Some Thoughts on Christian License Plates

Passionate Indifference

About this Entry
Posted by: Bukowski_Rules Original: 4/27/2008 10:13 AM Comments: 33 eProps: 42 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Tags
christianity legal issues license plates religion state sponsored religion

Who recommended?
LifeNeedsProtection ktandie

Minis
Darterius aliyahpixie

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: LifeNeedsProtection musicmom60 Grampa_David UFFda_oyVEY Jaynebug k8tthelate askdante CandyDishDoom that_friggan_knitter doahsdeer tvtfln allison82mckinley StorybookAuthor tendollar4ways Darterius RedStarr5 oceanstarr RanchoCamulos goddessladyj ocelot61 aliyahpixie

Read or Post Comments

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Currently Listening
Burn out at the Hydrogen Bar
By Chemlab
"Summer of Hate"
see related

Since it's Sunday, I thought this would be an appropriate question. Should Christians be allowed to purchase and display their own license plates on their vehicles? That could be a tad controversial, right? But that's exactly what's going on in Florida. Certain legislators are attempting to allow a car tag that says "I Believe" with a cross and a stained glass window as the backdrop! That just blows my mind. Talk about state-sponsored religion! For Christians who want this to happen -- well, I never understand why most don't consider this -- how would you feel seeing a Star of David on a car tag with a line that says "I Don't Believe"? What about the Muslim symbol praising Allah or advocating jihad? That'd be nice too, wouldn't it? Where's it going to stop? Or will the only one allowed by the government be a Christian one? If so, that's got to be the most illegal, unconstitutional, unethical thing I can think of, practically. We came to this country, originally, to escape being told how to worship and what to worship -- for religious freedom, one that wasn't state-sponsored or endorsed. And now we're reverting to this? It makes me ill.

Most all of you know that my wife is Jewish. How's this comment from one of the legislators who voted AGAINST this measure:

"It's not a road I want to go down. I don't want to see the Star of David next. I don't want to see a Torah next. None of that stuff is appropriate to me," said Skidmore, a Democrat who voted against the plate in committee. "I just believe that."

I understand the point this person is trying to make, but it rings of complete anti-Semitism to me. What this person is saying is they don't want the Christian car tag because, in actuality, they don't want to be forced to see a Jewish one in response. Nice. It's 2008, folks! Which is weird, because at times, it feels like it's becoming an 18th century America. It's bad enough to see anti-choice car tags in my -- and other -- states. I want to see pagans start clamoring for their right to a license plate. Maybe a nice goat sacrifice on the car tag, huh? Maybe then, these darn fundamentalists who think they run the country will see how rude, ridiculous, and inappropriate -- as well as offensive -- their attempt at state-mandated religion really is....

Feel free to discuss this issue amongst yourselves. Please do not feel obligated to make personal attacks on me for my thoughts on the subject....

Posted 4/27/2008 10:13 AM - 33 comments

recommend
recs2
give stars
votes3
email
sent0

Give eProps or Post a Comment

33 Comments

browse comments: next › | last »

As a Christian I have never put stickers on my bumpers or felt the need to advertise my faith. I always thought it best to just live by example. I don't even wear a cross jewelery. I just don't like crosses.

This is a slippery slope if I ever saw one. Tough call.

Posted 4/27/2008 10:28 AM by

LifeNeedsProtection

- reply

@LifeNeedsProtection -

It is a tough call to a certain degree, you're right. I'm probably going to get skewered for even posting this! Heh. But I try to be aware of everyone's rights in things such as this, and I do think it's a slippery slope to begin seemingly endorsing one religion over another, at least when it's a state doing so. I realize the vast majority of people in this country claim to be Christians, although IMO you can't often tell by their actions, but that still doesn't make it right to do this, I think.... Thanks for your input!

Posted 4/27/2008 10:41 AM by Bukowski_Rules

- reply

I think they're offering people who identify themselves this way "the choice" to order this license plate for themselves, but they're not mandating it for all or saying "this will now be the state license plate for Florida." What other choices for license plates does Florida have, I wonder? Our state, Illinois, has one or two pictures and that's it, but some states offer more choices.

