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!!
Where in the law books does it say that you have to have your photo on your driver's license? I want a quote.
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.
Why should the government be in the business of deciding whose religion is a cult or not, is fanatical or not, is "recognized" or not?
If I decide tomorrow to start worshipping Uular, the God of Tree Bark, and claim that the Teachings of Uular forbid any part of my body other than my left thumb to be photographed, why the hell should the DMV care? If government shouldn't care about my religious "rights" in this case, because perhaps they seem too silly or merely invented to make a point, do you want the government to get into the business of classifying which religious beliefs are absurd or not, insincere or sincere, or practiced by some arbitrarily large enough group of people to "count" as "recognized"?
A photo ID is a perfectly reasonable requirement for a driver's license. If someone can't meet that requirement because of what they claim to be their religious beliefs -- well, let them show the importance of their faith through some sacrifice then.
Allowing freedom of religion doesn't mean we have to bend over backwards to make it easier for people to submit to their own self-imposed rules. (I say self imposed, because it's your choice to follow a religion or not, even if once you do you're certain to yourself that you're following some sort of Divine Law.)
The point is, she IS allowing her face to be photographed. The only part of her face a male police officer will see, anyway. I guarantee that if she got pulled over and she were asked to uncover her face for a male police officer, she'd rather be arrested. Then, at the station, she'd show her face to a woman police officer. That's the problem with this: there's no way of her controlling who would see that photo. If she could be given assurances that only women would see it, she'd have no argument. But she's not given that guarantee. That's the key point. She's not doing it to be obstinate, she's doing it because she believes that men should not see her face. If we can't at least grant her that right, I don't know what's wrong with our legal system.
On a side note, I do respect everyones religious beliefs - and some of them are really interesting.
But..... Its 2003... Living in the past is a fairly boring activity. Does your religions override any sense of adventure you have ? Is change all that bad ?
Remember, you guys are only just past your 500th birthday. :P
Funny that there are women in Saudi Arabia just wanting to get the chance to drive, not to mention not have to wear burquas. My friend who grew up there is very happy to not wear one, yet still considers herself Muslim. The degree that women have to cover themselves varies from Muslim country to country.
On a side note, I do respect everyones religious beliefs - and some of them are really interesting.
But..... Its 2003... Living in the past is a fairly boring activity. Does your religions override any sense of adventure you have ? Is change all that bad ?
Remember, you guys are only just past your 500th birthday. :P
You guys dont even have a bill of rights or even a true constitution for that matter.
All this legalese is dependant on the bill of rights and just how far the protections go. Those arguing (as far as i am concerned) that she should be allowed to wear the vail think the first admendment and subsequent admendments (like 14th etc) apply somewhat strictly to this case... Others think, perhaps, that the rule of law is supreme. I honestly think she will win.
The point is, she IS allowing her face to be photographed.
Not, however, a usefully identifying amount of her face. It's not like the photograph is an arbitrary ritual of compliance -- it has a purpose, and wearing a veil obviously runs counter to that purpose.
The only part of her face a male police officer will see, anyway. I guarantee that if she got pulled over and she were asked to uncover her face for a male police officer, she'd rather be arrested.
If she'd rather be arrested than reveal her face, then she should rather not drive than put her self in a situation where there is very a reasonable requirement on the part of the government for easy identification.
Then, at the station, she'd show her face to a woman police officer. That's the problem with this: there's no way of her controlling who would see that photo. If she could be given assurances that only women would see it, she'd have no argument.
Why on earth should the police and the government be required to spend extra time, effort, and money on this, when allowing freedom of religion has nothing to do with goverment going out of its way to facilitate every possible quirk of religious belief?
But she's not given that guarantee. That's the key point. She's not doing it to be obstinate, she's doing it because she believes that men should not see her face. If we can't at least grant her that right, I don't know what's wrong with our legal system.
What's "wrong" with our legal is system is that we don't give people extra rights because they claim a religion, only equal rights. If she has the right to hide her face from a full photograph on her driver's license, so should I. If I don't have that right, neither should she.
