This is an old story but it is worth discussing in light of other recent posts. I wonder if this is just an election wedge issue?
According to CNN, the South Carolina State Legislature unanimously passes a bill that would allow for a specialty license plate that states, "I Believe." This, of course, does not refer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster but of a specific faith. The South Carolina License Plate is based on a similar one proposed in Florida though that state wisely rejected the idea.
The problem with this is that this amounts to government endorsement of religion, especially since the state would not allow for the same treatment for other or no faiths sice other faiths would only be able to have pictures but no words i.e. a pentagram from the Wicca faith but no "So Mote It Be" to accompany it.
According to Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer., the license plate, "allows people of faith to profess that they believe in a higher calling, they believe in God," as if this would not be possible except for the license plate. The Lt. Gov. also attempted to frame this as a free speech right, which is wrong in the first place and amounts to viewpoint discrimination for not allowing other types of "free speech" from atheists, etc.
As I have argued elsewhere: while this may not be the best type of appeal because of its undemocratic nature, using religion as a means of persuasion is tolerable e.g. Social Gospel to help fight poverty. In this case, it would be another form of argumentative field such as law, science, philosophy, etc.
Using the State to deliver a message e.g. License plates, Faith Based Programs Senator Obama, not a good idea. When religion and the state tangle, little good develops as it
has a tendency to corrupt both. Besides, doesn't this act degrade and trivialize religion in this form?
From a refresher, read John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration."
7 comments:
Harrogate's been struggling with this one. His first impulse, and almost totally likely the one he will stick with, is that this move by South Carolina is yet another exmple of terribleness.
But sometimes, yea and verily, Harrogate struggles to share the fervor, and what sometimes seems the breathtaking breadth, with which his fellow liberals apply the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
Does S.C.'s legislature approving a pro-Christian license plate, after all, violate the admonition that the Congress (meaning, the United States Congress, not establish a state religion or prevent free exercise?
Well. In any case, knuckledraggers though they may be, at least South Carolina has
the Gaffney Peach.
Simultaneously, and again, Harrogate is in full and ardent agreement with most everything you write. Especially this:
"Using the State to deliver a message e.g. License plates, Faith Based Programs Senator Obama, not a good idea. When religion and the state tangle, little good develops as it has a tendency to corrupt both. Besides, doesn't this act degrade and trivialize religion in this form?"
Absotively dead-on.
I think at most you could make the argument that a license plate would qualify as being de minimis (law is not interested in trivial matters) however the the lack of reciprocity between faiths is quite troubling and quite unconstitutional.
I think that history shows the original understanding of the establishment clause was wrong, especially in regards to individual liberty, as the four states that possessed established churches disestablished them voluntarily.
When one faith is established, it leads to one sectarian view being established, resulting in the loss of religious freedom for other groups. There has been more than enough tension between Catholics and Protestants in this country; minority faiths have been harmed in the process. Jehovah Witnesses were told to violate the tenants of their faith until the Supreme Court stepped in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).
Besides, say the judiciary did not act over the license plate. What next? Would it be okay for the town to allow people to print signs and place them on public ground to express their faith? What about classrooms? Shouldn't the minority just conform to the views of the majority?
I'll never understand why religious groups corrupt themselves by trying to use the state to send their message.
That those states disestablished their churches, though, does not change the defense that the Christianity-in-the-public-square advicates use. They say, so long as the US Congress is not establishing religion or preventing exercise, then a state or local public expression of Christian identity has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
Harrogate feels you in principle. But he just isn't sure if invoking the U.S. Constitution, as written, does the trick we wish it did.
More profitable, and demonstrable, in Harrogate's belief, is the argument that religionists corrupt themselves when they try, in your words, to "use the state to send their message."
But, when you read what they are arguing, they just don't buy the corruption argument. Indeed, they seem to feel rather strongly that the "purging of Judeo-Christian values from the public sqaure" is itself indicative of a national corruption.
Still, American society gets more and more secular, mortgages, American Idol, college affiliation, and above all getting laid trumping rreligious doctrine in the mainstream culture. And barring some total catastrophe, like the aftermath of a nuclear war or a meteor wipeout etc., it's only going to trend more that way.
I only know a very few justices who would reject stare decisis and rid themselves of the doctrine of incorporation (bill of rights is incorporated to the states via the fourteenth amendment) in general let alone in terms of the establishment clause. Justice Thomas may be one, Scalia another. However, they have a difficult time capturing a majority. Maybe with Roberts and Alito they can reach a plurality but they will not get Kennedy on this issue.
The Civil War Amendments drastically altered the ability of states to violate the rights and liberties of the individual. The doctrine of incorporation is way too power and ingrained within our culture for a few justices to overturn this.
It may be easier for South Carolina to secede than it would be to reject incorporation. But then, we should ask ourselves if this is a bad question and what exactly has South Carolina done for us lately?
Maybe paperweight write and M. could enlighten us about this.
Well put, point ceded.
As for what has S.C. done for us lately. Harrogate assumes you mean, besides the Gaffney Peach?
Yes, besides the Gaffney Peach, what has South Carolina done for us lately?
Furman may be an excellent liberal arts school, but GWB delivers its commencement address. Clemson always loses its chance at the National Title by October. Steve Spurrier?
The state has asked to leave many times. I think it is time we allow it. One less Red, intolerant state in the Union.
Post a Comment