I think if they're going to offer the Christian plate, they should offer other religions as well. I DON'T believe it's "state-sponsored religion." Did you know that the Veteran's Administration, which is part of the US government, offers veterans a choice of religious design on their government-paid-for gravestones that they provide? That doesn't endorse a religion - it just offers families a choice of what they want on their stone - a cross, a star of David, a Muslim symbol, whatever.... I know this because I had to make this choice for my husband's stone.

I think this is the same idea - but they should offer them all. Personally, even though I'm a Christian, I wouldn't want to put that on my license plate. I just don't like being a walking (or driving) advertisement for anything - I don't put bumper stickers or other stickers on my car for anything.

I think that statement by someone who voted against it could very well have been made by a Jewish person, and I don't think it's anti-Semitic at all. They just don't want this to snowball, and quite frankly, knowing some Jewish people very well (my daughter is half-Jewish) they wouldn't want a license plate like that. They don't go around "advertising" who they are as much as Christians do. To them, it would be offensive and sacriligious to put a Torah or a Star of David on something like a license plate.

Posted 4/27/2008 11:07 AM by musicmom60

- reply

@musicmom60 -

Interesting thoughts, and things to chew on -- thanks!

"I think if they're going to offer the Christian plate, they should offer other religions as well." I agree with this statement. Conversely, at the same time, I don't want to see ANY religious car tags! If I want to exercise my spirituality in some public forum, I will attend church (or temple or whatever -- you know what I mean, eh?).

I think the article said Florida offers many custom plates. The state I live in -- Tennessee -- does too, although the majority of them are university-related. Since most of the universities "advertised" on these tags are public institutions, I can deal with that. And other tags endorse agriculture and horses, etc. That's all fine by me. I just don't like a state endorsing (again, my word choice there...) a particular political stance (such as for/against abortion or for/against a particular religion, etc., etc.).

Gosh, I don't like political correctness on the whole, but I almost sound PC, don't I?

Thanks for your input. I shall ponder your last paragraph some more, in particular.

Posted 4/27/2008 11:18 AM by Bukowski_Rules

- reply

I think we are getting into dangerous territory when expect the state to provide us with license plates that proclaim our particular religious persuasion. Even purchasing our own bumper sticker with a religious message on it carries a certain risk, in my opinion.

Some years ago, when I was in the Air Force, I knew another airman whose bumper sticker read, PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD. It turned out that this fellow was a terrible driver who radically broke the speed limit and passed every car in sight every time he took his 'guided missile' on the road! I used to cringe when he shot by down the highway. I mean, everyone knew he was a Christian - because of his sign. But he didn't even obey the laws of the land, let alone God's law!

Posted 4/27/2008 11:35 AM by Grampa_David

- reply

@Grampa_David -

That's a good point.

Truthfully, while I've had a difficult spiritual path during my lifetime, I consider myself somewhat of a "Christian," kind of in the Kierkegaard tradition. Perhaps a Theistic Existentialist is a better label. I know I'm far from perfect. But I, too, cringe when I see people with WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) bumper stickers screaming past me on the roads, doing 35 miles over the speed limit, etc., etc. Didn't Jesus imply that we should follow governmental rules by telling people to render unto Ceasar what is his, and unto God what is his, etc. I was always taught, growing up, that that particular passage meant to obey the law, as long as it didn't contradict God's law.... So maybe I'm being too judgmental in condemning those WWJD speed freaks (I don't even like those bumper stickers!), but I guess this paragraph sort of ties in with what you just wrote, and I feel your pain. Heh. Thanks for the input!

Posted 4/27/2008 11:42 AM by Bukowski_Rules

- reply

I agree that maybe the government shouldn't issue ANY religious license plates because they'd have to offer them for ALL religions, and do you know how many religions Americans practice? Too many for me to count right now.

Remember how the Puritans were prosecuted for their beliefs in Europe and had to come here to escape? This is the land of religious freedom where no one religion dominates as far as the government's concerned. And if the state of Florida offers only one religious license plate, and it's Christian, then they're endorsing just one religion, and that is unconstititional.

Posted 4/27/2008 12:11 PM by UFFda_oyVEY

- reply

Mine says Heart to Heart. I hope it starts a movement for all of the above.

Posted 4/27/2008 12:51 PM by Jaynebug

- reply

my thoughts on this is that most are missing the obvious...this is not about religion or freedom of expression, this is about bucks. $$$. because that's what the state gets when they sell personalized plates-$$$. this is a marketing scheme and they're going to see if they can get away with it. and yes, if the christian thing flies, then the star of david, buddah's, pegan symbols, etc will all be there. not because someone cares what you think or where/if you worship, but because it brings in more moolah. always, always follow the money.

