South Carolina Christians Playing The Discrimination Card

[_Droopy]

Don't see the point of a special plate, and I'm getting so sick of everyone hollering persecution and discrimination. Coming from a black female...it doesn't exist like that anymore. The sky is the limit if you want it to be; people don't owe you a damn thing. I like the fact that I've worked for what little bit I can put my hands on and say is my own.

Here in VA, I've seen plenty of license plates with scriptures on them or Jesus-something-or-other. Why does it need to go farther than that? Personalize your license plate, get a bumper sticker...but you don't need to be able to choose a special license plate just for Christians...

*sigh* "Spiritual warfare"...

I like your attitude, but this whole issue just doesn't rattle my chain. If I see a license plate that says "Praise the Lord" well, guess what? I just saw one. That's it. Free country.

[_Sam Harris]

When I get new plates, mine will say this:

LUNATIK

I think it's descriptive enough... :-)

[_Droopy]

I just prefer numbers and letters, in any combination.

[_GoodK]

My answer: if you don't like Christian symbols on license plates, don't look at them.

And our answer has always been: if you don't like abortions, don't have them. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay-married. If you don't like birth control, don't use it. If you don't like drugs and alcohol, don't do them.

Why is it that "discrimination against Christians" always takes the form of restricting Christians' ability to discriminate against everyone else?

Well said.

[_Droopy]

And our answer has always been: if you don't like abortions, don't have them. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay-married. If you don't like birth control, don't use it. If you don't like drugs and alcohol, don't do them.

Your problem here is quite obviously going to be showing how such large scale social phenomena as convenience abortion on demand, allowing homosexuals to redefine for the rest of the culture the concepts of gender, marriage, and family, and the social costs and risks associated with the use of mind altering chemicals, are analogous to observing a licenses plate that says "Jesus Loves You".

For the record, I am open to drug legalization, even though I despise them as forms of self indulgent catharsis.

[_GoodK]

showing how such large scale social phenomena as convenience abortion on demand,

Like I said, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. Surely even a Christian can understand this concept.

allowing homosexuals to redefine for the rest of the culture the concepts of gender, marriage, and family,

This isn't happening. Actually, we are allowing Christians to define for the rest of the culture the concepts of marriage and family.

Like I said, if you don't like gay marriage don't get gay-married.

and the social costs and risks associated with the use of mind altering chemicals,

As opposed to the social costs and risks associated with prohibition?

are analogous to observing a licenses plate that says "Jesus Loves You".

Because Christians feel entitled enough to not only believe and worship freely, but to customize vehicle identification plates so the rest of us motorists can know that an ancient allegory for the sun "loves" us.

Yet they do not even consider affording the same freedoms to those who do not think the creator of the Universe concerns himself with the type of sex you are having, among other things.

[_Droopy]

Like I said, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. Surely even a Christian can understand this concept.

This question should not be asked of me, but of the tiny human being being aborted.

This isn't happening. Actually, we are allowing Christians to define for the rest of the culture the concepts of marriage and family.

You had better start reading up on your Queer Theory and Gay rights movement ideology, because that's precisely the point, and, in any case, homosexual "marriage" cannot logically proceed as a cultural phenomena without that redefinition. If homosexuals can "marry", then the entire normative concept has already been redefined and reconceptualized.

As opposed to the social costs and risks associated with prohibition?

The risks associated with prohibition are increased criminal activity, especially large scale organized crime. The risks associated with liberalization are increased social pathology, economic losses, and criminal activity of a different kind. Its a comparison and contrast, or, if you will, a cost benefit analysis. But whatever it is, it bears no resemblance in importance or gravitas to verbiage on a license plate.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Sorry to have to be the bearer of the bad news that you don't know what you're talking about, but no such legal principle exists in the Constitution of the United States.

So I guess you flunked out of American Civics in High School, Droppy.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." - First Amendment, Bill of Rights, United States Constitution.

And before you say something stupid about that only applying to the Legislative Branch of the US Federal Government...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, United States Constitution.

As a matter of fact THERE IS such a legal principle in our nation's Constitution.

Which really matters not at all and is not prohibited by the national constitution. Christians, of various kinds, are a clear majority in SC, so, of course, any licence plate is going to probably represent the religious preferences of the majority. But uh...how does this harm anybody?

Christians being in the majority is irrelevant. Showing favor towards one religion over all others is unconstitutional, i.e. illegal.

As far as who is harmed, once precedence is set for an establishment of religion, anyone not belonging to that religion stands at risk of discrimination.

Sorry, but your position has no constitutional basis. Oh, I think what you mean is the ACLU's traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. Yes, but that is not part of the constitution either, as to its original intent (which we know, because we have the Federalist Papers and a large number of the political writings of the Founders).

Not the ACLU at all. The United States Supreme Court decided this in multiple cases from 1884 onwards. There is plenty of legal precedence backing this. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause ties in with Free Exercise Clause (the one allowing you to worship freely), the two are mutually inclusive.

by the way, show where in which of the Federalist Papers that the original intent of the was to establish a christian nation, i.e. that they intended for there to be state endorsement of a specific religion.

What is the source for the $4,000 figure?

The Article above, who inturn got that information from the State of South Carolina. You seriously didn't even read that article, did you?

If SC residents want to make others available, or don't like it, they should work to change the law. This is a classic example of yet another culture war issue that has no place in the courts at all and should be left to the people.

Screw minorities, right? You really are a bigoted prick.

Question: Why do you think that I, knowing there will be no LDS plates available, could care less if such are available for general Christians? Why doesn't this bother me in the least?

If it didn't bother you in the least if they do make these plates, then why should it matter if they don't? If you really meant what you just said, we shouldn't even be having this discussion.

The second question to ask is: why does it put leftists into apoplectic fits?

True to form, why stick to the topic when you can accuse others of being "leftists" or :"liberals". I mean, why make a valid argument based in facts when you can toss out ad hominem like worthless little troll.

In closing, go read the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, take some classes on American History and Civics, and pull your head out of your ass.

[_GoodK]

Its a comparison and contrast, or, if you will, a cost benefit analysis. But whatever it is, it bears no resemblance in importance or gravitas to verbiage on a license plate.

It bears no resemblance if you miss the point.

The point is, Christians expect to be left alone. They can't leave others alone.

They are intolerant.

Notice the quote in your sig line.

[_moksha]

Question: Why do you think that I, knowing there will be no LDS plates available, could care less if such are available for general Christians? Why doesn't this bother me in the least?

My guess is that it has something to do with one of Murphy's Laws of the perversity of the Universe.