[sig970]

I was reading this article on Yahoo about a muslim woman refusing to take her veil off for her drivers license, and it just started the wheels turning. As I look down at my Drivers license and CCL, I personally feel that a picture is needed. Example: how do the police know it's her at a traffic stop? What if she is OK'd for the drivers license, and then wants a CCL? What if I didn't have a picture on mine, lost them, and then someone else started using them?
It just brings up questions of public safety vs. a national picture ID registry. Are our pictures absolutely necessary on all of the ID we have. We don't have a picture on our Social Security Card, but then that is not license to operate something, like a vehicle, or to carry a handgun. What is she wants to buy tabacco or alcohol? How would you know it's her?

Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out there.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Religion_News

[CZ-100]

Crap like this make me sad to live in Florida....:fire: Hopefully the judge will see through this smoke screen and through this out. :fire:

[Sheslinger]

She could not take the veil off in front of another man (but her husband) when pulled over anyway, so what's the point?

Sheslinger

[Erik]

Yes. An individual's right to express religious beliefs via wearing a veil does not supercede the public's right to safety.

Veil wearing women should be photographed. When feasable and convenient, female officers should be called on to make the ID.

When it is not, off with the veil.

[Double Naught Spy]

The picture on the ID is not for safety of anything, but as a means to be able to tie that ID with the person to which it belongs. The card won't work as a form of ID if you can't substantiate that the person pictured on the card is the one presenting the card. Without a picture or without the face being shown in the picture, the card loses its value as a functioning form of ID or to substantiate that it belongs to the person presenting it.

The Florida case is pure crap as near as I can tell. As most states will tell you, driving is not a right, but a priveledge. If you want to drive, you must have a DL and obey all the rules pertaining to the DL and operation of a vehicle. DLs require a picture. If the woman feels that it is a violation of her religion to show her face on her DL, then she can either opt not to get a DL. That is her choice.

Think about it. Say you get into an accident with somebody who decides they don't want their face on their DL and the accident is the fault of the other driver. You get presented with their identification, only you have no way of knowing if it is really theirs since you can't match the DL with the person who presented it to you. Maybe it is theirs, maybe not. How about for check cashing or buying a firearm?

[El Tejon]

sig, what's the big deal? Don't have a photo on my LTCH. Don't understand the fuss in other state's about having it on it. It's no BFD here.

I believe the State of Florida will prevail as to the operator's license.

[JohnBT]

I guess they could put her fingerprint on the license...or a snapshot of her butt. Can I say butt here?

John

[Tamara]

Yes. An individual's right to express religious beliefs via wearing a veil does not supercede the public's right to safety.

What does supercede the public's right to safety?

[longeyes]

This case should never be anywhere near a court. We have reached a point of absurdity. The Koran does not trump civil law in this country. And, no, we don't need interpreters of Islam to run interference on this one, ACLU.

[Mikul]

Let's just eliminate driver's licences and CCP's and start punishing people for doing harm instead of not having their papers in order.

[longeyes]

The protections in the BOR supersede "public safety," but, as you know, driving a vehicle on a public highway isn't one of those.

Mikul, we can eliminate "papers" when we eliminate the transfer of wealth we refer to as public benefits and entitlements. Don't hold your breath.

[Seminole]

The protections in the BOR supersede "public safety," but, as you know, driving a vehicle on a public highway isn't one of those.

The BOR doesn't mention "driving a vehicle on a public highway" but the Ninth Amendment states that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The fact that a right is not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist because the purpose of the Constitution is to set forth what the government may do--not what the citizens may do.

The question we ought to be asking is "why does the state forbid us from driving without its permission on a road our money (taken from us at gunpoint, by the way--but that is another matter) helps pay for?" What does public mean--owned by the public or owned by the government?

[Sergeant Bob]

The Koran does not trump civil law in this country.

Unfortunately, neither does the Constitution.:(

[cuchulainn]

An individual's right to express religious beliefs via wearing a veil does not supercede the public's right to safety. :scrutiny: Please explain -- be specific:

A) What "safety" the photo secures.

B) Why this "safety" is so vital as to trump the First Amendment.


****

Seminole's points are on target.

[Dannyboy]

Some states offer non-picture DL's, does Florida? If all she wants it for is to drive, give her one of those. If she wants an ID then she needs to make the concession. An ID isn't really an ID without a picture, is it?

[cuchulainn]

An ID isn't really an ID without a picture, is it? To paraphrase The Graduate: I have one word for you son, biometrics.

[BrokenPaw]

An ID isn't really an ID without a picture, is it? All a picture Driver's License proves (from an ID standpoint) is that someone with access to a given birth certificate and SS card showed up at a DMV office and had his or her picture taken.

I can get a copy of my Birth certificate from the state where I was born, simply by asking for it. So could anyone else. Anyone with my birth certificate could (for a $5 fee) get a "replacement" SS card. Anyone with my birth certificate and my SS card could go to the Virginia DMV and get a driver's license with my info on it, and with their picture. So what does a photo DL prove? It proves that the person holding the card is the person who took the tests at DMV; it doesn't prove that they're who they say they are.

In some states, it's even easier. South Carolina, for instance, will accept an old family Bible as a valid form of ID, in lieu of a birth certificate. This is presumably a holdover from the days when births were not regularly recorded by city hall, but were generally written down as an annotation in the front few pages of the family's Bible.

-BjustlookatthepictureofficerP

[Dannyboy]

That comment was said somewhat facetiously but I see your points.
I was really just thinking about the face matching the pic and not the rest of the card. Besides, without going into microchips embedded under the skin, retinal scanners or other impractical methods of instant identification, picture ID's are the best thing going right now, AFAIK. Sure, they can be faked but so can fingerprints.