Posted 4/27/2008 1:05 PM by k8tthelate

- reply

Religion should be practiced not broadcast......

Posted 4/27/2008 1:54 PM by askdante - reply

Some good points, for sure.

Posted 4/27/2008 2:42 PM by CandyDishDoom

- reply

Visit that_friggan_knitter's Xanga Site!

Interesting post. We don't seem to have these issues up here. Unless I'm just too apathetic to notice:)

Posted 4/27/2008 2:51 PM by

that_friggan_knitter - reply

Most people don't realize that the First Amendment expressly prohibited the federal government from establishing an "official" religion but it put no similar prohibition on the states. Many states actually had official state religions. For example, Virginia was officially Anglican until 1786. By law, Virginians were required to worship in Anglican churches. Tax dollars were used to support the Anglican church. And one of the predictable results was that Baptists were routinely impisoned in Viriginia during that period. Connecticut was officially Congregationalist until 1818, with similar discriminatory results. Now, every state constitution has language similar to the First Amendment which prohibits the establishment of a state religion. However, it's interesting that eight state constitutions prohibit atheists from holding public office. Although the Supreme Court ruled such a prohibition to be unenforceable, that decision didn't come until 1961. So, until 1961, if you were an atheist and you lived in Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee or Texas, you were prohibited from holding public office. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that we have to be ever-vigilant about any state actions which give special consideration to one religion over others.

Posted 4/27/2008 3:04 PM by doahsdeer

- reply

There are too many specialty plates already, FL has more choices than any other state at last count, and most of them could be done away with. Do think this is getting to be much rediculous. FL claims that all their plates (over 100 of them) are used to raise money for special concerns such as the environment, education, colleges, manatees, reefs, etc. etc. etc. It is all about the money I think. I did it once for a cause I supported but when I need to replace the plate it will be just the standard state plate. I respect anyone's thoughts, ideas, beliefs and loyalties, but do we need to blazon them everywhere in the world. I would rather try and live my faith by example than to push it at everyone who happens to be stuck behind me in traffic or at a stop light.

Posted 4/27/2008 3:17 PM by tvtfln - reply

Good thoughts, Scott, and a well-written post. Okay, I might be missing something here, but I have one comment. People did not leave England for religious freedom. They left because they were being persecuted for practicing the religion of their choice. When they arrived in America, they were free to practice that religion, and they freely persecuted others for believing differently. If they had come in the name of religious freedom, they would have been open to the ‘naturalism’ of the Native Americans and the sorcery of wiccans. Historical accounts tell us that they were not. Each of the thirteen original colonies might have practiced a different religion. I do not know. Further, whilst the US Federal Government expounds no preference to an official religion or an official language, about 20 states name English as their official language. Are states not allowed to make those decisions? I believe that was the intent of the founders—to allow differing individual freedoms to exist within different states? I would be more concerned about States losing States’ rights than whether a neighbouring state is abusing its power. Let the people in that state run their state. Let’s say, for instance, that Utah passes a law (by majority vote) that only Mormons can be employed in Utah. Would the non-Mormons living there have the right to fight this in court under ‘equal protection’ laws? Of course they would. And if they lost, being Americans, they also would have the right to move on to another state. If all fifty states are alike, what is the purpose of having fifty states? Am I missing the point somewhere? Doesn’t the power and energy that forms the backbone of the United States come from allowing those differences? I am not sure I understand.

Posted 4/27/2008 4:54 PM by allison82mckinley - reply

@allison82mckinley -

Good point. The Puritans DID persecute people with religious values other than their own. They hanged heretics and others who did not practice Christianity to the full letter that they themselves did. It wasn't even that they weren't tolerant of others' religions; they weren't tolerant of those who weren't Christian enough for their tastes.

So you have a very good point. Some people are afraid that if John McCain is elected president, he will appoint judges who may overturn Roe v. Wade. But then what will happen? It is up to the states, individually, to decide whether or not they want to allow abortion to be legal.

