
Outstanding!
meandean222 3 years ago
Making a license plate with a Christian cross on it creates an implied endorsement of a particular religion by the state government.
There is plenty of bumper space left for a bumper sticker if you want to express a religious view.
"Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" creates a separation of church and state. It is this separation that GIVES us freedom of religion.
freesk8 3 years ago
In my opinion your personal belief belongs on a bumper sticker, not on a license plate.
I believe Jesus would care little for our modern concept of Christmas or the state marketing of its car licenses.
eelzen 3 years ago 2
i belive jesus doent exist but we all can thik what ever we want
voyagerrocket 3 years ago
South Carolina having a cross on as one of their license plate options is not an establishment of religiion. Unless South Carolina passes a law stating Christianity is the state religion than they are not violating the first amendment.
jeAh7 3 years ago
SA should write for O'Reilly so they both can "save Christmas".
PolitikalJunkie 3 years ago
I think your logic is flawed on this one, Jack. I love your video column but in this case, I think you're wrong.
The SC license plate essentially amounts to tax-payer advertising for Christianity. When you advertise for something, you endorse it, which is what the state is doing here. Your arguments about Christian culture are probably right, but the state is still endorsing a specific faith in this case, which I believe is unconstitutional.
SoomPrimal 3 years ago 2
Good video. But were those license plates to be the only ones issued?
metalmike06 3 years ago
As an atheist I dont really care as long as anybody can do it. What I mean is if I believe in allah I should have the right to put that on my plate. Or if I believe in Odin or Zeus. The problem with most christians is that they believe their religion should be the only respected one. Look at that courthouse thing in Washington. People bitched cause there was an atheist sign next to an christian one. Christians want their belief and only their belief in America.
warcraft1920 3 years ago
Why do you think the "atheists" chose to put their placard next to the Christmas displays? Coincidence? No where else to display their material?
Nah, these are a bunch of delayed adolescents who have found their anti-establishment cause, and feel they MUST shove it in everyone's face.
Give 'em a couple years, this "atheist" fad will go the way of the Cabbage Patch doll and Pokemon.
Billyothon 3 years ago
What's so offensive about a license plate? I've seen cars covered with Jesus stickers and it doesn't offend me, and I'm not religious. Sucks for that lady who has to judge through Christmas.
Also wanted to point out that our system of months were derived from Pagan ideologies of the Romans and/or Greeks.
pishandchibbs 3 years ago
The problem is that the license plate stops being a license plate and turns into a state-sponsored billboard for Christianity.
SoomPrimal 3 years ago 2
The people of the state could maybe have a choice weather or not there is a cross on it or not.
AiresQX4 3 years ago
Btw, do they allow people to not have that type of plate if they do not wish? Is there more options? If there are then I don't see it as a problem.
overmind25 3 years ago
I can imagine there being more options. In Florida, they have about 15 or so to choose from.
pishandchibbs 3 years ago
Yeah in Florida we have options and I agree with your comment that this should be the least of people's worries especially if the their are other non religious options for lps.
overmind25 3 years ago
Overall this is a good video. However, I have to agree that the license plate is establishing a religion by a state. I do think the Separation of Church and State is abused by numerous atheists.
overmind25 3 years ago
Imagine for a moment every person were to walk around with a chain around his or her neck with a numbered plate issued by the state identifying that person with a number. Perhaps it might be appropriate in the prison system but not in a free society.
shiftstart 3 years ago
That already exists its called social security.
warcraft1920 3 years ago
One suggestion to this ugly mess is to eliminate state issued license plates. But how are we supposed to identify millions of vehicle from one another you ask? Simple. Each vehicle has the manufactures "VIN", unique to each vehicle. Like human fingerprint. The concept of license plates is yet another system of control by the state.
shiftstart 3 years ago
People can believe whatever they want, but under no circumstances should tax payer money go towards religious merchandise.
HungryDingo 3 years ago 2
Your money going to a piece of metal with some paint resembling a cross should be the least of your worries considering the other retarded things taxpayer money goes toward.
pishandchibbs 3 years ago
And it is one of the least of my worries, but still worrying none the less. It's also more the business of people who live in South Carolina than mine. But no self respecting Christian would be ok with public financing of atheist merchandise and rightfully so. The fact that atheists are a minority doesn't make it any different. The majority does not have the right to trample over the rights of the minority.
