I must confess to the sin of envy. While this particular sin is not one that bedevils me as frequently as others, I still tend to experience it in two forms. The first usually tempts me when the topic turns to men like James Brown, Fabio, Frisch’s Big Boy, mid-90’s Michael Bolton, or Samson (pre-Delilah). You probably picked out a common theme there.
Right now I’d like to talk about the other envy that should be much easier to alleviate. It’s that little irritation I get every time I pull up to a red light behind a car with an Indiana “In God We trust” license plate. Or when I’m driving on the expressway and I pass an SUV with an Indiana “In God We trust” license plate. Or when I pull into a parking lot next to, well, hopefully you’re picking out another common theme.
Despite ROCK’s best efforts over the last year or so (see more details here), Kentucky still does not have our own In God We Trust (IGWT) plate. From the quotes I’ve read from various lawmakers, it seems as though misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the First Amendment (FA) is at least part of the problem. Groups like the ACLU and others have redefined the FA and grossly mischaracterized Jefferson’s private “separation of church and state” allusion in order to obliterate Christianity from American culture. That was never the intent of the Framers of the Constitution.
I recently read about some of the early drafts of the First Amendment. Below is the earliest draft, submitted by James Madison on June 7, 1789 (emphasis mine):
“The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.”
I like the stronger wording there, the added emphasis on the protection of citizens’ rights to religious expression. To read more about the development of the FA, go here. Only by the most elastic, politically correct line of reasoning is it possible to conclude the Framers would see an IGWT license plate as an establishment of religion. Also telling is the fact that, until the Kentucky House Transportation Committee refused to hear ROCK’s case, they had legal momentum, having won an appeal of their case in the Senate Transportation Committee.
While litigation was never the preferred method of resolving this issue, the IGWT battle is one worth fighting. As ROCK President Bryan Wickens has stated repeatedly, those who purchase the IGWT plate will be able to donate additional money that will go directly to helping women, children, and families victimized by pornography and the sex industry. What better way to honor John Adams’ assertion that we are a “moral and religious people” than by simultaneously acknowledging God’s sovereignty and restoring those standards of decency that the Framers so fervently upheld?
ROCK’s In God We Trust license plate is a great idea in service of a great cause. Plus, it’s really pretty. I hope you’ll consider going back to the first link above and signing the petition today. Eventually I’d like to focus exclusively on just one envy problem; have I mentioned my Jonas Brothers issues?
James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, made plain that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (1817). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that old habits die hard and that tendencies of citizens and politicians could and sometimes did entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he questioned whether these were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom.” His response: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.” What then, Madison further inquired, should be made of these various actions already taken in the nation’s then “short history” inconsistent with the Constitution? Ever practical, he answered not with a demand these actions be undone, but rather with an explanation to circumscribe their ill effect: “Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [i.e., the law does not concern itself with trifles]: or to class it cum maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura [i.e., faults proceeding either from negligence or from the imperfection of our nature].”
In addition to what Doug said [nice quote-sleuthing, there], I want to add:
1. Why do we need an IGWT license plate? One can already put nearly any sort of bumper stickers one wants on one’s car, or paint a message on the car, etc. The motto itself is a relic of the 1950′s fright of “godless commies”—not anything the Founders established. Why not fight for an E pluribus unum plate, which would actually hearken to the idea of America?
2. Even if Madison’s version of the FA would have been the one, I doubt it would be too much different today. It still includes a no national religion clause. More importantly, though, is what is actually in the Constitution. The Founders saw fit to write strongly that there must be separation. License plates are state-issued. IGWT is plainly a religious sentiment [or ROCK wouldn't be fighting for it] and absolutely not an inclusive one, nor an accurate statement about the American populace.
3. There is the matter of how culture evolves. We’re extremely lucky as Americans not only to have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, but to have had Founders intelligent enough to leave the document open to changing cultural sentiments. The religious landscape of the 1790′s was radically different from now, as was the American people–in the 1790′s we certainly didn’t have people from every nook of the globe in America or nonbelievers willing to speak up.
4. Matthew 6:5-6.
5. You mention the ACLU—if the IGWT plate happens, there will assuredly be a lawsuit, whether now or later. KY lawmakers have to be aware of this, and are certainly aware of the state’s beleaguered finances.