But here's the thing regarding religion and abortion: As far as religion's concerned, I don't believe each state has the right to put one religion over another, and as far as abortion's concerned, what if all states except three outlaw abortion? On the first count, I just don't think states should have that big of a right, to decide one religion is acceptable and another is not. It goes against the federal constitution. And I just can't imagine a land in which three piddly states allow abortions. That will allow only certain wealthy women to have safe abortions, just as in the past, which is why Roe v. Wade was passed in the first place: to save poor women's lives.

States do have individual rights. For instance, even though cigarettes are legal, many states have made it illegal to smoke in most public places. As a former smoker, I'm not thrilled with that, because I view that as persecution. I don't buy the second hand smoke theory that trillions of people die every second due to second hand smoke (sarcasm intended). Now, some people out in California are trying to ban people from smoking in the privacy of their own homes!!! That's beyond outrageous to me! So, where's it going to end? And who's going to decide? My home state already has a license plate, as I think I mentioned, that states "Choose Life" with a baby one it, an obvious anti-choice, conservative political statement. I find it deeply offensive. It's not that I'm anti-baby. It just that, how would people like it if I, and other pro-choice voters, got enough people together (you don't need that many, actually) to demand a pro-abortion car tag that reads "Choose Death" (or something else just as absurd) with a picture of an aborted fetus on it? Wouldn't that be my right as a state citizen, and if a state is going to make the choice to allow and endorse conservative religious sentiments on its products (ie, car tags), should I not also have the same right under the law -- we're all equal here, in theory -- for a car tag expressing an opposite sentiment? Again, I think you only need either 100 or 1,000 people to pre-pay for any type of car tag you want, with a state's approval. And if a state does not approve my theoretical car tag, are they not declaring itself to be a Christian-only state? And Federal law prohibits states, IMO and in theory, from endorsing ANY religious viewpoint. Separation of church and state -- thank goodness for that one!

Since you live over in England, you probably haven't heard of this judge in Alabama who erected a statue of the 10 Commandments in front of the courthouse, or perhaps, even in his own courtroom -- I can't remember. It's been a few years. He was a real prick about it. Said we were founded on Christian principles, etc., etc. So, I guess if you aren't Baptist or some other good Christian person, you're not going to get a fair shake in his courtroom, are you? He's already predisposed against non-Christians. Fortunately, the Feds stepped in and ordered the statue taken away, since it violates separation of church and state. Don't get me wrong -- I think the 10 Commandments tend to be good rules to live by. But I don't want them staring me in the face in court, just like I don't want any rules from the Koran staring me in the face in court.

I'm not a legal scholar, so I doubt I can address your issues well enough for anyone's satisfaction. I do know this though. States have individual rights -- to an extent. And while I don't necessarily believe in a big federal government -- especially with nut jobs like George Bush at the helm -- I believe it's there to save us from ourselves. Your point about the non-Mormons. They wouldn't lose. And, no, they shouldn't be forced to move -- if they somehow did lose. It's too late in this day and age, I think, for states to impose their religious beliefs on their minions -- there are simply too many minorities, in terms of belief systems, and otherwise, living in most states. Once a Mormon Utah tries to do something like that, then what difference will there be between it and the Puritans of old, who burned "witches" at the stake or hung them or whatever is historically accurate? I don't want to live in a state like that or a country like that, you know?

States have limited rights, and there's a separation of church and state for a reason. It's to protect us from ourselves. And I'm grateful for that, and fearful that one day, we might see that disappear. I dread that day....

Posted 4/27/2008 6:44 PM by Bukowski_Rules

- reply

@doahsdeer -

Fascinating! Thanks for the info!

Posted 4/27/2008 7:00 PM by UFFda_oyVEY

- reply

@doahsdeer -

Pretty fascinating info there. Thanks for sharing!

Posted 4/27/2008 8:10 PM by Bukowski_Rules

- reply

Hey, the eighteenth century had some rockin'--hmm, slavery? Wait, wait...beginning of the revolutionary era (American, French, and then into the nineteenth Greek, Haitian, etc.). Knew there was something good about it.

Certainly seems like a complex matter. Religion's role in government (well, just the consideration that has to be taken) is always complicated.

-Anna.

Posted 4/27/2008 9:51 PM by StorybookAuthor

- reply

@LifeNeedsProtection - Huh?? You blast me every time I get angry when we have a bunch of christians wanting to erect a satue endorsed by the State that states "there shall be no God before Yahwed" while denying other religions their right to put up their propaganda?

