It's not. The harm is in that you think only your motto should be an option.
Your argument is dishonest. It is clear what "choose life" implies to any informed person.
If, as you claim, Christians are having abortions then "they" can hardly be Christians.
Who cares about the implication. If the plates read: "Obey Jesus" you may have a point and the judge would have one too but that is not the case.
The states/federal government can't endorse a particular religion - that doesn't make "choose life" an endorsement of anything - its nothing more than a slogan, and people can interpret it how they want.
Besides, "choose life" isn't even religious... I'm sure there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who believe abortion is wrong too.
The argument made wasn't that "choose life" was a religious slogan. The argument against it had to do with the state issuing an anti-abortion license plate, but refusing to offer a comparable one for the pro-choice position.
Who cares about the implication. If the plates read: "Obey Jesus" you may have a point and the judge would have one too but that is not the case.
The states/federal government can't endorse a particular religion - that doesn't make "choose life" an endorsement of anything - its nothing more than a slogan, and people can interpret it how they want.
Besides, "choose life" isn't even religious... I'm sure there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who believe abortion is wrong too.
It's propoganda used by opponents of legal abortions. Quit lying. Any decent judge would have your ass for offering up that nonsense as a legitimate argument.
It has nothing to with it being religious. It's a violation of the first amendment's protection of free speech because NC is practicing viewpoint discrimination.
In order to make such a ruling a judge would have to conclude that everyone who is pro-life is religious and that is not true. The judge may as well say all atheists must be pro-choice.... The judge made an idiotic and misguided ruling here and it will certainly be overturned.
Besides, "choose life" could mean a lot of things from abortions to individuals who had a drug or alcohol addiction and became sober or to some who are just happy to be alive... The way you interpret the slogan is moot. Everyone doesn't think like you.
He concluded that the government can't offer only one side of political speech without offering the other as a choice. His ruling had nothing to do with religion.
In this case it does mean pro-life. $15 of every $25 goes to a clinic that provides alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.
Offer a "pro-death" or "pro-choice" plate then...
So what if the money goes to an organization that provides alternative solutions...
It's not the "pro life" croweds fault that the pro-choice crowed didn't step up and petition for a "pro-choice" plate...
Which is what the court ruled. If they offer a pro-choice plate, they can keep the pro-life one.
It just shows it was meant to be a pro-life plate and not something else.
They did. It failed six different times in the legislature.
You don't understand my point.
It's not the "pro-life" movements fault that there is not an "alternative" plate.
You would think a judge would have enough common sense to figure that one out, or maybe not.
Right, its the government's fault that they are only allowing for one side of a political issue to be represented on a license plate. According to the court, the government can't do that. But even more importantly, in my opinion, the government shouldn't do that, even if they can.
That the ACLU would likely not care.
Now, if the state allowed "Christianity Rocks!", regardless of it allowed for other religions or not - that would be a different story.
Also Congress - and by extension of the 14th and incorporation, state legislatures may not abridge speech. They cannot establish a religion, nor prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religion. There is a difference. The text is again, plain, and people like to gussy it up and pretend things that aren't there are somehow there...
"Allah is #1" is a perfectly valid thing for an individual to say or believe - free speech - but the state cannot put it on a bench, because that runs afoul of establishment.
In short, you've taken this into a relatively unrelated tangent.
So the pro choice people don't support life? That would seem to be the case anyway. Any idea why that is? Can their own lives be that desperate and gloomy that they wouldn't wish it on other human beings?
Shouldn't it be everyone's motto? Where do you find the harm?
It shows you how deranged and ignorant some judges are.
This is what happens when idiots find themselves in a position of power.
I didn't read the ruling, but I'm assuming (and ironically) it was a First Amendment issue and the judge is a progressive?
Fine. The Judge should order them to make a "Choose Murder" license plate for all that want to promote their views.
Even if it was "propaganda" it shouldn't be banned because it breaks no law, nor does it violate the constitution.
I'm pro-life but I don't understand why anyone would want a plate that reads "choose life" when you can just buy a bumper sticker that says that. However there is no legal reason why someone shouldn't have the right to have a plate that reads that.
In order to make such a ruling a judge would have to conclude that everyone who is pro-life is religious and that is not true. The judge may as well say all atheists must be pro-choice.... The judge made an idiotic and misguided ruling here and it will certainly be overturned.
Besides, "choose life" could mean a lot of things from abortions to individuals who had a drug or alcohol addiction and became sober or to some who are just happy to be alive... The way you interpret the slogan is moot. Everyone doesn't think like you.
Offer a "pro-death" or "pro-choice" plate then...
So what if the money goes to an organization that provides alternative solutions...
It's not the "pro life" croweds fault that the pro-choice crowed didn't step up and petition for a "pro-choice" plate...
You don't understand my point.
It's not the "pro-life" movements fault that there is not an "alternative" plate.
You would think a judge would have enough common sense to figure that one out, or maybe not.
The government must remain nuetral when it comes to political issues..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?