Texas "One State Under God" lisence plates.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-25-12, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Morals != religion. The constitution bars government support of religion, not morals.

No the constitution does not bar the government from supporting religion. It bars it from putting one above the other. Let me know how that works out next time your in court and your hand is on the bible for swear in.

**~BigTymer~** · 03-26-12, 02:25 AM

so don't buy the plate, enough of the bitching...dumb thread

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-26-12, 03:24 AM

TBH, I would rather Wicked's and other outsiders attention be drawn to the shenanigans of Rick Perry and his State Board of Education. OK, so a few or a lot of Christians get something made by the state that says something religulous...at the same time much more pressing and serious shit is going on. It is a constant struggle and fight.

**Alundil** · 03-26-12, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

so don't buy the plate, enough of the bitching...dumb thread

Well captain bossy, it's been a good discussion thus far. If you don't like it, then don't participate (just like the license plate thing - nice right?)

**WickedTribe** · 03-26-12, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

TBH, I would rather Wicked's and other outsiders attention be drawn to the shenanigans of Rick Perry and his State Board of Education. OK, so a few or a lot of Christians get something made by the state that says something religulous...at the same time much more pressing and serious shit is going on. It is a constant struggle and fight.

Yes, of course I'm much more concerned about that. This is more of an example of the many small attempts by Christian groups in this nation to push the line between church and state. These little tiny attacks, which seem too small to care about individually, represent an unwillingness to respect that this isn't a Christian nation.

**Alundil** · 03-26-12, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Yes, of course I'm much more concerned about that. This is more of an example of the many small attempts by Christian groups in this nation to push the line between church and state. These little tiny attacks, which seem too small to care about individually, represent an unwillingness to respect that this isn't a Christian nation.

And yet, oddly enough, those groups (even the not so crazy ones) think that they are under assault...funny how perspective is everything isn't it.

Pro-tip (for both the religious and not):
Ridiculing the opposite side of the table for belief or non-belief, in turn, is a very quick way to get exactly no where meaningful.

All too often, the discussions that break out along religious or scientific lines devolves, rather quickly, into those on the "science" side ridiculing those on the religious side (regardless of the intellect possessed by those religious people) simply because of their belief. And the religious side ridicules those on the science side and dismissing them as sinners or damned (regardless of the intentions engendered by those scientific people).

I've said it at least 4 times in various threads, belief (religion) and knowing (science) are not comparable and do not exist in the same plane of consciousness and therefore should never be evaluated in the same test/discussion/whatever. Belief should also be left to non-policy making spheres of influence (churches and homes and "public squares").

It's too easy for people on either side to dismiss each other out of hand. I've seen the "science" crowd here do it mercilessly. I've also seen the "Religious" side do it just as harshly.

**SpecOpsScott** · 03-26-12, 08:30 AM

Thats it Alundil, I'm going to have to petition to have you banned from the drama forums, your posts are far to fair, well articulated and lacking in references to tin foil hats.

But seriously, your right. And if i took Wickeds last posts and replaced "Christian" with "Obama administration", and replaced "church and state" with "socialism", he would be asking me what size tin foil hat i would like. (Not that i personally believe that, just providing a comparison)

I see where Wicked is coming from, I totally understand it. Perhaps in the future the court will rule that it is State support of religion, but at the moment i don't believe that's the case. Until someone brings the case forward, plates with crosses are just as legal as all the other plates the folks have posted here. So if its that important that the states not fulfill a citizens, or group of citizens request for religious themed plates (or other state approve ID's), then take it to court. Thats why we have this system.

**AetheLove** · 03-26-12, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Alundil

And yet, oddly enough, those groups (even the not so crazy ones) think that they are under assault...funny how perspective is everything isn't it.

[...]

Yet in my mind this is exactly the reason the state shouldn't have anything to do with the religion thing. This is implicit promotion, implicit favouritism.

Having "Tampa Bay Buccaneers" or "Vietnam Vet" on your license plate seems silly to me, but harmless. No one is worried about the encroachment of football fans or old war veterans on the mechanisms of government, justice, and freedom.

Not only is it true that most Buc's fans aren't working behind the scenes to bend legal and regulatory structures towards the will of their well-funded organization, it's also true that none of them are. The governor of NY can have a public "bet" with the governor of Massachusetts on the outcome of the Super Bowl and no one is worried about it.

But you can't say that about religions. Thousands of years of history warn us.

Christianity IS the dominant religious faith in this country.

There really are people in the US who are worried that our president is a secret Muslim. All of us here (I hope) are pretty sure that's not the case, and most of us here wouldn't care if it was. But for some people, it matters. There's a segment of us who worry that Mitt Romney is a Mormon. We've never had a Jewish president. When Kennedy rose to prominence, there was a huge stink that he was a Catholic - the wrong sort of Christian!

This is exactly the sort of hot potato the government needs to stay away from. But they haven't, and now we're in a position of undoing the damage rather than preventing it. Consider this:

Is there a potential political cost to having an elected official stand up and say "We need to take the God thing off the license plates. We shouldn't promote Christianity."

Is there a potential political cost to having an elected official stand up and say "I don't think we should be putting any mention of Mohammed on the license plates."

Are these positions equally risky?

I'm glad to hear that most people here don't care, and wouldn't be offended at a variety of God language on government-required hardware. I like to think that you are typical, but you are not the overwhelming majority. I'm glad you're not pushing your religious-based morality into the laws, but others are.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**WickedTribe** · 03-26-12, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

And yet, oddly enough, those groups (even the not so crazy ones) think that they are under assault...funny how perspective is everything isn't it.

Pro-tip (for both the religious and not):
Ridiculing the opposite side of the table for belief or non-belief, in turn, is a very quick way to get exactly no where meaningful.

All too often, the discussions that break out along religious or scientific lines devolves, rather quickly, into those on the "science" side ridiculing those on the religious side (regardless of the intellect possessed by those religious people) simply because of their belief. And the religious side ridicules those on the science side and dismissing them as sinners or damned (regardless of the intentions engendered by those scientific people).

I've said it at least 4 times in various threads, belief (religion) and knowing (science) are not comparable and do not exist in the same plane of consciousness and therefore should never be evaluated in the same test/discussion/whatever. Belief should also be left to non-policy making spheres of influence (churches and homes and "public squares").

It's too easy for people on either side to dismiss each other out of hand. I've seen the "science" crowd here do it mercilessly. I've also seen the "Religious" side do it just as harshly.

Just because both sides feel like they're under assault doesn't meant that they're equally justified in feeling that way. Christians in this country definitely aren't under assault. A quick look at the three most popular Republican candidates for President suggests that the opposite could easily be true.

**Alundil** · 03-26-12, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

A quick look at the three most popular Republican candidates for President suggests that the opposite could easily be true.

I'd be inclined to say that's a poor indicator and woefully inadequate as a "weather vane" for public sentiment - religious or otherwise. But I digress.