Not a Shocker
It’s sad that it even had to go as high as a federal district court, but thankfully common sense and reason prevailed – where such common sense is often absent from people when religion is involved – and found that the religiously centered ‘I Believe’ plate violated the separation of church and state provided by the Constitution.
In a summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie said the plate was based on a discriminatory law. “Such a law amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular,” Currie said.
The irony is that a religious group supporting the separation of church and state are the ones that filed the suit that brought the case to the federal court. I know that it sounds crazy that a religious group supports that, but I’m a fan of whatever it takes to keep this sort of debauchery from happening. I wrote on this back in 2008 when the Post & Courier reported on the plate initially coming out, but I can’t find my article. Ooops. I remember being surprised (though I shouldn’t have been) that both houses of the legislature passed it unanimously and the potted plant of a lieutenant governor supported it.
The fact that all these elected officials could actually vote for this when any sane person could see that it was a clear violation of church and state should speak to the caliber of people elected in this state. They were either stupid, or just so afraid of voting against (the right thing to do). They risked offending less constituents by going along with the whole idea than they did by saying “Wait…hold up…remember that Constitution thing…?”
The “I Believe” Act had its genesis in Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer’s desire to do here what had been unsuccessful in the state of Florida–to gain legislative approval of a specialty plate promoting the majority religion: Christianity. Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same. The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.
Proponents of the plate will be upset because they will likely feel that this is an attack on Christianity. I somehow believe (no pun intended) that Christianity has managed to survive thousands of years without a license plate…and for the majority of that time there were no cars to which you could attach said plate. Oh wait…I was right..the potted plant:
“I could say that this is yet another example of judicial activism, of federal judges out of control,” Bauer said. “My instincts tell me that it’s even deeper than that. I think it’s another attack on Christianity, and I’m not going to sit by and watch this one happen.”
Bauer insisted that the specialty plate “reflects core values that are meaningful to our society” and that displaying the plate is a matter of free speech and expression.
“I don’t understand why witnessing for fundamental, enduring values is controversial or threatening,” he said.
Lynn has rejected the claim that the lawsuit infringes on free expression.
I guess he can’t see that the constitution is pretty clear on the fact that the state cannot express preference for any one religion over others, and that by the state issuing the state-issued and state-required plates that they are, in effect, exhibiting preference. According to the P&C’s article (see link at bottom), he is planning on having the AG appeal the decision. More of yours (and my) tax dollars being flushed down the drain in Columbia.
Anyone who can’t see that needs their head examined…or to be removed from office.
You can read the entire ruling here: SC District Court Site (PDF). The Post & Courier has their article here.