It looks like Flori-duh’s latest state-sponsored proselytizing might have “hit a roadblock” (as reported on CNN). The plate design did not make it into a bill sent to Governor Crist on Tuesday.
Opponents of the plate said approving it would result in a court challenge because it violated the separation of church and state and gave the appearance the state was endorsing a particular religious preference.
Gee, ya think?
Supporters countered that not approving it could also result in a lawsuit.
Republican Sen. Ronda Storms, a plate proponent, said the state had created a “public forum” by allowing a variety of license plate designs with different messages. Restricting speech in that forum was also unconstitutional, Storms said.
Rhonda Storms is probably one of the most insane people ever to take public office. She is absolutely Katherine-Harris-Crazy, a filthy hypocrite, and a traitor to the Constitution.
Crazy or not, she has half a point. The state should not restrict speech in public forums. However, Sen. Storms needs to read the whole First Amendment, not just the part she likes (at this particular moment). The First Amendment also requires a separation of church and state — and this license plate violates that sacred separation. Let’s remember that anyone who wants to express their belief can still buy a bumper sticker that says “I Believe,” and can send a check to the organization that sponsored the plate.
Storms’ statements drip with irony
It is funny to hear Rhonda Storms complain about censorship. Storms didn’t have so much respect for the Constitution when the issue was speech with which she disagreed. Storms successfully pushed through a ban on recognition of gay pride events in Hillsborough County, Florida. (source). She also succeeded in having a shelf of so-called “gay books” removed from Hillsborough County’s public libraries.
County Commissioner Rhonda Storms raised objections to a shelf of books featured in her local library in honor of gay pride month. Storms claims she spoke for her rural and suburban constituents when she proposed that the county ban “acknowledging, promoting or participating” in gay pride events.
“I do not want to have to explain to my [6-year-old] daughter what it means to be questioning one’s sexuality … or what a transgender person is, or what a bisexual is or what a gay or lesbian is,” said Storms. She added that the library shouldn’t be “used as bully pulpit to introduce those concepts to a child outside of their parents’ purview.” (source) (second source)
Funny how putting books in the library is turning it into a “bully pulpit,” but there is no problem with putting one particular set of superstitions on the state’s license tags.
If you desire to see state sponsored religion on license plates, have no fear. South Carolina is on the march.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
I can’t believe as I was reading that all the little pieces from my ConLaw course came together. Also, her statements about the gay pride books makes her sound like a lazy parent. To paraphrase Louis CK, she doesn’t want to talk to her child about the world around her?
This statement almost brought me to tears (of joy) “as I was reading that all the little pieces from my ConLaw course came together.” :)
As a librarian, I think she’s full of shit. In fact, when ever people start talking abouthow their 5 and 6 year olds need to be protected from the big, bad books in public, they’re full of shit. Librarians are not hiding in the stacks, ready to jump out and start reading smut to the kiddies. Kids that age are taken to the library by their parents. It’s the parents who help them select the books and the parents who read them the books. They already have plenty of control.
The First Amendment contains says NOTHING about the so-called separation. This whole concept of “Separation of Church and State” comes from Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black ripping, out of context, a line in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Ct.
The “concept” of separation of church and state pre-dates the Republic. In fact, Jesus of Nazareth said “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” See also John 18:36.
The concept came to this continent in the form of Locke’s writings, which were the primordial soup from which our Republic evolved. Prior to the drafting of the First Amendment, Article VI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution bars religion from consideration for officers of the Republic, and the First Amendment demands a separation of church and state, and the text of the Treaty of Tripoli confirms it.
Hugo Black did not, as some dipshit told you to parrot, rip Jefferson’s words out of context. Jefferson was, as one of the founders, in quite a privileged position to understand the original intent.
So go fuck your Clarence Thomas blow-up doll in the ass and leave the intelligent discussion to the educated.
marcorandazza, You sound like the poster boy for liberalism( “disagree with me and i will ‘dog cuss’ you!). I know of what I speak. The letter that I referenced, had been used(in its entirety) in several Supreme Court cases prior to the 1947 case that I was referring to. HUGO BLACK DID, IN FACT, TAKE THAT LINE AND USE IT OUT OF CONTEXT! As to your contention that Jefferson was “in quite a priviledged position to understand the original intent.”, WRONG AGAIN!! He was Minister to France from 1785 to 1793, and therefore totally out of the loop in regards to the Constitution.
I do find your use of the Bible somewhat puzzling, considering the language you used in your post.
As for the last line in your post, I will only say this; 1) No thanks, I don’t want to take your date away from you, and 2) if that was your idea of intelligent discussion, by the educated, you’ve got some serious problems
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. It doesn’t get any more “founding father” than that. Click here, and then stuff it up your minister’s ass (once he is done getting his ass licked by little boys, LOL).
No matter what your minister or your KKK clavern grand wizard tells you, Jefferson was not “totally out of the loop in regards to the Constitution”[sic].
You find it puzzling that I can quote scripture *and* use the word “fuck?” Have you read that fucking book?
Run along now, I’m sure that there is a cross burning tonight that you won’t want to miss.
