Roller Coaster Capital of the World on new Ohio plates?

Count me in on the "altering it" crowd. If I get stuck with one of these plates the first thing I do will be to paint over any churchy messages.

I would assume that Ohio would follow Indiana's precedent on the "With God, all things are possible" plate. Indiana began issuing "In God We Trust" plates several years ago and they were totally optional. If you didn't want one, you didn't have to get one. It even held up to legal challenges.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351721,00.html

TwistedWicker77 said:
Maybe if the option to choose "Roller Coaster Capital of the World" wasn't removed from the list, it wouldn't have came in 4th place! Cheaters. :)

+1

I guess I'll keep my current Easter-colored plate for a while.

It's actually illegal in the State of Ohio to alter, deface, or obstruct the clear view of a state issued license plate.

Not sure what the fine is these days but it was a little steep back in the day. ;)

Haha Ralph, I always though the plates looked like a sign for some sort of breakfast restaurant.

The idea that seperation of church and state was intended to keep God out of all things in our government and society is silly. It was simply to prevent an official church state, like the church of England.

It's silly that I don't want my tax money funding the promotion of theistic activities? Who gets to choose whose beliefs are acceptable to promote?

Not at all, and I don't have the time to argue like the good ole days. I was simply talking about how using the argument of church and state isn't really accurate here. When the constituion was written (pre Darwinism) there was no alternative theory to creation. The founders (see Washington's proclamation talking of obeying God) were very religous, but didn't want some state church appointing presidents and therefore holding all the power, as was the case in England.

The argument of where we want our tax money spent should be argued for. I can't and wouldn't argue that, "we are the people" after all. If you want something on the plate, send in your recommendation and the people will vote on it next time.

The point is that theistic submissions simply shouldn't be allowed, if in fact tax dollars are used in any part of the voting or plate-creation process (and for all I know, this may not be the case). I would feel the same if a "Jesus is Evil" plate submission were leading the poll. I don't think it's too much to ask that people simply keep their faith private.

And some of the "founding fathers" may have been religious, but some were not. See the Treaty of Tripoli for the "founding fathers" stance on religion as it relates to governance.

Regardless, who gives a crap what the founding fathers thought? They were not infallible (some of them were, after all, slave owners), and to suggest their ideology is better than anything we can come up with today is utterly insane.

Well, "With God All Things are Possible" was adopted as the state motto in....1959.

Women didn't have the right to vote in the very early 1900's.

You know, since we're pointing out historical yet irrelevant information.

;)

That "With God All Things are Possible" is the State's motto doesn't mean the motto should be acceptable. True liberty means not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.

The mottos with references to god mostly showed up in the 1950s in response to the Russians. Same with references to god on paper money. God references on coins came about during the Civil War.

http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

So there isn't a long history that goes back to the founding fathers in terms of beliefs in a deity and expressing them in public places/documents.

But to me, there is no point really for either side. Mottos themselves are silly. And what is the point of referencing god in one or on our money? But on the other side, who cares that we do? Incremental costs (if any) are infinitesimal compared to trillions we waste on other things.

If I could go back in time, they wouldn't be there. But I wouldn't go through the time and expense to change them at this point.

And "In God we trust" makes some sense. But "with god all things are possible"? With god a lot of things are possible. Or amazing things. But ALL things? No evidence to support that at all. And a gay couple living in Ohio certainly wouldn't agree with that when it comes to marriage. :)

Last time I checked, referencing "God" doesn't indicate any specific religion, so freedom of religion still reigns. I suppose if you're an athiest, then you may take some offence to it.

I have no problem with the slogan on the license plate. Ohio put it to a vote, and God came out on top. No one's forcing you to put it on your car. It's an option that advertises YOUR belief's, not Ohio's. You can still live in Ohio and NOT worship God, so the freedoms we all enjoy are still intact.

GoBucks89 said:
The mottos with references to god mostly showed up in the 1950s in response to the Russians. Same with references to god on paper money. God references on coins came about during the Civil War.

Excellent point.

But on the other side, who cares that we do?

