Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Society|Wed, Nov. 11 2009 06:11 PM EDT

Judge Strikes Down Christian License Plate

By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter

South Carolina's "I Believe" license plate that features an image of a cross in front of a stained-glass window has been ruled unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie said the specialty license plate was motivated by a purpose to advance a specific religion and has the effect of state endorsement of Christianity.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, praised the decision, commenting, "Government must never be allowed to express favored treatment for one faith over others. That’s unconstitutional and un-American."

State lawmakers had unanimously passed legislation last summer authorizing the plates. Republican Senator Lawrence K. Grooms, one of the sponsors of the bill, said he didn't see a constitutional problem with it, noting that the state issued plates with other religious symbols and phrases.

Critics, however, said the new law was a violation of the separation of church and state. Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit on behalf of four local clergy who felt the legislation isolated other faith groups.

Judge Currie issued a preliminary injunction in December, halting the production of the plate.

In her ruling Tuesday, she issued a permanent injunction, saying the case presents "a textbook example of the need for and continued vitality of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

"In God We Trust" and "In Reason We Trust" tags are available in the state but the process by which they were obtained was not similar to that used to obtain the "I Believe" plate, the judge noted.

While the "I Believe" plate was obtained through specific legislation and had a governmental sponsor, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, the "In Reason We Trust" plate was obtained through the DMV process and sponsored by a private organization.

Currie further noted that Bauer – in rallies leading up to the passage of the legislation – had characterized the issues in the case as a dispute between atheists, who were able to obtain a special plate, and Christians, who could not. That suggested the measure's aim was to foment political division along religious lines – "one of the principal evils against which the First Amendment was intended to protect," the judge said.

Bauer responded Tuesday, saying he was personally offended by Currie's ruling.

"For those who say proclaiming 'I believe' violates the constitution by giving preference to Christianity, I think this lawsuit clearly discriminates against persons of faith," he said.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State pushed back, arguing that the lawsuit actually prevents discrimination against persons of faith. The Washington, D.C.-based organization cited previous interviews when state lawmakers told media they would not support a Wiccan, Buddhist, or Muslim tag.

"The passage of this license plate made adherents of other faiths feel like second-class citizens," the group stated.

For Bauer, the "I Believe" license plate “reflects core values that are meaningful to our society, promoting love, joy, and comfort in our spiritual lives, and accommodating to every citizen’s right of free exercise of any and all religions."

"I don’t understand why witnessing for fundamental, enduring values is controversial or threatening," he said.

Bauer plans to appeal the ruling.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gem, "blaming the flagger would be more appropriate then blaming the coward's victim", to which I said if you would have read the whole post you would have seen that I acknowledged I saw no reason for the flagging. Now if you choose to take that as me telling a lie, well then knock yourself out!! But it seems pretty apparent that you did not read the whole post or you would have seen that or the other possibility is you just enjoy jerking the chains of people who you tend not to agree with!!

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "gem, if you would read the whole post ..."

    "I did read "the whole post", so claiming I didn't is a lie.

    "... you would see I acknowledged I saw no reason for the flagging and I have e-mailed CP numerous times about the flagging problem.

    No where in "the whole post" did you mention e-mailing CP numerous times. No where in "the whole post" did you mention e-mailing CP about the latest bogus flaggings, of which there have been many.

    "... at the same time reposting does indeed mess up the flow of the discussion ..."

    Repostings do not mess up the flow of the discussion for me. I appreciate them.

    "... and anyone on these sites can easily read the flagged posts!!"

    Then according to logic flagging your own posts would improve CP by cleaning up the flow of the discussion.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    gem, if you would read the whole post you would see I acknowledged I saw no reason for the flagging and I have e-mailed CP numerous times about the flagging problem. Plus, I never realized people actually google these posts, but at the same time reposting does indeed mess up the flow of the discussion and anyone on these sites can easily read the flagged posts!!

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:51 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "real mickey, considering everyone can read a flagged post there is really no need for you to repost since it does nothing but mess up the flow of the discussion. Plus, I can see no reason why a majority of your posts are being flagged since they don't appear to violate the CP guidelines!"

    False believer, I am taking the position that they may have been inadvertently flagged and I am simply correcting that problem. You are free to ignore any post on here they you wish to ignore.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:48 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "...considering everyone can read a flagged post there is really no need for you to repost since it does nothing but mess up the flow of the discussion."

    Blaming the flagger would be more appropriate then blaming the coward's victims. And if you want to be constructive why don't you ask Christian Post to stop the abusive flagging or disable the flagging feature?

    Reposted flagged posts can be found with Google, so there is good reason for reposting flagged posts.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:55 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    real mickey, considering everyone can read a flagged post there is really no need for you to repost since it does nothing but mess up the flow of the discussion. Plus, I can see no reason why a majority of your posts are being flagged since they don't appear to violate the CP guidelines!