There has to be a limit. I'm changing my position. I think she should be required to have her picture taken and have it submitted to a central registry at least.
You are allowed to wear whatever garb you desire to wear when you get your photo taken as long as you have good reason to wear it. Good reasons being 1) affordability, 2) rights garaunteed by the constitution etc. These are reasonable limitations to a law involving photo ids. It is thus unreasonable to go around complaining that since she can cover her face so should i. If you wanted to cover your face for a photo then you should have to provide good reason for it. She is not taking away a right of yours by using hers.
You are allowed to wear whatever garb you desire to wear when you get your photo taken as long as you have good reason to wear it.
Whether what you can wear includes or doesn't include something that hides most of your face is indeed what's at issue here -- so I don't think you can say that the above is absolutely true, although perhaps it is your stance that it should be true.
Also, this puts the government in the position of deciding what constitutes a "good reason" for hiding most of your face. Why should the demands of one particular flavor of Islam (not all Islamic women wear a veil, after all) be considered a "good reason" to hide most of your face, but not my hypothetical Teachings of Uular?
Good reasons being 1) affordability, 2) rights garaunteed by the constitution etc.
I would again assert that I don't see anything in the Constitution that guarantees that the government will actively facilitate a citizen's ability to follow the self-imposed mandates of their religion.
She is not taking away a right of yours by using hers.
I never said anything about my rights being taken away. My point was that she would be granted an extra right which I am not granted. If she were to win this case, she would gain a right to be more anonymous and to be less easily identifiable than I have the right to be.
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 it's in the place of the nose. Ergo nose prosthetic.
Whether what you can wear includes or doesn't include something that hides most of your face is indeed what's at issue here -- so I don't think you can say that the above is absolutely true, although perhaps it is your stance that it should be true.
Fundamentally what is at issue is the length that a person's rights should be defended. In principle the defense of these rights is the leading responsibility of a government which claims to represent freedom (like a public defense attorney defending a person the state feels is guilty). In any event, it is always better to grant more freedoms than less within reason, regardless of anything (that is my belief).
Quote:
Also, this puts the government in the position of deciding what constitutes a "good reason" for hiding most of your face. Why should the demands of one particular flavor of Islam (not all Islamic women wear a veil, after all) be considered a "good reason" to hide most of your face, but not my hypothetical Teachings of Uular?
The government already does this. Law enforcers have wide rights extending from just cause etc. Judicial review gives one branch of the government even more leeway on what good reasons are for a lot of things etc etc.
Quote:
Good reasons being 1) affordability, 2) rights garaunteed by the constitution etc.
I would again assert that I don't see anything in the Constitution that guarantees that the government will actively facilitate a citizen's ability to follow the self-imposed mandates of their religion.
Facillitate. Hmm. Thats interesting. I enforce a law that explicitly removes the ablity of a person to practise one aspect of their religion. I would call that precisely unconstitutional.
Quote:
She is not taking away a right of yours by using hers.
I never said anything about my rights being taken away. My point was that she would be granted an extra right which I am not granted. If she were to win this case, she would gain a right to be more anonymous and to be less easily identifiable than I have the right to be.
I also would say she is merely exercising her constitutional right to freedom of religion. She still must carry an id with her name on it. It is not anonymous any more than her walking into a bank and not having her face recorded. There are other identifiers on her card and it must be legitimate etc etc...
Facillitate. Hmm. Thats interesting. I enforce a law that explicitly removes the ablity of a person to practise one aspect of their religion. I would call that precisely unconstitutional.
I assume you don't have a problem with enforcing laws against polygamy? Used to be a fundamental part of many people's religion. Still is, even though it's illegal. In fact, renouncing that part of their religion was made a condition for that large group of people to become US citizens, way back when.
The government already does this. Law enforcers have wide rights extending from just cause etc. Judicial review gives one branch of the government even more leeway on what good reasons are for a lot of things etc etc.
I never said that the government and law enforcers and judges and juries don't, or shouldn't, make case-by-case value judgements. But deciding what is and is not "valid" religion is one of those things goverment should steer clear of... (although it already stupidly gets itself into that mess because of tax laws).
