"God Bless America" to be added to Alabama license plates

[Emsworth]

But you cannot argue that it goes against original intent since it cannot be demonstrated that it amounts to state imposition of religion.

You are entitled to that opinion, but I respectfully disagree. We need not even consider the issue of religion; the free speech clause alone is, in my opinion, sufficient to render this program unconstitutional. The freedom of speech encompasses not only the right to express an opinion, but also the right to not express an opinion. When the state forces someone to display a slogan on his private property, it is essentially forcing him to express an opinion he may not agree with. (What if someone doesn't want God to bless America?) Thus, it abridges the freedom of speech, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Yes, almost as 'unconstitutional' as having "In God We Trust," on money!  ROTFLMAO!

The adoption of "In God We Trust" as a national motto is certainly unconstitutional. The original purpose of the establishment clause seems to have been to leave the issue of religion in the hands of the states, rather than the federal government. Under this theory (which is advocated by Clarence Thomas), Congress would be exceeding its power by declaring that God exists.

[angus]

A18, that's probably for carl.  but I'll answer it as well.  I don't think so.  Just like I don't think the government can make me carry a 20 dollar bill in my pocket.  Just like I don't think the government can make me drive a car with the words plastered on my license plate.  If I choose to wear a shirt with the slogan (for example, if I want to eat at McDonalds which has a 'no shoes no shirt no service' sign and that's the only shirt I have in my backpack), or to carry around cash (for example, if I want to eat at McDonalds which doesn't accept checks or american express), or if I choose to drive a car with the slogan on the license plate (for example if I move to Alabama, my old tags expire, and I want to drive, legally, to McDonalds to buy a big mac) I might do all those things.  But obviously the wearing of the shirt depends on my own choices (assuming the existence of Free Will) and not on some McDonald's sign or on some Government Decree, no matter how I might like to spin it otherwise.

[A18]

But you cannot argue that it goes against original intent since it cannot be demonstrated that it amounts to state imposition of religion.

You are entitled to that opinion, but I respectfully disagree. We need not even consider the issue of religion; the free speech clause alone is, in my opinion, sufficient to render this program unconstitutional. The freedom of speech encompasses not only the right to express an opinion, but also the right to not express an opinion. When the state forces someone to display a slogan on his private property, it is essentially forcing him to express an opinion he may not agree with. (What if someone doesn't want God to bless America?) Thus, it abridges the freedom of speech, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Yes, almost as 'unconstitutional' as having "In God We Trust," on money!  ROTFLMAO!

The adoption of "In God We Trust" as a national motto is certainly unconstitutional. The original purpose of the establishment clause seems to have been to leave the issue of religion in the hands of the states, rather than the federal government. Under this theory (which is advocated by Clarence Thomas), Congress would be exceeding its power by declaring that God exists.

I suppose a similar argument could be made with regard to any slogan. "From many, one" ... perhaps I don't like that concept much either.

I know you're talking about the Establishment Clause, but I mean Free Speech.

[angus]

Emsworth, a refreshing argument.  Let's examine that.  I don't think I have any argument with your interpretation of the intent, only with the application.  Speech cannot be coerced, and therefore, for example, you cannot make a grownup pledge his/her allegiance to the flag.  But can you honestly argue that choosing to drive a car, then satisfying the bureaucracy in order to do so legally, amounts to submission to coercion of speech?  It's a long stretch to say it compels a certain speech.  I think it would be rather like saying soldiers are compelled to speech when they must recite the Oath.  (protect and defend the constitution, etc.)  After all, the only way they're going to pass you in basic training is if you submit to giving that speech with your right hand raised.  But that conveniently forgets that no one forces you to join the army in the first place.  Just like no one forces you to drive the car in the first place.