6. At any rate, of course I am devoutly irreligious and I fundamentally disagree with everything ROCK espouses. I do not doubt ROCK members’ sincerity. It is extremely interesting, however, that ROCK’s goal seems to be removing porn and the sex industry from Kentuckiana, rather than teaching about self control or actually demonstrating that porn is malignant.
jenlillith,
1. It’s not a matter of need as much as a matter of religious liberty. No one is declaring motorists’ ‘need’ for IGWT plates. We are declaring the need for the freedom to be able to produce them. If you feel passionately about the e pluribus unum plate, go for it. You should have the freedom to do that, or to petition for a devoutly irreligious (nice phrase, btw) plate. If I’m to be consistent—and I must—then I have to allow for the atheist’s right to petition for their own ‘In Me I Trust’ plate.
2. The IGWT plat is a state plate, not a national plate. This is not a case of Congress promoting or ordering the government to produce IGWT plates (which would violate the FA). This is a local group asking the state Transportation Cabinet for the ability to produce a plate and to give citizens the option of purchasing it, and the option of contributing extra to a worthwhile cause (more on that last in #6). And, can you show me specifically in the constitution where “separation of church and state” is written? Or, for that matter, any other sentiment about the mix between religion and government aside from Article VI, with which I completely agree? I just skimmed through my copy again, and I don’t see it.
3. You and I would certainly agree that American society has evolved in many ways. Of course opinions vary wildly over which societal evolutions have been beneficial and which have been detrimental. To reiterate one of the points in my post, if you’ve done even a cursory examination of the public and personal writings of the Founders, can you really suggest they would be happy with a wholesale removal of Judeo-Christianity from politics or the public square?
Secondly, despite the increased tendency of non-believers to speak up, the fact remains that you are a decided minority (most studies still suggest 2-5%). Before you say it, no, the fact that you are a minority does not mean you have no rights. By the same token, the fact that people like you are more outspoken now does not mean you are right, or entitled to thwart the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans who still believe in God and still believe in acknowledgements of that fact.
4. Hmm. You seem to be suggesting that people who want to affix In God We Trust plates on their vehicles (or people like me who want them to be able to do so) are hypocrites who want everyone else to know how spiritual they are, or words to that effect. If that’s not what you’re suggesting I’m sure you’ll let me know. Otherwise, I’ll respond the same way I always try to respond to people who don’t know me yet still question my motives and integrity as a way of winning argument points.
5. The reason the ACLU got their hooks into the state of Indiana is that the state itself sponsored their plate (which I still think is fine, but that’s not the point). In ROCK’s case, ROCK is sponsoring the plate and merely asking the Transportation Cabinet for approval.
6.That’s a tough one. Sort of like if you’d asked me to demonstrate that cancer is bad for you. In other words; I don’t know where to start. You could go to Dr. Judith Reisman’s web site, for starters. You could go to the Indiana state police web site and type in the address to Theatair X on their registered sex offenders map; you’ll find over 300 registered offenders within a 20-mile radius. You could look up the dozens of court cases around the country (including ones in Kentuckiana) in which courts have upheld the contention that sexually-oriented businesses require severe health and zoning restrictions due to their very nature and the deleterious effects they have on surrounding neighborhoods. Of course, a lot of the evidence for the malignancy of porn is by definition harder to come by: Broken marriages, abused children, rape—heartbreaking stories of people who are understandably reluctant to go public.
ROCK doesn’t have to prove the malignancy of pornography. It’s self evident. Our mission, in part, is to make people aware of its devastating impact, and to reign in its influence as much as legally possible. As for teaching self-control; well, that truly would be a bit presumptuous, don’t you agree? That is the job of parents, churches, and other authority figures, although ROCK does want to come alongside those who admit addiction or those women who want to leave that lifestyle, and try to point them in the right direction.
Sincerely,
Bill womack
1. Basically I’ve just never considered specialty license plates to be of pressing importance, because one can do anything one wants with the rest of the car. It’s kind of like driver’s licenses, which as far as I know are uncustomizable.