[Boats]

DLs used to not have pictures. My father had one without a picture issued by the PRK before it went communist.

[Tamara]

The protections in the BOR supersede "public safety," but, as you know, driving a vehicle on a public highway isn't one of those.

Ever wonder what the license plate number on Paul Revere's horse was? ;)

[cuchulainn]

Besides, without going into microchips embedded under the skin, retinal scanners or other impractical methods of instant identification, picture ID's are the best thing going right now, AFAIK. As of last October, all newly issued "Border Crossing Cards" (for legal day workers) at the Mexican border have included biometric fingerprint scans.

Last fall, Heathrow airport in London ran a successful test whereby certified frequent business flyers from New York on British Air and Atlantic got around customs lines by going to an iris-scan station (EyeTicket's) .

That's just a tiny taste.

It's not sci-fi, and it's closer than you think.

[cuchulainn]

Ever wonder what the license plate number on Paul Revere's horse was? 2IFBYC?

[Erik]

"What does supercede the public's right to safety?"

Most rights, virtually all of the time.

Lets take it the other way, though:

"What does supercede the individual's rights to (whatever)."

Why those few things deemed reasonable by the Judiciary Branch. (Granted a debatable point. But they set up the system, now didn't they.) Just like the Founders ment it to be. You know, the Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Excecutive Branch enforces them, and the Judiciary Interprets them.

Which is why inciting violence, yelling "fire," libel, slander, and child pornography are exceptions to the First Amendment. (The Amendment I'd wager most Americans hold first and foremest, and not becasue of its number.)

It also happens to be why liberal politicians and their allies cite the "public good" so often when attacking the Second Amendment's protection of whatever flavor of the month gun legislation they are trying to set forth. A good strategy on their part, may they choke on it some day with a Supreme Court ruling comes down in our favor.

[cuchulainn]

Which is why inciting violence, yelling "fire," libel, slander, and child pornography are exceptions to the First Amendment. (The Amendment I'd wager most Americans hold first and foremest, and not becasue of its number.)

OK, while those are specific examples, they do not pertain to the drivers license question at hand.

You implied that the photos protect the "public's right to safety," which covers everything from keeping the sidewalks swept to Strategic Defense Initiative. You need to be more specific.

So, I'll ask again:

A) What specific "safety" to the photos protect?
Hint: here you give a specific danger the photos protect against like "Drivers license photos keep the Killer Bees from moving farther north."

B) Why is this specific "safety" is so vital as to trump the First Amendment?
Hint: here you write something like, "Killer Bees threaten to kill us all, so this women would be dead and her veil wearing religious choice would be moot!"

[SkunkApe]

I can get a copy of my Birth certificate from the state where I was born, simply by asking for it. So could anyone else. Anyone with my birth certificate could (for a $5 fee) get a "replacement" SS card. Anyone with my birth certificate and my SS card could go to the Virginia DMV and get a driver's license with my info on it, and with their picture. - Broken Paw


I already did that. (How'd you know?)

[longeyes]

So if I can only use my right hand to drive, for religious reasons of course, that's okay too, protected by the First Amendment?

:D

[longeyes]

Okay, let the prospective driver pick the fool-proof means of identification that he or she chooses? How does that grab ya?

Why do we need identification? So that when you leave me a paraplegic I know who to sue, that's why. And why you need to have insurance.

[cuchulainn]

Okay, let the prospective driver pick the fool-proof means of identification that he or she chooses? How does that grab ya? Look, I actually have no problem with photo drivers licenses. And, hey, maybe they actually do protect a vital public safety that I'm not aware of. I'm just asking someone to tell me what that public safety is.

Why do we need identification? So that when you leave me a paraplegic I know who to sue, that's why. And why you need to have insurance. OK, you just explained how photo drivers licenses theoretically facilitate lawsuits, and while it's certaintly debatable whether the need to facilitate lawsuits is more important than the 1A, I'm not goint to get into that.

The question at hand is how a photo drivers license protects a "public right to safety" so vital that it trumps the 1A.

We haven't even learned what that public safety is.

[longeyes]

Would you mind spelling out the 1A problem here? Florida isn't stopping this woman from practicing her religion. There is no law that says Moslems can't drive cars in Florida. Nor are Muslims being asked to do anything that is not being asked of all other citizens who wish to drive automobiles in Florida. And this is not about denial of her freedom of speech but rather about her unwillingness to "speak." Perhaps you mean to find a right of privacy (9A?) that gives her the right to be free of governmental intrusion as regards her identity altogether? It might be hard to find a precedent for that, don't you think, especially since she has no doubt already voluntarily given up that right numerous times before?

[Seminole]

Longeyes:
Would you mind spelling out the 1A problem here? Florida isn't stopping this woman from practicing her religion.

Well, I'm no expert in Islam, but according to this report (http://news.tbo.com/news/MGAME2I67GD.html) the woman's lawyer stated his client believes that taking a photograph of her face would violate the Koran, the Muslim holy book. "She believes her religion prohibits taking pictures of facial features.''


Furthermore, Other courts have ruled that fundamentalist Christians who also have religious prohibitions against having their photographs taken can get licenses without one.

I'm not so concerned with the First Ammendment issues here, however as I am with why the state is so concerned with getting her picture. They initially issued her a driver's license without a picture, something that they would surely not have done had there been a true public safety issue (such as you have yet to give an example of). Furthermore, other states issue licenses without pictures--again, something I doubt they would do if photographs were truly necessary for "public safety" (whatever THAT is).