Facillitate. Hmm. Thats interesting. I enforce a law that explicitly removes the ablity of a person to practise one aspect of their religion. I would call that precisely unconstitutional.
I never said she shouldn't be allowed to practice any aspect of her religion. If she wants to wear a veil, fine. What constitutes facilitation is relieving her of a self-imposed hard choice: Do I drive, or do I wear they veil? That dilemma is HER dilemma, brought about by her own chosen beliefs, and I do not see any obligation on the part of the government to make this choice easier for her.
I also would say she is merely exercising her constitutional right to freedom of religion. She still must carry an id with her name on it.
But a form of ID which is inherently less useful than the form that I must carry.
It is not anonymous any more than her walking into a bank and not having her face recorded. There are other identifiers on her card and it must be legitimate etc etc...
I'd fully support a bank, if it chose to, no permitting masked customers (let's face, a veil is functionally a mask) if they wanted to institute such a policy. They probably wouldn't do so, because of the bad publicity that would certainly follow, but it should be within their rights.
What's next? If someone claims that his/her religion requires followers not to work at "earthly tasks", the government has to pay those people some theoretical wage based on a guess of what they would earn if they did work?
When you adopt a religion, you adopt a responsibility. If that religion makes some things harder on you in life, then show your conviction and face those hardships. Don't demand that the world give you special privileges to support your self-imposed limitations.
the problem is that a driver's license is used for more than just driving. it's a versitile form of identification.
probably stems back to when facial recognition was the best way to tell people apart.
so, we use faces now...
we could use fingerprints, that wouldn't be to tough to add to a card, but then everyone has to be fingerprinted. probably not going to happen.
again, for those arguing that the govt. can't restrict religion, that's a load of crap. it happens all the time. there are a few instances where religious groups have exceptions to the rules, but usually these are in regards to a specific, short-term ceremony. (peyote comes to mind in the southwest).
we're talking about a veil that will be worn for years, all the time (in public).
if i wanted to get my ID photo taken with a ski mask on, would that be ok? what if i made it my religion? (theoretically)
for those saying she should be able to wear the veil, what do you propose for situations that call for a picture ID?
granted, she's not supposed to be drinking liquor, but she could still buy it. how is the person selling to her supposed to know if they're actually selling to the right person? if they sell to a minor, they go to jail/get fined. now she's infringing on their rights. there are a variety of instaces where ID confirmation is necessary for legal purposes, traffic stops being one of them.
Ok, so let's assume she takes her veil off for the photo. Then she continues to wear it, as is her right. What does she do when she needs to buy something that she needs to show her id for? She won't be buying liquor anytime soon, but ok, she needs to show her face for that. Because it's the law, blah blah... Fine. She needs to show her id to cash a check. Hmm. No law about that, but she'd have to show her id for that too. Quite a slippery slope we've got going here. Doesn't anyone see where this is going? We're taking away her rights for convenience. I guess I'm the only one bothered by this...
All this hullaballoo is about security. This country is in a time of crisis. The easy way out is to ask people make sacrifices in the name of National Security. It's nice and easy if you do your part. Agree to have some of your rights taken away so that we can be secure. That's fine and dandy, if you choose to do that.
The problem is that the justice system does not pride itself on originality. It's all about precedent in the legal world. If this woman is forced to take her veil off because the gov't needs a way to id her and this is set down in law, the precedent is set. Rights one by one can start to fall in the interest of National Security. I know that this is an extreme example, but it's not one to be taken lightly. Again, precedents rule in the justice system.
I hope to god that the people making these decisions aren't sitting thinking, "well, what the big deal? Everyone else does it." There should be some massive hand-wringing going on over this decision. Good ol' boy GW and his cronies don't do a whole lot of hand-wringing, I'm afraid. I just hope that someone in the judical branch takes this stuff more seriously than they, and many of you, do. Civic responsibility can only go so far.
