It appears that South Carolina will be putting out an “I Believe” specialty license plate, similar to the one that was shot down in Florida (pictured), including the cross and stained glass window. Christian conservatives say amen, while civil libertarians promise law suits over the official state sanction of religion (particularly a specific religion, Christianity).
I’m torn.
On the one hand, speciality license plates are ostensibly available to any group that chooses to pony up for it, and are not for profit.
Mr. Sanford told the department to charge people just enough to reimburse the state for the cost to produce the plate, estimated at $4 to $6, and to not allow any organization to benefit from its sales.
The state offers 200 other specialty plates, supporting organizations like colleges, sororities, Boy Scouts and the Surfrider Foundation. The state charges up to $70 for those plates. The profit is sent to the sponsor.
A supporting organization normally pays the $4,000 start-up cost to create a plate. Because no organization will sponsor the “I Believe” plate, at least 400 people have to buy one before the state will produce it.
And nobody, of course, is obliged to buy one. Further, the argument could be made that, as is the case with college license plates, just as the state doesn’t necessarily endorse university X’s team over university Y, neither should the provision of a particular religion’s license plate be seen as an endorsement of that religion, especially since people can decorate their car with religious bumper stickers and decor to their heart’s content.
On the other hand, the plate are printed and offered by the state, and have an official “air” about them. And they are clearly not only theistic (which would be of dubious constitutionality), but sectarian — “I Believe” … in crosses and stained glass windows, which means we’re probably not believing in the tenets of Buddhism and Bahai in here.
I guess the question is similar to the placement of sectarian monuments on public land: would Muslims be able to get an “Allahu Akbar” license plate issued if they paid for the the $4K startup cost? How about atheists putting out an “I Disbelieve” plate?
The question, to me, is simple — if the state legislature would not approve either of those, then clearly “I Believe” plates violate the establishment clause. Plentiful SCOTUS decisions back that up.
And if they would approve them — well, fine. Aside from it being bad taste (and arguably poor Christianity) to flaunt one’s belief in Jesus … well, I’m a believer (so to speak) in the marketplace of ideas. If any are advertised by the State then pretty much all need to be advertised by the state. And that’s okay. But if they play favorites — that’s not.
(via Les)
I think of them as very high-priced bumper stickers. Much cheaper to get a Jesus fish or Darwin fish or whatever. But lots of people would pay for them.
And sadly, it wouldn’t be safe to have a Muslim or Atheist plate; you’d be lucky if all that happened was your car got keyed. Which could mean the license plate has more punch than a bumper sticker. Which may be the reason people pay for them.
I think it reprehensible, but altogether likely, that overtly Muslim or Atheist car decor would increase the chance of one’s car being damaged. I don’t know that a license plate would be *more* prone to provoke such vandalism than a bumper sticker or a Darwin-fish, but there is certainly that chance.
Of course, I have mixed feelings on flaunting one’s religious (non)beliefs on the back of one’s car, whatever sect we’re talking about. It’s certainly not going to do much in the way of recruitment — though in large number I suppose it could (be meant to) intimidate. There’s a sense of solidarity generated perhaps — especially if the environment is such that the proclaiming group is a minority, and so it’s nice to know that another one of you is out there.
Of course, we have a “COEXIST” bumper sticker on one vehicle, and an “Obama ’08” one on the other, and the same could be said about both.
But back to your original point, DOF — while it’s quite possibly true what you suggest (especially for Muslims; ostensible Atheists have been doing the car decor for a while without any particular increase in vandalism I’m aware of, but Muslims are already thought of by too many as “The Enemy”), I’m not sure it’s a legitimate reason to quash this kind of speech, i.e., to suggest that if some cannot freely speak because of societal intimidation, then none should be allowed to speak in the same way. Arguably the same would be true for a street-corner preacher, and I wouldn’t think the same restrictions should apply then. Ditto for a Muslim or Atheist monument in the public square.
For me, the main question of whether it is state-sponsored religious expression is if the state doesn’t allow analogous expressions from others. If the others choose not to avail themselves of that speech, the state should not be prevented from offering it to anyone else.
More power to them, IMO it cheapens their faith by putting it on a license plate. As far as state sponsored goes I guess it depends on whether there is a political process to get a image on a plate or if its just a simple type application with review by the motor vehicle dept.
The issue here is not individual speech, but State speech. The license plate belongs to the State, is at all times State property and can be revoked if the licensee fails to follow the rules that determine who can have a license.
As an instrument of the State the plate has no business with any religious imagery on it, period.
Citizens have palenty of options for personal expression, up to and including custom plate number/letter combos. (I have a similar but seperate issue with that, but most States can no longer exist without the extra income this generates.) The plate itself should have no religious imagery.
I fully agree that there are many (and better) ways of expressing religious affiliation and devotion on the back of one’s car than with a license plate.
There’s any number of organizations who have worked out the “specialty plate” thing that the state really doesn’t have any grounds to be singling out. Colorado’s are spelled out here. While some are straight registration types, others could also be questionable on the same basis:
Broncos Charities (a private charity by a private sports team)
Columbine (unofficially coopted by the Right to Life folks)
Elks Club (only available to card-carrying members)
Greyhound Lovers
Italian-American Heritage
Raptor Education Foundation (members only)
University of Denver (a private institution)
And a host of others.
That’s not counting personalized plates, which may have a religious message (the DMV only restricts messages that “carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency” or “are misleading”). I don’t find the “I Believe” plate any more dubious than “IBELIEV.”
Now, what does disturb me, in going back over the story, is that this is an unsponsored plate, i.e, there is no group that has come forward, ponying up the money, and asking for this plate to be released. To me, that’s grounds for arguing that this is in fact a state-sponsored (indeed, mandated by state law) expression of religion, even if a no-profit one, unless the state itself offers up other similar expressions (e.g, the VA headstones list).