If there were a law that required everyone to be tatooed with bar codes (lets say perfectly harmless tatooing), would you all support the rights of practising Jews to not be barcoded, or does public safety and the responsibility of taking that religion provide reason enough that they should be barcoded like the rest of you, lest they be given extra rights? The point is from your arguments, Jews would have to be barcoded. And that simply does not sit well with me.
Or me, but there is a flaw in your analogy... there is no law outright requiring her to reveal her face to the camera.
There *is* a law that requires uncovered, accurate facial photography as a prerequisite for voluntarily obtaining a driver's license.
If they passed a law allowing an alternate form of definite personal ID, for anyone that wanted it, that'd be great. But right now, that's not the case... but it's still a voluntary decision to get that license.
That is absolutely crazy. You have to realize how many religions there are. It would only be unconstitutional if the government said "You can't have this privilige because you are such and such religion" or "You can only have this privilige because you are such and such religion." But, the government cannot be expected to specially deal with or even know everything around the personal religion choices of every individual American. Religion is a choice. That woman is choosing to wear that veil. That choice can carry consequences.
i disagree with that understanding of the constitution. the amendment doesn't say, "no law should be made prohibiting specific religions", it says that no law should be made prohibiting the free exercise of religions. i agree religion is a choice, in my opinion the wrong choice, but we aren't here to decide which or if any religion is right; and the government certainly doesn't have that power. a choice was made, and the government should, i think, be compelled to make arrangements for these religious people. also, i think that the freedoms given to these religious people shouldn't be just for them, anyone with any kind of gripe with fully viewable pictures should be given opportunity to have a partially covered picture taken on their id.
Quote:
Now, the law should not be created to specifically exclude certain religions. But, this is not the case here. Everyone needs to get his or her picture taken for a driver's license. It has nothing to do with religion or racism.
If this woman is allowed to wear her veil, then anyone will be able to wear a veil...including people who only wear the veil to avoid getting their picture taken.
and, i think that they should have that right too. not only for the sake of the potential religious freedom, but for freedom of speech. (as i understand it, freedom of speech doesn't just pertain to the voice, but any personal enactment of a statement)
Quote:
What if my religion says I should kill people to sacrifice them to the Sun god?
thats different, because that actually affects and inhibits others' personal freedoms. your rights end where the next person begins.
Or me, but there is a flaw in your analogy... there is no law outright requiring her to reveal her face to the camera.
There *is* a law that requires uncovered, accurate facial photography as a prerequisite for voluntarily obtaining a driver's license.
If they passed a law allowing an alternate form of definite personal ID, for anyone that wanted it, that'd be great. But right now, that's not the case... but it's still a voluntary decision to get that license.
I don't see how a veiled face could be "an uncovered, accurate facial photography " for the identification purposes.
If it is allowed as such, can someone sell me an ID card for a 5'9" tall person (female), with chinese cut blue eyes please, with the burqa covering the rest of the face? Whenever i'll need to be identified, I'll show that and tell i am just an atheist convert so my religious beliefs no longer prevent me from showing my face to anyone.
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.
if they grant her that "right" then there are lots of things wrong with it. Why not start a religion, where we cant be arrested, we cant have handcuffs on us. we dont have to obey the laws of the land??? this is actually what it boils down to. The Laws of the Land over-rule the laws of religion, and Christianity also falls under this, there are laws passed that are against biblical laws, and there will be some against jewish, mulsim,ect. Heck, why cant people have human sacrifices? if their religion approves of it, and the person being sacrificed does? it all comes down to, you have to treat everyone equally, and you cant start making exceptions for each little thing, becuse then everything will get 10 times worse.
I would never let the government touch me. We are talking about a photograph to obtain a driver's license, not a government barcode tattoo. A law delcaring such would be unconstitutional.
actually that probably would not be unconstitutional(if it is now, that may change), I see something like this coming down the pipe in the not too distant future, and I wouldnt do it if they did it, but at the same token, I would have to deal with the consequences of not doing it. It is agains t my 'biblical beliefs' but I wouldnt go to court for it to try to be treated special, I would just say, I aint doing it, if you dont like it, then punish me the way are supposed to for breaking this rule.
This is not quite as complex an issue as some would make it seem.
"Where exactly is she not meeting the same requirements for getting DL? She took the driver's test, passed the written one, and has insurance. What other requirements are there? Getting her photo made? That's also being done. The hangup is this uncovering her face. Where in the law does it say that she has to uncover her face for the photo?"
In New York state, a valid license requires a picture of your face, taken at the DMV, in which your face in unobstructed.
Other states with smaller Muslim populations may not have clarified their laws, thus leading to these kind of conflicts.
if the law requires that a person go against their religion in order to earn some privilege granted by the state, then that law, i think, is unconstitutional.