[Delmar]

Well, lesse here. She is apparently married, and if she was married in the US, they took a blood sample to make sure she doesn't have the nuclear heebeejeebies-pretty severe compared to having your picture taken I think. And if she is a true muslim-why is she wanting to drive a car in the first place? Fundamentalist muslim countries I have been to do not allow women to operate a car at any time. If she comes to my place of business and writes a check or slaps down plastic-I wanna see a matching face with a photo ID-or she better have cash. Period.

and what does a muslim high school yearbook picture look like;)

[Jim Diver]

Shoud she have a license?? NO!! Why? Simple. She obviously plans to drive with that burqa on so her vision would be impaired. She would be a hazzard to all drivers..

Second, this lady is a scum bag. She refused to allow police to check her kid for signs of abuse sighting religious reasons.... She did not have a problem getting photographed when she was arrested in 1998 for domestic violence...

She is a loser. Nothing more.
:cuss:

[longeyes]

To me this case is a clear instance of one religious group attempting to extort special privileges not available to other groups and to assert the transcendency of religious beliefs over civil law. I don't see it as a 1A issue at all. As for the ACLU their current agenda seems to lie not in protecting individual liberties so much as shattering any cultural cohesion still remaining in the United States. I'll leave it to the members of this forum to decide why they might want to do that.

There are a couple of "public safety" issues here. One involves positive identification after a vehicular accident. Another, increasingly important, is that driver's licenses are used to verify identity for voting.

[cuchulainn]

longeyes: There are a couple of "public safety" issues here. One involves positive identification after a vehicular accident. Another, increasingly important, is that driver's licenses are used to verify identity for voting. Please explain:

1) How either is a public safety issue. Sorry, simply applying the adjective "public safety issue" to something doesn't make it so.

2) Why these as-yet-unexplained "public safety issues" are so vital as to trump the First Amendment.longeyes: To me this case is a clear instance of one religious group attempting to extort special privileges not available to other groups and to assert the transcendency of religious beliefs over civil law. Yeah! Didja hear that the Christians are transcending civil law and EVERY SINGLE WEEK are giving gradeschoolers the single-most abused drug-of-addiction in America -- alcohol? If ever there was a vital "public safety" law, this prohibition against giving alcohol to kids is one. I think I'm going to turn in my priest.

BTW: That bit about "make no law...prohibiting the free exercize therof [religion]" means that religious beliefs DO transcend civil law. That's why we don't arrest priests for weekly violating the laws against giving alcohol to minors. That's why schools don't punish Jewish boys for DAILY violations of the rules against wearing hats inside school. That's why Muslim girls get to keep their faces covered in schools that prohibit covered faces so teacher and administors can readily identify students. Indeed, in my state and many others (due to KKK activity a century ago) it is against the law to appear in public with your face covered (*). But I see Muslim women violating this law all the time with impunity. The Horror!

(*) Except at certain once-religious holidays like Halloween and Mardi Gras ... yes those too are religious exceptions to a civil law put in place for "public safety." Delmar: and if she was married in the US, they took a blood sample to make sure she doesn't have the nuclear heebeejeebies-pretty severe compared to having your picture taken I think. I was married in the U.S. (twice) and never had a blood sample taken. But what does that have to do with this topic?Delmar: And if she is a true muslim-why is she wanting to drive a car in the first place? Fundamentalist muslim countries I have been to do not allow women to operate a car at any time. Yes, the Muslim nations are a bit behind the West in women's rights. What does that have to do with anything? Christian countries used to prohibit women from doing all kinds of things. Does that mean 18th Century Christian women who voted in one nation were out of line because other Christian nations prohibitied women from voting? That's the same logic you used.Jim Diver: She obviously plans to drive with that burqa on so her vision would be impaired. She would be a hazzard to all drivers..As any truck driver knows, side mirrors are vital when your rear and side vision is impaired. I'll go along with a prohibition against her driving a vehicle without mirrors on both sides. Nonetheless, that has absolutely nothing to do with her photo once she and her vehicle are road-legal.Jim Diver: Second, this lady is a scum bag. She refused to allow police to check her kid for signs of abuse sighting religious reasons.... Illogical ad hominem. She may very well be a scum bag, but her being wrong on point A) (checking her kid) does not make her wrong on point B) (license photo).Jim Diver: She did not have a problem getting photographed when she was arrested in 1998 for domestic violence... You know that for sure, huh? Just because she had her picture taken does not mean she had no problem with it.Jim Diver: She is a loser. Nothing more. I'm sorry, I missed the part of the First Amendment where losers lose their rights. (Oh I get it, they're losers of their rights!)

[Smoke]

This is NOT a 1st ammendment issue. No one is denying her, her religous freedom. It is perfectly OK for the state to say "If you want to drive a car, you have to have a photo I.D."

Thats it. THe right to drive a car is not mentioned in the BoR. If it offends her to have her photo taken, ride the bus. Another issue here not addressed is the fact that she converted to Islam. She was born and raised in the US and I think this is an issue that she is trying to prove how devoted she may be, but is in fact insulting every other Muslim that has had their picture taken.

If she chooses to make the journey to Mecca she will have to have her photo taken for passports. Is it OK then?

Every traditionally Islamic nation; EVERY ONE; requires photo I.D.'s to drive a car and on Passports.

