South Carolina Christians Playing The Discrimination Card

[_Sam Harris]

And you can learn to quote me completely, my so-called writer. Quoting your four horsemen is not writing. But perhaps it's still too uncomfortable for you to face your hypocrisy.

[_Angus McAwesome]

LOL, you're the one with no future after you die honey.

So you actually derive amusement from the thought of the misfortune of others? How very... Christian of you.

[_EAllusion]

The same site has a fairly extensive body of writings from James Madison on the subject. He is known to have been a strict separationist. {Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).}

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Madison was openly opposed to things on constitutional grounds Coggins has argued in favor of. Take something as minor as Congressional Chaplains:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov. (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

or

I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on the private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done may be to apply to the Constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat [i.e., the law does not care about such trifles].

There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive proclamations of fasts and festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of INJUNCTION, or have lost sight of the equality of ALL religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the executive trust, I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere DESIGNATIONS of a day on which all who thought proper might UNITE in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith and forms. In this sense, I presume, you reserve to the Government a right to APPOINT particular days for religious worship. I know not what may be the way of thinking on this subject in Louisiana. I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, at least, as a small and even unpopular sect in the U. States would rally as they did in Virginia when religious liberty was a Legislative topic to its broadest principle (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Madison would've without question been opposed to the license plate policy.

[_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.

It's worth noting that this position would be rejected by James Madison. This is a type of "equal access" stance, while typically supported by the ACLU and likely current court interpretation, that leads to a situation where people are compelled to support certain religious perspectives via their taxes. Sure I would be able to get an atheist plate - though actually doing so probably would lead to my car being vandalized - but I would still be forced to give my property to by and large support other religious points of view. I suppose Madison is right, minor as the difference may be. A better solution would be to allow a space within license plates where any free expression is allowed as it would be in any other public forum. People themselves would then be responsible for filling or not filling it out. An even better solution probably would be to just not do any of this.