No one is requiring this woman to go against her religion. She has the right to wear her veil as much as she likes. If that veil, however, gets in the way of her being able to obtain a driver's license, then she must accept that as the self-imposed price of her beliefs.
If you think I'm imagining the solution to this dilemma is that she goes against her beliefs and removes the veil, you are incorrect. I believe the solution is that she keeps wearing her veil and that accepts that as the price of standing up for her convictions that she can't get a driver's license.
There are good reasons for requiring a valid, usable photo ID for a driver's license. Requirements for photo IDs were never motivated by any governmental assault on anyone's freedom of religion.
A law requiring a person to disrespect their religous beliefs is "prohibiting the free exercise" of that religion.
Again, no one is requiring her to disrespect her religion. Jack-booted government thugs are not going to break down her door and tear off her veil. The law doesn't require this woman to drive a car -- driving is merely a privilege which she desires to exercise. If she's not required by law to drive a car, she's not subsequently required by law to remove her veil.
The dilemma that she can't get the driver's license without removing her veil is a self-imposed dilemma, not a dilemma for which the government is responsible.
The driver's license law should be interpretted to grant access for people who aren't, by their religious beliefs, allowed to show their full face. Furthermore, if other's don't want to show their face, they should be allowed that option as well, as we all should be given equal rights.
Then it doesn't really boil down to a religious issue, does it? Either there are good reasons to require full-face photo IDs, and everyone should have to comply to get a driver's license, or the requirement isn't that important, and we all get an equal right to refuse having to pose for a full-face photo ID.
Would you want to go to the extreme of saying that any law that bumps up against any religious belief whatsoever, held by anyone anywhere, is invalid because it interferes with practice of religion, and then, just for good measure, to make sure everyone gets equal protection, those laws can't be applied to anyone else either?
There are just too many conceivable religious beliefs for such a broad interpretation to be practical. If you want to narrow "any religious belief whatsoever, held by anyone anywhere" for practical reasons, or get into deciding who has "sincere conviction" or not, I think it would weaken, not strengthen, the wall between Church and State to have the government routinely involved in judging such matters for the purpose of deciding which laws unfairly interfere the practice of religion.
To quote the First Amendment again: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
Look at that word carefully: prohibiting.
Does a law requiring a photo ID prohibit this woman from wearing a veil? No, it does not. Does such a law result in a dilemma for this woman, a tough choice? Yes, it does, but this law still does not equate to being a legal prohibition against following one's religious beliefs. Failure to accommodate and ameliorate possible negative consequences of an individual's religious choices is certainly not the same thing as prohibiting those choices.
Maybe you're attempting to be generous in your interpretation of the First Amendment, but I'd say the wording of the amendment makes your generosity unwarranted, and the ramifications of such an interpretation are far-reaching, incredibly impractical, and more likely to create Church/State entanglements than prevent them. Further, your interpretation fails to embody the notion that at some point people are responsible for the consequences of their religious convictions, just like they are for any other choices in life.
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.
This is silly. She shouldn't be allowed to obtain a driver's license in the first place, so the situation of a male police officer pulling her over wouldn't even happen. Seeing your whole face is a reasonable requirement for the issuance of a driver's license, and it's not singling out any particular religion.
my friend last night had the best suggestion. she gets two licenses. one with her in her veil to be shown to male police officers, and one with her face to be shown to female police officers. If she is pulled by a male police officer instead of taking her to the police station, they call a female police officer and proceed from there.
Why not just one license, with its own little veil?
Seriously now... your solution doesn't solve much. It requires extra manpower, extra time, and I'm sure that one of these days a veil-wearing woman would sue the police just because she thought it was unfair that she had to sit on the roadside longer than anyone else has to while waiting for a female office to be found.
Additionally, traffic jams often caused when the police pull someone over are bad enough now, while should everyone else have to suffer longer traffic jams, and a concurrent increased risk of automobile accidents, while this woman awaits a female officer?
If this were really about protecting First Amendment rights, I suppose we'd be obligated to put up with all of this craziness. But such accommodations are above and beyond the call of First Amendment obligations.
The government shouldnt do anything to prevent the free practise of a religion. While there are responsibilities of taking a religion, there are also reasonable assumptions that written laws should not prevent normal livlihoods of those that take a religion.
Should every government office set aside some low-tech office space to make sure that we don't discriminate against the Amish, with stables for their horses, and make sure that whatever low-tech jobs are available are available to the Amish, or anyone else with anti-technology beliefs?
There are many, many conceivable ways in which a person's chosen beliefs can easily run into conflict with his or her full participation in broader aspects of our society. Many religious practices are in fact designed to be a retreat from "worldliness". I see no obligation, constitutional or otherwise, to bend over backwards to alleviate the self-imposed burdens brought about by a person's self-imposed religious strictures.
