The state of South Carolina has begun to receive orders for new license plates approved by the state legislature. The plates are not exactly ones traditionally thought of when the words specialty plates are introduced, such as those supporting state schools. These new plates are what many believe to be a promotion of the Christian religion. This is because the words “I Believe” will be printed on the new license plates, along with a stained-glass window with a cross. Because the South Carolina Legislature proposed the tags, the legislature mandated that at least four hundred prepaid orders for the new specialty license plates have to be made before production will commence.
Those individuals and groups against the new specialty license plates argue that the state is inherently endorsing the Christian religion through the state sponsoring of these license plates. The group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed a lawsuit on the behalf of two Christian pastors, a humanist pastor, a rabbi pastor, and the Hindu American Foundation. The group contests it would not be opposed to the license plates if a purely private organization had made the request and the standard procedures involved in such a private request would have been followed.
This news story is exceptionally important to the study of religion and American law because the American legal system and a particular religious establishment are clearly becoming enjoined through the state legislature. This article is a valid representation of the way in which the government at any level and religion should not produce entanglement between them. Even though the specialty license plates have yet to be produced, the state’s endorsement of the license plates is particularly unsettling to the scholarly wall of separation of church and state. If the argument of the founder’s intent is not convincing to cease the production of the specialty Christian license plates, then the Constitution is the answer to the prayers of constitutional textualists.
Because the state of South Carolina has admittedly aided in the production of the specialty license plates in the theme of Christianity, the state has therefore endorsed and respected a particular establishment of religion. I, like the group suing the state of South Carolina, would have no problem with the specialty Christian license plates if a private group had requested the production of the license plates. Here, the state government is overstepping the bounds of a government supposedly representative of everyone, not just the majority population of a state, or country.
Posts
7 comments:
The fact that these plates are endorsed by the legislature, and that the money made by them would go to the state, does seem to put this in violation of the establishment clause. If any private group wanted to make their own specialty plates, that would be fine, but the state has no business making them. It also seems a bit crass for the state to look to make money by offering specialty religious plates at a slightly higher cost than regular plates.
I agree that there is an establishment issue here. It is not the issue of the plates being allowed, but the fact that it was endorsed by the state that is a problem. The state should have given a private institution the opportunity to present the idea instead of doing it themselves. I feel as though the law suit might actually be in favor of the plaintiff as there is an entanglement issue of the state being involved in a display of Christianity, and thus furthering or advancing religion in some way.
As a technical note, you made an error when stating that the humanist pastor and rabbi are members of Christian denominations. Aside from the fact that this would be theologically as well as logically impossible, the suit also included 2 Christian pastors mentioned before the three other groups, which must have lead to the conclusion that a Jewish individual and a secular humanist are somehow Christian. To the article though, this is another issue where I kind of get mushy. While there is probably no need to have custom liscense plates in the first place, if they are going to have them (in Iowa there are many varieties supporting colleges, wildlife and other things you can get), if they are going to be around, why should religious groups not have one? Ultimately, if the State made such plates aviliable to religious groups that had 400 pre-payers (as the article says is necessary) then it might not be such a big deal. But then we would have to have customized liscense plates for just about anything. Ultimately, I'm not so sure that this is about establishment; paying extra money to show your religious affiliation does not establish a state religon, as it is completely voluntary and has no effect on anyone other than the purchaser whatsoever (except the chronic complainers and the perpetually indignant who need ANYTHING to be irate about), so long as any group that wanted to could. Rather, the issue is that liscense plates are for the purpose of ID'ing vehicles and drivers, and this is not the appropriate outlet for these displays. Once we allow one group, we have to start allowing them all, and wind up with non-uniform plates and a huge hassle and inefficency; the fact that this has a religious motive should not be the issue. It should be if something is actually really established under the Lemon test (doesn't seem so).
Drew -- Thanks for pointing out my typos! I appreciate it and apologize for posting when I was lacking sleep and erred in my typing.
To everyone, including Drew, thank you for responding to this post. If you have any questions for me, I will gladly answer them.
I agree with Tyler that it is not so much the fact that they are coming out with these liscense plates, but that the state is the one putting them out. If a group wanted to put these plates out I do not think I would have as much of a problem with it. Although I do have a problem with the specialized liscense plates in general. I would prefer if there was a generic plate for each state. I have a problem with what Drew is saying though because the state of North Carolina is providing these. There is no organization attached to it like the National Education Association. If each of these liscense plates had an organization on it, there would not be a problem. No organization leads me to believe that the state is promoting it and that is establishing religion in my eyes.
The state should not be the ones sponsoring these plates. I would find it acceptable if the plates were sponsored by private people or an organization. The money from these religious plates should also not go to the state. The state should not be making profit off of a religious item. These plates may also make people think that the state prefers Christianity over other religions, even if that’s not the state’s intent. Therefore, I think the state should not be producing these plates.
I agree with Tyler and most of the other comments on this issue. This seems to be an issue of establishment of the Christian faith. I have no problem with outside organizations creating their own personalized license plates (even though I find it to be completely unnecessary). When the state, however, supports the blatantly religious plate, it becomes an issue. The government is using state dollars to create and distribute these. If we use the Lemon test, as Drew suggested, this issue fails on at least the first two issues. There must be a secular purpose; there is a secular purpose to license plates, but not specifically religiously designed ones. The second prong states that it must not advance religion. As an individual is driving throughout the country with a religious message on their car, it is clearly helping that religious message spread. The state should not be able to create a religious license plate, but non-governmental organizations should have the freedom to do so.
Post a Comment