Also, I don't think this is a declaration that any gods exist.  Such a statement doesn't follow the rules of logic in syllogism, as I recall.  I shall demonstrate:   Remember, a proposition p implies q is merely a proposition.  But it is up to you to draw the truth table.  You can show that if you postulate the validity of p, then show that q follows, then you will have proved the statement that p implies q.  But can also assume p is invalid.  If you can then find a contradiction then you will have proved the statement by contradiction.  Or you prove it by contrapositive, etc.  So it should be clear from a syllogistic point of view that making the statement that P implies Q in now way assumes the existence of P.  Only that if you assume P, then Q naturally follows.  In this abstraction, you may substitute "the existence of a god" for P and "we trust this god" for Q.  So, at best, all it says is that this proposition is valid:  If you assume the existence of god, this dollar bill will guarantee that you may trust that god.  No one is compelling you to assume its existence in the first place.  I realize Lawyers don't normally talk this way.  mathematicians and philosophers do.  But the general principle should be clear.  The slogan makes no claim as to the existence or non-existence of any gods.  Moreover, it does not compel speech, because no one is asking you to claim to agree with the proposition in the first place.  For example, Osama may not agree with all that is written in our laws, but he's not going to turn down a suitcase full of american one hundred dollar bills based on that assumption.  Well, he will if he agrees with your faulty logic.  My guess is that he does not.  So the possession of US currency isn't logically equivalent of philosophical adherence to everything printed on the currency.  Thus it follows that holding money doesn't compel you to any creed.  And certainly we can agree that a counterexample serves as a disproof.  Therefore, we can conclude that such a statement, printed on our money, does not amount to a compulsion of speech or even thought.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But where do we draw the line? I suppose that people choose to wear clothes; that does not mean that the government can order people to imprint certain slogans on all of their shirts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but the Constitution does not protect a general right to property.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government does not force anyone to drive a car. But the government does force car owners to obtain license plates. Thus, there is an element of governmental coercion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not think that the motto can be compared to an "If P then Q" proposition. It does not say, "If God exists, we trust in him." It simply says, "In God We Trust"--implying that there actually is something called "God" in which Americans trust.

[angus]

But I'm pretty sure I can go buy a nice car, park it in my driveway that all my neighbors may admire my material success, and that so long as I don't take it on the road no one can force me to buy insurance, registration, or inspection.

well, now, much of my argument obviously rests on that interpretation, so if you're not buying, I'm no longer selling.  As you said, we'll agree to disagree.

On second thought, I'll reserve the right to future comment in this thread.  Clearly much of this is a matter of interpretation, but then that always seems to be the case.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry Emsworth, the Constitution is neither hostile to nor ambivalent about religion.

What it does is provide that the national government may NOT "establish" a specific sect as THE official church and it does provide for "the free exercise" of religion.

[Beet]

From the libertarian point of view, treating the government as the owner of the roads, it can require motorists who wear any tag that fits its own ends, provided that it is not using its power in an attempt to coerce any motorists.

In other words, the government may make a conditional offer on use of its property for a given price (say, tolls) to pursue some ends of its own. The government may not, however, use its monopoly on roads to coerce someone into taking an action they would otherwise not take through the threat of some punishment (such as, without access to a road, the person would not be able to work). The difference between the former and the latter is merely one of the intent to pursue a project versus the intent to force others into some action. The impact on motorists is identical.

The libertarian might ask, then, why the legislators chose to introduce legislation requiring the affixation of this slogan to the license plates: was it for some project of the government's own, or was it out of a desire for coercion? Seeing that the slogan serves no utilitarian purpose in regard to any of the government's diverse functions (in addition to road maintenance), unlike the rest of the license plate, the libertarian would probably conclude that it was an attempt to extort, or coerce, using monopoly ownership of roads as a tool.

Of course, the libertarian would have much more fundamental problems with the system, such as how the government comes to acquire, pay for, and maintain is monopoly on various services to begin with; yet with regard to the narrow question here I believe they would view it as I have described it.

[Emsworth]

What it does is provide that the national government may NOT "establish" a specific sect as THE official church...

The Constitution does not merely prohibit the establishment of a specific sect; it prohibits religious establishments in general. Furthermore, it does not simply ban the establishment of religion; rather, it forbids all laws "respecting the establishment of religion."

The very purpose of the establishment clause was to forbid the federal government from interfering with the sphere of religion in any way whatsoever. The writings of Jefferson, Madison, and Story seem to confirm this view.

[CARLHAYDEN]

What it does is provide that the national government may NOT "establish" a specific sect as THE official church...

The Constitution does not merely prohibit the establishment of a specific sect; it prohibits religious establishments in general. Furthermore, it does not simply ban the establishment of religion; rather, it forbids all laws "respecting the establishment of religion."

The very purpose of the establishment clause was to forbid the federal government from interfering with the sphere of religion in any way whatsoever. The writings of Jefferson, Madison, and Story seem to confirm this view.

Sorry emsworth, but you really need to check up on your reading.

The Consititution did NOT (prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment) forbid the establishment of religion, but only prohibited Congress from establishing religion.

While Jefferson wrote ONE ambivalent comment on the relationship between government and religion (which the intolerant have twisted out of context), he also included the requirement of morning prayers at the University of Virginia (check his tombstone and find out of which of his accomplishments he was most proud).

You have totally twisted the word "establish" which had a very specific meaning, into meaning the government must be hostile to religion.


