The issues surrounding the “In God We Trust” plate have been well covered in the blogosphere. But, I had not seen the BMV state so explicitly that the “In God We Trust” plate was one of Indiana’s two “standard” plates. But, that is what the BMV is saying at the site designed for voting for Indiana’s next license plate.
I don’t like specialty plates generally. We have something like 30 of them, and it has gotten out of hand. I think we should have just one plate. It’s only a registration tag for a piece of personal property for goodness sake. However, if we do have so many specialty plates, I did not see any particular harm with having another one that said “In God We Trust.” I think it probably violates the First Amendment to some extent, but only in a very minor way. The violation was increased, however, by giving the “In God We Trust” plate preferential treatment by not requiring an extra fee be paid the way it is with other specialty plates. Now, I think state government has probably crossed a line by making a proclamation of faith in God the declaration on one of Indiana’s two standard license plates — plates that must be displayed on one’s vehicle as a condition of driving.
It’s not going to keep me up nights, but I think it is wrong. Unlike chocolate and peanut butter, Government and Religion simply are not two great tastes that taste great together. They’re more like ketchup and ice cream.
Since the “In God We Trust” plate is not mandatory, the state probably thinks it is will win any court challenge. (Didn’t the Supreme Court of the United States say that such plates were okay? Am I dreaming that?)
Maybe I’m imagining things, but weren’t we led to believe at first that the IGWT plate would be a free specialty plate, *not* one of two standards? IIRC, some people weren’t happy that it would be free, but I don’t remember that anyone knew at the time that the plate would be offered as a standard plate along with the “Fields of Green” plate. That would have really caused an uproar in some quarters. Seems as if the state has done an end around.
Personally, I think that the IGWT plate is pandering. Of course, I don’t have to renew until September, so really don’t have to think about it yet.
I believe this has been a fairly recent development, but they have been consistent in the last few releases in their portrayal of the IGWT plate as an “alternative standard” plate. I would assume there is some reason for this, other than the fact that they knew it would drive me crazy, but I honestly can’t think of any at the moment.
Of course, perhaps it could just be that there is no logical reason why state funds would be used to subsidize a specialty plate, so it must be a “standard” plate for any of this to make sense. (Not that it does…)
I have contacted the BMV on a few occaisions in the last week on the matter and not received any reply, which is more than frustrating as well.
It’s complete pandering. I think they’re now trying to spin it as an alternative standard plate because of all the negative publicity it got.
Folks should be embarrassed by using a plate paid for by other citizens to pay for their religious “statement”. I mean, if you need a license plate to make you feel better about your particular faith, ….
…you’re a completely typical politically conservative Christian.
… your faith must be pretty weak or small.
Why does in modern times ‘In God we Trust’ indicate religious control? Also when did ‘secular’ begin to mean ‘anti-religion’ and not ‘religion neutral’ in this country? An older guy like me gets confused when I think what I was taught then and what people believe certain concepts mean now.But Communists used to be big threat and now that’s solved.Is that why we need a new internal rallying point? Now we have international communism to stock Wal-mart’s shelves.What’s the lesson?
I don’t know the answers to your questions, Lou. It seems to me, however, that a certain type of Christian (not all Christians) has to have his/her faith endorsed by the government, and even believes that the IGWT plate is a type of endorsement, all the while pointing to the phrase’s vagueness as proof that the government isn’t endorsing any *specific* religion. If a state says that it will not make IGWT license plates, that is hardly being anti-religion. Everyone and anyone is still free to put bumper stickers or fish symbols on their cars if they want to profess their faith.
I can see this IGWT license plate becoming a litmus test: “Are you fer or agin it?” Any politician who is agin it will be taken to task.
I just don’t see why there is the constant urge to have government involved with religion at all. I’m not religious, so that’s obviously part of the annoyance. But, beyond that, historically, time and time again, Religion + Government = Bad Idea.
Non-religious isn’t the same as anti-religious. Religion should simply be a private sector undertaking.
The urge to have Government involved with religion is simply a matter of power. If you look at the decline in Church attendance in ALL denominations through this past half-century you can see a clear trend toward those who “say” they are religious, but don’t exactly practice what they preach. The lack of physical bodies attending religious services means that the “message” can’t be as effectively broadcast. Fewer people attending means fewer resources for that religion that can be used. So, who has the biggest megaphone in the US? The Government. Even the media can’t compare to the power that government has. If I don’t like what’s on the channel, I can turn it. If I don’t like what’s on my license plate, too bad for me. I still HAVE to have the license plate. To be honest, I’ve always felt that religion is a private matter and I actually feel sorry for those people who feel that they now have no options left but to force religion on a larger group of people who have become ambivalent about it.
Much of the commentary I have seen here seems to view the motivation to wed religion and government as coming purely from religionists as a way of pushing their particular religion. But prior to the enlightenment the notion that religion and government would ever be divided would have been alien to many political theorists, and past imperial regimes have latched onto religion as a way of unifying diverse peoples into “one people” (think of Rome insisting on annual tribute to the image of Ceasar). Historically a mark of a “people” was a common religion and individual liberty wasn’t really part of the equation. That is one reason why the United States were considered such a novel experiment. I think it would be an interesting question to put to the man or woman in the street these days as to what makes “Americans” a “people”. A devotion to “individual liberity”, with its anarchistic overtones, is historically speaking a rather odd answer. Not even Jefferson in the Declaration really answered the question.
Paul, Tom, Doug: all interesting comments!
Paul: I would say that nowdays the motivation to wed religion and government does come from people wanting to force their religion on all or at least from wanting the government to do witnessing on their religion’s behalf.
A few years ago, I worked with someone who was very upset about The Ten Commandments being removed from the local courthouse lawn. He went around proclaiming that he would chain himself to the monument–which he did not do, of course. (An aside: this was before the most recent SCOTUS ruling on the subject.) One day, when my co-worker was going on and on about the monument being removed, I turned to him and said, “Aren’t the commandments of God supposed to be written on your heart?” By that I meant, what difference does it make whether a piece of stone is on the courthouse lawn? He had no answer.
My instant thought is about Michael Newdow, the noted atheist who wastes time and resources fighting against any drop of government ink used to produce the word “God.” This is someone at the Statehouse sticking a proverbial thumb in his eye via the Indiana license plate.
Only problems:
1. Maybe 0.5% of Hoosiers know who he is.
2. He lives in California.
Basically, this a political statement, not a religious one. The phrase itself is bland and promotes nothing, in and of itself, but taxpayer subsidized license plate is not the forum for the debate.
I am against basketball. So can I employ the ACLU to fight that my rights as a non basketball fan are being violated because I am REQUIRED to put a plate on my car that has a basketball bouncing across it? It is an alternative plate – You don’t want it don’t buy it get the ugly green plate.