I’m getting tired of this crap. If it’s not the ACLU suing because of “the Silver Ring Thing” it’s some idiot from Spanaway, WA, claiming that a license plate “offended” her. To paraphrase some other idiots, “If you don’t like Biblical license plates, don’t have one.”
Only in the deluded minds of the anti-religious bigots in this country has the “separation of church and state” (whoever coined that phrase deserves to be hung from the ceiling by his (her) little toes and made to read the Constitution over and over again) meant that Christians cannot do what they want with their own property, or that Christians have no right to participate in public discourse. Why do I single out Christians? Because the ACLU and their ilk could not care less about Muslims, Jews, or Hindus and their “religious speech.”
What did the complainant say? “I was offended that I have to be prayed over by a license plate.” Poor baby. I retract my former statement about her being an idiot. She’s actually delusional and hallucinatory. License plates don’t pray. A praying license plate– that would be offensive indeed. I might be more inclined to believe her if she was offended that Jesus died for her on the cross. That is offensive. License plates? Not really.
But back to the original point of this. The separation between the Church and the State is only between a particular church and the state. The state is not endorsing a particular religion or denomination if it allows people to put “John 3:16” on a license plate. Neither is it endorsing a particular religion or denomination if it funds abstinence education, or “faith-based organizations” or any number of other things to which the ACLU is opposed. Until the government begins supporting only Methodists or Baptists or, happy day (not really), Lutherans, the government is upholding the original intention of keeping Church and State separate.
Balaam's Ass 
Man, I love the rain, but . . . some things about Washington just drive me nuts! 🙂
But – we beat the Yankees last night, so life is good!
Too bad nothing clutch ever happens to a Seattle team, say, Ray Allen making a last second jumper. Man!
Tim
“In Vermont, Shawn Byrne of Rutland is suing the state after it rejected his bid for a ‘JOHN316’ vanity plate. State attorneys say the plate would amount to a state endorsement of religion”
Oh, good *grief*. Don’t these “state attorneys” have any better to do with their time?
Living in England – where we somehow manage to have an established church without descending into theocratic tyranny – all this is *utterly* incomprehensible.
Here’s another bit of stupidity:
ACLU Wants Teachers, Principal Jailed For Praying
http://www.wral.com/education/4507755/detail.html?rss=ral&psp=nationalnews
You’ll be happy to learn that the Washington Department of Licensing (that deals with vanity plates in this state) has just decided that there is no problem with this particular vanity plate.
Yeah, that’s what it says in the article. At least some people are still rational enough to see through these ridiculous claims.
Tim
Jason, that’s pretty ominous: “The ACLU said school officials’ violation of the prayer ban ‘must result in their removal from society.'”
Now, not only are they suing Christians, they want them removed from society!
Tim
Did somebody say, “Church and State”? That’s my blog.
I have a post up about James Madison’s views on the separation of church and state that may interest you.
Just an FYI. The person who you want to hang from the ceiling due to coining the phrase “separation of church and state” would be Thomas Jefferson, who used the phrase during arguments for the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Mr. Jefferson also wrote the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Being that he was one of the main contributors of the writing of the U.S. Constitution, I doubt making him read the Constitution over and over again would have the desired affect on him.