This woman needs to just go away. And the state should and I beleive will prevail.

my $.02

[cuchulainn]

Smoke: It is perfectly OK for the state to say "If you want to drive a car, you have to have a photo I.D." Indeed, it is perfectly OK for the state to say, "You may not give alcohol to children" (and all 50 do AFAIK). Yet we don't arrest priests for weekly violating those laws. It is perfectly OK for the state to say "If you want to walk on the sidewalk, your face must be uncovered" (and many do including mine). Yet we don't arrest Muslim women for violating those laws.

[cuchulainn]

Smoke: THe right to drive a car is not mentioned in the BoR. Yes it is, just not by name ;)

[longeyes]

I think it's apparent that your views of what constitutes public safety need to be explained. I think we have every right to ensure the integrity of our voting system. You can call that public safety, self-defense, or national security, I don't care.

I am aware that we have granted exemptions for various religious groups against civil law. In that lies the dilemma that may eventually rock this Republic. I guess it depends on whether you value a Constitutional Republic built on law or would prefer a constellation of religious communities each following its own lights.

The Framers anchored the 2A in a natural right. To encourage religious primacy against civil law takes us to the inevitable question, bound to arise more and more frequently in the New America, "Uh, and whose God is that, Sir?"

Please explain why a Muslim woman insisting on not providing a photo is a 1A issue.

[longeyes]

Where folly like this, with Koranic exegetes becoming advisors and expert witnesses, will take us isn't pretty. Look ahead and you'll see a potential scenario of Christian taxpayers levying extra tolls on Muslim drivers using highways funded largely with non-Muslim dollars. Is that the America you want? Well, we're getting it, with the increasing fragmentation of society into fundamentally separatist enclaves trying to not only be left alone but, rather, to assert their hegemony over other groups. If you want an America of warlords and tribes, you'll have it in another generation.

And maybe THAT will qualify as a "public safety" issue.

[cuchulainn]

Longeyes,

Thank you for conceding that there is absolutely no "public safety" need whatsoever for photos on drivers licenses.

longeyes: I think we have every right to ensure the integrity of our voting system. So issue special voter ID cards and accomodate Muslim women by having their voting IDs checked by women. That has absolutely nothing to do with drivers licenses. (The new voting laws stiputate photo IDs, not photo drivers licenses)

And as explained above by Broken Paw, it is laughable to suggest that drivers licenses actually assure identity, so using DLs to ensure the integrity of our voting system is flawed on its face.longeyes: I am aware that we have granted exemptions for various religious groups against civil law. In that lies the dilemma that may eventually rock this Republic. I guess it depends on whether you value a Constitutional Republic built on law or would prefer a constellation of religious communities each following its own lights. So you are saying that the framers were flawed in exempting religious acts from the control of civil law? Why will the Constitutional Republic fall if we follow the very Constitution that Republic is founded upon? Why is violating the Constitution vital to preserving the Constitution?

As well, you have no problem with the cops raiding churches this Sunday and arresting priests for giving alcohol to minors? longeyes: To encourage religious primacy against civil law takes us to the inevitable question, bound to arise more and more frequently in the New America, "Uh, and whose God is that, Sir?" Why do you have a problem with the Framers placing religious beliefs above civil law (e.g. exempting them from civil law)? Why were Madison, Jefferson et al. mistaken in exempting religiouis beliefs from civil law? Again, why is violating the Constitution they wrote vital to preserving that Constitution?longeyes: Please explain why a Muslim woman insisting on not providing a photo is a 1A issue. 1) The 1A stipulates that there shall be no laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.

2) Therefore a law that violates her free exercise of religion violates the First Amendment.

3) Her religious belief is that she must not remove her veil in front of men.

4) Thus, not removing her veil in front of men is part of her "free exercise" of religion.

5) The law would make her remove her veil for cops at traffic stops. Most cops are men. So there is a good chance she would be forced to violate her "free exercise" of religion (*).

5b) Most DMV photos are taken in public rooms, meaning she would have to unveil in public just to get the photo taken. This too would violate her "free exercise" of religion(**).

(*) Incidentally, the state could deal with this by having a special procedure for checking the IDs of Muslim women, much like the special procedures they have for body searches of all women.

(**) See (*)

[cuchulainn]

Look ahead and you'll see a potential scenario of Christian taxpayers levying extra tolls on Muslim drivers using highways funded largely with non-Muslim dollars. Is that the America you want? Well, we're getting it, with the increasing fragmentation of society into fundamentally separatist enclaves trying to not only be left alone but, rather, to assert their hegemony over other groups. If you want an America of warlords and tribes, you'll have it in another generation.

And maybe THAT will qualify as a "public safety" issue.

Hogwash.

It is utterly illogical to suggest that

A) Exempting the religious practice of a minority (Muslims)

will

B) Lead to persecution of that minority.


"We need to violate your rights now so that you will not be persecuted later on a matter utterly unrelated to our current violation of your rights." :rolleyes:

Edited to add: That is precisely the thinking of the ACLU when they work to forbid "Christmas concerts" at public schools.

[longeyes]

Hogwash, Sir? We shall see, we shall see. People resent special treatment. It's basic. We have a lot of groups that are demanding special treatment these days. Not fair treatment, special treatment. If you think there isn't a groundswell of resentment about this, put your ear to the ground.

It's interesting to know that you believe that religious practices, when they affect those not belonging to that religion, somehow trump civil law. Is that what you think the Framers, mostly lawyers, envisioned? Hogwash.

[cuchulainn]

Longeyes,

So you are in agreement with the ACLU? After all, you are using their arguments about "hegmony" of one religious group over another.

It's interesting to know that you believe that religious practices, when they affect those not belonging to that religion, somehow trump civil law. Yes. And so did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson et al.

