Thanks for Commenting
You really should learn to read more carefully, to avoid misrepresenting and misstating the facts.
This Christian plate was proposed by the State, NOT by a private group. The article itself says "Lynn said his group would not have opposed the "I Believe" plates had they been advocated by private groups."
That makes all the difference. If it had been a plate funded and proposed by the Santorum Society for Man On Dog Sex, then clearly it would be proper. But the State itself may not favor one particular religion, or even religion in general.
Hey Mario: Been a long time. On the subject of these vanity plates, I'm going to have to side with commenter Michael. Having this going through the Legislature changes everything.
But let's also look at it from another angle. IIRC, South Carolina has plates that say "respect life", as does Colorado. Would these states consider putting "keep abortion legal" on a plate? . How about "God doesn't exist" or "end the war now"?
No, they wouldn't.
Having a slogan on these plates is an endorsement of a position, and unless a state is willing to state ANY position by ANY group it shouldn't have ANY slogan at all.
I think Madison blabbed about this in a Federalist Paper once. You know that "tyranny of the majority" rant? Funny thing is, some of these slogans are actually "moral majority" positions from a decided minority of the citizenry already.
We just don't know it because of the state/church cohabitation explicit in bum deals like a "respect life" or "I believe" plate, especially when one notes that many faiths, Judaism included, aren't into the whole proselytizing thing.
Commenting by HaloScan
