Whoever came up with the idea of vanity license plates was a genius.  That people will spend good money for some of the goofiest things ever, license plates that say things like “MTHRDUK” which appear utterly meaningless to me yet strike someone else as being a worthy investment, is amazing.  And putting your preferred string of letters and/or numbers on a tag will put some needed cash in the government’s gas tank.  A win-win.

Inexplicably, the motor vehicle folks of Vermont has no issue taking the money for a license plate that read “JN36TN” from some 36 year old guy named John who came from Tennessee, but wouldn’t take it from a fellow named Shawn Byrne who had a particular devotion to John 3:16.

Establishment?  I think not.

Neither does the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  Via Religion Clause :

In Byrne v. Rutledge, (2d Cir., Oct. 8, 2010), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that Vermont’s statute that allows for “vanity” license plates, but does not permit the issuance of plates that refer to a religion or deity, is unconstitutional.  The court concluded that by allowing residents to select combinations of letters and numbers that convey a message on a variety of topics, including statements of personal philosophy, taste, inspirational messages and affiliation with causes, but not allowing religious references, the state has engaged in viewpoint discrimination. The court also found the statute unconstitutional as applied.

It was one thing when the State of Florida considered the creation of Christian tags, the ones with a cross and the words “I believe” emblazoned below.  Granted, this was just a cynical ploy to suck money from the devout that would otherwise have been tithed to the church, but it had the clear imprimatur of the state in both recognizing religion in general and favoring a specific flavor in particular. 

But the State of Vermont, in contrast, presented a neutral, blank palette, together with the opportunity (for a fee) to paint it.  Who cares what color paint someone selects? 

As much as it’s wrong for a state to craft a tag that caters to its religious buyers, so too is it wrong for a state to stick its nose into the choice of its car owners favorite eight letter and number combo.  It’s bad enough that states have deigned themselves the arbiters of “good taste,” refusing tags that include words that some grocery clerk finds offensive, but to offer a blank slate and then sit in judgment of the letters and numbers puts the state right back into the mix of favoring, and disfavoring, individual choice.

Being a huge fan of separation of Church and State, I believe that there are a multitude of opportunities to honor one’s deity if that’s what one wants to do, without involving secular government, the one that taxes all of us regardless of whether we ascribe to the judeo-christian ethic.  Build the biggest, coolest creche in your front yard if that’s your thing.  Go to your temple or mosque 25 times a day if it makes you happy.  Fill yourself with the joy of religious until it starts coming out your ears.  But don’t involve the government, which has nothing whatsoever to do with your choice.

The vanity plate, however, offers a great example of the bright line between personal choice and government involvement.  Everybody understands that a vanity license plate reflects the sensibilities of the person who hand-picked the letters and numbers on it.  No one suspects that some clerk in the department of motor vehicles secretly convinced the car owner to switch from “10SNE1” to “JN36TN.” 

It’s every bit as much an intrusion into religion to deny a person the opportunity to express a religious belief as it is to bang out plates with crosses on them.  That it required a 23 page decision by the Second Circuit to keep Vermont’s mitts off people’s vanity plate expressions is really quite amazing.  What is it about religion that makes governments so incapable of grasping where they should either stick their nose in or pull it out? 

Just collect the fee and craft the plate.  What the plate says is no one’s business, even if that just kills all those people in government who desperately want to tell others what they’re not allowed to do.