Posted on Wednesday November 11th by Alex Lessard-Pilon | 139
.
- An upset in Seattle puts a former Sierra Club leader in charge. He built his campaign around opposition to the waterfront tunnel, then reversed course when City Council endorsed it. He also says he’ll fix the schools, despite the fact that the mayor’s office has no say over them. (NYTimes)
- South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies, tried to sneak one by the Constitution by approving a license plate that says “I Believe” and has an image of a cross in front of a stained-glass window. Fortunately, we have federal courts to squash dumb ideas. (Wheels)
- An editorialist proposes an “adaptive reuse” or our nation’s highway system: build rail lines alongside roads and bury power lines under highways to bring electricity to cities and (somehow) power plug-in hybrids. “The highway system can’t always be a ghetto for the internal combustion engine,” she writes. (NYTimes)
- Raise the Cloud! British designers hope to build a “zero-power” “digital” cloud of plastic spheres to float over London, providing an observation deck and a park and transmitting a feed of web searches by Londoners “to give a real time ‘barometer’ of the city’s interests and mood.” (BBC - pic via)
- We’re not sure what it means if Canada gets high speed rail before the US. But apparently, only 9 percent of Canadians are opposed, and 86% are in favor of building an HSR network. (Gazette)
- “We Americans,” says one man, “are all infrastructure–and no people.” A rather gloomy take on the vast tangle of roads that connect the lonely little clusters of people we call cities. (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)
- Pedestrians make up an astonishing 31% of deaths in New York traffic-related accidents, a study finds. The NY metro area has the highest number of pedestrian deaths in the country. (DailyNews)
- Some engineers figured out a way to drive an 1988 Oldsmobile Delta with an iPhone. Why, you ask? Well, why not?! (Gizmodo)
November 11th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
A pity those interstates aren’t good for much more than roads. They curve too tightly and climb too steep in many places to be adapted for serious rail. Interurban electric rail, yes, but not high speed.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies, tried to sneak one by the Constitution by approving a license plate that says “I Believe” and has an image of a cross in front of a stained-glass window. Fortunately, we have federal courts to squash dumb ideas.”
So, uh, help me out with a few things…
First, what does this have to do with the Confederate flag? Living in a particular state and having a license plate does not make you a racist, or are you just connecting two completely unrelated things to make your Glen Beck style political jab?
Second, why do our courts care what picture is on a License plate? As long as you have your number, your state, and your registration clearly visible, why should anyone care what the picture is? Lots of states sell personalized plates. In Texas we have Special plates for just about everything, Universities, the Horny Toad, Audubon Society, whatever. So should we ban those as well? I guess I just don’t understand why you think this is a dumb idea that should take up the valuable time of our federal courts.
I really think that a person printing a two inch cross on their license plate should have been filed under “Not an Issue”.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The Southern States are the first ones to jump and shout about their constitutional rights being violated and they tried to pull a fast one, Funny how when it suits them its ok.
“Judge Cameron Currie ruled that the plate was a violation of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The South Carolina plate featured an image of a cross in front of a stained-glass window, accompanied by the words “I Believe.”
“Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same,” Judge Currie wrote in her decision. “The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.”
The motivation for the plate was political as the ruling states, although I’m sure Christians would have got one for simply being christians.
I live in Dallas and my License plate has a Longhorns theme. I agree with the Judge on this one, its by the book for a change although the subject being judged is rather asinine.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Dallas -
Unfortunately, we have a constitution.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Pedestrians make up an astonishing 31% of deaths in New York traffic-related accidents, a study finds. The NY metro area has the highest number of pedestrian deaths in the country.
… because to have pedestrian deaths you have to have pedestrians. Or “if there’s no pedestrians they can’t get run over”….
November 11th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
So, let me get this straight, Deacon. Do I understand correctly that it is your personal belief that any and all Religious symbols should be banned on anything that comes from the government?
If that is the case, should we tear down all of the murals in the Capital Building too, as many of them have religious themes? Shred all of the religiously themed paintings that are housed in publicly owned Art Museums? Should we shred the Declaration of Independence?
It seems to me that if your belief is so strict that you can’t even allow a private citizen to pay an extra $15 to have a religious symbol printed on their own license plate, then the above scenarios are not that far away. If the State had mandated that license plate for everyone, then I would agree with you, but this is just an option the state gives to it citizens that want to own drive a car -I assume this is one of very many such options. So, in my opinion, if you feel like you should be allowed to display your favorite non-profit organization on your license plate, a religious person should be able to display theirs.
