Now it's all about the license plates. Some people want to buy the state approved plates with the wordds "I Believe" on them, along with a white cross. The usuals have come in to fight these plates in court. An ACLU guy told me that the "state had kicked in part of the money" to start the production of the "I Believe" plates, so I guess that was wrong. But, if someone wants to buy a vanity plate, he should be able to, right? Including one that professes his faith?
Originally posted by PinkFloyd Now it's all about the license plates. Some people want to buy the state approved plates with the wordds "I Believe" on them, along with a white cross. The usuals have come in to fight these plates in court. An ACLU guy told me that the "state had kicked in part of the money" to start the production of the "I Believe" plates, so I guess that was wrong. ...[text shortened]... buy a vanity plate, he should be able to, right? Including one that professes his faith?
if someone wants to buy a vanity plate, he should be able to, right? Including one that professes his faith?
Yes, as long as EVERY other faith and lack thereof is given the equal support from the state. That isn't the case here.
I.e. If the state just said "pay $X and put whatever you want on your plate" then that would be fine. The state saying hey, we'll support a christian plate only is the problem.
I thought also they passed a law specifically to add this plate. I could be wrong on this, but that would in itself be a problem also.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn if someone wants to buy a vanity plate, he should be able to, right? Including one that professes his faith?
Yes, as long as EVERY other faith and lack thereof is given the equal support from the state. That isn't the case here.
I.e. If the state just said "pay $X and put whatever you want on your plate" then that would be fine. The state sa ...[text shortened]... lly to add this plate. I could be wrong on this, but that would in itself be a problem also.
my opinion is that "pay $X and put whatever you want on your plate" is not entirely correct. the guy could have written a KKK slogan or something like that.
it is best not to have anything written at all. or at most a program in which the buyer can have anything he wants written on it on demand which still doesn't take care of the case where a satanist might want "Satan is your friend". better for the government to remain as neutral as possible.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi my opinion is that "pay $X and put whatever you want on your plate" is not entirely correct. the guy could have written a KKK slogan or something like that.
it is best not to have anything written at all. or at most a program in which the buyer can have anything he wants written on it on demand which still doesn't take care of the case where a satanist m ...[text shortened]... ht want "Satan is your friend". better for the government to remain as neutral as possible.
is not entirely correct. the guy could have written a KKK slogan or something like that.
Well, that's the first amendment. I don't like that either, but that doesn't mean it's illegal or should be.
or at most a program in which the buyer can have anything he wants written on it on demand which still doesn't take care of the case where a satanist might want "Satan is your friend".
If someone can have "I Believe" with a cross behind it then they should be able to have one saying "Satan is your friend". I see no huge difference between the two since they are both just faith based statements.
The point is the government does have to be neutral, hence the separation of church and state.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn is not entirely correct. the guy could have written a KKK slogan or something like that.
Well, that's the first amendment. I don't like that either, but that doesn't mean it's illegal or should be.
[i]or at most a program in which the buyer can have anything he wants written on it on demand which still doesn't take care of the case where a s ...[text shortened]... is the government does have to be neutral, hence the separation of church and state.
But that's NOT the case. I've been told repeatefly that there is no mention of separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution; it supposedly was only found in some of Jefferson's letters.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd But that's NOT the case. I've been told repeatefly that there is no mention of separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution; it supposedly was only found in some of Jefferson's letters.
Here we go again...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
That IS in the constitution and it does not take a constitutional scholar to figure out what it means. Furthermore, the phrase "right to privacy" also does not appear anywhere in the constitution...do you now assume we have no such right?
With respect to the above quoted section of the constitution, it serves two purposes. First, it prohibits the government from telling you you may not go to a particular church or practice a particular religion, and basically keeps the state from telling you what to believe. Secondly, it ensures that the government does not become involved in the mandating or promotion of a particular religion over all others. This is a good thing, btw and Christians should be celebrating it...the fact that so many of them don't seem to "get it" does not make it any less important to our way of life.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd But that's NOT the case. I've been told repeatefly that there is no mention of separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution; it supposedly was only found in some of Jefferson's letters.
I agree with TheSkipper on what he said.
What you are referring to is that in one of Jefforson's letters in which he was expressing his opinion on the matter of the freedom of religion:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
It is this phrase that led to the establishment clause that we do have in the constitution.
People have endless discussions as to what the founders believed and what they intended when they wrote the constitution. Jefferson intended there to be a separation and that is expressed in the establishment clause.
It specifically says that the state can "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - courts have interpreted this repeatedly as any favoring of one religion over another as establishing a religion - and they are right to!
Often the same people who say that the constitution doesn't mention "the separation of church and state" are the same people who talk about the Bible's teaching about the "rapture" or the "trinity", even though those words don't exist in the Bible.
For the record, I believe that the Bible does in fact teach about the rapture and the trinity, and in the same manner I believe that the Constitution does guarantee a separation of church and state.
Originally posted by Nemesio The best part is that he says that he's been told that there's no mention. He hasn't even
bothered to check for himself.
That's the part that leaves me breathless.
Nemesio
Oh, I checked. And "told" should have read "taught"--that was my bad. I had real teachers.
And as the intelligent people on here have pointed out, those words ARE never mentioned in the Constitution. It's debatable whether or not that's the meaning, just like "rapture" and "trinity" in the Bible (as also cited), but the fact is, the issue is not spelled out.
23 Jul '08 19:20
church v. state rears ugly head in SC
Back to Top