HungryDingo 3 years ago 2
Calendar? Like Thursday and Saturday? Don't think so.....
tattypatty 3 years ago 2
When 16 year olds in Virginia have to actually fight to get a paper on evolution recognized, you can see why some are upset about this.
tattypatty 3 years ago 2
i am don't believe in religion, however i love god.. agnostic i suppose.. i do however think that in no way does this customizing of a license plate have any church state mingling.
However if the state license plate was solely offered with a cross i would find that very hateful of the Christians two their neighbors. It would be no different than a Muslim forcing a christian two we're their symbol. but of course this has nothing to do with the first part... good vid
jwiska 3 years ago
nice
barccy 3 years ago
correct me if im wrong but dosent their fake paper money say "In God We Trust"?
803honda 3 years ago
wait wait wait....is the "i believe" license plate a choice? he wasn't clear on that. is it like one of the few you could choose from? cuz that would be fine by me. or is it to become the official new license plate. i'm an agnostic, and wouldn't like being forced to drive around saying "i believe" when i don't. doesn't mean i feel i'm entitled to a "i don't believe" plate, and i don't care if other people have that choice in license plate, but it shouldn't be THE PLATE.
cgraham1930 3 years ago
not only is a choice but you gotta pat $40 - $50 for it
803honda 3 years ago
sounds like a good way for the state to make money to me
jwiska 3 years ago
I think the issue is that if they give people the choice of getting a Christian license plate, then they have to provide license plates for all religions (jewish, muslim, buddhist, surrealist, rastafarian, atheist, etc., etc. ad infinitum).
The license plate is/was designed to identify a vehicle, and is essentially for official state business only. Christian drivers can express their beliefs with any number of bumper stickers, placards or signs.
calibush 3 years ago 3
Comment removed
HarryNRubin 3 years ago
not primary just a second choice.. you wouldnt want a war on hands. haha
jwiska 3 years ago
I don't think the state should be putting that on license plates, especially in the belt buckle of the bible belt. Choosing that plate calls upon institutions that should be intentionally seperated. Who's to say that a police officer running your plate might give you special treatment for being of the same faith as he is.
It's just not something that belongs on a license plate. It's fucking tacky. License plates are for police use, not religious expression.
Saladin126 3 years ago
I'm an atheist but I agree with the Avenger here, whether we like it or not Christianity is a big part of American culture and people have a right to tacky mascots whether its a sports team or jesus.
lordaltay5 3 years ago 4
If a state was primarily Jewish or Muslim would it be okay to put a star of david or a crescent moon on a license plate? It seems like christmas is a time for conservatives to get all worked over how christmas and christ are important while the rest of the country scratches their heads in dismay and does not really care. Maybe it is more of a Southern thing. I live in one of the most liberal cities in the US that is voted the best place to in the US to celebrate christmas and has a lot of Jews.
jarofsoup 3 years ago
yes it would. if the people want it they should be allowed to have it. I personally love crescent moons. it is a symbol of liberty here in SC and many other parts of Dixie. if the jews or muslims want their own plate all they gotta do is collect enough signatures. most christians arent affended by other symbols. why are most atheist so offended by ours?
I have actually heard folks say that the first synagogue was here in SC. dont know if its true but ie heard that more than once.
803honda 3 years ago
Yes, the line has been blurred from its conception. Arbitrarily drawing the line here and there is what makes it so. Without ever drawing the line, there would be no line. This is only one of many drawn lines. There must be something of more interest to debate..
mrd999 3 years ago
The licence plate is not a government endorsement of religion. It's a way of expressing a personal right to religion that we all have. Those atheist idiots need to mind to there own sad lives and leave every one else alone.
Starpilot17 3 years ago
I think this is the first video you've done that I almost completely disagree with. I'll just leave it at that.
ogjimkenobi 3 years ago
Correct as usual SA. The only thing more funny than a hypocrite Christian is a hyopcrite Atheist. Many non-believers feel that they are "enlightened." Yet, we see that they can't tolerate differing opinions. Open minded indeed.
familydog85 3 years ago
What they don't have enough bumper stickers for "the bible hugging, in your face, I'm Christian"s? Now they got to issue special licence plates for them too?
I'm Christian as well, but I keep my faith at home and in the Church where I feel it belongs. Religion is a private matter.
mvega 3 years ago 2
Correct as usual Southern Avenger.
rickhatman1984 3 years ago
SA's videos always move quickly along and get to the point. They are never boring. This is more than I can say for most posters. Keep up the good SA!
