background
click to change it
persoblogs
* indicates blogs i designed
archives
shorter gary welsh: when a muslim shoots people, it's terrorism. when a white christian tries to shoot someone, it's understandable. ¶
now that the "believe" license plate has been ruled unconstitutional, south carolina's going to need some new license plate designs!
instead of this:
try one of these:
these ideas are free for south carolina to use! though some licensing fees may be required. if you have an idea, leave a comment and share it! ¶
instead of this:
try one of these:
these ideas are free for south carolina to use! though some licensing fees may be required. if you have an idea, leave a comment and share it! ¶
via thestate.com:
open and shut, really. when you look at the plate's design, it's obviously intended to promote christianity and no other religion... which is blatantly unconstitutional. the only surprise is that anyone thought they could get away with it (unless they didn't, and the whole point was to energize the base when the inevitable happened).
the controversial "in god we trust" plate sold in indiana and elsewhere has so far escaped a similar fate, because while it is a state endorsement of theistic religion, it's not blatantly pro-christian at the expense of other religions. ¶
A federal judge has ruled unconstitutional a Christian "I Believe" vehicle license tag with the image of a cross authorized last year by the S.C. General Assembly.
"The 'I Believe' Act's primary effect is to promote a specific religion, Christianity," U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie wrote in a decision released Tuesday.
State laws promoting one religion over others have been illegal in the United States since the nation's founding, Currie wrote.
Currie also focused on the role played by Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who originally pushed for the Christian tag after a move to create a similar "I Believe" tag failed in Florida.
"Such a law amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular," Currie wrote.
"Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same," she wrote. "The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation."
The tag in question would have featured a large cross against a stained glass window and the words: "I Believe." No tags had been issued. A state Department of Motor Vehicles spokesman said the department will abide by the judge's decision.
open and shut, really. when you look at the plate's design, it's obviously intended to promote christianity and no other religion... which is blatantly unconstitutional. the only surprise is that anyone thought they could get away with it (unless they didn't, and the whole point was to energize the base when the inevitable happened).
the controversial "in god we trust" plate sold in indiana and elsewhere has so far escaped a similar fate, because while it is a state endorsement of theistic religion, it's not blatantly pro-christian at the expense of other religions. ¶
by now, you've surely heard about yesterday's tragic shootings at fort hood, which left at least 13 dead and 30 wounded.
seasoned news watchers know to treat initial reports with skepticism during events like this, as confusion and misinformation abound, particularly in the first few hours. indeed, we were initially told that the alleged shooter, major nidal malik hasan, had been killed, but it turns out that he's alive... a pretty significant detail.
but right-wingers like gary welsh couldn't wait until all the information was in, instead seizing on the alleged shooter's muslim heritage to brand him a terrorist. never mind that hasan was a natural-born US citizen who was well-respected by the soldiers he treated for PTSD and other problems. never mind that the FBI has specifically ruled out terrorism as a motive. no, the fact that nasam was a muslim means he must be a terrorist.
of course, impugning people's integrity is what gary always does. it's his schtick. after state rep ed delaney was brutally attacked, gary suggested delaney was partly to blame in his own pistol-whipping. before that, he spent months telling us how proponents of the wishard referendum are horrible, deceitful people. (it was so bad that matt tully called him out on it, though not by name. in response, gary claimed that tully has no integrity.) before that, he was going on at length about how president obama is a deceitful noncitizen muslim who enjoys coked-up gay sex on the DL. before that, he vilified andré carson, and before that, bart peterson, julia carson, the clintons... the list goes on and on. (who can forget when gary accused steph mineart and others of being "extremists on the issue of fighting the war on terrorism"?)
so i'm not surprised that people like gary would rush to politicize this tragedy. that's what people like him do. but i am disgusted. and i'm even tempted to say it's the worst thing he's ever written... but when someone has a track record as egregious as gary, how can you pick? ¶
seasoned news watchers know to treat initial reports with skepticism during events like this, as confusion and misinformation abound, particularly in the first few hours. indeed, we were initially told that the alleged shooter, major nidal malik hasan, had been killed, but it turns out that he's alive... a pretty significant detail.
but right-wingers like gary welsh couldn't wait until all the information was in, instead seizing on the alleged shooter's muslim heritage to brand him a terrorist. never mind that hasan was a natural-born US citizen who was well-respected by the soldiers he treated for PTSD and other problems. never mind that the FBI has specifically ruled out terrorism as a motive. no, the fact that nasam was a muslim means he must be a terrorist.
of course, impugning people's integrity is what gary always does. it's his schtick. after state rep ed delaney was brutally attacked, gary suggested delaney was partly to blame in his own pistol-whipping. before that, he spent months telling us how proponents of the wishard referendum are horrible, deceitful people. (it was so bad that matt tully called him out on it, though not by name. in response, gary claimed that tully has no integrity.) before that, he was going on at length about how president obama is a deceitful noncitizen muslim who enjoys coked-up gay sex on the DL. before that, he vilified andré carson, and before that, bart peterson, julia carson, the clintons... the list goes on and on. (who can forget when gary accused steph mineart and others of being "extremists on the issue of fighting the war on terrorism"?)
so i'm not surprised that people like gary would rush to politicize this tragedy. that's what people like him do. but i am disgusted. and i'm even tempted to say it's the worst thing he's ever written... but when someone has a track record as egregious as gary, how can you pick? ¶