Short history lesson: The European nations wanted to have a "single society" and saw varied religions as threatening the same type of "chaos" that you and the ACLU envision. Thus they enacted civil laws that forbad people from exercising their religions (and they did worse).

Therefore, the purpose of the religion clause of the 1A was to stop civil laws that kept people from exercising their religions.

You are saying this is wrong. You are arguing that the First Amendment is flawed and should be ignored.

[jmbg29]

his client believes that taking a photograph of her face would violate the Koran, the Muslim holy book. "She believes her religion prohibits taking pictures of facial features.''If that is the case, then "his client" is most likely on crack. Photographs were invented more than 1,000 years after the Koran was written.

For those who say that religion trumps everything, how about this? My religion causes me to believe that every federal, state, county, and municipal treasury in the United States is required to give me all of its money by noon Pacific time.

You wouldn't dare let the gubmint violate my "religious" rights, correct? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;Since when is the state of Florida "Congress" BTW?

[Tamara]

If that is the case, then "his client" is most likely on crack. Photographs were invented more than 1,000 years after the Koran was written.

FWIW, representations of people, animals, plants, and other created things are taken to be "graven images" under some of the stricter interpretations of the Koran. This is why so much art in Islamic territories from back in the day is geometric or abstract patterns.

Christianity went through this at times in the past, too. It was called iconoclasm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm).

[cuchulainn]

For those who say that religion trumps everything, how about this? This is called missing the point.

No one said religion trumps everything. There are laws against human sacrifices and those laws probably violate some American's religious beliefs.

But the "No human sacrifice" laws are acceptible because they are actual public safety laws so vital that it is legitimate to exempt the laws from following the First Amendment.

Now, what is the argment for exempting DL photos from the First Amendment? What is the issue so vital that it supercedes the proscription of civil laws that stop free exercise of religion?

Got it?

A) The state must justify violating the First Amendment

B) The bar must be VERY HIGH -- you can't murder people based on religious freedom.

If that is the case, then "his client" is most likely on crack. Photographs were invented more than 1,000 years after the Koran was written. Perhaps (I don't know), the Koran speaks of not making "images" of women. That would apply no matter the technology, I assume.

(Kind of like the 1A applies to the internet despite the internet not being invented until 200+ years later ;) )

[cuchulainn]

Since when is the state of Florida "Congress" BTW? Since the 1860s when the 14th Amendment was ratified. You understand encorporation, yes? Jim March can give you a really good lesson on how it is vital to your RKBA.

[Delmar]

cuchulainn

Ever put on a burkha?

[cuchulainn]

No burkhas, but I have driven a truck where my rear vision was absolutely non existent without side mirrors and my vision left and right were severely restricted and required the side mirrors. I did this without any special training or licensing (rental).

A burkha restricts vision no more severely.

But that changes the subject to whether she should have a license at all. The subject is whether she must get get a photo -- presumably she and her vehicle satisfy state-mandated safety requirements.

And guess what, I had a photo license in my pocket at the time. Somehow, it didn't improve my view of the road.

[longeyes]

The woman's right to practice her religion is not being abridged. Her privilege to drive is, justifiably.

Sometimes I agree with the ACLU, sometimes I don't. Increasingly I don't.

This is not about having a "single society" it is about having a society, period. People in society agree to play by certain rules that affect all. We seem to have some people who can't play with others. They should form their own societies--and stay off the road.

[cuchulainn]

Longeyes,

Yes, I understand that you think the religion clause of the First Amendment is dangerous to "society." You're simply repeating your position without further explaining it.

[longeyes]

Tell me, if you would, do you believe in any licensing procedures at all? They all rest on some interpretation of public safety/protection. Law? Medicine?

[Delmar]

cuchulainn

Never wore a burkha, but you leap to the assumption. Very nice.

My point is that she will not remove it to have a photo ID, then its unlikely she will remove it to drive-that makes her a danger to everyone else on the road. If she needs state ID for whatever reason and they have an alternate way of identifying the applicant, so much the better for her, but if she is going to operate a vehicle on a public highway, the veil needs to come off because it WILL restrict her vision severely.

Personally, I do not care that she does not want to show her face-not my pig, and not my farm. I do take issue with the fact that most of her peripherial vision is taken away.

[cuchulainn]

Longeyes: Her privilege to drive is, justifiably. You have failed to provide a justification for restricting anything -- privilege or rightLongeyes: Tell me, if you would, do you believe in any licensing procedures at all? They all rest on some interpretation of public safety/protection. Law? Medicine? The implication behind your question is called a false dichotomy -- either I agree with all licensing procedures no matter if they violate the First Amendment or I am utterly opposed to all licensing.

BTW, do lawyers and doctors require photo IDs to practice? ;)

[cuchulainn]

Delmar: My point is that she will not remove it to have a photo ID, then its unlikely she will remove it to drive-that makes her a danger to everyone else on the road. Yes, I understood your point, and I responded with my point about mirrors.

Please explain how burkhas restrict vision to a degree greater than the vision impairments of truck drivers? Until you do, it is you jumping to conclusions.Delmar: I do take issue with the fact that most of her peripherial vision is taken away Ever drive a truck?Never wore a burkha, but you leap to the assumption. Very nice. Tell me, what was it like when you wore a burkha?

[longeyes]

I explained my point. To live together in society we form a compact in which we all give up something. The idea is not to give up anything essential you don't have to and to make sure that the common good is worth the sacrifice of what is surrendered. We bind ourselves voluntarily.

No one is restricting this woman's right or ability to practice her religion.

And whether wearing a burqa, veil, or other mode of attire goes in fact to the hart of the Islamic practice remains to be seen, in any case.