J15V45 3 years ago
They are, but this video was lazy and relied on emotional appeals to "folkiness" and "culture" instead of argument the actual issue at hand: state-sponsored religious advertising.
SoomPrimal 3 years ago 2
That is a good point. Should the state be in the business of advertising anything?
steve0281 3 years ago
You argued against your-self in this video. While the "I believe" is a fundamental right of expression, yet you completely discount anyone that is different and base it on an appeal to tradition and argumentum ad populum. While this is favoritism no matter what you base it on thus establishing religion in government. If those "fundamentalist" where not so dammed pushy there would not be "pushy atheists". America is as live and let live as you make it to be.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago 2
I try to be civil with people's irrational beliefs, but please, don't spend public money for it. If all of the additional costs associated with these plates are charged when you order them, fine, but don't subsidize them with general public funds. I might be polite regarding silly beliefs, but it rubs me the wrong way to pay for them.
keithrockerboblewis 3 years ago
The First Amendment excerpt: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Steadno 3 years ago 2
What I disagree with is how uses the picture of Annie Laurie Gaylor without actually taking anything she says at all. He makes no comparison whatsoever. I find that duplicitous.
atheisthead1 3 years ago
I do wish that my fellow Americans of irreligious sensibilities would not feel compelled to litigate everything. If you wish to live without religion in your life then you're generally successful of avoiding religion in all but the most superficial sense. Heather MacDonald has an excellent thread on this matter over at the Secular Right Blog--which I would heartily recommend to any fans of Hume, MacDonald, Derbyshire, et al.
RouletteRog 3 years ago
Yes, but not all the people of the state agree to this plate. I mean, what if San Francisco had a license plate that had a giant dildo on it? I'm sure SOME people in San Francisco would mind.
Your examples of little trees and birds are not very convincing because they are not very exciting subjects. Religion, however, is. It's like putting an aborted fetus on a license plate in a pro-life state. You're feigning ignorance of which things are offensive and which things aren't.
iopqu 3 years ago
Personally, I don't see a point in maintaining the outward expression of one's faith to others. In my experience, it's usually the loudest promoters of an idea or faith that are usually the most unsure of it as a whole.
I'm gay and a pagan, and I just find expressions like these to be tiring on the eye and useless to argue over. Mainstream religions and social groups will do what they darn well please no matter who gripes the loudest anyways. Look at the KKK, if you want proof of that.
N3row0lf 3 years ago
Why the fuck are we letting the biggest assholes of either side of an argument dominate the face of one position or another. We, the level headed middle-of-the-roaders, need to start pushing back at these loudmouth shit heads.
For the record, I don't like the idea of the religious license plate. Go ahead with bumper stickers and license plate covers but it's these little steps that we ignore along the way to the big steps that then don't look so bad.
ZombieX13 3 years ago
You're right on my man.
conspiracy777 3 years ago
He usually is.
ZombieX13 3 years ago
Don't all of these controversies considering religion beg the question...why is the state even involved? What is the need for license plates? I, a law abiding citizen need to allow the government to identify my vehicle? For what lawful purpose?
cjhowe 3 years ago
The license plate is a tax. That's pretty much the bottom line of it.
conspiracy777 3 years ago
I always look at separation of church and state as defined by the 1st amendment. Nothing more. The vast majority who uses that term tend to be the biggest violators of that term. The concept of state vs fed is something I'm learning more on and it's part of a continuous shaping of my views. A few years ago, I'd be upset about this license plate, mistakenly applying a separation defined on the fed level to the state level. (more)
Ovalshine 3 years ago
Is there a difference between a state establishing a religion and a state providing an option for a religion that would deem far more beneficial to the state than any other religion? I imagine it's optional where they'd charge more to have one. The extra money going to the budget. If so, then it would be pointless to make them for other religions where there aren't enough of to bother making them. No economic sense behind that.(more)
Ovalshine 3 years ago
While this is fine for Carolinians, it wouldn't fly in California and isn't that the beauty of handling things on a state level? To know and believe that each state isn't and shouldn't be a carbon copy of each other?