OH, WELL, JUST PARDON ME!!! I thought you were referencing the Constitution, I never knew the Declaration of Independence had any amendments to it. As for Jefferson and the Constitution, go read! JEFFERSON WAS IN FRANCE!!! HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DRAFTING OF THE CONSTITUTION!
Now on to your KKK comment. Unlike Hugo Black, I have never been a Klansman. By the way, what is your obsession with the Klan?
The comments on the Bible; Yes, I have read it. Have, you??? If so, where is that word? I’ve never seen it in there.
I’m still waiting to hear some of that “intelligent discussion, by the educated” that you were talking about. Thus far, everything I’ve heard from you, could have come from an ignorant teenager. In other words, just anger and venom.
No matter how many times you use ALL CAPS it still won’t change the fact that Jefferson was instrumental in the drafting of the Constitution and laying the foundational principles for how this nation was intended to be governed.
Now, if you can remove your pastor’s dick from your mouth for a moment, and re-read what I wrote, you’ll see that the issue was 1) What was the intent of the founders? 2) Jefferson was a founder ergo, 3) Jefferson’s words are a window into the original intent.
What your pastor and/or Bill O’Reilly has to say about it is not persuasive.
Whether Jefferson happened to be in France, or anally violating your mother at the time that the Constitution was written, is irrelevant. In case you are unaware of this, writing did exist in 1789, and Jefferson (believe it or not) communicated with the rest of the founders during that time.
Do the rest of these guys’ names ring a bell? Madison, Franklin, Adams? Here are some quotes from them:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”–James Madison
“Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another.”–Benjamin Franklin
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”–John Adams
So, we have three more founding fathers who were openly hostile to religion (quoted above), George Washington writing that America was not a Christian nation, Jefferson writing that there must be a separation of church and state, yet you’re still more interested in following something that a televangelist told you than believing the facts.
Since they didn’t have the Internet, phone service or any other means of , what we would call, ‘rapid communication’, Jefferson could have had little to no influence on the Constitution. If he was that big a deal, one would think that he would be mentioned as one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. I will have to take the time to research Madison and Franklin before accepting the quotes attributed to them. I don’t believe the one allegedly from Adams, I’ve read and heard too many quotes to the contary.
As for Washington, nope don’t believe that one either!
As for the “Bill O’Reilly” comment, if you had ever REALLY listened to him, you would have found(as I did) that he’s kind of a ‘Humpty Dumpty” guy, sitting up on a wall and trying to be all things to all people.
I watch very little TV, so there goes the televangelist angle. I have a brain, and I know how to use it.
Too bad that you just don’t seem to be able to argue your point without resorting to insults and slanderous comments. (Something that says alot about the validity of your argument.)
Those who oppose a license plate of belief(or religion), are the same ones who support a licesne plate for Vets, or Army, or other things.(war, or denegriation, or negation)
Why are some who negate others, now using the first amendment, & improperly to stamp out free speech ? In some, places , there are license plates that have “respect life”. are you against that ?
Maybe issuing some of those negation slogan without attribution will be your next silly, & inane antic ?
Mr Poster Marcoranda has to bring up the Dick in the mouth, to be cute.
Why is that relevant ?
He can’t address the issues on the merits, he was caught lifting quotes without attribution for his wacko views on judge smutty, (9th Cicuirt Judge Alex Kozinski).
If someone had on a license plate “believe,” and a cross, that would really threaten people like Marco, it may cause him to have to go into “dicks in the mouth”.
Sad, the guy has no clue what the 1st amendment provides.
He would be perfect for taking the place of Judge—Zar—- Kozinski, if he is impeached.
If some think religion is a terrible thing, they don’t have to believe in it, instead they can belive things in the GOP party , which allow them to elect a moron like George Bush. Some believe in many things which others find moronic.
But, do you want to have one Big Zar to command what all must believe in.
Notice, how Marcoranda, at the same time he goes into his cute slogan on “dick in the mouth”, he not comes up with lines slamming religion.
How come religion was not outlawed in the U SA, if it was so bad, after all those quotes you pop up Marco ?
Is you religion smut, Minister Larry Flynt of Hustler,
deacon of porn ?
You can believe what ever you want, but you are working over time seeking to stop the beliefs of others, Mr Marco, and that is ironic. Your Zar complex is showing through.
As you can see, and as you are aware from your other ranting posts on this blog, I don’t moderate comments.
You are welcome to critique, criticize, insult, or bash anything you find here.
But, would you PLEASE use coherent sentences? Perhaps even learn to use the “return” or “enter” keys to put some spaces between your paragraphs. It just makes it easier to read.
To your final point, yes, I am trying to stop others from believing in religion. You are right. I feel that it is my duty, as an Atheist, to try and persuade them to be “saved.” Saved from the cloud and distraction of religion.
Naturally, if I were ever to decide to take a big pay cut and run for public office, I would never use my position as a public servant to do the same thing. On this blog, my private forum, I evangelize MY beliefs. But, if I were a state representative, I would no sooner promote Atheism than Christianity.