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:26 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    garageguy, looks like some of your posts were inadvertently flagged on this board too.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "And since God ordained only one form of marriage and it is stated four times in the Word of God it makes it God's original and only design for marriage, that of one man and one woman."

    Nope, God never ordained any particular type of marriage. The Bible contains one man one woman and polygamy which was very common in that day. God Himself even gives one man's wives to another man without releasing any of them. Obvious if God did it Himself, then he approves of hit.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:24 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "believer, your flow of logic doesn't make sense."

    You were able to detect a "flow"? Wow

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:22 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "real mickey, God didn't have to condemn polygamy since the negative consequences made it pretty obvious that polygamy was certainly not God's idea or ordained by God!! And once again you totally fail to provide any valid scripture to show God ordained any other form of marriage but one, that of one man and one woman!!"

    LOL, False believer, so now anything that happens to someone that is bad can be blamed on whatever you don't approve of. HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA Each statement just makes you look more and more foolish. God never condemn polygamy and anyone who reads the Bible will be able to figure out that is has NOTHING to do with what happened to those people.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:21 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "Mickey and Daniel I haven't been a member of this website very long and I haven't read all of your posts but I know that this is a Christian website and neither of you seem to represent Christ. Honestly if either of you had been able to walk with him as a disciple he probably would have smacked you in the head a long time ago and told you to be patient and love your brother."

    "Then I would have fit right in!!!

    ME TOO!!!!

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:20 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "real mickey, here is a lesson in better understanding the Word of God, just because God allows something by no means says that God ordained that something. Case in point, polygamy!! And the proof that God did not ordain polygamy is found in the fact that in all the specific cases mentioned in the Bible of a polygamous affair there were always negative consequences in each case mentioned. And once again not once or even twice, but four time we find in the Bible God's original and only design for marriage!!"

    So false believer, is this your next episode for the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. I believe it's called "False Believers Improbably Theology". The Bible never says that there is only one way for marriage, many of the major people in the Bible were polygamists and God never condemned it or told them to change and, in fact, God Himself gave one man's wives to another without releasing them. Twisting the scripture to suite your own misguided life means very little to real Christians.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:19 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "real mickey, considering I have shared four valid scriptural references which clearly state God's original and only design for marriage and you have yet to provide any valid scripture to show God ordained any other design for marriage but that of one man and one woman, then I guess that would make you the person who is totally ignorant when it comes to knowing the truths as taught and found in the inerrant Word of God with regards to marriage."

    False believer, considering you have shared four scriptural references which don't support your false statement that God's original and only design for marriage and you continue to deny that God allowed polygamy as a design for marriage though scripture clearly shows that God Himself gave one man's wives to another without releasing them, then I guess that would make you the person who is totally ignorant when it comes to knowing the truths as taught and found in the inerrant Word of God with regards to marriage."

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:19 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "real mickey, once again your ignorance of the Word of God is quite evident as not only do you not know what is written in the inerrant Word of God you can't even understand what is written in the Word of God. God never ordains polygamy and does indeed only ordain the marriage of one man and one woman!"

    False believer, once again your ignorance of the Word of God is quite evident as not only do you not know what is written in the inerrant Word of God you can't even understand what is written in the Word of God. God never has any problem with polygamy and never ordains the marriage of one man and one woman as the only possibility! Lying about God's word to support your own mistakes is blasphemy.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:18 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "real mickey, and yet you provide no valid scripture to show that God ordained any other form of marriage but one and you ignore the fact that every polygamous relationship spoken to in the inerrant Word of God had negative and in many cases dire consequences!!"

    False believer, and yet you provide no valid scripture to show that God ordained only one form of marriage and you ignore the fact that polygamous relationships were spoken of regularly in the inerrant Word of God and in at least one case God Himself chose to give one man's wives to another man instead of letting them go!!"

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:17 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "Gguy...I hope so! Maybe you'll see that Jesus really does love you and turn your life over to Him! THAT is my goal...."

    Good for you Daniel! I hope you do eventually accept Jesus and turn your life over to Him. It will be an improvement over the way you've been living.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Been to NYC. Nice place to visit but way too crowded. An average NYC high-rise has more people in it than live within a 3 mile radius of me! The nearest real town is 20 minutes away. I like the country life...."

    Yea but a lot of Filipinos. Wasn't that your personal choice?

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Congradualations Daniel, on 9 wonderful years with your dear wife first of all. "

    You're not congratulating him on his first wife? Well, times change.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:14 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "but if one chooses to marry His original and only design for marriage is one man and one woman for life."