[cuchulainn]

No one is restricting this woman's right or ability to practice her religion. Yep, she is free to practice her religion as long as she obeys laws that violate her religious beliefs. :rolleyes:

This is really starting to remind me of a debate I had with agricola the other week. "The right to silence has not been abridged in the U.K. You can still chose to be silent, but if you are, that can be used against you in court" Or so agricola argued.

No Communion wine for you kiddies! We wouldn't want to rend the very fabric of our Constitutional Republic by exempting some religious acts from civil law. What were the founders thinking, anyway! Sheesh!

[longeyes]

You need to read my statements more carefully.

The last time I heard arguments like these it was from some of my Jesuit preceptors. You would make a good ecclesiastical lawyer. Don't assume that's a compliment.

We are dancing a tired dance here. I gave you several reasons why a reliable ID, photo or no photo, is justified.

What underlies all of this is that the Islamic faith--and it is not unique--posits the primacy of religious law in all things. I think we can expect more of this friction in the future. It would not be the first time in American history that the secular and religious clashed.

Frankly, in my state of California what we are seeing is the gradual implementation of a Catholic State (albeit in the liberation theology mold), with the expected impact on fiscal well-being and individual freedoms.

[cuchulainn]

longeyes: I gave you several reasons why a reliable ID, photo or no photo, is justified. Yes and I responed to those. A photo on a DL is not neccessary to those needs. And DLs are not good sources of ID anyway. But we are getting into the debate of whether DLs should be defacto universal IDs, and that changes the subject from whether this woman must get her picture taken to drive a car.

OK, so her non-photo DL would not work at the voting booth. So what? That is irrellevant to whether she must get a photo on her DL to drive.longeyes: What underlies all of this is that the Islamic faith--and it is not unique--posits the primacy of religious law in all things. No what unlies all this is the primacy of the 1A over civil law.longeyes: Frankly, in my state of California what we are seeing is the gradual implementation of a Catholic State (albeit in the liberation theology mold), with the expected impact on fiscal well-being and individual freedoms. This Catholic can't really argue with that. But that has nothing to do with whether some vital public need is satisfied by saying you must have your picture taken before you drive.

Without explaining that vital public need, there is absolutely no justifcation in forcing her to violate her religious beliefs to enjoy the privilege of driving.

[longeyes]

"No what unlies all this is the primacy of the 1A over civil law."

Okay, we see that differently in that I don't see this as a 1A issue at bottom. Actually I see it as a nuisance lawsuit, but anyway...

The irony is that we probably agree that Public Safety, rearing its ugly head, has become the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse, at least if you believe in Constitutional safeguards of our freedoms. There's not much you can't justify once you start riding that horse. (The Sixth Horse is Health, and our refusal to be all too human.)

Peace and struggle, brother.

[cuchulainn]

There's not much you can't justify once you start riding that horse. (The Sixth Horse is Health, and our refusal to be all too human.)

Peace and struggle, brother.
I agree with that. Peace.

[Boats]

What is funny about this case is that all of the strict sects of Islam that require that level of female veiling generally prohibit women from driving and/or do not allow their women out of the house unescorted by a male relative, (who'd then drive them around I guess).

Hypocritical and ala carte fundamental religious observance? How shocking!!!:D It is not just Muslims either. For example, most strict Christians, most of whom believe the Bible unerring, do manage quite nicely to conveniently ignore the vast bulk of the Book of Leviticus, which contains far more "law" than just the "top ten," aka the Ten Commandments.*


*Not meaning to offend, just making an observation.

[cuchulainn]

Boats,

True enough, but al carte or not, hypocritical or not, those are her regligious beliefs, and the state must justify forcing her to violate them in order to drive.

And what's up with the Protestants (fundamental and liberal) ignoring the Book of Tobit anyway? ;)

[Destructo6]

I'd like to see where in the Koran that it states that women should be veiled. I don't want to hear, "it's there". I want specific citations from the Koran. From the Hadith would probably be okay, too.

As Boats seems to indicate, she's playing a game. She claims to be a strict Islamist, but she is allowing herself to drive and apparently doesn't need a male escort.

Say she's out driving and gets pulled over by a male officer, pick your infraction. Does she have the right to ignore the officer because she isn't supposed to speak to males who are not related to her?

BS

If she wants to drive, she needs to conform to the requirements. If those requirements are against her religious practices, then she can forego the driving experience.

It's absolute nonsense to equate that to denying a right.

[BudthePrez]

Has anyone checked out "The Smoking Gun" website they have another version of the story relating the fact that the woman in question has a conviction as a child molester. i wonder why she no longer wants her picture taken.
"

[cuchulainn]

It's absolute nonsense to equate that to denying a right. Under the 1A as encorporated into the 14th (which speaks of making no laws that deny immunities and privileges), forcing someone to violate her religious beliefs to enjoy a privilege is a clear violation of her Constitutional rights.

Got it? You can't require someone to violate their religious beliefs to enjoy a privilege. That's the Constitution whether you like it or not.

[Boats]

Adherents in America do not have the right to hold animal sacrifices in Santeria rituals and peyote is a no-no in NA rites. The SCOTUS says so.:D

What the point of the "normative" religion cases in the Supreme Court are is that one's "religious beliefs" can be anything. What of a revival of Aztec sun-god worshipping? Should we allow the construction of step temples with a human sacrifice table atop them and allow the rite to go forward, even if it was with a volunteer sacrificial victim who'd be "honored" to go?