On this...buy one of those plastic things around the licence plate proclaiming you religions superiority or the hell the infidels will be damned to. Fine with that...but really do we need government licence plates? Personally I figure no harm..but if you work for the state AND you want one on your state vehicle...no way jose.

Bet this is he underlying issue and goal of the theos. Government endorsed religion. Usually is.

Posted 4/27/2008 9:59 PM by

tendollar4ways - reply

@tendollar4ways -

I'm a teacher, so I work for the government. I have a religious (sort of) bumper sticker, and my car is not a government issued car but is a car I use to drive myself to a government job. So would I be in violation of what you think is right? (My bumper sticker, by the way, is one of those Jesus fish, but inside it, it says "Gefilte" -- instead of "Jesus" or those Greek symbols -- as in gefilte fish, a traditional Jewish fish dish served cold with horseradish on Shabbat. It's sort of a parody of the Jesus fish.)

Posted 4/28/2008 12:40 AM by UFFda_oyVEY

- reply

@tendollar4ways -

The gelfilte fish -- that would be an Ashkenazi dish, though, not a Sefardic dish. It's not an "all-Jew" meal. Just thought I'd clear that up. The Ashkenazi Jews (those from Eastern Europe originally) have different eating habits than do Mediterranean (Sefardic) Jews.

Posted 4/28/2008 12:44 AM by UFFda_oyVEY

- reply

Bullseye!

A most disturbing trend in American politics. You might be interested in my post "Why Christianity Should Get Out of Government"

Why Christianity Should Get Out of Government

http://weblog.xanga.com/Darterius/595591407/why-christianity-should-get-out-of-government.html

Posted 4/28/2008 12:59 AM by Darterius - reply

As a former, and praise God, soon to be once again, 'native' Floridian, let me speak up, here and now, for my religiously obsessive brethern. Personally, if my fellow Floridians wish to embarass themselves by driving around town with a cross and a stainglass window on the ass end of their cars, I say let them. Certainly a cross and a stainglass window are no more asthetically offensive than driving around with an luridly hued orange hanging on your butt. I'm of the opinion that these plates ought to be compulsory for all regular church going drivers as it would allow the rest of us the opportunity to recognize them more easily and thereby avoid getting caught in the 'slow way down because we're almost at the church' turnoff lane. I believe that Charles Darwin was very unlucky in that he, in his pan Pacific travels, happened upon an island populated by mere funny looking finches and even funnier looking tortisses to study. Let us imagine, for a smile inducing moment, that the Beagle had somehow more luckily chose the Atlantic to sail upon and, in Twilight Zone fashion, just happened to pull up behind one of Florida's very own license plate proselitizers who, because they had been praying when they really ought to have been looking where they were going, found too late that they had driven off an unfinished overpass and deposited themselves into the ocean. I posit that he, seeing a cross and stainglass windowed car ass bobbing up and down in the open sea, might very well have come to a much quicker formulation of his theory of natural selection. His loss, of course, was Florida's gain. Nowhere, believe me, does the good Lord stash more of the mistakes he has created 'in his own image' than he does here. One has only to attend a session of the Florida State Legislature to enumerate the many missing links in top hats that are on exhibit there yearly. 'One person, one vote' is often cited as one of the foundations upon which our democracy is based. If this be so, I say let the true believers 'screw on crosses'. Ooops ... forgive my inappropriate, but proudly democratic, irreverence. Eve ( a girl who got away with a peculiar antiquated french colloquialism that means, 'kiss my ass' on her very own Florida license plate )

Posted 4/28/2008 3:45 AM by evelyntremble - reply

Wow. That's definitely a tough and touchy situation. As a Christian, I really don't like to force my religion onto other people, and vice versa. Those license plates, are just well, wow... Idk. I would vote against them for sure though! That's crazy. I say stickers do the job. No need for the license plate!!!

Posted 4/28/2008 4:50 AM by RedStarr5 - reply

browse comments: next › | last »

Choose Identity

Xanga

Anonymous (Sign up for free!)

Give eProps (?)

2 eProps

1 eProp

0 ePropsComment Only

Post a Comment

Add Link | Preview HTML

comment help

Say it with Minis! (?)
- Good Luck!
- Don't make me mad!! ;)
- Feeling Prickly? I Know How You Feel...
- Very cool!
View All Minis »
[mini text]

[mini credits]

reset