Refusal to Give Precedence: Oppression of Christians

A federal district judge issued a decision on Nov 10 to strike down South Carolina's "official 'Christian' license plate," calling it a breach of the separation of church and state.

In the summer of 2008, state officials had the idea that it might be popular and lucrative to have a “Christian” license plate. This in itself is not an issue at all; however the usual process requires DMV paperwork, $4,000 in startup and at least 400 people ready to buy it. The “I Believe” license plate skipped this process.  Instead of waiting for a private group to sponsor the plate, the S.C. legislature passed a law ordering it to be created. It was also made clear that other religions should not expect the same preferential treatment. This was opposed not only by advocates of civil liberties and non-Christian religious groups who believe religion has no place in government, but also by a few prominent Christians who believe strongly that the government has no place in religion. At pro-plate rallies, one particular crowd-pleaser line catches the expository light, that Christians were being treated unfairly because the state had an “In Reason We Trust” plate. This is true, but that plate went through the normal DMV process, as could the “I Believe” plate. It highlights the power of wording and half-truths; in polling, the way one words a question can drastically influence the outcome. If it were said, “We shouldn’t have to follow procedure like the seculars –we’re Christians and our plate is better” the crowd might have been more puzzled and less inflamed.

Because at least one of the legislative proponents of the plate has decided to run for governor, the issue takes on a level of pandering. South Carolina has a formidable Christian voting bloc, and a record of having fought for Christian religious expression might go a long way, even though in reality it was a specious attack against the separation of church and state. In this case, democracy might not mean the rule of the majority, and it is a reminder of the value of a non-elected court whose sole interest is the preservation of the Constitution.