Wait until your rights are stepped on. You won't like it. But what's your recourse if you support a decision to force this woman to take off her veil? The precedent has been set and you're screwed.
i see it as she's taking away her rights for her religion.
if i want to run around in a mask all day to praise the Aztec sun god, i wouldn't be at all surprised that in situations where ID is required, i'm screwed. you either take the mast/veil off, or you may be denied access to some areas of society.
the other problem is that people are keen on saying she should be able to wear her veil if she wants to, but i'd like to know what everyone else who requires an ID from their customers/police stops are supposed to do.
Comments
Originally posted by Gargoyle
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!!
Where in the law books does it say that you have to have your photo on your driver's license? I want a quote.
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.
Why should the government be in the business of deciding whose religion is a cult or not, is fanatical or not, is "recognized" or not?
If I decide tomorrow to start worshipping Uular, the God of Tree Bark, and claim that the Teachings of Uular forbid any part of my body other than my left thumb to be photographed, why the hell should the DMV care? If government shouldn't care about my religious "rights" in this case, because perhaps they seem too silly or merely invented to make a point, do you want the government to get into the business of classifying which religious beliefs are absurd or not, insincere or sincere, or practiced by some arbitrarily large enough group of people to "count" as "recognized"?
A photo ID is a perfectly reasonable requirement for a driver's license. If someone can't meet that requirement because of what they claim to be their religious beliefs -- well, let them show the importance of their faith through some sacrifice then.
Allowing freedom of religion doesn't mean we have to bend over backwards to make it easier for people to submit to their own self-imposed rules. (I say self imposed, because it's your choice to follow a religion or not, even if once you do you're certain to yourself that you're following some sort of Divine Law.)
part C is interesting. "The Department" could just decide that they want a photo.... produce one or drive somewhere else!
Sooner or later, somewhere along the chain she is gonna have to produce some sort of ID that has a photo on it! She is just waisting tax payers money.
[monty python]Stone her!!!! :P[/monty python]
But..... Its 2003... Living in the past is a fairly boring activity. Does your religions override any sense of adventure you have ? Is change all that bad ?
Remember, you guys are only just past your 500th birthday. :P
driving is A PRIVILEGE
if it was a right you wouldnt need a license
you dont need a license to live & breathe
everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs
but for modern society to function a persons
right ends where the next persons begins
so if everyone was appeased there would be no
common law & all hell would break loose....
where would you draw the line ?
Originally posted by Gargoyle
On a side note, I do respect everyones religious beliefs - and some of them are really interesting.
But..... Its 2003... Living in the past is a fairly boring activity. Does your religions override any sense of adventure you have ? Is change all that bad ?
Remember, you guys are only just past your 500th birthday. :P
You guys dont even have a bill of rights or even a true constitution for that matter.
All this legalese is dependant on the bill of rights and just how far the protections go. Those arguing (as far as i am concerned) that she should be allowed to wear the vail think the first admendment and subsequent admendments (like 14th etc) apply somewhat strictly to this case... Others think, perhaps, that the rule of law is supreme. I honestly think she will win.
Originally posted by torifile
The point is, she IS allowing her face to be photographed.
Not, however, a usefully identifying amount of her face. It's not like the photograph is an arbitrary ritual of compliance -- it has a purpose, and wearing a veil obviously runs counter to that purpose.
The only part of her face a male police officer will see, anyway. I guarantee that if she got pulled over and she were asked to uncover her face for a male police officer, she'd rather be arrested.
If she'd rather be arrested than reveal her face, then she should rather not drive than put her self in a situation where there is very a reasonable requirement on the part of the government for easy identification.
Then, at the station, she'd show her face to a woman police officer. That's the problem with this: there's no way of her controlling who would see that photo. If she could be given assurances that only women would see it, she'd have no argument.
Why on earth should the police and the government be required to spend extra time, effort, and money on this, when allowing freedom of religion has nothing to do with goverment going out of its way to facilitate every possible quirk of religious belief?
But she's not given that guarantee. That's the key point. She's not doing it to be obstinate, she's doing it because she believes that men should not see her face. If we can't at least grant her that right, I don't know what's wrong with our legal system.
What's "wrong" with our legal is system is that we don't give people extra rights because they claim a religion, only equal rights. If she has the right to hide her face from a full photograph on her driver's license, so should I. If I don't have that right, neither should she.