It is unfair to her in the most in this regard to demand that she not follow her religion to take part in what is a normal american activity -- driving.
I would never demand that she not follow her religion. I would merely expect her to accept the consequences of her choices -- which separate her from many "normal" American activities, not just driving.
It is the laws problem to deal with this cultural aspect.
If you mean that these personal dilemmas for some believers can be relieved through legislation, I'd agree. If you said there was a constitutional obligation to solve these dilemmas, I'd disagree.
It is status quo that Catholic priests are not arrested when they give minors alcohol, but by all laws should be. However this case is different.
Oh, I'll agree that this case is different, but mostly in ways that are not in this woman's favor:
(1) Purpose of the law: Minors are not allowed alcohol because we believe (rightly or wrongly -- many Europeans would disagree) that minors aren't responsible enough to handle alcohol, and that they run too high a risk of becoming unruly or dangerous under the influence of alcohol. Small amounts of ceremonial wine will not incur any of the problems the law seeks to prevent.
Photo IDs are required so that the police have an easy way of validating a driver's identity, which relates directly to whether said driver is legally permitted to drive or not. Photo IDs (not necessarily driver's licenses) also serve many other useful purposes, both for law enforcement and law compliance -- store owners and bar owners need an easy way to make sure that they are obeying the law regarding to whom they sell their products.
Unlike allowing for ceremonial wine, exempting some people from full-face photo IDs goes completely against the purpose of the laws requiring those photos.
(2) Cost of accommodation: It costs nothing to not arrest priests for doling out tiny sips of wine to children.
It would cost a great deal to revamp ID systems and/or provide for bringing in a female officer every single time a male officer pulled over a veil-wearing woman.
She is not breaking the law.
No, she's not breaking the law by wearing a veil. But the Florida authorities aren't breaking they law either when they refuse her a driver's license. Perhaps you insist on viewing the denial of a license as some sort of punishment for not taking off her veil, but it is no such thing.
She is merely trying to exercise her rights dictated by the practise of her religion and not have her faced revealed.
Then she'd better get used to having to accept some unpleasant consequences for her choices in life. There's a great deal of room for abuse if some people are selectively allowed to avoid full-face photo IDs just by claiming religious reasons. I see no good reason to open up those doors. Even if you want to propose alternate ID systems, I'm sure people could cook up any number or religious reasons not be fingerprinted, retinally scanned, voice printed, DNA sampled, and any or all of the above. Besides, I don't see any solid constitutional reason I should have to fork over extra tax dollars to fund any of these new systems unless their are far more compelling reasons to do so.
PS: I've droned on long enough for now, but I'd glady come back later and poke holes in the bar code tatoo analogy too, if you wish.
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.
yer crazy. so if a wanted serial killer or any other criminal (trying to get a driver's license) wore sunglasses or a some other obviously phony disguise so they wouldn't be recognized, they shouldn't be questioned???:
Question: How is she going to look if she needs to use the license? She will be wearing her veil. Since most of what I hear is convienance arguments, it is only logical that it would take many more man hours to go through the rigmoral that protects her religious practise (which cannot be stepped on by any government agency because doing so establishes a defacto preference for other religions) if she doesnt look like she does when she needs to use the photo id. That is the inherent nature of a photo id, it is supposed to look like you do when you have to use it without any modifications to your features. It is also the problem of the form of id we choose. Other forms are far more accurate in the sense that people can and do look identical.
In other words it creates more work for people if she has to change her apparance everytime she uses her face containing photo id.
What is wrong with my bar code analogy. The prosecution is arguing on public safety grounds. Nothing is safer than tracking all people with barcodes. I say its the least the government can do besides completely restricting our movements all in the name of public safety.
yer crazy. so if a wanted serial killer or any other criminal (trying to get a driver's license) wore sunglasses or a some other obviously phony disguise so they wouldn't be recognized, they shouldn't be questioned???:
you know sunglasses dont as far as i know constitute a religious garb... this just continues the realization that our id system sucks...
i would be curious to see some pictures of her life during the first 29 years (as christian), and then know why she chaneged.
she was photographed without the veil in illinois, i don't know when but probably prior to 2001, for being accused of child abuse or something (one of the links i posted, page 1 or 2). neither that pic's been shown anywhere yet.
i would be curious to see some pictures of her life during the first 29 years (as christian), and then know why she chaneged.
she was photographed without the veil in illinois, i don't know when but probably prior to 2001, for being accused of child abuse or something (one of the links i posted, page 1 or 2). neither that pic's been shown anywhere yet.
Have some respect, man. She doesn't want people to see her face now. This whole license thing notwithstanding, she deserves that right. I hope no one posts pictures of her before her decision to wear the veil. That's just disrespectful.
