Yea. For example Michael Jackson has to remove his nose when the DMV takes his picutre.
Are you sure that qualifies as a prosthesis? A prosthesis is supposed to replace a missing body part...MJ's nose doesn't look much like any body part I can think of.
Well, what I meant was law based off of Islamic code in much of the Islamic countries. Obviously, the Koran would say nothing about driving because it didn't exist when it was written. The same goes with the Bible.
Depends on the country - in Afghanistan under the Taliban women were pretty much banned from doing anything, including going outside without a male relative. In Iran, the interpretation is much less opressive.
"After learning that 13 of the 19 hijackers allegedly obtained licenses in Florida, authorities cracked down on the system, hoping to ensure that the DMV photos_could remain one of the_primary tools used by law enforcement officials for identification."
Those 19 hijackers were all non-american. Does that say something about how easy it is to get a DL in florida? They did not wear a veil. She did ... and she is an american born evangelist later converted to islam, for whom for the first 29 years of life being without such veils was normal as for any evanglist or christian or whatever they are.
"The tradition of the hijab stems from a trio of verses_in the Al-Ahzab section of the Quran, one of which reads: "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed."
Even within the Islamic religion, the form and function of the veil is widely disputed._ Some Muslims take a loose interpretation of the verse, believing it does not mandate Muslim women to wear the veil._Others take a strict interpretation._But even then, some women cover only their hair, some cover only part of their face, and some ? like Freeman ? cover all but their eyes."
and the burqa covers even the eyes.
"Freeman_claims her "sincere religious belief that her religion requires her to wear her veil in front of strangers and unrelated males" as the basis_for her_March 2002 complaint."
i'm not asking where she thinks she is living. she is american...
"Before Sept. 11, Freeman had a Florida driver's license with a photo of her in traditional garb. She also had one in Illinois, where she lived before."
"Freeman was twice photographed for mugshots in Illinois ? once after being arrested on child abuse charges and once after her husband was arrested for firing a gun from_the roof of the family's home on July 4. She pleaded guilty to aggravated battery in the first case and was not charged in the second."
"The practice has been to ask the men to leave the room. They lift the veil, we take the picture, they get the license, and they put it in their pocketbook and nobody sees it again," Vail said._ "We don't care._ We just have to have the picture."
she should have to unveil for the photo. plain and simple. didn't she have to unveil for her passport i highly suspect so. she's being a pain in the ass as Scott said
You people are completely ridiculous. Driving is a privledge? Ok, I'll grant that. But are we now doling out privledges to people who subscribe to a certain belief? That's discrimination. Saving money on makeup? Whatever she saves, she has to spend on deodorant. Those things are hot....
She should NOT be required to unveil. She's a member of a recognized religious group. She's not a fanatic or a member of a cult. She's not making up the rules as she goes along... BTW, the Koran says nothing about driving either way. She's not endangering anyone's safety by not taking off that veil. If someone steals her ID, that's not her fault. Just like if someone stole a gun to rob a convenience store, it wouldn't be the owner's fault. Come on, alcimedes, you can do better than that...
If the gov't needs to ID people (and they do), there are other ways to do that. There's only one way for her to observe her religion.
Drivers licenses are used for other things other that just driving. It is a photo ID. The propose of having a photo is to link a person to the card. If the photo is vague, it could lead to easy identity theft and a boatload of other troubles that would wind up "other people's fault." If this were allowed it would open a whole new Pandora's Box.
However, I am not fighting against her religion. While I am not religious, I do respect them and the values. If she feels strongly about her religion, I wouldn't force her to reveal her face, but I would not give her a license. Driving is a privilege nota right.
Do these things and you too can drive in the US. If you do not do these things you cannot exercise the privilege of driving.
normally i might agree with you, BUT...
aside from the larger US cities, public transit is so abysmal that driving a car is almost as much a right as anything else in order to live. then again, there's always bicycle, but you couldn't pay me to ride a bike on a major roadway in the US either...
my wife and i haven't had needed a car since we have been up here in toronto because, for all of its aggravation, the city's transit is pretty damn comprehensive. i may curse it at times, and it may not always be convenient, but i can always eventually get to where i need to be, regardless of distance.
but when i lived in columbus, ohio, the buses NEVER went where i needed 'em to, or ran so infrequently that they were almost useless, so nobody used them, so there was not enough money or need to improve the system because everybody had to buy cars because it sucked, etc., etc. vicious cycle...
anyway, i don't quite know how to feel about this situation. it seems that with separation of church and state, the law can respect her religion, but it can't be changed to accommodate it, can it?