There has to be a limit. I'm changing my position. I think she should be required to have her picture taken and have it submitted to a central registry at least.
Originally posted by shetline
snip
You are allowed to wear whatever garb you desire to wear when you get your photo taken as long as you have good reason to wear it. Good reasons being 1) affordability, 2) rights garaunteed by the constitution etc. These are reasonable limitations to a law involving photo ids. It is thus unreasonable to go around complaining that since she can cover her face so should i. If you wanted to cover your face for a photo then you should have to provide good reason for it. She is not taking away a right of yours by using hers.
Originally posted by billybobsky
You are allowed to wear whatever garb you desire to wear when you get your photo taken as long as you have good reason to wear it.
Whether what you can wear includes or doesn't include something that hides most of your face is indeed what's at issue here -- so I don't think you can say that the above is absolutely true, although perhaps it is your stance that it should be true.
Also, this puts the government in the position of deciding what constitutes a "good reason" for hiding most of your face. Why should the demands of one particular flavor of Islam (not all Islamic women wear a veil, after all) be considered a "good reason" to hide most of your face, but not my hypothetical Teachings of Uular?
Good reasons being 1) affordability, 2) rights garaunteed by the constitution etc.
I would again assert that I don't see anything in the Constitution that guarantees that the government will actively facilitate a citizen's ability to follow the self-imposed mandates of their religion.
She is not taking away a right of yours by using hers.
I never said anything about my rights being taken away. My point was that she would be granted an extra right which I am not granted. If she were to win this case, she would gain a right to be more anonymous and to be less easily identifiable than I have the right to be.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
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 it's in the place of the nose. Ergo nose prosthetic.
Originally posted by shetline
Whether what you can wear includes or doesn't include something that hides most of your face is indeed what's at issue here -- so I don't think you can say that the above is absolutely true, although perhaps it is your stance that it should be true.
Fundamentally what is at issue is the length that a person's rights should be defended. In principle the defense of these rights is the leading responsibility of a government which claims to represent freedom (like a public defense attorney defending a person the state feels is guilty). In any event, it is always better to grant more freedoms than less within reason, regardless of anything (that is my belief).
Also, this puts the government in the position of deciding what constitutes a "good reason" for hiding most of your face. Why should the demands of one particular flavor of Islam (not all Islamic women wear a veil, after all) be considered a "good reason" to hide most of your face, but not my hypothetical Teachings of Uular?
The government already does this. Law enforcers have wide rights extending from just cause etc. Judicial review gives one branch of the government even more leeway on what good reasons are for a lot of things etc etc.
Good reasons being 1) affordability, 2) rights garaunteed by the constitution etc.
I would again assert that I don't see anything in the Constitution that guarantees that the government will actively facilitate a citizen's ability to follow the self-imposed mandates of their religion.
Facillitate. Hmm. Thats interesting. I enforce a law that explicitly removes the ablity of a person to practise one aspect of their religion. I would call that precisely unconstitutional.
She is not taking away a right of yours by using hers.
I never said anything about my rights being taken away. My point was that she would be granted an extra right which I am not granted. If she were to win this case, she would gain a right to be more anonymous and to be less easily identifiable than I have the right to be.
I also would say she is merely exercising her constitutional right to freedom of religion. She still must carry an id with her name on it. It is not anonymous any more than her walking into a bank and not having her face recorded. There are other identifiers on her card and it must be legitimate etc etc...
Originally posted by billybobsky
Facillitate. Hmm. Thats interesting. I enforce a law that explicitly removes the ablity of a person to practise one aspect of their religion. I would call that precisely unconstitutional.
I assume you don't have a problem with enforcing laws against polygamy? Used to be a fundamental part of many people's religion. Still is, even though it's illegal. In fact, renouncing that part of their religion was made a condition for that large group of people to become US citizens, way back when.
Originally posted by billybobsky
The government already does this. Law enforcers have wide rights extending from just cause etc. Judicial review gives one branch of the government even more leeway on what good reasons are for a lot of things etc etc.