Have some respect, man. She doesn't want people to see her face now. This whole license thing notwithstanding, she deserves that right. I hope no one posts pictures of her before her decision to wear the veil. That's just disrespectful.
So if I don't want people to see my face I can cover it up and walk around that way? Board a plane? Do my banking?
Question: How is she going to look if she needs to use the license? She will be wearing her veil.
If she sticks to her beliefs, she won't have a driver's license to use. If she sacrifices her convictions in the short term to get a license, she'd better be ready to be consistent about that and show her face to any officer who pulls her over.
Since most of what I hear is convienance arguments...
You say that as if "convenience" is a trivial thing, and isn't ever good enough a reason for any legal stance. When the opposite, inconvenience, however, is greatly burdensome to the state, and given that the state's only obligation under the Constitution protect her rights to follow her religion, not to accommodate every difficulty that her practice of religion may incur, avoiding costly inconvenience is quite good enough a reason.
Her rights to practice her religion are fully protected. Her non-existent "right" to avoid all negative consequences of her self-imposed religious beliefs is not protected, nor should it be.
...it is only logical that it would take many more man hours to go through the rigmoral that protects her religious practise (which cannot be stepped on by any government agency because doing so establishes a defacto preference for other religions)
Her rights to her religious practices are protected. She can wear her veil as much as she likes. If anything is being stepped on, she's doing the stepping by accepting an inherently burdensome restriction into her life. It is not the obligation of the state to relieve her self-imposed burdens.
If a law or other legal requirement were specifically designed to target Muslims or some other religious group, and make their lives more difficult, such laws would run counter to the First Amendment. But when a law exists for good reasons with no religious or anti-religious agenda, and that law merely results in a tough choice for some believers via some side effect, there is no conflict with the First Amendment.
if she doesnt look like she does when she needs to use the photo id. That is the inherent nature of a photo id, it is supposed to look like you do when you have to use it without any modifications to your features.
Having your photo ID look like you normally look is only (pardon the pun) part of the picture. The other major purpose of a photo ID is to look as uniquely like you do as it can. A photo ID that only shows a pair of eyes peeking out over the top of a veil is going to look too much like any other picture that just shows eyes peeking out over the top of a veil. Anyone examining such an ID would have a very hard time knowing if the ID properly belonged to the person who presented it.
It is also the problem of the form of id we choose. Other forms are far more accurate in the sense that people can and do look identical.
Perhaps other forms of ID would be better, as in potentially more accurate, but it's hard to imagine anything -- retinal scans, DNA testing, fingerprinting -- that would be practical or reasonable substitutes for a photo ID in most situations. The government and private business certainly aren't obligated under the First Amendment to make sure that every police officer, bank clerk, liquor store owner, airline security guard, or store clerk with cigarettes to cell has a fingerprint or retinal scanner on hand at all times.
In other words it creates more work for people if she has to change her apparance everytime she uses her face containing photo id.
A moot point, since I don't see her ever obtaining a photo ID if she maintains her convictions, and also because I wouldn't support any system that entailed substantially more work on anyone's part in order to accommodate her beliefs.
What is wrong with my bar code analogy. The prosecution is arguing on public safety grounds. Nothing is safer than tracking all people with barcodes.
If we're outside of the realm of constitutionally protected rights, as I believe we are here, it's a matter of law and majority public support -- the public is a long way away from ever accepting a bar code ID system, so it's not a viable alternative to pose.
I say its the least the government can do besides completely restricting our movements all in the name of public safety.
No, the least that the government could do is nothing at all: something that the government is very good at, and in this case, it's happily the right thing to do. Photo IDs, while not perfect, are a well-entrenched and quite reasonable system that is already in place. This woman's conflict with that system doesn't not stem from any prohibition against her religions, merely from a self-imposed conflict with a reasonable and constitutional law.
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.
Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
I'd say that if so many Islamic countries don't even treat a woman covering her face as such an inviolable right as to let it interfere with photo IDs, this woman doesn't have a modestly concealed and covered leg to stand on.
Lets put this simply: tHe woman needs a photo id to vote.
She should not need to sacrifice her religious views to do this constitutionally granted right.
The government is often the party that does things that aid people who are often inconvienanced, like ADA laws. The implicit present interpretation is that the government needs to do everything it can to prevent bias (in the form of inconvienance to the citizen) that inhibits some groups more than others. The state must bend to the will of those that it protects in so far as rights that have been granted and their use in day to day activities. There would be a systematic bias against Muslim women drivers if they were required to reveal their faces on photo ids. That is what I feel the 1st admendment protects against in the courts current interpretation. There may not be a right to drive, but it is an aspect of what I would call a normal day to day life for an american in the US.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
If there were a law that required everyone to be tatooed with bar codes (lets say perfectly harmless tatooing), would you all support the rights of practising Jews to not be barcoded, or does public safety and the responsibility of taking that religion provide reason enough that they should be barcoded like the rest of you, lest they be given extra rights? The point is from your arguments, Jews would have to be barcoded. And that simply does not sit well with me.
