http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_re_us/religious_license_plate


I love it when I get something to go into a semi-extended rant about.

According to the article, Americans United For Separation of Church and State have filed a lawsuit in South Carolina to stop the production and sale of religious-themed vanity license plates. These plates would be emblazoned with a cross and the words "I Believe." The organization filed the lawsuit on behalf of two Christian pastors, a humanist pastor (whatever the hell that is), a rabbi, and the Hindu America Foundation.

Now, anyone that knows me is thinking, "He's siding with the people filing the lawsuit."

But that's not the case here.

Come on. What's the big deal? It's a stinking license plate. If someone of faith wants to proclaim that on their license plate, what's the problem? All sorts of private groups are allowed to have their own vanity plates. There are plates for individual colleges, breast cancer survivors, Vietnam veterans, and myriad other groups. Why are we going to draw the line here?

But this is when the separation of church and state advocates say that by making the plates, the South Carolina government is making an endorsement of the Christian faith. But this is nonsense. Cannot the Hindus and the humanists and hell, even the athiests get their own plates? I just don't see how someone proclaiming his or her faith on a vanity license plate is unduly burdening someone else's freedom of religion or making the establishment of a state religion.

Besides, this line has been muddied too much anyway. If memory serves, South Carolina at one point did not allow alcohol sales on Sundays (that may still be the case). Now, any reasonable person can infer that the reason liquor isn't sold in the Palmetto State on Sundays is because the vast majority of Christian faiths mark the Sabbath on Sundays. I would think that Seventh-Day Adventists or Jews could reasonably argue that the ban on Sunday alcohol sales is a de facto endorsement of Christianity. I'm not sure if it is, or if it's more of a case of "community standards" prevailing, but then again, I'm not a First Amendment attorney. Our legislative and judicial bodies generally start off sessions with prayer, and a person getting on the witness stand is generally greeted with a Bible on which to swear to tell the truth (so help them God). Yes, the witness is allowed to not use the Bible or to merely affirm, but the fact of the matter is that the person has to request this. The person, one could argue is being unduly burdened in their quest for freedom of religion. But this is nothing. If you don't believe, it's just a book, right? Get over it.

Yes, I know this may stand in stark contrast to some positions I've taken on this in the past. But here's the thing. It's just a license plate. Any person with half a brain in his or her head knows that the sentiments expressed on the plate are the person in the car and not those of the state of South Carolina. It's just that simple. How should it offend you any more than a bumper sticker proclaiming someone's love for Christ would? Besides, the extra cost of the plate will no doubt benefit many non-Christians in the form of extra revenue for the state. Isn't this a good thing?

One of the pastors leading the lawsuit accused South Carolina legislators of pandering in an election year. So? This is news? All politicians pander, be they those of the religious right, or those advocating legalized abortion or gay marriage. It's all pandering. You don't think that the recent return of the gay marriage issue to the fore in California isn't the product of some politician on the left pandering to the vast liberal swath that resides in that state? This is how the game is played.

Another Methodist minister suggested the plates are "divisive" and create "religious discord." How so? If you're likely to get that riled up by someone driving a grocery-grabber around town with an "I Believe" plate on the back, maybe driving isn't your thing. I don't know.

Another minister suggested that the plates "cheapen" religion and compromise it. Really? How so? If that's the case, than doesn't any social endeavor that exists outside one's on prayer closet constitute a cheapening of the faith? This would mean that television shows with a religious theme, or Christian pop and rock music, or t-shirts that proclaim one's faith simultaneously cheapen it. I'm not buying that. This would become a freedom of religion issue in my eyes only if South Carolina legislators subsequently denied other faiths the right to their own specialized plate.

We can't possibly unblur the line that has been so thoroughly blurred. The White House lights a Christmas tree every year. I know that the tree is one of the more secular trappings of the holiday, but it is still called a "Christmas" tree. Municipalities all over the nation have "Christmas" parades every year, and the local governments are obviously involved in those. In terms of occurrences of the concurrence of religion and government in our country, I'd say these license plates rate as relatively insignificant.

The irony of this, I guess, would be that the plates are called "vanity plates." Vanity is one of the seven deadlies, isn't it?