It's an extreme example, but there's a line for everyone where religious practices cross their personal line of departure for deviancy. The courts must wrestle with that fact. The DL case is a mild example, but I do think the court could legitimately question the ala carte approach that our erstwhile fundamentalist muslim driver presents, which prevents a graven image on the driver's license for her faux feminist burka driving self, but allows her to go about life in the "American norm" otherwise, in gross violation of the self-same tenets.:evil:

The burden should be on her as to why she needs differential treatment based on a cherry-picking of religious beliefs.

[cuchulainn]

Boats,

I already mentioned human sacrifice bans as being OK. No one is saying there is never a justifcation for abridging free expression of religion ... just that the state be both required to justify it and that it have a really really really strong justification (no murder).

As for animal sacrifices and peyote, I disagree with those laws, but that's beside the point of whether there is a really really really strong justification in making this women violate her religious beliefs to drive. The animal and peyote laws could be justified, but that would leave the justification behind the driving law unaddressed. The burden should be on her as to why she needs differential treatment based on a cherry-picking of religious beliefs. NEVER!

In America, it is the state's responsibility to justify abridging a persons rights, immunities and privileges. It is never the person's responsibility to justify why they should be allowed to exercise those rights, immunities and privileges.

That's the point behind shall-issue CCW and why may-issue is, to but it mildly, so distasteful.

[Delmar]

cuchulainn-I have drive both straight trucks as well as my current pickup, pulling a large trailer on a regular basis. As it happens, on my last tour in Saudi, I brought home a thobe for myself and a burkha for my wife, so yes, before you jump to yet another conclusion, I have personal experience with what it looks like from the inside-you do not if I read you correctly.

You are not going to get away with picking and choosing your religious beliefs and demand exception after exception.

From what I can see in your arguement, YOU ain't got it.

:rolleyes:

[Boats]

Oops. I should have explained--As a convicted felon the state has an increased, and genuine, interest in her actual identity. As a felon, the burden should be on her why based on a cherry picking of religious beliefs, the sincereity of which I very much doubt, she should be allowed to duck a reasonable and non-discriminatory requirement for a photograph on the principal piece of adult identification used in America if she wishes to legally drive.

Requiring a photograph is not discrimination based on religion when members of all faiths are required to do it. No one is forcing her to get a license. Had she the courage of her convictions, she would drive without the state's permission. In fact, the logical end of your argument is that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make a driver's license an unconstitutional affront to your unenumerated right to travel freely. Why do you have a driver's license if you do?

As another aside, how do any fundie muslim women travel internationally without pictures in their passports?

[cuchulainn]

Delmar,

Please use your experience to explain how a burkha restricts peripheral vision so much that it cannot be corrected with mirrors. I acknowledge that the burkha gives her a blind spot. Mirrors correct blind spots. That's what they're for.

By the way, due to a congenital eye defect, my left-side peripheral vision ends at about 45 degrees from straight ahead. Most people's goes beyond 90 degrees ... they can stick something beside their ears and still see it -- I can't on the left. So I'm very familiar with the difficulties of driving with limited peripheral vision. (And believe me, the left peripheral vision is vastly more important in U.S. driving than the right -- physically, I'm more suited for U.K. driving).

You are not going to get away with picking and choosing your religious beliefs and demand exception after exception. Um, picking and choosing is the point of religious freedom.

You know, its like how the Protestants "pick and choose" their Christian beliefs and fail to swear fealty to the Pope. :rolleyes:

You aren't goint to get away with saying that some religious beliefs are legitimate for protection and some aren't. I don't really care if she get this no-photo belief from the Koran or the pink bunny rabbit under the front porch. The burden is on the state to explain why she should violate those beliefs in order to drive, and no one here had given any justification. (Although you, at least, have given some justification for concern about her vision, which I, of course, say can be fixed with mirrors).

[cuchulainn]

As a convicted felon the state has an increased, and genuine, interest in her actual identity. As a felon, the burden should be on her why based on a cherry picking of religious beliefs, If true, then she ought to be required to carry a photo ID regardless of her desire to drive. But that's still evading the point of whether the state must require her to get a photo to drive. If she weren't a felon, you'd have no problem with the "picking and choosing"?As another aside, how do any fundie muslim women travel internationally without pictures in their passports? I don't know. I suspect there are certain accomodations, like baring their faces in private women-only rooms (which I suggested as a compromise here). But that is irrellevant to whether this woman must be forced to get her photo taken in order to drive -- what is the public interest in photo licenses that is so vital that people must be forced to violate their religious beliefs to enjoy the privilege?Requiring a photograph is not discrimination based on religion when members of all faiths are required to do it. People of all religions are required to not give alcohol to minors. Yet we allow religious exemptions for certain sects that use real alcohol for communion. The failure to give an exemption is the violation (unless there is some really really really strong compelling state interest in forcing her to get a photo).

[cuchulainn]

In fact, the logical end of your argument is that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make a driver's license an unconstitutional affront to your unenumerated right to travel freely. Why do you have a driver's license if you do? Sigh, actually I accept that use of public road is a privilege, so I don't have a problem with drivers licenses per se. But I do have a problem with forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs to enjoy a privilege -- it violates the "immunities and privilege" clause of the 14th Amt via the encorporated 1A.

The question remains. What is the vital public interest that is so important that it justifies violating this woman's 14th/1A rights?

Frankly, this is no different than making Jewish kids take off their yalmulkas if they want to enjoy the privilege of public education -- after all the "no hats" rule applies to everyone equally.

[Jim Diver]

cuchulainn- Ok. How do you answer this then? What if the KKK decided that from now on they would only have photos on their ID taken with full hoods on that cover the face? It is part of their view of their religion.... Would you allow that? Would you allow them to drive with the full hood/mask on??