Or me, but there is a flaw in your analogy... there is no law outright requiring her to reveal her face to the camera.
There *is* a law that requires uncovered, accurate facial photography as a prerequisite for voluntarily obtaining a driver's license.
If they passed a law allowing an alternate form of definite personal ID, for anyone that wanted it, that'd be great. But right now, that's not the case... but it's still a voluntary decision to get that license.
Originally posted by AppleMaster
That is absolutely crazy. You have to realize how many religions there are. It would only be unconstitutional if the government said "You can't have this privilige because you are such and such religion" or "You can only have this privilige because you are such and such religion." But, the government cannot be expected to specially deal with or even know everything around the personal religion choices of every individual American. Religion is a choice. That woman is choosing to wear that veil. That choice can carry consequences.
i disagree with that understanding of the constitution. the amendment doesn't say, "no law should be made prohibiting specific religions", it says that no law should be made prohibiting the free exercise of religions. i agree religion is a choice, in my opinion the wrong choice, but we aren't here to decide which or if any religion is right; and the government certainly doesn't have that power. a choice was made, and the government should, i think, be compelled to make arrangements for these religious people. also, i think that the freedoms given to these religious people shouldn't be just for them, anyone with any kind of gripe with fully viewable pictures should be given opportunity to have a partially covered picture taken on their id.
Now, the law should not be created to specifically exclude certain religions. But, this is not the case here. Everyone needs to get his or her picture taken for a driver's license. It has nothing to do with religion or racism.
If this woman is allowed to wear her veil, then anyone will be able to wear a veil...including people who only wear the veil to avoid getting their picture taken.
and, i think that they should have that right too. not only for the sake of the potential religious freedom, but for freedom of speech. (as i understand it, freedom of speech doesn't just pertain to the voice, but any personal enactment of a statement)
What if my religion says I should kill people to sacrifice them to the Sun god?
thats different, because that actually affects and inhibits others' personal freedoms. your rights end where the next person begins.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Or me, but there is a flaw in your analogy... there is no law outright requiring her to reveal her face to the camera.
There *is* a law that requires uncovered, accurate facial photography as a prerequisite for voluntarily obtaining a driver's license.
If they passed a law allowing an alternate form of definite personal ID, for anyone that wanted it, that'd be great. But right now, that's not the case... but it's still a voluntary decision to get that license.
I don't see how a veiled face could be "an uncovered, accurate facial photography " for the identification purposes.
If it is allowed as such, can someone sell me an ID card for a 5'9" tall person (female), with chinese cut blue eyes please, with the burqa covering the rest of the face? Whenever i'll need to be identified, I'll show that and tell i am just an atheist convert so my religious beliefs no longer prevent me from showing my face to anyone.
Originally posted by torifile
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.
if they grant her that "right" then there are lots of things wrong with it. Why not start a religion, where we cant be arrested, we cant have handcuffs on us. we dont have to obey the laws of the land??? this is actually what it boils down to. The Laws of the Land over-rule the laws of religion, and Christianity also falls under this, there are laws passed that are against biblical laws, and there will be some against jewish, mulsim,ect. Heck, why cant people have human sacrifices? if their religion approves of it, and the person being sacrificed does? it all comes down to, you have to treat everyone equally, and you cant start making exceptions for each little thing, becuse then everything will get 10 times worse.
Originally posted by AppleMaster
I would never let the government touch me. We are talking about a photograph to obtain a driver's license, not a government barcode tattoo. A law delcaring such would be unconstitutional.
actually that probably would not be unconstitutional(if it is now, that may change), I see something like this coming down the pipe in the not too distant future, and I wouldnt do it if they did it, but at the same token, I would have to deal with the consequences of not doing it. It is agains t my 'biblical beliefs' but I wouldnt go to court for it to try to be treated special, I would just say, I aint doing it, if you dont like it, then punish me the way are supposed to for breaking this rule.
"Where exactly is she not meeting the same requirements for getting DL? She took the driver's test, passed the written one, and has insurance. What other requirements are there? Getting her photo made? That's also being done. The hangup is this uncovering her face. Where in the law does it say that she has to uncover her face for the photo?"
In New York state, a valid license requires a picture of your face, taken at the DMV, in which your face in unobstructed.
Other states with smaller Muslim populations may not have clarified their laws, thus leading to these kind of conflicts.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
if the law requires that a person go against their religion in order to earn some privilege granted by the state, then that law, i think, is unconstitutional.