I never said that the government and law enforcers and judges and juries don't, or shouldn't, make case-by-case value judgements. But deciding what is and is not "valid" religion is one of those things goverment should steer clear of... (although it already stupidly gets itself into that mess because of tax laws).
Facillitate. Hmm. Thats interesting. I enforce a law that explicitly removes the ablity of a person to practise one aspect of their religion. I would call that precisely unconstitutional.
I never said she shouldn't be allowed to practice any aspect of her religion. If she wants to wear a veil, fine. What constitutes facilitation is relieving her of a self-imposed hard choice: Do I drive, or do I wear they veil? That dilemma is HER dilemma, brought about by her own chosen beliefs, and I do not see any obligation on the part of the government to make this choice easier for her.
I also would say she is merely exercising her constitutional right to freedom of religion. She still must carry an id with her name on it.
But a form of ID which is inherently less useful than the form that I must carry.
It is not anonymous any more than her walking into a bank and not having her face recorded. There are other identifiers on her card and it must be legitimate etc etc...
I'd fully support a bank, if it chose to, no permitting masked customers (let's face, a veil is functionally a mask) if they wanted to institute such a policy. They probably wouldn't do so, because of the bad publicity that would certainly follow, but it should be within their rights.
What's next? If someone claims that his/her religion requires followers not to work at "earthly tasks", the government has to pay those people some theoretical wage based on a guess of what they would earn if they did work?
When you adopt a religion, you adopt a responsibility. If that religion makes some things harder on you in life, then show your conviction and face those hardships. Don't demand that the world give you special privileges to support your self-imposed limitations.
probably stems back to when facial recognition was the best way to tell people apart.
so, we use faces now...
we could use fingerprints, that wouldn't be to tough to add to a card, but then everyone has to be fingerprinted. probably not going to happen.
again, for those arguing that the govt. can't restrict religion, that's a load of crap. it happens all the time. there are a few instances where religious groups have exceptions to the rules, but usually these are in regards to a specific, short-term ceremony. (peyote comes to mind in the southwest).
we're talking about a veil that will be worn for years, all the time (in public).
if i wanted to get my ID photo taken with a ski mask on, would that be ok? what if i made it my religion? (theoretically)
for those saying she should be able to wear the veil, what do you propose for situations that call for a picture ID?
granted, she's not supposed to be drinking liquor, but she could still buy it. how is the person selling to her supposed to know if they're actually selling to the right person? if they sell to a minor, they go to jail/get fined. now she's infringing on their rights. there are a variety of instaces where ID confirmation is necessary for legal purposes, traffic stops being one of them.
what's the solution if you can't ID someone?
All this hullaballoo is about security. This country is in a time of crisis. The easy way out is to ask people make sacrifices in the name of National Security. It's nice and easy if you do your part. Agree to have some of your rights taken away so that we can be secure. That's fine and dandy, if you choose to do that.
The problem is that the justice system does not pride itself on originality. It's all about precedent in the legal world. If this woman is forced to take her veil off because the gov't needs a way to id her and this is set down in law, the precedent is set. Rights one by one can start to fall in the interest of National Security. I know that this is an extreme example, but it's not one to be taken lightly. Again, precedents rule in the justice system.
I hope to god that the people making these decisions aren't sitting thinking, "well, what the big deal? Everyone else does it." There should be some massive hand-wringing going on over this decision. Good ol' boy GW and his cronies don't do a whole lot of hand-wringing, I'm afraid. I just hope that someone in the judical branch takes this stuff more seriously than they, and many of you, do. Civic responsibility can only go so far.
Wait until your rights are stepped on. You won't like it. But what's your recourse if you support a decision to force this woman to take off her veil? The precedent has been set and you're screwed.
We're taking away her rights for convenience.
i see it as she's taking away her rights for her religion.
if i want to run around in a mask all day to praise the Aztec sun god, i wouldn't be at all surprised that in situations where ID is required, i'm screwed. you either take the mast/veil off, or you may be denied access to some areas of society.
the other problem is that people are keen on saying she should be able to wear her veil if she wants to, but i'd like to know what everyone else who requires an ID from their customers/police stops are supposed to do.