I really think that it was the judge that over stepped the bounds on this one.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
So, let me get this straight, Deacon. Do I understand correctly that it is your personal belief that any and all Religious symbols should be banned on anything that comes from the government?
If that is the case, should we tear down all of the murals in the Capital Building too, as many of them have religious themes? Shred all of the religiously themed paintings that are housed in publicly owned Art Museums? Should we shred the Declaration of Independence?
It seems to me that if your belief is so strict that you can’t even allow a private citizen to pay an extra $15 to have a religious symbol printed on their own license plate, then the above scenarios are not that far away. If the State had mandated that license plate for everyone, then I would agree with you, but this is just an option the state gives to it citizens that want to own drive a car -I assume this is one of very many such options. So, in my opinion, if you feel like you should be allowed to display your favorite non-profit organization on your license plate, a religious person should be able to display theirs.
The picture is not hurting anyone, nor is it even likely to be noticed by the vast, vast majority of people. On the contrary, by the judge stepping in and saying that this is infringing on other people rights, is actually the action itself. I really think that it was the judge that over stepped the bounds on this one.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
There is a major difference between using the word God as a general notion (non-religion specific) on national monuments etc… But it is another thing to simply put an organized religious symbol, slogan, whatever it is on something from the government. The judge was spot on with this.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Dallas, I’m going to be as polite as possible, but there’s a reason that you are not a federal judge. Constitutional law is obviously not your strong suit.
I watched that video on driving with an iPhone. First of all, while it’s pretty cool from a geek perspective (LabVIEW, mmmm, LabVIEW….), I was disappointed that they didn’t figure out a way to hack into some computer-control in the engine and tie it into the…whatever, I know that’s crazy talk, but still. It was not nearly as cool as I was hoping. But it was just as wonderfully stupid!
Secondly, that woman who covered all of the tech explanation, I couldn’t tell if she knew what she was talking about (and was just a little nervous) or was reading cue cards. So, I looked up her profile on their website: turns out she’s a Chem E. Lesson from this: Maybe having a Chem E explain a pot isn’t the best idea.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
It’s not that big a deal, Dallas, but this is a dumb argument that we have to keep having. Had the decision been that it was okay, I would have disagreed but let it go. Here’s the trouble: The more you just let slide, the harder it gets to say no when the violations of the 1st Amendment get more blatant, and more, um, establish-y.
I know, I know. Slippery slopes aren’t always necessarily all that slippery. But I’d still rather be having these dumb arguments about license plates. And we have to keep having them.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Dallas you didn’t get it straight, as Eric said above its a dumb argument to keep having. The first amendment covers a lot of ground and this case, as asinine as it seems, is still against it.
The same legislation was turned down in Florida because of this exact argument. The problem is with the state endorsing a particular religion, it goes against the constitution which doesn’t endorse any but gives you the choice to follow any religion.
Had it been a request to the state from all religious groups to pass legislation allowing any religion a number plate (I would think this approach would be fair including everyone) it would still be unconstitutional because of the endorsing thing(thats how I understand it)
State and religion are separate for this reason had it not been, think Middle East where religion and politics share a bed. It doesn’t work.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:11 am
I guess I just see this far differently than most people on this blog. I see this as a judge saying to a person that he/she cannot display their religion in public on their own private property. I agree that the state should not push any religion on anyone, but that does not mean that a secular government has to pretend that religion doesn’t exist at all. Someone said something earlier about a “Slippery Slope”. It seems to me that the slippery slope is on the other side of the roof. What’s next? Banning soldiers or school children from wearing religious symbols? Banning theology classes at Universities all together? Why not? Schools are publicly run institutions and it is obviously the opinion of some on this blog that Government should just close their eyes and ears and ignore that 95% of the population is still holds some religious beliefs. (Not that that matters, if 1% of the populations had a belief they have the constitutional right to that belief.)
I don’t think this is asking for much space. I’m not advocation for prayer’s to Jesus to be reinstated in schools. I’m not advocating for a law that sends a portion of your tax money to a Church of America. I would be strongly against any of those types of things. All I am saying is that if a person wants to have a 2 inch printed cross on their vehicle, that is not hurting anyone. That is not infringing on anyone else’s rights. It’s not pornographic, it’s not distasteful in anyway. If it was a bird or a University symbol, or a lizard, or a cowboys star, a Darwin Lizard, or anything else at all, this would not have been any issue.