No one is requiring this woman to go against her religion. She has the right to wear her veil as much as she likes. If that veil, however, gets in the way of her being able to obtain a driver's license, then she must accept that as the self-imposed price of her beliefs.
If you think I'm imagining the solution to this dilemma is that she goes against her beliefs and removes the veil, you are incorrect. I believe the solution is that she keeps wearing her veil and that accepts that as the price of standing up for her convictions that she can't get a driver's license.
There are good reasons for requiring a valid, usable photo ID for a driver's license. Requirements for photo IDs were never motivated by any governmental assault on anyone's freedom of religion.
A law requiring a person to disrespect their religous beliefs is "prohibiting the free exercise" of that religion.
Again, no one is requiring her to disrespect her religion. Jack-booted government thugs are not going to break down her door and tear off her veil. The law doesn't require this woman to drive a car -- driving is merely a privilege which she desires to exercise. If she's not required by law to drive a car, she's not subsequently required by law to remove her veil.
The dilemma that she can't get the driver's license without removing her veil is a self-imposed dilemma, not a dilemma for which the government is responsible.
The driver's license law should be interpretted to grant access for people who aren't, by their religious beliefs, allowed to show their full face. Furthermore, if other's don't want to show their face, they should be allowed that option as well, as we all should be given equal rights.
Then it doesn't really boil down to a religious issue, does it? Either there are good reasons to require full-face photo IDs, and everyone should have to comply to get a driver's license, or the requirement isn't that important, and we all get an equal right to refuse having to pose for a full-face photo ID.
Would you want to go to the extreme of saying that any law that bumps up against any religious belief whatsoever, held by anyone anywhere, is invalid because it interferes with practice of religion, and then, just for good measure, to make sure everyone gets equal protection, those laws can't be applied to anyone else either?
There are just too many conceivable religious beliefs for such a broad interpretation to be practical. If you want to narrow "any religious belief whatsoever, held by anyone anywhere" for practical reasons, or get into deciding who has "sincere conviction" or not, I think it would weaken, not strengthen, the wall between Church and State to have the government routinely involved in judging such matters for the purpose of deciding which laws unfairly interfere the practice of religion.
To quote the First Amendment again: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
Look at that word carefully: prohibiting.
Does a law requiring a photo ID prohibit this woman from wearing a veil? No, it does not. Does such a law result in a dilemma for this woman, a tough choice? Yes, it does, but this law still does not equate to being a legal prohibition against following one's religious beliefs. Failure to accommodate and ameliorate possible negative consequences of an individual's religious choices is certainly not the same thing as prohibiting those choices.
Maybe you're attempting to be generous in your interpretation of the First Amendment, but I'd say the wording of the amendment makes your generosity unwarranted, and the ramifications of such an interpretation are far-reaching, incredibly impractical, and more likely to create Church/State entanglements than prevent them. Further, your interpretation fails to embody the notion that at some point people are responsible for the consequences of their religious convictions, just like they are for any other choices in life.
Originally posted by torifile
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.
This is silly. She shouldn't be allowed to obtain a driver's license in the first place, so the situation of a male police officer pulling her over wouldn't even happen. Seeing your whole face is a reasonable requirement for the issuance of a driver's license, and it's not singling out any particular religion.
Originally posted by billybobsky
my friend last night had the best suggestion. she gets two licenses. one with her in her veil to be shown to male police officers, and one with her face to be shown to female police officers. If she is pulled by a male police officer instead of taking her to the police station, they call a female police officer and proceed from there.
Why not just one license, with its own little veil?
Seriously now... your solution doesn't solve much. It requires extra manpower, extra time, and I'm sure that one of these days a veil-wearing woman would sue the police just because she thought it was unfair that she had to sit on the roadside longer than anyone else has to while waiting for a female office to be found.
Additionally, traffic jams often caused when the police pull someone over are bad enough now, while should everyone else have to suffer longer traffic jams, and a concurrent increased risk of automobile accidents, while this woman awaits a female officer?
If this were really about protecting First Amendment rights, I suppose we'd be obligated to put up with all of this craziness. But such accommodations are above and beyond the call of First Amendment obligations.
The government shouldnt do anything to prevent the free practise of a religion. While there are responsibilities of taking a religion, there are also reasonable assumptions that written laws should not prevent normal livlihoods of those that take a religion.
Should every government office set aside some low-tech office space to make sure that we don't discriminate against the Amish, with stables for their horses, and make sure that whatever low-tech jobs are available are available to the Amish, or anyone else with anti-technology beliefs?