I am going to go ahead and say that for the safety of others, each driver must be idenitifiable by a picture on their license unless they want to make a special case for her and get her finger print on there instead.
Currently, there is no provision to allow Muslim women to drive cars I guess. Time for some technological measures. Iris and finger print.
"I don't unveil ... because it would be disobeying my Lord,"
Her understanding of her own human rights is unfortunately affected by her religion but thats religion for you.
Scott, I am not sure she is beign a pain in the ass. When folks hear the call to duty to serve Jesus or whomever, their religious liberty is protected. So it should be for her. This may be setting precedent but it is valid.
I don't unveil ... because it would be disobeying my Lord,"
Her understanding of her own human rights is unfortunately affected by her religion but thats religion for you.
Wow, that's nice and judgemental. I hope that the legal system can subtract bias from this issue, unlike many of you. It's funny how ones human rights are actually subject only to what they think is right for them. It goes both ways.
I wouldnt have expected a phone or internet access to be a right, but it is so essential that the Supreme Court has ruled that inmates should have access to both... Similarly it can be argued that cars and driving are also so essential to a normal life that to deny someone access based on irrelevent facts is disallowing the intrinsic right to live life like everyone else.
She should NOT be required to unveil. She's a member of a recognized religious group. She's not a fanatic or a member of a cult. She's not making up the rules as she goes along... BTW, the Koran says nothing about driving either way. She's not endangering anyone's safety by not taking off that veil. If someone steals her ID, that's not her fault. Just like if someone stole a gun to rob a convenience store, it wouldn't be the owner's fault. Come on, alcimedes, you can do better than that...
If the gov't needs to ID people (and they do), there are other ways to do that. There's only one way for her to observe her religion.
7 people are required to form a registered religion.
if the drivers licence is soooo big issue, 1) use a public transport and don't rant, OR 2) think twice before changing your religion. she changed it, so before it was no problem.
Oh dear god, now we supposedly have an intrinsic right to live life like everyone else?!?
Well jeez louise, where's my suburbian house? My SUV? My cubicle job? I wanna be like everyone else and it's my intrinsic right, dammit!
*sigh*
I see this as her choice. She has made the choice not to take off her veil. I support her in that choice, for her religion. More power to her, it's gotta be tough.
But that does *not* mean that someone from religion A is subject to a certain law while someone from religion B is not. THAT is religious discrimination, at its core, regardless of the 'intent'. Period.
If the law says your face must be visible, it must be visible to obtain the priviledge of a driver's license. For everyone, *REGARDLESS* of religion. *THAT* is freedom from religious discrimination.
torifile, it is nothing to do with judgement. It is to do with the progression of women's rights.
Don't you think that a religion can be oppressive?
Isn't it a pain to wear a berga?? Isn't it a pain to follow a rule because it has been handed down to you?
Isn't this big Iraq thing supposed to be all about introducing real freedom???? Yes thats what it is today, and so is the point I was making.
i think wearing a burqa is no liberty, but them i'm no muslem...
furthermore, if muslem women are allowed to do it, after that decision no form of discrimination is ok. so in that case it's not acceptable to ask a person to be muslem and female to have veiled her / his face in the identity prictures. wake up.
torifile, it is nothing to do with judgement. It is to do with the progression of women's rights.
Don't you think that a religion can be oppressive?
Isn't it a pain to wear a berga?? Isn't it a pain to follow a rule because it has been handed down to you?
Isn't this big Iraq thing supposed to be all about introducing real freedom???? Yes thats what it is today, and so is the point I was making.
I completely agree that religion can be oppressive. But in this case, she's chosen to wear the veil. That's not oppression. That's liberation. Again, it's a fundamental right to chose your religion. That means that there should be no consequence for adhering to that religion. Of course, there's the caveat that if they don't endanger others. I don't think that this will directly endanger others. And I'm not sure how anyone else can either.
If I drove round florida in the middle of summer wearing a balaclava:-
a.) Would they let me take my driving licence photo in it ?
b.) How long before I got arested.
Her religion Does Not come into it. She has agreed to live by the laws of the country she is living in. If her religion overrides these laws then that is discrimination.... against everyone else!!
