Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina's 'Christian' license plate


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina's 'Christian' license plate Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 7:57:44 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SirAldwyn

How is Pro Life a religious plate?  It's a legal issue on a government level and a moral issue on a personal level.

Being pro life does say you are for or against any religion



Come on.

The whole debate has always centered on religious views of when life actually begins.

I agree it is both a legal and moral issue, but those who object to it on a religious basis have driven the debate.

(in reply to SirAldwyn)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:08:22 AM   
chiaThePet


Posts: 2694
Joined: 2/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

The whole debate has always centered on religious views of when life actually begins.




Well, not to drag the whole "when life begins" pie fight into this, but I can't help sharing that Billy Bob's
2 For The Price Of 1 Happy Hour with Finger Buffet and All You Can Eat Nacho Bar beginning at
4:30 p.m. each weekday is a pretty good indication. Just sayin.

chia* (the pet)


_____________________________

Love is a many splendid sting.

You can stick me in the corner, but I'll probably just end up coloring on the walls.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:16:44 AM   
strength4submiss


Posts: 8
Joined: 11/15/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SirAldwyn

I agree, I thought Jefferson made that very clear. 

We are not a Christian country, the founding fathers went a long way to make sure that any religion was not supported by the role of government, what they wrote was that the people of this country are free to worship as they wish without involvement from the government.

So these plates would be an endorsement of a religion by our government. 



Our fouders did not want a church like the church of england who takes taxes from the entire population and everyone is forced to be a member of that church.

The constitution never says anywhere anything about seperation of church and state. Only that they may make no law infringing on anyones right to worship. A licence plate is not worship, it is free expression of ones beliefs. So banning it violates the constitution.

So there are amreicans who have no problem banning free expression, wow. The plate says 'i believe' with a cross, not the state believes or america believes. It a personal expression of religious freedom, something our founders garanteed.

1) clearly this is not an endorsement of anything as you have to pay extra for the plates. It is simply the state offering something for money that people are willing to buy.

2) if there was another religioous group who designed there own plate, went through thte proper channels to make it an official plate, and it was refused, then the discussion could be why arent they allowed to do it. But banning all religious symbols is in no way constitutionally supported.

The decision is clearly motivated not by the the law but by personal ideology

(in reply to SirAldwyn)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:19:10 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Uh, you aint gonna make it as a shithouse lawyer anywhere, that is an even poorer argumentation of constitutional law than is normally seen out here, sorry.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to strength4submiss)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:21:09 AM   
strength4submiss


Posts: 8
Joined: 11/15/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirAldwyn

How is Pro Life a religious plate?  It's a legal issue on a government level and a moral issue on a personal level.

Being pro life does say you are for or against any religion



Come on.

The whole debate has always centered on religious views of when life actually begins.

I agree it is both a legal and moral issue, but those who object to it on a religious basis have driven the debate.



So because religious people are the loudest opponents that makes it religious? Religious people were the first to be outraged about slavery in this country, was that a religious issue?

It is actually a scientific arguement about when life begins.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:23:45 AM   
strength4submiss


Posts: 8
Joined: 11/15/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Uh, you aint gonna make it as a shithouse lawyer anywhere, that is an even poorer argumentation of constitutional law than is normally seen out here, sorry.

Ron


yup, so simple there is no arguement. lawyers are pieces of shit who cause all of these ridiculous problems in the first place. As no one but a bunch of retarded lawyers find the plate objectionable.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:26:04 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chiaThePet

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

The whole debate has always centered on religious views of when life actually begins.




Well, not to drag the whole "when life begins" pie fight into this, but I can't help sharing that Billy Bob's
2 For The Price Of 1 Happy Hour with Finger Buffet and All You Can Eat Nacho Bar beginning at
4:30 p.m. each weekday is a pretty good indication. Just sayin.

chia* (the pet)





(in reply to chiaThePet)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:26:53 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		I am not a lawyer, and I find it not only objectionable but unconstitutional.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to strength4submiss)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:42:43 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: strength4submiss


So because religious people are the loudest opponents that makes it religious? Religious people were the first to be outraged about slavery in this country, was that a religious issue?

It is actually a scientific arguement about when life begins.


I acknowledge that also.

But the debate has always centered on scientific versus religious views.

(in reply to strength4submiss)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:44:51 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: strength4submiss

yup, so simple there is no arguement. lawyers are pieces of shit who cause all of these ridiculous problems in the first place. As no one but a bunch of retarded lawyers find the plate objectionable.


Until, of course, when you need one.

(in reply to strength4submiss)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:49:18 AM   
strength4submiss


Posts: 8
Joined: 11/15/2009
Status: offline 		so you object to someone expressing their freedoms?

interesting.

I may not be a constitutional expert but i can find nowhere in it or any ohter document that people shouldnt be allowed to express there beliefs on a licence plate they chose to pay for.

If it bothers you so much, dont fuckin look at it. But to go around infringing on others rights, and dont use the constituion to do it.

So why dont you impress me with your consitutional law and show where this is unconstitutional.

Youll say its because other religions cant do it. But have other religions tried and been turned down? No. If they were than it would be an issue.

Just because YOU find it objectionable does not make it unconstituional.

the group that brought the suit are nothing but a bunch of DC windbag lawyers who put rev. in front of their name so they dont have to pay income tax.

quote:

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:51:57 AM   
strength4submiss


Posts: 8
Joined: 11/15/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: strength4submiss

yup, so simple there is no arguement. lawyers are pieces of shit who cause all of these ridiculous problems in the first place. As no one but a bunch of retarded lawyers find the plate objectionable.