There are many, many conceivable ways in which a person's chosen beliefs can easily run into conflict with his or her full participation in broader aspects of our society. Many religious practices are in fact designed to be a retreat from "worldliness". I see no obligation, constitutional or otherwise, to bend over backwards to alleviate the self-imposed burdens brought about by a person's self-imposed religious strictures.
It is unfair to her in the most in this regard to demand that she not follow her religion to take part in what is a normal american activity -- driving.
I would never demand that she not follow her religion. I would merely expect her to accept the consequences of her choices -- which separate her from many "normal" American activities, not just driving.
It is the laws problem to deal with this cultural aspect.
If you mean that these personal dilemmas for some believers can be relieved through legislation, I'd agree. If you said there was a constitutional obligation to solve these dilemmas, I'd disagree.
It is status quo that Catholic priests are not arrested when they give minors alcohol, but by all laws should be. However this case is different.
Oh, I'll agree that this case is different, but mostly in ways that are not in this woman's favor:
(1) Purpose of the law: Minors are not allowed alcohol because we believe (rightly or wrongly -- many Europeans would disagree) that minors aren't responsible enough to handle alcohol, and that they run too high a risk of becoming unruly or dangerous under the influence of alcohol. Small amounts of ceremonial wine will not incur any of the problems the law seeks to prevent.
Photo IDs are required so that the police have an easy way of validating a driver's identity, which relates directly to whether said driver is legally permitted to drive or not. Photo IDs (not necessarily driver's licenses) also serve many other useful purposes, both for law enforcement and law compliance -- store owners and bar owners need an easy way to make sure that they are obeying the law regarding to whom they sell their products.
Unlike allowing for ceremonial wine, exempting some people from full-face photo IDs goes completely against the purpose of the laws requiring those photos.
(2) Cost of accommodation: It costs nothing to not arrest priests for doling out tiny sips of wine to children.
It would cost a great deal to revamp ID systems and/or provide for bringing in a female officer every single time a male officer pulled over a veil-wearing woman.
She is not breaking the law.
No, she's not breaking the law by wearing a veil. But the Florida authorities aren't breaking they law either when they refuse her a driver's license. Perhaps you insist on viewing the denial of a license as some sort of punishment for not taking off her veil, but it is no such thing.
She is merely trying to exercise her rights dictated by the practise of her religion and not have her faced revealed.
Then she'd better get used to having to accept some unpleasant consequences for her choices in life. There's a great deal of room for abuse if some people are selectively allowed to avoid full-face photo IDs just by claiming religious reasons. I see no good reason to open up those doors. Even if you want to propose alternate ID systems, I'm sure people could cook up any number or religious reasons not be fingerprinted, retinally scanned, voice printed, DNA sampled, and any or all of the above. Besides, I don't see any solid constitutional reason I should have to fork over extra tax dollars to fund any of these new systems unless their are far more compelling reasons to do so.
PS: I've droned on long enough for now, but I'd glady come back later and poke holes in the bar code tatoo analogy too, if you wish.
Originally posted by torifile
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?
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.
yer crazy. so if a wanted serial killer or any other criminal (trying to get a driver's license) wore sunglasses or a some other obviously phony disguise so they wouldn't be recognized, they shouldn't be questioned???:
In other words it creates more work for people if she has to change her apparance everytime she uses her face containing photo id.
What is wrong with my bar code analogy. The prosecution is arguing on public safety grounds. Nothing is safer than tracking all people with barcodes. I say its the least the government can do besides completely restricting our movements all in the name of public safety.
Originally posted by burningwheel
yer crazy. so if a wanted serial killer or any other criminal (trying to get a driver's license) wore sunglasses or a some other obviously phony disguise so they wouldn't be recognized, they shouldn't be questioned???:
you know sunglasses dont as far as i know constitute a religious garb... this just continues the realization that our id system sucks...
she was photographed without the veil in illinois, i don't know when but probably prior to 2001, for being accused of child abuse or something (one of the links i posted, page 1 or 2). neither that pic's been shown anywhere yet.
Originally posted by Giaguara
i would be curious to see some pictures of her life during the first 29 years (as christian), and then know why she chaneged.
she was photographed without the veil in illinois, i don't know when but probably prior to 2001, for being accused of child abuse or something (one of the links i posted, page 1 or 2). neither that pic's been shown anywhere yet.
Have some respect, man. She doesn't want people to see her face now. This whole license thing notwithstanding, she deserves that right. I hope no one posts pictures of her before her decision to wear the veil. That's just disrespectful.
Originally posted by torifile
Have some respect, man. She doesn't want people to see her face now. This whole license thing notwithstanding, she deserves that right. I hope no one posts pictures of her before her decision to wear the veil. That's just disrespectful.
So if I don't want people to see my face I can cover it up and walk around that way? Board a plane? Do my banking?
The point of the veil IS NOT to be anonymous.