No offense to anyone personally, but you wonder why you offen get labeled as "Dumb Americans".
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Yea. For example Michael Jackson has to remove his nose when the DMV takes his picutre.
Are you sure that qualifies as a prosthesis? A prosthesis is supposed to replace a missing body part...MJ's nose doesn't look much like any body part I can think of.
Originally posted by AppleMaster
Well, what I meant was law based off of Islamic code in much of the Islamic countries. Obviously, the Koran would say nothing about driving because it didn't exist when it was written. The same goes with the Bible.
Depends on the country - in Afghanistan under the Taliban women were pretty much banned from doing anything, including going outside without a male relative. In Iran, the interpretation is much less opressive.
"After learning that 13 of the 19 hijackers allegedly obtained licenses in Florida, authorities cracked down on the system, hoping to ensure that the DMV photos_could remain one of the_primary tools used by law enforcement officials for identification."
Those 19 hijackers were all non-american. Does that say something about how easy it is to get a DL in florida? They did not wear a veil. She did ... and she is an american born evangelist later converted to islam, for whom for the first 29 years of life being without such veils was normal as for any evanglist or christian or whatever they are.
"The tradition of the hijab stems from a trio of verses_in the Al-Ahzab section of the Quran, one of which reads: "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed."
Even within the Islamic religion, the form and function of the veil is widely disputed._ Some Muslims take a loose interpretation of the verse, believing it does not mandate Muslim women to wear the veil._Others take a strict interpretation._But even then, some women cover only their hair, some cover only part of their face, and some ? like Freeman ? cover all but their eyes."
and the burqa covers even the eyes.
"Freeman_claims her "sincere religious belief that her religion requires her to wear her veil in front of strangers and unrelated males" as the basis_for her_March 2002 complaint."
i'm not asking where she thinks she is living. she is american...
"Before Sept. 11, Freeman had a Florida driver's license with a photo of her in traditional garb. She also had one in Illinois, where she lived before."
"Freeman was twice photographed for mugshots in Illinois ? once after being arrested on child abuse charges and once after her husband was arrested for firing a gun from_the roof of the family's home on July 4. She pleaded guilty to aggravated battery in the first case and was not charged in the second."
"The practice has been to ask the men to leave the room. They lift the veil, we take the picture, they get the license, and they put it in their pocketbook and nobody sees it again," Vail said._ "We don't care._ We just have to have the picture."
She should NOT be required to unveil. She's a member of a recognized religious group. She's not a fanatic or a member of a cult. She's not making up the rules as she goes along... BTW, the Koran says nothing about driving either way. She's not endangering anyone's safety by not taking off that veil. If someone steals her ID, that's not her fault. Just like if someone stole a gun to rob a convenience store, it wouldn't be the owner's fault.
If the gov't needs to ID people (and they do), there are other ways to do that. There's only one way for her to observe her religion.
Originally posted by burningwheel
she should have to unveil for the photo. plain and simple. didn't she have to unveil for her passport
Where does it say she has a passport? I can't seem to find any mention
However, I am not fighting against her religion. While I am not religious, I do respect them and the values. If she feels strongly about her religion, I wouldn't force her to reveal her face, but I would not give her a license. Driving is a privilege nota right.
Two words: "Public Transportation"
Originally posted by Sondjata
Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.
Do these things and you too can drive in the US. If you do not do these things you cannot exercise the privilege of driving.
normally i might agree with you, BUT...
aside from the larger US cities, public transit is so abysmal that driving a car is almost as much a right as anything else in order to live. then again, there's always bicycle, but you couldn't pay me to ride a bike on a major roadway in the US either...
my wife and i haven't had needed a car since we have been up here in toronto because, for all of its aggravation, the city's transit is pretty damn comprehensive. i may curse it at times, and it may not always be convenient, but i can always eventually get to where i need to be, regardless of distance.
but when i lived in columbus, ohio, the buses NEVER went where i needed 'em to, or ran so infrequently that they were almost useless, so nobody used them, so there was not enough money or need to improve the system because everybody had to buy cars because it sucked, etc., etc. vicious cycle...
anyway, i don't quite know how to feel about this situation. it seems that with separation of church and state, the law can respect her religion, but it can't be changed to accommodate it, can it?
anyway, i'm tired and babbling... zzzzzzzzzzzz...