Until, of course, when you need one.


until of course what?

i dont think ill have a need for a bunch of dc windbags who go around erasing all religious symbols in an effort to save religious freedom.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:53:55 AM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Americans United also pointed out that some legislators openly admitted that they would not vote for similar plates for minority faiths.

This is what made it wrong.


So they weren't warm to the notion of "Allahu Akbar" license plates?

Hmm.

Odd

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:57:50 AM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: strength4submiss

So there are amreicans ...


Sorry, this word should be spelled "Murricans".

(in reply to strength4submiss)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:58:15 AM   
Lucienne


Posts: 1175
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline 		I watched a wonderful documentary recently, entitled For the Bible Tells Me So (trailer here). It's about scripture and homosexuality. At some point, some fundamentalist Christian was going off on some typical fundamentalist Christian point, and my friend laughed and said "What don't these people get? Jesus was a liberal jew!" This has become my new mantra when faced with people who think it's really important to have something like an "I believe" license plate. Jesus was a liberal jew.

I absolutely despise that it's necessary to have this sort of litigation. What makes it necessary are people who believe that America is a Christian Nation and should always remain a Christian Nation. They demand their little trophies in the form of publicly displayed commandments and creches, or keeping "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance. It's all seemingly petty shit, but the fact that it's important to them to fight for means that it's something worth fighting against if you believe, as I do, that this Nation is secular precisely so that individuals can enjoy freedom of conscience.

(in reply to strength4submiss)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 8:58:31 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		well, my religion is heathen, I am of norwegian heritage, I would like to have a depiction of vikings slaughtering monks and priests and other such feeble minded religionists.

surely the state has no objection in your tutored opinion?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

(a little clip out from the first amendment which thru precedent and massive caselaw says that you are wrong in your assumptions)


Ron

(now I know you are going to come back with more illegitimate appeals to ignorance (ignorati elenchi) but your disagreement with the interpretation of the constitution regarding religions is clearly at odds with the law, now; you can go paint you up a license plate with crosses, (you will have other issues with the state about that) and nobody (and most of all me, gives a fuck), however when the government does it, even as a pass thru.............NOPE, that is dirty, dirty gamboo.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to strength4submiss)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 9:11:48 AM   
housesub4you


Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline 		Well, one is entitled to their views, but if you look at the historical record, at least 10 religions came to Jefferson asking him to have their religion be endorsed as the Countries true religion, which is why he argued so hard to make sure that no religion was endorsed as this countries religion.

You are free to worship any religion you choose, The US Government can't favor one over the other.

Now are certain religions using their money to have certain elected officials give them favor, sadly YES, not all of our current elected officials have the Honor or values of those who helped create this country. 

(in reply to strength4submiss)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 9:14:55 AM   
Lucienne


Posts: 1175
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: strength4submiss

so you object to someone expressing their freedoms?

interesting.

I may not be a constitutional expert but i can find nowhere in it or any ohter document that people shouldnt be allowed to express there beliefs on a licence plate they chose to pay for.

If it bothers you so much, dont fuckin look at it.


The purpose of the government issued license plate is to express unique identifying information. It was not intended to be a public platform for speech. That's obviously been stretched, with the use of specialized and personalized plates. But the state still regulates what you can put on your personalized plate. They're not going to let you put something pornographic on your license plate, because then the government is seen as providing a platform for pornographic speech. But you're perfectly free to afix naughty bumper stickers to your car.

Just as you are currently perfectly free to put all sorts of Christian expression on your car. Why do people want to express their religious beliefs on a government issued item other than to suggest that the speech is sanctioned by government authority? There are ways around the constitutional issues (hint: "I believe" plates featuring the Star of David, and/or "I don't believe" plates featuring that Darwin fish eating a smaller fish), I suspect the openness of the SC legislators that this was a treat for Christians only didn't help their case. But at the end of the day, I simply do not believe that this is about individual expression. It's individuals who want their expression to carry whatever stamp of government approval they can get.

(in reply to strength4submiss)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 10:00:20 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Also, technically, the license plates belong to the state, not to the individual.

Just saying. I actually don't give a shit on this issue either way.

(in reply to Lucienne)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 11:13:45 AM   
strength4submiss


Posts: 8
Joined: 11/15/2009
Status: offline 		Well, i do have to agree with the stupidity of these fashion plates. But they do raise revenue in a voluntary basis so they do serve a purpose.

quote:

mnottertail


the only torture going on is those fearful of religion using the constitution to prohibit others freedoms.

I would not see a problem having a viking licence plate, the violent depictions would not be neccasary. In fact i wouldnt mind having a depiction of a viking ship with a viking standing on the bow.

quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof



Clearly creating a licince plate for sale on a voluntary basis that reflects ones religious beliefs is not establishing a religion.

Making a law banning them is infringing on the free excersize however.

Now if these windbags in DC really wanted to safeguard religious freedom they would have designed a jewish or muslim plate and tried to get it passed, saying it would be unconstitutional not to.

Until i hear of a viking plate being denied over religious grounds, or a muslim or jewish or buddist one being denied, there is no arguement.

Just saying
quote:

Americans United also pointed out that some legislators openly admitted that they would not vote for similar plates for minority faiths.


might be good enough for simpletons who are fearful of religion, but it is actually just empty rhetoric

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina's 'Christian' license plate Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.093