A few weeks ago, an atheist in New Jersey was denied the vanity license plate Athe1st. He tried to get an explanation and was told it was objectionable. Which begs the question, would Bapt1st have received the same treatment?
HuffPo — That didn’t sit well with atheists. American Atheists public relations director David Muscato posted news of Silverman’s denial to Reddit’s popular “atheism” channel, where it quickly took off, even earning a retweet from renowned evolutionary biologist and non-believer Richard Dawkins.Silverman followed up with an appeal, and on Wednesday, he received news that the MVC had reversed its decision. Officials blamed a “clerical error” for the initial rejection.
While a license plate proudly touting one’s atheism shouldn’t actually be considered offensive, as the New Jersey MVC ultimately concluded, residents in other states apparently disagree. Blair Scott of Huntsville, Ala., a nationally known leader of American Atheists, told AL.com in a recent story that he believes his “ATHEIST” license plate is the reason he’s received a number of unkind notes and scratches on his car.
No, of course not, Bapt1st would have been just fine.
They’re now claiming it was a “clerical error.”
I didn’t even know they had priests working for the motor vehicles bureau.
Forget baptist… Would theist be approved?
You bet it would.
I thought by “clerical error” they meant “too many damn clerics”.
It says a lot that even the word ‘atheist’ is considered to be offensive to many. Sad but not surprising to hear this. I wonder how a licence that read ‘agnostic’ or ‘secular’ would fare? Equally badly or would they be okay with those?
Licenses Plate —?