 

[Emsworth]

You have totally twisted the word "establish" which had a very specific meaning, into meaning the government must be hostile to religion.

I have never asserted that the government must be hostile to religion. I merely said that the government must be neutral on the subject. See this thread for a fuller explanation of my views.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Only further proving that conservatives are only interested in their own personal agendas, and silly little things like speration of Church and State and the Constitution are meaningless.

It's ok "liberals", we know we're right and as long as a half sane state isn't doing such things, we've no reason to worry. 

Show me where this "seperation of church and state" exists in the constitution please? Oh wait..you can't.

It doesn't have to be, it's assumed law and most of all the RIGHT  thing to do. 

[PBrunsel]

Only further proving that conservatives are only interested in their own personal agendas, and silly little things like speration of Church and State and the Constitution are meaningless.

It's ok "liberals", we know we're right and as long as a half sane state isn't doing such things, we've no reason to worry. 

Show me where this "seperation of church and state" exists in the constitution please? Oh wait..you can't.

It doesn't have to be, it's assumed law and most of all the RIGHT  thing to do. 

Assumed law is a dangerous thing to go by.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Only further proving that conservatives are only interested in their own personal agendas, and silly little things like speration of Church and State and the Constitution are meaningless.

It's ok "liberals", we know we're right and as long as a half sane state isn't doing such things, we've no reason to worry. 

Show me where this "seperation of church and state" exists in the constitution please? Oh wait..you can't.

It doesn't have to be, it's assumed law and most of all the RIGHT  thing to do. 

Assumed law is a dangerous thing to go by.

Ok, so ignore seperation of Church and State and let's have a nice little theocracy.  The danger of assumed law depends on what you apply it to.  In this case, it's extremely necessary to protect civil rights.

[PBrunsel]

The greatest danger of "assumed law" is that ti can be easily manipulated. You brought up theocracy, by simply by going by the idea of "assumed law" one could use "seperation of church and state' to attempt to ban all religion. Will that happen? No, of course not, but it illustrates the danger of "assumed law."

BTW, seperation is not in the Constituion, but I hate arguing this topic because the term "theocracy" is used about 10 million times.

[memphis]

This is all a bunch of hot air. This must be the most disgustingly transparent attempt to pander to people without actually doing anything in the history of American politics.

[Q]

Did this ever pass?  I haven't heard anything more of it on the license plate front (my other hobby).

[Q]

Any way of finding out whether this passed?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I thought it passed, but that's just a rumor I remember hearing--I support it by the way.

[adam]

Doesn't bother me. How often do I look at my licence plate? Never. Some people just need to relax, must we complain about everything with the word God on it? They aren't making church attendance compulsory, and they aren't establishing a state religion. If you don't like the design, buy a different one.

[ian]

I don't know if anyone pointed this out already (I'd have to read 8 pages to find out), but I don't think people's problem with the liscence plate is that Christians wear the plate proudly; it's that people who may not believe in God HAVE to have liscence plates, and if all liscence plates say "God Bless America," then they are forced into endorsing something they may or may not believe in.  That's why I oppose it, at least.

[jokerman]

WTF is wrong with you people?  It's a simple, universally used phrase accepted by millions of believers and non-believers in this country.  How do you manage to be so far out of the mainstream?

Let's just look at the constitution.  Does putting God Bless America establish a state religion?  Absolutlely not, putting a few words on a liscenes plate is not equivelent to forcing all people to recognize one religion, and God isn't even an entity of just one religion.  The constitution doesn't forbid the recognizance of religion at all, just the establishment of a religion.  And, of course, there's no way this amendment could ever interfere with a person from excersing their own freedom in religion.  Is having a liscense plate with those words going to force you to convert to Christianity?  No.

I know you all will point and say "LOL RELIGIOUS RIGHT" at me, but the fact is I'm in line with the vast majority in the nation, I'm in the mainstream.

[afleitch]

An athiest should not be obliged to drive a car with God Bless America on its licence plate. Create alternative ones without the phrase if need be.

[Q]

An athiest should not be obliged to drive a car with God Bless America on its license plate.

And indeed he would not: Wooley v. Maynard held that motorists are not obligated to display ideological messages on their personal property, and the case was in regards to a license plate slogan, no less.

Whether or not a plate with such a slogan should be issued to everyone is, of course, another matter altogether.

[Emsworth]

Let's just look at the constitution.  Does putting God Bless America establish a state religion?

The relevant clause is not the establishment clause, but the free speech clause. The government may not compel individuals to carry a religious slogan on their cars, just as it may not compel them to carry a political or ideological slogan. Even secular slogans would be impermissible.