Ovalshine 3 years ago
Good Lord! What is the fricking problem here? Excellent essay, Jack! If we can have state birds, corn, the Statue of Liberty, state trees, pro-abortion, that's right I said pro-abortion, and everybody accepts what is considered American, sex smattered all over the T.V., perverse values everywhere, then why by heaven, or by earth, can we absolutely not have a Christian symbol? Right on! Why is it we have to put up with what we object to, but they don't have to put up with what we *may* hold dear?
MarkBH70 3 years ago
What it comes down to, my friend, is what value we place on something is being determined by the government! We say violations of our principles is unnatural, while we hold to unjustifiable principles, restrictive -- such as encouraging early-teen sex, promoting homosexuality, worldly music at school -- and certain politics, like spending being shoved down our throats.
What the fricking devil is objecting to what basically doesn't officially exist, while our values are pummeled mercilessly.
MarkBH70 3 years ago
Now we're having contra-parentis rules and regulations and laws shoved down our throats, such as the fact that you have to relinquish your child to the government for certain hours a day, you can't determine or guide about child abortion, or keep sex 'education' non-worldly without explicit intervention. Since when did I forgo my progency to a federal arm?
Your thoughts make the blind see and the seeing blind. Thank you, sir!
MarkBH70 3 years ago
oh SA...i just love you until you get all Christee on us...lol...i did agree with you though. Who cares what you put on a license plate....lol
sharonny19 3 years ago 2
Seems like the Freedom From Religion movement is going so far as to push that public profession of beliefs become illegal. I guess they don't realize that this would make even our atheist founding fathers like Jefferson roll over in their graves.
jfeucht82 3 years ago
Also the idea that Citizens other faiths or Beliefs are Foreigners In a Christain Nation Simply Divisive. Yes Christainity is A Majority, So Are White People , Do you Declare that we are a WHITE NATION!
gusb232 3 years ago 2
Yes, Christians Cant Practice their Religion With a State Issued Crucifix on their Car. Please.
I personaly see no gross breach of Chruch-state seperation here.
But the issue Becomes You Open Pandoras Box,
Would Christian allow the State to issue plates with Muslim, Satanist, or Pastafarian Symbols? Yes this is a Vaild Argument. It was George Washington that said 'The United States is in no sense founded upon Christian Doctrine' !
gusb232 3 years ago
They probably should, just to make everyone happy. Oh and Atheist plates too! haha.
NwZ2 3 years ago
Article 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The next time a government official tells you you can't pray in school or at a government venue have him read the entirety of the First Amendment.
steve0281 3 years ago 2
You're also on shaky ground, esp. if you're a politician, if you try to justify doing something or enacting some law just because "God says so". As a secular American, those arguments obviously don't work on me, and to use those as a basis for argument in debate should not be allowed. I say, if you believe that strongly in "protecting" marriage, don't argue against it simply because you think God hates gays or gay marriage. Instead, give us concrete secular reasons why.
whoo689 3 years ago
the license plate looks more gaudy than godly!
if jesus were hanged from a tree instead of nailed to one, would christians have a noose dangling around their necks instead of a cross?
SuperAtheist 3 years ago
While I disagree that this is still a Christian nation (more like a multicultural or inclusive nation of many faiths), I will agree that groups like FFRF and the ACLU have gone a little too far in their arrogance. Separation of church and state is a good overall principle, regardless of whether it's actually constitutional. I see separation of church and state as meaning absolutely no theocracy, and politicians can't invoke the name of God to justify things like wars in the Middle East.
whoo689 3 years ago 2
I've never seen anyone argue this so eloquently, Jack. Well-done. You are be one of the few truly academic, nonpartisan and intelligent conservatives I've come across over the Internet or seen on TV. You don't just spout talking points like so many conservatives in this country. Of course, you're no ordinary conservative. I'm no ordinary liberal, either, having many liberal view on social issues but actually being a libertarian socially and a moderate liberal on economics. Tough on crime.
whoo689 3 years ago
I'm agnostic, and while I have heavy disdain for religion (its historical excesses and some of the stupidity in these sacred texts that should just be left out and replaced with good old moral principles), I still tolerate my fellow religious Americans. However, there's always this ongoing battle insid me: do I try to convert people to stop being so religious so society can advance and stop putting superstition above progression, or do I just leave them alone? It's a tough one.
whoo689 3 years ago
It's always tough being humble.