2. My mistake: separation of church and state is a phrase from a letter by Thomas Jefferson [and Madison used the phrase too, according to my cursory research]. At any rate, it is still the state [as in, the state of KY] endorsing, in some sense, a particular religious sentiment. As far as I know, the Constitution does not say individual states are allowed to endorse religions. I’ll give you that it’s a matter of interpretation, and that my feelings about religion will obviously color what I think—but I would be stunned if there were no outcry if a non-Judeo-Christian plate were under consideration.
3. I think it’s beyond obvious that the Founders’ words can be twisted into supporting whichever side one wants. It is an indisputable fact, however, that the Founders were products of 18th century Enlightenment. Thus, I’d argue, they believed not in the wholesale removal of religion from society BUT that for an idea to have merit in the public sphere, it must stand on its own without purely religious reasoning. The Founders were again, however, products of their time, a time when it was still nearly a given to be Christian—to expect them to have the foresight to think like people do today, 21st century people, is silly. That isn’t a way of calling them backwards, either, it’s recognizing that people are what their culture allows them to be.
By the way, the widely respected 2008 ARIS found that nonbelievers are the fastest growing demographic in America, at 15% [consistent with their 2001 survey], and people with deistic beliefs [similar to some of those Founders, actually] are at 12%… perhaps a quarter of Americans do not believe in any Abrahamic version of god. Not insignificant. I do not believe I am entitled to anything except to say what I think; like you, I find it wrong to say nothing when I so vehemently disagree with something.
4. Actually, I just wanted to understand your reasoning in regard to this verse. I have no problem with personal symbols of piety, actually [except, of course, when they're government issue].
5. I love how divisive the ACLU is, though I’ll add that their lack of fighting for gun rights is extremely disappointing. Anyhow, I still think the ACLU could make a case against the plate if they really felt like it [though of course I think the IN case is more solid], and lawmakers are just being savvy in avoiding an unnecessary expenditure like that.
6. Theatair X is within 20 miles of a major metropolitan area. Want to see something interesting? Put in an Indianapolis address—any, at random, just like I did—and lo and behold, over 2500 sex offenders. Evansville, again, random zip, boasts over 500 sex offenders within a 20 mile radius—and it’s a less densely populated area than the 20 mile radius around Clarksville.
Meanwhile, there’s evidence that availability of porn reduces rape. [Links are to an article about a study and to the text of another study itself.]
The anecdotal evidence from people about their broken marriages is akin to the case of alcohol. I’d say at this point nearly every American adult has viewed porn at some point, just as nearly every American adult has consumed alcohol at some point—and it’s only a very small group of American adults whose lives fall apart because of alcohol. Same with porn. It’s not porn’s fault that people have sexual urges that can overwhelm and consume. Yes, I’ll definitely admit one’s sexuality can be overwhelming—and it becomes overwhelming when one tries to repress it. Here’s another something anecdotal: I have never met a nonreligious person who had a problem with porn, and believe me, I’ve known a few. Yet churches are apparently laden with them. My own life—yes, I was once an extremely devoted Christian—attests to this, too.
As for zoning laws, depends on the porn store. Theatair X and “seedy” places tend to get into hot water. “Women-friendly” stores, however, that stock the same stuff [with maybe a bit more lingerie] but have no peep booths and tolerate no sex acts/loitering/soliciting on the premises avoid this, and remain in areas of town where other porn retailers have been run off. Funny little coincidence, that.
… I have not the words to describe how stunned I was reading through Reisman’s site and considering her ideas. It’s the same sort of bizarre experience as visiting the Creation Museum: a person with absolutely no peer-reviewed solid evidence telling me everything I know is wrong. The last time I was as offended as I was reading Reisman’s conclusions was my visit to the Creation Museum, actually. Like that so-called museum, her “research” is nothing but an exuberant celebration of willful ignorance—she strikes me as a “scientist” version of Ann Coulter.
Let me add that there is not one shred of actual, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that porn is malignant. It is absolutely not self-evident. Now, if ROCK wants to address that sexual repression breeds destructive behavior, that certain sectors of the porn industry should be overhauled, and that human sexuality is far more complex than what happens between vanilla straight married couples, ROCK will be on the right track. ROCK’s assumption that everyone’s access to porn should be more limited is deeply presumptuous, and even worse is its premise that most people can’t handle porn. Worst is the notion that the culture should belong only to people with certain sexual mores—or that it ever did in the first place.