Despite my incessant bitching, I really don't care all that much about the use of "God" so much as I'm bothered by the unfettered hypocrisy of some theists when it comes to such matters. It's perfectly fine to reference "God" in school, on government property, in court proceedings and so on, but the second someone dares suggest we don't do that, some theists claim they're being oppressed. Which is an absolutely monumental insult to oppression and those who have actually been oppressed throughout history. What a crazy world we live in that the mere suggestion that people keep matters of faith private is considered an assault of their rights.

And a gay couple living in Ohio certainly wouldn't agree with that when it comes to marriage. :)

:) +1

CPcyclone said:
Last time I checked, referencing "God" doesn't indicate any specific religion, so freedom of religion still reigns. I suppose if you're an athiest, then you may take some offence to it.

And that's the point. I should have the freedom to not participate in what should be a completely private matter.

No one's forcing you to put it on your car. It's an option that advertises YOUR belief's, not Ohio's. You can still live in Ohio and NOT worship God, so the freedoms we all enjoy are still intact.

As I understand it (and I may be wrong here), the plate will include a number of phrases in faint lettering as the background, and I would assume the top choices would be used for that purpose. As such, an Ohioan would have no choice but to have a religious-themed license plate.

Just one more reason I'm glad I don't live in Ohio. And that's coming from someone who lives a stone's throw from Detroit. :)

Next Michigan license plate. "More inner city crime than you can handle." :)

It's not like those on either side of this argument are going to have an epiphany and agree. At the end of the day, our country wasn't founded with the intent to take God completely out of society and government, no laws have officially changed this. The people voted on what motto they wanted, and "the people" are what matter, not a few Anti-God fanatics. Just like "the people" voted for Obama to waste my tax money in ways I disagree with, I will complain, but "we" are the government in reality and we vote on things for a reason.

In summary, who are you mad at, the people because you feel they should't be allowed to pick their own plates?

Majority rule isn't appropriate justification in such matters. If that were the case, minority oppression would be a much bigger problem, because the majority could simply vote away their rights whenever they like.

And those "anti-God fanatics" (somewhat offensive term, by the way... not to mention the political dig... let's try and keep things civil) have just as much right as the pro-God camp in matters of governance. Just because they may be outnumbered doesn't mean their beliefs are less important, less valid or less worthy of protecting.

I'm not asking that anyone agree on whether or not God exists or anything like that. It's simply that I'd prefer people practice their faith (or lack thereof) in private. I'm not asking that anti-God mottos take the place of pro-God mottos, but rather that all God-related (pro, anti and everything in between) mottos simply go away.

I'm not mad at anyone. I simply think the idea that an Ohioan would have no choice but to have a pro-God license plate treads on peoples' liberty.

GoBucks89 said:

And "In God we trust" makes some sense. But "with god all things are possible"? With god a lot of things are possible. Or amazing things. But ALL things? No evidence to support that at all.

We will test this this weekend when Denver plays New England. :)

It's not like those on either side of this argument are going to have an epiphany and agree. At the end of the day, our country wasn't founded with the intent to take God completely out of society and government, no laws have officially changed this.

First part agreed, second part not so much. I think our founders, as smart as they were, realized that there's definitely a clear line when it comes to society and politics in regards to religion. I agree that there wasn't an intent to take out God/religion in society.......it's impossible. But keeping it out of government to an extent is what birthed the Constitution and our Amendments....among many other reasons.

The people voted on what motto they wanted, and "the people" are what matter, not a few Anti-God fanatics. Just like "the people" voted for Obama to waste my tax money in ways I disagree with, I will complain, but "we" are the government in reality and we vote on things for a reason.

I have to agree with Brandon on this. Why is it that when striving for a neutral stance on something when it's democratically voted on, there's soo much hostility from one side? Why is neutrality such a hot ticket in America? Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland seem to understand neutrality and equality REALLY well and just look how they're thriving.

In summary, who are you mad at, the people because you feel they should't be allowed to pick their own plates?

I don't think anyone is mad. In fact, it was never stated and Brandon said he wasn't himself. But since there seems to be a tipping point here, we should probably drop the subject.

I think this discussion seems to have run past it's need. The voting is done and the coaster nerds lost, end-o-story. Now let's all get some coco and count the days till Dinosaurs Alive opens! :D