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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 11:31:29 AM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

This is interesting given that Florida has a "Pro-Life" license plate available.


The difference is that "pro life" transcends religious boundaries. I personally know several pagans, a number of Hindi, and several Jainists who are staunch pro-lifers. *shrugs*

Calla


_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to BoiJen)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 1:44:17 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

It should be overturned unless plates for other religions are not made available on an equal basis. There is nothing any more wrong with mentioning a religion on a license plate than there is in mentioning a battleship or "keep my beaches clean". Some people dont like battleships and some people dont like sand in their crotch.


Yes there is.

Because state sanctioned support of religion or religious issues should not occur.

What would you be saying if a state came out with a "support choice" license plate?





If they are available for all religions there is no violation of the establishment clause, which guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Since I'm pro-choice your example is poorly chosen, however I would have no problem with either "support choice" or "ban abortions" if they are both equally available.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 1:50:11 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
and I agree with the assessment, so long as heathen is a religion, as is devil worship, so long as they have 'slaughter the religious feeble minded', and 'come christian, take it in the ass from lucifer' license plates (not being a devil worshipper I am just taking a SWAG at it.....but)

yeah, so any of the slogans are ok with me too, under those conditions.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 2:20:25 PM   
rulemylife


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

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

If they are available for all religions there is no violation of the establishment clause, which guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Since I'm pro-choice your example is poorly chosen, however I would have no problem with either "support choice" or "ban abortions" if they are both equally available.


I don't think any state should be offering things like this on license plates.

It's one thing to have specialty plates with the space shuttle or "save the manatee", but it's another when you start bringing in politically and socially divisive issues.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 2:48:29 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
~FR

When a state has to grant the acceptance, or the ability, for those who live within its borders to be able to place this plate on a vehicle... yet those who granted that permission have stated they would not grant the same permission to another religion... then its in violation of the law. Just because people have to purchase the plate for an extra fee doesnt make it "ok". Others are denied the same right by the state, setting up the image that the state is supporting one religion over another.

Having lived in that fine ole state, its a game. They arent stupid men and women, despite popular opinion. They knew this would happen. They gave approval with the expectation that this would happen. What they managed to do was show "support" for their religious voters, while knowing they would ultimately be denied in the long run.

In other words... politics as usual.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 3:16:19 PM   
SirAldwyn


Posts: 44
Joined: 10/15/2009
Status: offline
I agree, this is nothing but political juxtaposition, it allows those elected to go to the people in church and say "see I am with you give me your money and votes"  knowing full well it would never happen  

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 4:30:53 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW


The difference is that "pro life" transcends religious boundaries.



....true, just as 'pro-choice' transcends political boundaries......as does its opposite. This is an individual issue. The current legal framework in the US recognises that....any change, pretty much in any direction, would be partisan.

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 9:20:09 PM   
rulemylife


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

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Having lived in that fine ole state, its a game. They arent stupid men and women, despite popular opinion. They knew this would happen. They gave approval with the expectation that this would happen. What they managed to do was show "support" for their religious voters, while knowing they would ultimately be denied in the long run.

In other words... politics as usual.


I'm absolutely sure you are right it was a political move, but I wouldn't count on it being denied.

It may end up that way but there was a huge legal battle in Florida over the "choose life" plates and not only do we still have them they have spread around half the country.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 9:29:28 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
I dont see this one going forward without other religions having equal representation. Too many groups, including the Atheist movement, and the multitude of relions out there. All those suits for a tag? Dont see it happening.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/17/2009 9:57:32 AM   
UncleNasty


Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

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.



Yep, he hung out with beggars and street people, hookers and bums.

Uncle Nasty

(in reply to Lucienne)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/17/2009 10:20:09 AM   
UncleNasty


Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

A well written decision on Summary Judgment. Because it is a summary decision (at the federal level) it will be hard to overcome the decision on appeal. In short it must be demonstrated that the court erred as a matter of law in granting summary. This is unlikely as the 57 page Order and Opinion of Judge Currie is well researched, well supported and well written. Federal courts are typically more interested in adjudicating based on facts and law and will expend the time and energy to do exactly that.

State level judges at district and circuit levels are more inclined to do whatever is necessary to merely "clear" their dockets, often times rushing to judgment and denying due process. State Courts of Appeals and State Supreme Court judges are more closely aligned to Federal courts in their practices and applications of the law than they are to lower State courts.

If the decision is appealed it will first go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit before going to the US Supreme Court. The first appeal could take a couple of years to work its way through the Fourth Circuit Appellate Court. An appeal to the US Supreme Court could take another couple of years so Scalia won't be ruling on this one anytime soon.

Uncle Nasty



A few notes... An appeals court doesn't have to give any deference to a trial court's conclusions of law. The 4th Cir. is stocked full of conservative nuts. And please point me to the jurisdiction where trial court judges aren't afraid to grant summary judgment.



A few notes back (playful, not argumentative)...

There aren't many issues that appeals courts look at with a de novo perspective or approach. Summary judgment is one of those, as are standing and jurisdiction.

Deference to the lower court is, IMO, always an element of an appeal, but not to the point of being binding on the appellate court. "The trial court erred as a matter of law in granting..." requires review of the lower courts processes and decisions, and while definition 1 (submission to...) of "deference" may not be the most accurate term to describe an appellate review of the trial courts processes and decisions I do think that definition 2 (courteous regard) fits appropriately enough.

I don't believe I made any comments regarding a courts fear, or lack thereof, in granting summary judgment.

Uncle Nasty

(in reply to Lucienne)
Profile   Post #: 51
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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]
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

0.233