    Nope and the Bible never says that. Quit lying about the Bible, false believer.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    gem, God's Word states the very words found in Genesis 2:24 four times. And since God ordained only one form of marriage and it is stated four times in the Word of God it makes it God's original and only design for marriage, that of one man and one woman.

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    In a discussion of marriage and divorced Jesus only used one example:

    Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

    Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "... oh but yes the Bible clearly states God's original and only design for marriage a total of four times word for word."

    Without using the word "original".?

    Without using the word "only"?

    Without using the word "design"?

    Without using the word "marriage"?

    Word for word?

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    real mickey, oh but yes the Bible clearly states God's original and only design for marriage a total of four times word for word. And you can't find any valid scripture that says God ordained any other form of marriage but that!!

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "... your flow of logic doesn't make sense"

    You misspelled "flaw".

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    gguy, God's Word does not specifically say why Christ did not marry, but most believe it was being fully man and fully God and totally without sin would not allow Him to marry and because He needed to be totally focused on His mission to be our Savior.

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:13 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    gguy, Jesus Christ came to this earth for a specific purpose, to be the Lamb that would take away the sins of the world. Paul states that if at all possible it would be best for those called to ministry to remain singel, but if they in anyway lack the ability to remain single without sinning then it is better that they marry than to burn with passion/lust. So God does not demand that every person marry, but if one chooses to marry His original and only design for marriage is one man and one woman for life.

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Bujo-"I don't know if he was 14 when he wrote it but I know he was in his early 20s when it came out. I do know that the people I've seen follow what was in that book really had a hard time establishing friendships with the opposite sex. "

    Actually, it worked out well for our small group. The concept is becoming friends. If you can't become friends before marriage there is a REAL problem. This is why there is such a big problem because people discover they had no real depth to their friendship but not until after they got married.

    I have always recommeded "group dating" if you want to call it that. Save that exclusive stuff for marriage. Case and point...one of the most romantic marriages in the Bible was between Issac and Rebekah (Gen 24). The chapter which outlines how the met, courted and married is 67 verses long. Yet it wasn't until the last 3 verses that they had even met! Still, they had quite a romantic marriage. Dating isn't all it's cracked up to be.

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Mickey and Daniel I haven't been a member of this website very long and I haven't read all of your posts but I know that this is a Christian website and neither of you seem to represent Christ. Honestly if either of you had been able to walk with him as a disciple he probably would have smacked you in the head a long time ago and told you to be patient and love your brother."

    Then I would have fit right in!!!

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Is there a place where it says every relationship MUST be a certain way?"

    Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment

    Every relationship will be shown to be approved or not. Of course, then it will be too late.

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:12 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show believer, your flow of logic doesn't make sense. This is the equivalent of what you're doing: Since Jesus never married even though he passed the age at which most people married back then, and since he is the savior guy, god has only ordained that the very best course is for nobody to get married, at least not until after age 33. I mean, you can believe whatever you want but believing you know your god's will but other believers don't is either foolhardy or kind of narcissitic. hide

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:56 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    real mickey, well it's apparent by your foolish comments that once again you realize you have lost this one and simply haven't got the backbone to admit you're wrong, so no need to waste time on sharing God's truth from God's Word with you on this issue any longer!!

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "real mickey, once again your biblical ignorance shines through. When you consider the fact that every polygamous relationship mentioned in the Word of God brings negative consequences and no where do we read any positive consequences it is obvious to anyone that God certainly did not ordain polygamy and it certainly was not His idea!" False believer, once again your biblical ignorance shines through. When you consider the fact that no polygamous relationship mentioned in the Word of God brings negative consequences and no where do we read any consequences it is obvious to anyone that God certainly ordained polygamy and it certainly was His idea!" hide

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:19 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    real mickey, once again your biblical ignorance shines through. When you consider the fact that every polygamous relationship mentioned in the Word of God brings negative consequences and no where do we read any positive consequences it is obvious to anyone that God certainly did not ordain polygamy and it certainly was not His idea!

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:48 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    real mickey, God didn't have to condemn polygamy since the negative consequences made it pretty obvious that polygamy was certainly not God's idea or ordained by God!! And once again you totally fail to provide any valid scripture to show God ordained any other form of marriage but one, that of one man and one woman!!

