“I Believe” this was inevitable
As expected, the first lawsuit about those silly “I Believe” tags has been filed.
I really wish we could sue the fundegelical state lawmakers who are forcing us taxpayers to bear the burden of the litigation they knew they were inviting. It’s a waste of $$ that the state taxpayers cannot afford.
The Lt. Gov. is already beating his chest, so we think he should be listed first in our lawsuit:
For those who say this violates the Constitution by giving preference to Christianity, I think this lawsuit clearly discriminates against persons of faith,” Bauer said in a statement Thursday. “I expect the state Attorney General to vigorously defend this and it is time that people stand up for their beliefs. Enough is enough.”
ShotsFromTheBattery.com and NateandDi.com have officially merged as the on-line home of Nate and Di Fulmer. Formerly the site of The Nate and Di Show during the infancy of the podcasting movement, Shots from 
June 20th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
[…] Nate on the first lawsuit following the approval of the I believe license plates: I really wish we could sue the fundegelical state lawmakers who are forcing us taxpayers to bear the burden of the litigation they knew they were inviting. It’s a waste of $$ that the state taxpayers cannot afford. […]
June 21st, 2008 at 12:47 am
It is so typical that people would file a lawsuit. When the left doesn’t like something that is done via the legislature (the body closest to “the people”) they run to the courts and try to get activist judges to legislate from the bench. So typical.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:55 am
Thanks for stopping by Carrie.
Your comment is an excellent example of why everyone should take (and pay attention to) Constitutional Law, American Government, and American History classes in school…
So, using your logic, if a group of fundamentalist lawmakers decide that they don’t like the law, they don’t have to follow our constitution? That’s ludicrous.
The founding fathers were fairly clear with their intent regarding the separation clause. They understood the dangers of state-sponsored religion and intentionally included language to prevent that from happening.
Like the Rev. BigDumbChimp, we think the tags are a go
had let it go through the natural approval process and had not specifically endorsed Christianity by passing the bill, we’d likely not have this problem with the expensive court battle.
I know it’s hard for believers in christ to understand that everyone doesn’t share the same beliefs, but that’s exactly why the constitution includes that important clause. The separation clause protects everyone equally! It’s the same clause that prevents the Government from supporting Zenu or Allah or the Easter Bunny. It’s designed to prevent any one religion from having more power than the others - and sadly, it’s a concept evangelicans can’t seem to wrap their heads around.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
There’s no need to address the strawman in paragraph 3 because it clearly is not analogous.
As for the Constitution and the notion of an absolute separation of church and state, one need only study the Federalist Papers as a guide to the framers’ intent. So I definitely agree with you that “everyone should take (and pay attention to) Constitutional Law, American Government, and American History classes in school…” It would certainly change the political landscape if more people actually bothered to educate themselves on original intent. I highly recommend that you read the Federalist. It’s available in most bookstores.
I doubt that any serious discussion of the Federalist as it relates to church/state issues will occur here, so suffice it to say that a religious SC license plate does not establish a religion anymore than, say, Florida’s license plates established the Space Shuttle or the manatee.
Thanks for letting me comment, have a nice weekend, and please do consider reading the Federalist! It will give you a very good perspective on our nation, not only on the issue we discussed but much much more. Happy reading to ya!
June 21st, 2008 at 6:06 pm
While we’re giving out reading lists, don’t forget yours:
A Defense of the Constitutional Government of the United States of America by John Adams
Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by James Madison (father of the Constitution)
The Treaty of Tripoli
Any number of letters by Thomas Jefferson (Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802, Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814, etc), The Jefferson Bible, and his own autobiography.
The list goes on. The majority of the founders did not intend this to be a christian nation. Don’t confuse their deism with your christianity. If the founders intended this to be a christian nation, then why is it that they didn’t bother to mention that in the supreme law of the land? One would think such an important issue as state religion and eternal salvation could at least make a footnote in the most powerful document shaping the union.
But that is all completely off topic. The point of Nate’s post was that the taxpayers are footing the bill for this ridiculous waste of time and money. The “I Believe” tags could have become license plates through the normal process just like the “In God We Trust” tags or the “In Reason We Trust” tags, and instead they wasted the people’s time on a stupid law they KNEW would cause a stupid lawsuit to waste more time and money. There are precedents established on these kinds of religiously biased laws, and our state government knew that, period.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Oh, one last thing I forgot to mention. I totally agree with you, Di, in the ineffectiveness and folly of government. They sure do screw up everything else they try to do, so why should this be any different, right?
Take care.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:47 pm
oh holy hell… I left myself wide-open for this. I bit. Bad Nate!
You’re exactly right, Carrie. I’m certainly not going to get roped into a debate with you on original intent. I will say that a cherry-picked interpretation of the Federalist papers doesn’t make the case to me. We’ll let that get blown out in court — at our expense, of course.
And that was the point here. How does fighting and losing a protracted legal battle help our State? SC is facing the biggest budgetary crisis in decades and our law-wankers are busy putting jesus on people’s cars. They knew it would be litigated at a time when we can least afford it. That alone should be grounds for a serious look at who we’re sending to Columbia.
December 13th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
[…] Nate, at Shots from the Battery, really hits on the important issue, though: I really wish we could sue the fundegelical state lawmakers who are forcing us taxpayers to bear the burden of the litigation they knew they were inviting. It’s a waste of $$ that the state taxpayers cannot afford. (SFTB) […]