I'd be for it provided that it could raise funds that would be used for science education. Kinda like how smokers have to pay for anti-smoking campaigns and casinos have to pay for gambling addiction treatment. Let's have the religion addicts pay in order to prevent the spread of their disease.

Doug:

I maintain it is a violation of the separation clause. I'm afraid the good people of S.C. will have to make due with 3 Jesus fish and a litany of pro-life bumper stickers.

And I will agree that this is a disease, or at the very least, a frightening symptom. What sort of person is so deluded that they confuse spirituality with consumerism?

Isn't it enough for jesus to be their copilot?

Isn't one of the options a Confederate flag? Or was that my imagination?

Some state had Confederate flags.

I love that people somehow think their lord is clamoring to be on a license plate right next to their custom plates absurd avatar. Southern folks seem to have no respect for their own all powerful imaginary friends. If they just build some nice churches the would do allot better. If your god is also an air freshener, he really ceases to strike fear into the sinners. Rarely do I think in times of person struggle, I wish there was a plastic figurine on my dash board I could talk to about it. But what can we expect from folks that worship in buildings covered in fake brick and with electronic bells.

I think if state wide IQ's drop below a certain average, states should automatically be converted into territories.

If some brave soul would apply for equal treatment by demanding a plate that says "I don't believe" with a picture of Darwin on it, I bet that would stir things up a bit more.

I maintain it is a violation of the separation clause.

I don't see how it violates the establishment clause. So long as the money doesn't go to a religious organization, I don't see why people don't have the right to voice their religious views on a license plate.

Granted, as Red pointed out in terms much more amusing than I can muster at the moment, it's a pretty retarded thing to do. I always find it amusing how assertively some Christians will say "I believe", with pride, as though it were some terrible great accomplishment. Can you imagine someone getting on the evening news and asserting combatively into the camera, "I am totally ignorant and proud of it!" or "I believe in tooth fairy, oh lordy lordy do I be-lieve!" or "Hosanna, I don't think, I just be-lieve!"

If some brave soul would apply for equal treatment by demanding a plate that says "I don't believe" with a picture of Darwin on it, I bet that would stir things up a bit more.

Now that is a great idea.

What's the big deal. If you allow Nascar you ought to allow religious symbols, or for that matter irreligious symbols.

Ed: TBH I think the best plate design to counter it would be one with a happy humanist in place of the cross, sporting the legend 'I believe in humanity'. If they refuse to allow it, then's the time to sue for religious bias.

Although it's definitely a huge social can o' worms and I personally find it utterly obnoxious, I don't see how it could violate the First Amendment. This isn't a law, nor is it established by the Federal Congress.

And I hereby nominate RedSeven as thread winner :)