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:44 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "Is there a place where it says every relationship MUST be a certain way?" Nope. "How is this relevant to civil laws today?" It isn't. hide

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "real mickey, here is a lesson in better understanding the Word of God, just because God allows something by no means says that God ordained that something. Case in point, polygamy!! And the proof that God did not ordain polygamy is found in the fact that in all the specific cases mentioned in the Bible of a polygamous affair there were always negative consequences in each case mentioned. And once again not once or even twice, but four time we find in the Bible God's original and only design for marriage!!" So false believer, is this your next episode for the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. I believe it's called "False Believers Improbably Theology". The Bible never says that there is only one way for marriage, many of the major people in the Bible were polygamists and God never condemned it or told them to change and, in fact, God Himself gave one man's wives to another without releasing them. Twisting the scripture to suite your own misguided life means very little to real Christians. hide

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:40 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    gguy, by ordained I mean God has put His seal of approval on an issue or teaching. And while there is no specific scripture that says it must be this was only, this way is first seen in Genesis 2:24 and reaffirmed word for word by both Christ and Paul. And God does not ordain any other form of marriage but that of one man and one woman. As far as civil law as much as I would like it to be considered and have a bearing on the decisions they make, but in all honesty it has no bearing on what decisions are made although in the past it appears it has.

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:27 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    What do you even mean by "ordained" in the context you use it?

    Is there a place where it says every relationship MUST be a certain way?

    How is this relevant to civil laws today?

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:09 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    real mickey, here is a lesson in better understanding the Word of God, just because God allows something by no means says that God ordained that something. Case in point, polygamy!! And the proof that God did not ordain polygamy is found in the fact that in all the specific cases mentioned in the Bible of a polygamous affair there were always negative consequences in each case mentioned. And once again not once or even twice, but four time we find in the Bible God's original and only design for marriage!!

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:37 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    real mickey, considering I have shared four valid scriptural references which clearly state God's original and only design for marriage and you have yet to provide any valid scripture to show God ordained any other design for marriage but that of one man and one woman, then I guess that would make you the person who is totally ignorant when it comes to knowing the truths as taught and found in the inerrant Word of God with regards to marriage.

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:15 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    real mickey, once again your ignorance of the Word of God is quite evident as not only do you not know what is written in the inerrant Word of God you can't even understand what is written in the Word of God. God never ordains polygamy and does indeed only ordain the marriage of one man and one woman!

  • Bujo »
    Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:57 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    DP,

    I am well aware of Josh Harris and the entire "courtship movement". Honestly, I don't think it has much Biblical merit, and I just plain don't think it's a good idea.

    I don't know if he was 14 when he wrote it but I know he was in his early 20s when it came out. I do know that the people I've seen follow what was in that book really had a hard time establishing friendships with the opposite sex. I think the book confuses and ignores some basic principles of why people "date" and why that is good.

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Mickey and Daniel I haven't been a member of this website very long and I haven't read all of your posts but I know that this is a Christian website and neither of you seem to represent Christ. Honestly if either of you had been able to walk with him as a disciple he probably would have smacked you in the head a long time ago and told you to be patient and love your brother.

  • Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    real mickey, and Phillipinos would be?

  • Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    real mickey, and yet you provide no valid scripture to show that God ordained any other form of marriage but one and you ignore the fact that every polygamous relationship spoken to in the inerrant Word of God had negative and in many cases dire consequences!!

  • Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:38 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "But Mickey C, the problem is that marriage was instututed by GOD. It is His idea, one man, one woman. "

    Nope God never said that His only concept was one man, one woman. He was very comfortable with polygamy in Biblical times. You need to return to God quit trying to force YOUR will on His. He won't stand for that, you know???

  • Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:36 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "U4
    In ten years America will not be a free nation. In ten years, there's a good chance the tribulation will be either over ou underway. Ten years is a long time, and there are a lot of insane political megalomaniacs bent on the destruction of this nation. PC run amuck."

    Oh dear! Are you saying the fundamentalist will have taken over??? Heaven help us!

  • Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    U4
    In ten years America will not be a free nation. In ten years, there's a good chance the tribulation will be either over ou underway. Ten years is a long time, and there are a lot of insane political megalomaniacs bent on the destruction of this nation. PC run amuck.

  • Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    But Mickey C, the problem is that marriage was instututed by GOD. It is His idea, one man, one woman. Unfortunately, Homos are free to live together, even have some sort of civil union, although personally I think they should go back into the closet from whence the came if the cannot turn from their sin instead of flaunting it. It is absolutely REPULSIVE to see a couple of men or women groaping each other in public, and should be an arrestable offense. It sends the WRONG message to our children. and is embarassing to moral adults. It is also WRONG for heterosexuals to be behaving is such a manner in public, so don't go getting your underdraws in a knot.

  • Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Congradualations Daniel, on 9 wonderful years with your dear wife first of all. These days, making it more that 9 months is a feat. I have been blessed with the same wonderful husband of more than 40 years.

    Also you made a good point about blind people not being issued drivers licenses. It''s the same reason they don't hire deaf mutes to be telephone operators & blind surgeons !

    And YES homosexuals should be denied marriage licenses for a number of reasons. They are handicaped. They don't know the difference between an entrance and an exit, the difference between an innie and an outie. Of course this is all in addition to fact that GOD said it is wrong, which in and of itself is more than sufficient.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links