Methinks the judge is a few tacos short of a combo plate. When the government “speaks,” it’s free to express an opinion like anyone else; it’s not obligated to give equal fora to all positions or even all legal ones. Would he feel better if TN had put out another line of plates that say “choose death?”
Sorry, Xrlq, but the government is explicitly not free to express religious positions, and “Choose life” has become one such position. Personally, I don’t think the violation is quite as egregious as Mississippi’s “God Bless America” tag, but the point still stands.
Personally, as adamantly pro-choice as I am, I’ve never really understood all the hub-bub surrounding the “Choose Life” plate. It does, after all, lead off with the word “choose.” If it said “mandate life,” that might be different.
Nice try, Tgirsch, but abortion is not an establishment of religion. The establishment clause has no application here whatsoever. It’s not as though the plates say “Choose Lutheranism” or anything.
According to the article, its unconstitutional based on “viewpoint” and not “religion”. It should be obvious that the plate is related to the abortion debate. I’m guessing that it would have been fine had their been another plate called “Choose Choice” or something to that effect.
That was my point, Manish. States can express viewpoints without giving equal time to other viewpoints. A state can produce plates urging people to conserve natural resources, without offering an alternative plate urging people to pollute to the full extent allowable by law.
September 27th, 2004 at 9:43 am
Methinks the judge is a few tacos short of a combo plate. When the government “speaks,” it’s free to express an opinion like anyone else; it’s not obligated to give equal fora to all positions or even all legal ones. Would he feel better if TN had put out another line of plates that say “choose death?”
September 27th, 2004 at 1:53 pm
Sorry, Xrlq, but the government is explicitly not free to express religious positions, and “Choose life” has become one such position. Personally, I don’t think the violation is quite as egregious as Mississippi’s “God Bless America” tag, but the point still stands.
Personally, as adamantly pro-choice as I am, I’ve never really understood all the hub-bub surrounding the “Choose Life” plate. It does, after all, lead off with the word “choose.” If it said “mandate life,” that might be different.
September 27th, 2004 at 2:22 pm
Nice try, Tgirsch, but abortion is not an establishment of religion. The establishment clause has no application here whatsoever. It’s not as though the plates say “Choose Lutheranism” or anything.
September 27th, 2004 at 6:12 pm
According to the article, its unconstitutional based on “viewpoint” and not “religion”. It should be obvious that the plate is related to the abortion debate. I’m guessing that it would have been fine had their been another plate called “Choose Choice” or something to that effect.
September 28th, 2004 at 3:14 am
That was my point, Manish. States can express viewpoints without giving equal time to other viewpoints. A state can produce plates urging people to conserve natural resources, without offering an alternative plate urging people to pollute to the full extent allowable by law.