This is one quarter right.
The Bill of rights is design to prohibit the government from infringing on fundamental rights which we already have. These rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments along with prohibitions against the government infringing on these rights.

The government, by passing laws, creates rights for us as well. Unlike fundamental rights found in the constitution, these rights can be taken away. You have a right to be publically educated, but it is not a fundamental right and may be revoked by an act of Congress.

Here is your problem.
Your right to free speech is a right not to have the government prevent you from speaking. They can’t pass a law saying you can’t run this web site because they would be silencing you.

On the other hand, you are saying you have a right to a license plate that reflects your love of Jesus. You are saying the First Amendment allows you, Mark Noonan alone, to determine what goes on your license plate. Do you see the difference. You are making a negative right, the right not to have your speech infringed upon, a positive right, namely to have the government print you a license plate of your choosing. This is not how the First Amendment works. It doesn’t allow you to force the government to create your speech. It only prevent the government from silencing you. Can you personally demand your government to print you a passport with bible verse in it. Under your understanding of th First Amendment, you could.

I think your other problem is your understanding of the term public forum. Public forums include parks and sidewalks. The government cannot unreasonably restrict a person’s access to these forums. The government is not a forum for an individual’s public speech in the Constitutional sense. I understand wht you are getting at. We use the electoral process to voice our will but this is not what the free speech provison of the first amendment is about.

Then there is this:
“What you’re trying to say is that because the constitution doesn’t give me permission to have religious icons in any way related to government functions (the plates, by the way, don’t belong to the government - they belong to the people who purchase them) I can’t have a plate with religious iconography.”

This is not what I am saying. You misunderstood. The constitution does not prohibit an American citzen from doing anything. It prohibits the government for doing certain things, including promoting one religion over another religion. The license plate in question does this because the state government is providing special treatment to Chrisitians. It is playing favorites. The Establishment Clause prohibits this.
Now that I see your misinterpretation of the Constitution, your whole political ideology makes a lot more sense.

Also, license plates are government property, as are driver’s licenses and passports. The government can take them from you as long as they comply with the Due Process Clause. They don’t have to pay you for them. You have a possessory interest in them and a property interest in the right they represent, but the documents themselves belong to the government. Compare this with your house. The government has to pay you to take your house from you.

Think of government documents like your creditcards. Credit cards are property of the credit card company in that they can be revoked at anytime. Thankfully, government has to comply with the Due Process clause. Credit card companies do not.

Finally, where do you come up with your interpretation of the Constitution? Is this your personal understanding or is this view held by other conservatives?

Well there’s our fundamental difference - you don’t understand what the Bill of Rights does. We don’t get rights from the government - we use government to secure rights we already have. Don’t look for permission in the Constitution, but for prohibitions - Congress is prohibited from establishing a religion and, by extension, the State governments are also so prohibited. What you’re trying to say is that because the constitution doesn’t give me permission to have religious icons in any way related to government functions (the plates, by the way, don’t belong to the government - they belong to the people who purchase them) I can’t have a plate with religious iconography. This is nonsense - you will have to find a definitive provision of the Constitution saying I can’t do it - and only then will you be able to say that having a cross on a license plate is unconstitutional.

Also, there is this:
“As for the Establishment Clause, it’s purpose is to prohibit the government from interfering with, or to make laws which might be contrary to the First amendment.”

Jerimiah, read the text. What you said makes no sense.

And finally this:
““Education”…you say? Well, they may be educated, but they sure aren’t taught anything which will lead them to do good.”

Out of curiosity, Jeremiah, what should they learn?

Then there is this:
“If you really think that the government of a democratic republic is not a public forum, then there’s not much for you and I to discuss here.”

Please explain how the government is a public forum. Mark, I really think you need to re-examine what the Bill of Rights is designed to do. It does not give a person a right to have the government print a license plate with whatever he wants on it. Really, does your argument sound right to you?

Also what is really funny is how the Supreme Court only practices judicial tyranny when it decides against you. You could almost call what you do flip-flopping!

Any citizen of the United States of America wanting to display their religious or other beliefs on the license plates of their vehicle is free to do so, as long as they foot the bill.