NwZ2 3 years ago 2
Wrong again. Comparing the statue of liberty license plate with the christian cross is simply wrong. One is a symbol of one of our country's most famous landmarks (which was donated by france) which is located on ellis lsland which is a part of new york. the other is a religious symbol that is not exclusive to one state. A religious symbol should not be forced upon a population who didn't ask for nor need it. Stick with south carolina symbols or mottos on the plates.
nowaveshow 3 years ago 2
Nobody's forcing anybody to have religious symbols on their license places. These religious symbols were placed on license plates as a matter of personal preference.
jfeucht82 3 years ago
Thank you for clearing that matter up. I wasn't sure about that, and as such, I was sitting on the fence about the issue. Now i'm not.
NwZ2 3 years ago
Unfortunetly I DISAGREE with SA on this one. He wouldn't be singing the same tune if Michigan decided to put the muslim cresent on their licence plates.
UGOTDAJACK 3 years ago
That is a good question. Jack? would you object?
steve0281 3 years ago
Thanx SA! We're simply controlled by anti-Christian New-left bigots. Religion is not private; I am what I believe, and tough luck if some don't like that. I pay for my Licence plate! What next? We can't wear crosses or publish religious works? I get offended everyday by what I see on TV shows, by universities spending our tax money on radical leftist indoctrination, by the insults of atheists and youtube haters, and by my "union" spending millions of our dollars supporting gay-marriage ads.
Seriousdudes 3 years ago
The lady pictured is Annie Laurie Gaylor. I like her position in which that the government should not be in the business of promoting religion or irreligion, but to remain neutral. I think that is the key motivation behind pursuing the court case.
This is the only topic I disagree with SA on.
atheisthead1 3 years ago
Furthermore, any idiot that need to display his or her faith via government allowance is pretty insecure. When bumper stickers and fish decals aren't enough, you've got yourself a bona fide nutjob.
zombiechaddy 3 years ago
Sure there are people out there who claim to get offended at seeing religious stuff, but that's not the point. The situation with the Christian plate is the same with the crap going on in Washington state right now. If you allow one view of religion to be displayed via gov't means, you must allow all other views. To only pick one or two is discrimination. THAT'S why church and state should be separate; the gov't should not be in the business of helping people express their religious beliefs.
zombiechaddy 3 years ago
^And what he said^
MagnusIan 3 years ago
Just b/c the United States is primarily Christian does NOT mean the government is. The license plates are nothing really, the key point here is that just b/c the majority of the country is one religion does not mean that they should push their values onto others through the government. You'd be singing a different tune if the US was 40% Muslim and 20% atheist, agnostic, etc. Just because those people aren't Christian does not mean they should put "In Allah We Trust" or "In No God We Trust."
MagnusIan 3 years ago
The US government is supposed to remain secular and not respect an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.
MagnusIan 3 years ago
Actually, the first amendment clauses concerning religion only refer to the federal government ("CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment..."), not to the state governments. At the time of the founders Virginia and Massachusetts had state churches and they needed guarantees that the federal government would not interfere with them, hence the first amendment rights. So, since the SC government is not a part of the federal government, it is not doing anything unconstitutional.
vonPeterhof 3 years ago
Do not get me wrong, I am not religious and I do not support what the South Carolina government was trying to do, since I am an anarcho-capitalist. I am just saying that the Constitution does not prohibit it.
vonPeterhof 3 years ago
True, there were some provisions applied to states but today the Supreme Court applies this to the several states as well as the federal government.
MagnusIan 3 years ago
The only problem I have with the "Christian Right" is when they overstep their bounds and try to paint their ideals as Republican ideals. The two don't always mix.
In this case, no skin off my nose. As I don't agree I should have to pay taxes on my car, I don't think there should be a license plate either. Tax the actual drivers license instead of a car, then you are actually taxed for usage of the road instead of ownership of property.
jdawgwelling 3 years ago
Not that I disagree, but we are already doing that by paying the gas tax. That is a users fee.
steve0281 3 years ago
True, that is another form of government double dipping into what is not theirs...
In terms of Gas, I can drive a truck on his ranch but I still have to pay tax on it? I don't really like that with the gas tax. But no matter what you do for a public road usage fee, there will be a hole where some will slip though, so the government will just take all the money they think they can get. It's quite sad really.
jdawgwelling 3 years ago
Well, the "people" keep demanding that the government provide them with "services" and they have to be paid for somehow. Should we be surprised?
steve0281 3 years ago
very good
ChevyI972 3 years ago