| American Politics Forum for political discussion that applies specifically to the United States. |
 | | 
13th November 2009, 02:02 PM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 10th November 2009
Posts: 191
Blessings: 58,923
Reps: 155,253,655,302 (power: 0) | | Yes, because defending your rights in America is the stupidest thing you can do.
Ugh, what are you talking about? What right is defended by not allowing one group to have it's little license plates? Now, instead we've all equally lost rights, if anything.
This is stupidity that gives the side that is against seperation of church and state ammo against people who believe in it, like me. License plates are not bumper stickers. They are mandatory. By having license plates with religious messages, there is an appearance that the State is approving or endorsing those messages. <staff edit>
More like nobodies. This suit wasn't because some Muslim wanted a plate a couldn't get it, it was because <staff edit> atheists don't like seeing anything of faith.
Last edited by Philothei; 17th November 2009 at 09:11 PM.
Reason: staff permanent edit
|
13th November 2009, 02:07 PM
|  | with a Touch of Grey
48     
| | Join Date: 31st October 2003
Posts: 10,996
Blessings: 3,083,344 My Mood 
Reps: 56,658,641,732,305,168 (power: 56,658,641,732,324) | | Originally Posted by CollinQuinn  Ugh, what are you talking about? What right is defended by not allowing one group to have it's little license plates? Now, instead we've all equally lost rights, if anything.
No one had the right to have their religion endorsed by the state, so no rights were lost. This is stupidity that gives the side that is against seperation of church and state ammo against people who believe in it, like me.
You're shooting blanks. It only appears that way to an idiot.
More like nobodies. This suit wasn't because some Muslim wanted a plate a couldn't get it, it was because crybaby atheists don't like seeing anything of faith.
__________________
It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
-- Abraham Lincoln
They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Ben Franklin |
13th November 2009, 03:10 PM
|  | Senior Member
59  
| | Join Date: 16th January 2008
Posts: 6,536
Blessings: 4,156,565
Reps: 107,496,095,549,249,776 (power: 107,496,095,549,260) | | Originally Posted by CaDan No.
The opinion is available here.
WOW!
After reading the judgement, which includes the history this gets worse and worse.
First the idiots who started this legislation did it because Florida failed when they tried to do the same thing.
Second getting this kind of plate is pretty easy in the state, just put up $4000 up front or have 400 prepaid orders.
Third the setup is to have an extra fee which goes to some organization. For this I believe plate there was no organization. Where any other plate has a backer the backer in this case would be the state. There also was no design, so the state would have had to create the design itself.
WOW, they are idiots. How much deeper can you get when it comes to entangling the state? |
13th November 2009, 03:24 PM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 10th November 2009
Posts: 191
Blessings: 58,923
Reps: 155,253,655,302 (power: 0) | | No one had the right to have their religion endorsed by the state, so no rights were lost.
Having a cross on your license plate isn't establishment by any definition. |
13th November 2009, 03:24 PM
|  | Moral Philosopher
27   
 | | Join Date: 1st August 2006 Location: A Cylon Basestar
Posts: 13,499
Blessings: 1,192,377 My Mood 
Reps: 111,713,900,778,221,888 (power: 111,713,900,778,240) | | Originally Posted by Lawton I don't see it. If people are given an equal ability to put their own religious symbols onto some physical object required by the government, then I do not see how people voluntarily doing so endorses any religion. If they were only going to allow Christian plats, not Muslim ones, then yes, that is endorsement enough to be banned. But if that is not the case, I do not see the endorsement.
CaDan answered your objections quite well. Religious symbols don't belong in government. Originally Posted by Collin Ugh, what are you talking about? What right is defended by not allowing one group to have it's little license plates? Now, instead we've all equally lost rights, if anything.
Really? What rights have you lost? It only appears that way to an idiot.
Is there a valid point you'd like to make, or will you simply continue with the ad hominem. Which, by the way, is uncalled for. More like nobodies. This suit wasn't because some Muslim wanted a plate a couldn't get it, it was because crybaby atheists don't like seeing anything of faith.
This isn't about "Atheist crybabies" but about the role of government. It's not the role of government to endorse religious beliefs. That's the church's job. Having a cross on your license plate isn't establishment by any definition.
No. It's endorsement.
Ringo
__________________ "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797. Presented to Congress and signed by everyone in attendance. "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''
-- Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights
"I ain't afraid of your Yahweh
I ain't afraid of your Allah
I ain't afraid of your Jesus
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God"
-- 'I Ain't Afraid' by The Klezmatics
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
13th November 2009, 03:25 PM
|  | useless
| | Join Date: 18th June 2009
Posts: 10,680
Blessings: 2,245,951 My Mood 
Reps: 323,833,949,233,120,320 (power: 323,833,949,233,133) | | | My wife has a "choose life" plate in TN. It has a pic of a baby. I've not seen any "chose death" ones with a pic of...well you see what I mean....could be a problem
__________________
I often wonder what terrorists think, when Americans so frequently choose to congregate at the Target |
13th November 2009, 03:27 PM
| | Why do they always send the poor? (S.O.A.D.)
 
| | Join Date: 20th July 2006
Posts: 5,301
Blessings: 92,488
Reps: 17,648,511,778,771,420 (power: 17,648,511,778,782) | | | I wear my religion on my sleeve. Why can't I also display it on my plate? My car is already 50 lbs heavier from all the metal fish. |
13th November 2009, 03:27 PM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 10th November 2009
Posts: 191
Blessings: 58,923
Reps: 155,253,655,302 (power: 0) | | Really? What rights have you lost?
The right to have whatever I want on my license plate. I don't see you questioning what rights were violated by some guy having a cross on his plate? Partisan much? This isn't about "Atheist crybabies" but about the role of government. It's not the role of government to endorse religious beliefs. That's the church's job.
No, it is about atheist crybabies. A cross on a plate a personal message isn't establishment, no matter how many times you people claim it is. |
13th November 2009, 03:36 PM
| | Moral Philosopher
27
| | Join Date: 1st August 2006 Location: A Cylon Basestar
Posts: 13,499
Blessings: 1,192,377 My Mood
Reps: 111,713,900,778,221,888 (power: 111,713,900,778,240) | | The right to have whatever I want on my license plate.
I don't think you ever had that right. If it's unconstitutional, it doesn't belong on a government license plate. I don't see you questioning what rights were violated by some guy having a cross on his plate? Partisan much?
Because no rights were violated. A cross on a plate a personal message isn't establishment, no matter how many times you people claim it is.
I never said it was about establishment. The issue here is endorsement of religion.
Ringo
__________________ "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797. Presented to Congress and signed by everyone in attendance. "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''
-- Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights
"I ain't afraid of your Yahweh
I ain't afraid of your Allah
I ain't afraid of your Jesus
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God"
-- 'I Ain't Afraid' by The Klezmatics
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
13th November 2009, 03:53 PM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 10th November 2009
Posts: 191
Blessings: 58,923
Reps: 155,253,655,302 (power: 0) | | I don't think you ever had that right. If it's unconstitutional, it doesn't belong on a government license plate.
So when the government puts a cross on a plate, that's a violation of rights, but when the government jails you for not buying the product of a private government for no other reason than that you are alive, that's not a violation of our rights?
Quit pretending you gives a rat's behind about anything the Constitution says. I never said it was about establishment. The issue here is endorsement of religion.
The only way this would be unConstitutional is if a non-Christian wanted a similar plate with their religious symbol on it and was denied. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