Originally posted by Scott
If this women weren't muslim would people care so much?
As was pointed out in the articles I read, no one cared before 9.11.
On another note, it's probably already been mentioned here (I'm not interested wnough to read the whole thread), but CNN had this interesting list:
Driver?s identification rules in Muslim nations:
Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.
Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Originally posted by billybobsky
Question: How is she going to look if she needs to use the license? She will be wearing her veil.
If she sticks to her beliefs, she won't have a driver's license to use. If she sacrifices her convictions in the short term to get a license, she'd better be ready to be consistent about that and show her face to any officer who pulls her over.
Since most of what I hear is convienance arguments...
You say that as if "convenience" is a trivial thing, and isn't ever good enough a reason for any legal stance. When the opposite, inconvenience, however, is greatly burdensome to the state, and given that the state's only obligation under the Constitution protect her rights to follow her religion, not to accommodate every difficulty that her practice of religion may incur, avoiding costly inconvenience is quite good enough a reason.
Her rights to practice her religion are fully protected. Her non-existent "right" to avoid all negative consequences of her self-imposed religious beliefs is not protected, nor should it be.
...it is only logical that it would take many more man hours to go through the rigmoral that protects her religious practise (which cannot be stepped on by any government agency because doing so establishes a defacto preference for other religions)
Her rights to her religious practices are protected. She can wear her veil as much as she likes. If anything is being stepped on, she's doing the stepping by accepting an inherently burdensome restriction into her life. It is not the obligation of the state to relieve her self-imposed burdens.
If a law or other legal requirement were specifically designed to target Muslims or some other religious group, and make their lives more difficult, such laws would run counter to the First Amendment. But when a law exists for good reasons with no religious or anti-religious agenda, and that law merely results in a tough choice for some believers via some side effect, there is no conflict with the First Amendment.
if she doesnt look like she does when she needs to use the photo id. That is the inherent nature of a photo id, it is supposed to look like you do when you have to use it without any modifications to your features.
Having your photo ID look like you normally look is only (pardon the pun) part of the picture. The other major purpose of a photo ID is to look as uniquely like you do as it can. A photo ID that only shows a pair of eyes peeking out over the top of a veil is going to look too much like any other picture that just shows eyes peeking out over the top of a veil. Anyone examining such an ID would have a very hard time knowing if the ID properly belonged to the person who presented it.
It is also the problem of the form of id we choose. Other forms are far more accurate in the sense that people can and do look identical.
Perhaps other forms of ID would be better, as in potentially more accurate, but it's hard to imagine anything -- retinal scans, DNA testing, fingerprinting -- that would be practical or reasonable substitutes for a photo ID in most situations. The government and private business certainly aren't obligated under the First Amendment to make sure that every police officer, bank clerk, liquor store owner, airline security guard, or store clerk with cigarettes to cell has a fingerprint or retinal scanner on hand at all times.
In other words it creates more work for people if she has to change her apparance everytime she uses her face containing photo id.
A moot point, since I don't see her ever obtaining a photo ID if she maintains her convictions, and also because I wouldn't support any system that entailed substantially more work on anyone's part in order to accommodate her beliefs.
What is wrong with my bar code analogy. The prosecution is arguing on public safety grounds. Nothing is safer than tracking all people with barcodes.
If we're outside of the realm of constitutionally protected rights, as I believe we are here, it's a matter of law and majority public support -- the public is a long way away from ever accepting a bar code ID system, so it's not a viable alternative to pose.
I say its the least the government can do besides completely restricting our movements all in the name of public safety.
No, the least that the government could do is nothing at all: something that the government is very good at, and in this case, it's happily the right thing to do. Photo IDs, while not perfect, are a well-entrenched and quite reasonable system that is already in place. This woman's conflict with that system doesn't not stem from any prohibition against her religions, merely from a self-imposed conflict with a reasonable and constitutional law.
Originally posted by giant (as a quote from CNN)
Driver?s identification rules in Muslim nations:
Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.
Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
I'd say that if so many Islamic countries don't even treat a woman covering her face as such an inviolable right as to let it interfere with photo IDs, this woman doesn't have a modestly concealed and covered leg to stand on.
She should not need to sacrifice her religious views to do this constitutionally granted right.
The government is often the party that does things that aid people who are often inconvienanced, like ADA laws. The implicit present interpretation is that the government needs to do everything it can to prevent bias (in the form of inconvienance to the citizen) that inhibits some groups more than others. The state must bend to the will of those that it protects in so far as rights that have been granted and their use in day to day activities. There would be a systematic bias against Muslim women drivers if they were required to reveal their faces on photo ids. That is what I feel the 1st admendment protects against in the courts current interpretation. There may not be a right to drive, but it is an aspect of what I would call a normal day to day life for an american in the US.