Currently, there is no provision to allow Muslim women to drive cars I guess. Time for some technological measures. Iris and finger print.
"I don't unveil ... because it would be disobeying my Lord,"
Her understanding of her own human rights is unfortunately affected by her religion but thats religion for you.
Scott, I am not sure she is beign a pain in the ass. When folks hear the call to duty to serve Jesus or whomever, their religious liberty is protected. So it should be for her. This may be setting precedent but it is valid.
I guess great minds really do think alike.
EDIT: Geez! I thought I started a new thread!
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
I don't unveil ... because it would be disobeying my Lord,"
Her understanding of her own human rights is unfortunately affected by her religion but thats religion for you.
Wow, that's nice and judgemental. I hope that the legal system can subtract bias from this issue, unlike many of you. It's funny how ones human rights are actually subject only to what they think is right for them. It goes both ways.
Don't you think that a religion can be oppressive?
Isn't it a pain to wear a berga?? Isn't it a pain to follow a rule because it has been handed down to you?
Isn't this big Iraq thing supposed to be all about introducing real freedom???? Yes thats what it is today, and so is the point I was making.
Originally posted by torifile
She should NOT be required to unveil. She's a member of a recognized religious group. She's not a fanatic or a member of a cult. She's not making up the rules as she goes along... BTW, the Koran says nothing about driving either way. She's not endangering anyone's safety by not taking off that veil. If someone steals her ID, that's not her fault. Just like if someone stole a gun to rob a convenience store, it wouldn't be the owner's fault.
If the gov't needs to ID people (and they do), there are other ways to do that. There's only one way for her to observe her religion.
7 people are required to form a registered religion.
if the drivers licence is soooo big issue, 1) use a public transport and don't rant, OR 2) think twice before changing your religion. she changed it, so before it was no problem.
I'm agnostic so I think its all hoopla but your government must provide for any religion as it has to Christianity.
Well jeez louise, where's my suburbian house? My SUV? My cubicle job? I wanna be like everyone else and it's my intrinsic right, dammit!
*sigh*
I see this as her choice. She has made the choice not to take off her veil. I support her in that choice, for her religion. More power to her, it's gotta be tough.
But that does *not* mean that someone from religion A is subject to a certain law while someone from religion B is not. THAT is religious discrimination, at its core, regardless of the 'intent'. Period.
If the law says your face must be visible, it must be visible to obtain the priviledge of a driver's license. For everyone, *REGARDLESS* of religion. *THAT* is freedom from religious discrimination.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
torifile, it is nothing to do with judgement. It is to do with the progression of women's rights.
Don't you think that a religion can be oppressive?
Isn't it a pain to wear a berga?? Isn't it a pain to follow a rule because it has been handed down to you?
Isn't this big Iraq thing supposed to be all about introducing real freedom???? Yes thats what it is today, and so is the point I was making.
i think wearing a burqa is no liberty, but them i'm no muslem...
furthermore, if muslem women are allowed to do it, after that decision no form of discrimination is ok. so in that case it's not acceptable to ask a person to be muslem and female to have veiled her / his face in the identity prictures. wake up.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
The freedom to be called to a faith is separate from the consequences of holding it.
no its not. in countries where there is a freedom of religion there can be no consequences for holding a particular religion... etc.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
torifile, it is nothing to do with judgement. It is to do with the progression of women's rights.
Don't you think that a religion can be oppressive?
Isn't it a pain to wear a berga?? Isn't it a pain to follow a rule because it has been handed down to you?
Isn't this big Iraq thing supposed to be all about introducing real freedom???? Yes thats what it is today, and so is the point I was making.
I completely agree that religion can be oppressive. But in this case, she's chosen to wear the veil. That's not oppression. That's liberation. Again, it's a fundamental right to chose your religion. That means that there should be no consequence for adhering to that religion. Of course, there's the caveat that if they don't endanger others. I don't think that this will directly endanger others. And I'm not sure how anyone else can either.
If I drove round florida in the middle of summer wearing a balaclava:-
a.) Would they let me take my driving licence photo in it ?
b.) How long before I got arested.
Her religion Does Not come into it. She has agreed to live by the laws of the country she is living in. If her religion overrides these laws then that is discrimination.... against everyone else!!
No offense to anyone personally, but you wonder why you offen get labeled as "Dumb Americans".