The Judge said that a person cannot put this on their license plate because it was a religious symbol. I see this as the government making a law against a persons private religion. You cannot put that on your car because it is a Christian symbol.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:06 am
You are blowing that out of proportions. Nobody said that “you cannot put that on your car because it is a Christian symbol.” You can put any religious symbol on your car, just not on your license plates. Which are incidentally not yours but are in fact an official identifier.
Would you find it normal to have a cross saying “I believe” on your driving license, your ID or your passport? I don’t think so.
This is a simple matter of separating State and Religion(s). Puting such religious references on official papers or paraphernalia would make religion a part of the State. It this case it would endorse a particular religion as a State religion and promote it… which would be indeed against the 1st Amendment.
As a refresher I put this Wikipedia extract here:
“The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.”
November 12th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I have to echo dist here. Nobody says you can’t put all the crosses you want on your car, your house, your clothes, whatever. The difference is that the state shouldn’t be printing it on a state identification document - unless it offers a symbol for *every* religion, and even one for non-believers. I’m pretty sure that in South Carolina I couldn’t have gotten some sort of atheist symbol that says “There is no God” on my license plate.
And really why the f does it have to be on your license plate? If you want to stick 82 cross stickers to your car,
Arguing that this is somehow pushing religious intolerance is disingenuous at best.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Whoops. Clicked submit while I was still writing the second paragraph. But I think it’s clear where I was going - if you want to express your faith in a car-based medium, put a bunch of crosses and Jesus fish and “Jesus is God/Read the Bible” stickers on your car, and nobody, not even Richard Dawkins, will object. (Though he might roll his eyes when he sees it.)
November 12th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
“All I am saying is that if a person wants to have a 2 inch printed cross on their vehicle, that is not hurting anyone.”
Exactly, which is why you have the right to put a cross anywhere on your vehicle that isn’t the 0.5 sq. ft. occupied by the license plate. The purpose of a license plate is simple: uniquely identify each vehicle on the road. That is an official government function. The display of a religious emblem on a government item is establishment, pure and simple.
“The Judge said that a person cannot put this on their license plate because it was a religious symbol.”
No, the judge said that the State of South Carolina can’t do this, not that a person can’t do this. Individuals can establish as much religion as they desire.
“If it was a bird or a University symbol, or a lizard, or a cowboys star, a Darwin Lizard, or anything else at all, this would not have been any issue.”
None of the things you list establish religion (the exception is the Darwin symbol which would likely run into opposition for its use as an anti-religion symbol). There’s no First Amendment restriction on government support of football.
Some day, I’d love to see a state legislator propose an “Allah Akbar” license plate just to see the massive outcry from evangelicals oblivious to the hypocrisy.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
There has always been a constitutional division between church and state. One of the problems in our country concerning some very important issues is that the minority is louder than the majority. It is the media that hypes the minority issues, just like it does when there is a mass murder or some other event to sensationalize. With this hype companies can sell more to the public and make larger profits. With this support system the minority is getting louder. Those in the mainstream who would probably ignore an issue like the one mentioned above, feel a great need to defend their positions by being vocal and sometimes stubborn about them.
The divisions between the minority and the majority are growing, while the animosity between them is dripping with disdain.
To me, none of this seems particularly healthy. However, to many, especially the minority, it is a welcome relief. Our country is in a precarious situation because of this. When the minority rules there is a chance, in one form or another, of revolution or serious civil strife. I believe that we are teetering on that line. Whether it will come to pass or not, and how quickly that will happen, depends on the outcome of some of the current struggles we are having. One of these could very well be the separation of church and state.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
What does any of this discussion have anything to do with infrastructure issues? Other than as a potential way of getting a few more dollars a license plate is an awfully stupid thing to waste time on in a blog concerning bigger issues facing the country.
The more interesting aspect is the potential to use highway rights of way as a potential right of way for high speed rail. What are the differances between cruves and grades for high speed rail and interstate construction. Even if the curves needed for HSR are greater than what is allowed for for interstate design the tangents could be used at a great savings over buying a 100% new right of way. An additional benefit could be running the tracks where teh people are as a result of development following the highways over teh last 40 years. Interchanges could be an optimal location for HSR stations, guarenteing at least 1 station per county the rail line would traverse, since by law each county that an interstate crosses gets 1 interchange as a minimum. The stations could be as simple as a platform, parking and an unmanned ticket kiosk that would notify the HSR dispatchers if a stop is warranted, like the flag stops of old.
Matt