South Carolina Christians Playing The Discrimination Card

[_Sam Harris]

Not all Christians are intolerant, that's just the lie GoodK and his sock puppets tell themselves to justify their behavior.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Not all Christians are intolerant, that's just the lie GoodK and his sock puppets tell themselves to justify their behavior.

if that's the case then those tolerant Christians speak of certainly seem to be a non-vocal minority.

[_Sam Harris]

Probably because they're too busy enjoying their lives to want to fight with you.

[_Sam Harris]

Oh, and they're a majority. I know there are many good world citizens out there who contribute in vastly positive ways to this world who do not believe in God. But they're too busy enjoying their lives as well to worry about making sure everyone validates their beliefs.

One of the few good lessons my mother taught me: the bad apples that seem to spoil the whole bunch are always few in number. They just stink the most due to the rot.

[_Dr. Shades]

One of the few good lessons my mother taught me: the bad apples that seem to spoil the whole bunch are always few in number. They just stink the most due to the rot.

Did you think to ask her which category she fell under? :-)

[_EAllusion]

1. Why is this anyone's business?

2. What in the world does the concept of "discrimination" have to do with any of this?

3. Why do certain people, holding to a certain political ideology become so exercised by the public presence of speech or symbolism with which they disagree, while seeing no problem in imposing, by force of law, their own speech and symbolism on others (otherwise known as 'political correctness")?

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

Sure, as long as the state acknowledges that it has created a limited public forum and is willing to make license plates that profess anyone's position on religion. So if the state is just as likely to make Muslim, Satanist, and Atheist plates, then there is no discrimination taking place. Otherwise the government is diverting tax dollars to the support of one religious viewpoint over others, is in violation of the establishment clause, and will eventually lose in court.

I wouldn't mind an FSM plate.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Otherwise the government is diverting tax dollars to the support of one religious viewpoint over others, is in violation of the establishment clause, and will eventually lose in court.

Dude, according to Droopy the first ten words of the First Amendment and the entire first section of the Fourteenth Amendment don't exist or don't apply because of some as yet to be shown declaration of intent in the Federalist Papers. Truly we are dealing with someone who's either from an alternate reality or slept through all of high school (though part of me is starting to doubt he actually graduated HS).

[_EAllusion]

It's possible Droopy is going to argue at some point that the incorporation doctrine is bunk and the bill of rights only applies to the federal government's laws/actions.

Regarding the federalist papers and the views of the "founders", James Madison - one of the 3 authors of the federalist papers and the author of the first amendment - held a more strict view of separation than the typical modern ACLU position. And that is clear enough from his writings. Of course the views of the various founders varied on this to some extent, but the ACLU's positions, which are for the most part in line with modern establishment clause jurisprudence, fall within that range. What's Droopy to do? First, and most likely, he can simply use bad historical arguments culled from sources like David Barton that he is likely to have read via sources like worldnetdaily. There's a cottage industry of "Christian Nation" pseudohistory to draw from. Second, he can avoid the type of originalism he alluded to and instead try to argue that while the founder's original intent wasn't X, Y, and Z, it was of those who ultimately ratified the Amendments. That's certainly true of some of the ratifiers. The problem here is that this is also wrong in the bigger picture, but it allows from more complexity and nuance to hide his assertions in.

[_GoodK]

Not all Christians are intolerant, that's just the lie GoodK...

I don't care, and it hardly means anything to anybody, if you feel like EVERY single Christian you have met fits your definition of intolerant. You seem rather intolerant yourself, if you haven't noticed.

Did you also know that a broken clock is right TWICE a day, and occasionally you don't post 1,000 plus word posts about yourself and how resilient you are.

[_Trevor]

On my license plate I have a picture of an endangered species that is hopefully benefiting from the small donation that went along with the purchase of the plates. Others have pictures of university team mascots. I really don't care what people are able to put on their license plates so long is it is not obscene. There are certain things that I would prefer not seeing in the public square, but a cross or a menorah is not on the list.