Why not try this? Go to the local theatrical store in your area. Buy a halloween mask and wear it when you drive. See how many tickets you get and accidents you get in to.

What about when it gets hot in Florida? When she rolls down her window and her viel blows up and covers her face from time to time?

Religion is her right... Driving is a privilege she forfeits should she choose not to remove the burqa.

I think her motives are clear. She wants to hide everything she does (legal and illegal) under the cover of religion. Sounds like the perfect way for Osama or Saddam to cover up and hide right here in the US!!

[Destructo6]

The question remains. What is the vital public interest that is so important that it justifies violating this woman's 14th/1A rights?
That she is, in fact, the holder of the license. Can't touch her to take finger prints (prohibited to be touched by anyone but male relation), retinal scan for her only isn't feasible, etc. The photograph is the least intrusive form that is readily verifiable.

If allowed, it would be easy to swap licenses with other hijab-clad women, or men for that matter, and it would be virtually impossible to tell them apart.

[cuchulainn]

Ok. How do you answer this then? What if the KKK decided that from now on they would only have photos on their ID taken with full hoods on that cover the face? It is part of their view of their religion.... Would you allow that? Would you allow them to drive with the full hood/mask on?? The KKK is not a religion, and even if it were, there is a compelling state interest in keeping these violent prone people from going around masked -- they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the masks were used to hide their identities when they committed murder. Remember, I'm not saying religion trumps everything; just that someone give me a compelling state interest.

What's the compelling state interest in demasking Muslim women?

In any event, letting them drive with masks is not the same issue as making them get a photo demasked. No one, but you and Delmar, are suggesting that she be forced to take off her mask in order to drive.

Actually, as I menioned above, due the KKK, my state and many others have laws against appearing masked in public regardless of whether you are driving. You can't wear a face covering on the sidewalk. Yet we don't arrest Muslim women who violate that law -- we exempt them on religious grounds.

As for rolling down her windows and wind blowing the veil into her eyes, that's what bobby pins are for. And maybe we shouild forbid long haired people from driving. In any event, like Delmar, you are changing the subject from the photo to why she shouldn't be allowed to drive at all.

As for the Osama bit, now were getting to the real issue here, aren't we? If this were a woman from some extreme Christian sect that kept their faces veiled, no one would be saying she had some Osama-like ulterior motive.

[cuchulainn]

That she is, in fact, the holder of the license. And the vital state interest in this is....? Can't touch her to take finger prints (prohibited to be touched by anyone but male relation), Really? Or is that prohibited to be touched by any male not her relation? There's a big difference.retinal scan for her only isn't feasible, etc. Actually, it is, but that's another debate.If allowed, it would be easy to swap licenses with other hijab-clad women, or men for that matter, and it would be virtually impossible to tell them apart. Yeah, my wife does that all the time with her twin sister if one of them forgets her ID and we're getting into a bar. I'm lucky that my wife still sometimes gets carded in her mid-30s. :) (Not that I'm suggesting my wife is "hijab-clad," just that she regularly swaps licenses with someone that bouncers think is her ;) ).

Actually, when she was in college, my wife gave out copies of her older brother's birth certificate to many of her male friends, who got photo drivers licenses in his name. Pretty stupid on her part, but it does demonstrate the folly in thinking that a photo proves that the person holding the license is the person named.

[cuchulainn]

And by the way, it is both laughable and sad to suggest that photo drivers licenses are somehow necessary to preventing terrorism -- the 9/11 terrorists used photo drivers licenses as part of their "equipment" ... the photo DLs helped them.

That's why there is a debate about whether DLs should be universal IDs.

[Erik]

So if it is OK for her to have a licese without an identifiable photograph on it, is it OK for a LEO, assuming there is LEO contact, to detain her for as long as it takes to positively identify her through other means? As long as it takes, keep in mind, is a pretty vague.

[cuchulainn]

Erik,

Yes if:

1) There is a compelling reason to identify her.

2) "As long as it takes" is not abused -- we detain women for body searches now until a woman officer is available to pat them down. Any wait longer than the typical wait for searches might be an abuse absent a really good excuse on the police's part.

This is not new territory.

[geekWithA.45]

For starters, I believe that this society has generally accepted that driving is a privilege, and not a right.

The States asserted it, and the People accepted it, or at least weren't able to mount an effective opposition to it.

That was a bad move, IMO, for many reasons, not the least of which is that it ultimately and directly set the stage for our current state of Infringement of RKBA.

The most frequent line of reasoning is more or less like this:

Cars are big, powerful, and potentially dangerous pieces of machinery that require special knowledge to operate safely, and therefore the state has an interest in public safety to ensure yada yada yada.

Horses are also big, powerful, and potentially dangerous animals that require special knowledge to "operate" safely.


At one time, horse knowledge was as common as driving knowledge is today.

At one time, horses could be misused, "driven" too fast, and accidents DID happen, people WERE hurt, and lives WERE lost.

To my knowledge, this did not result in horse training initiatives, licensure, or any of that.

Knowledge gap: What did they do when someone negliglently injured another with a horse or wagon? My _assumption_ is that if warranted, charges of negligent whatever was appropriate were brought, and that a separate "horse offense" wasn't necessary.

Probably the next most frequent argument in favor of driving as privilege is the issue that the "privilege" extend to the use of use of public roads and highways, and that you can drive without license on your own property, to which I reply:

Um, last time I checked, it was OUR taxes that paid for said public roads and highways, and therefore we have the right to use them.

----------------------------------------------------------
Shifting gears a bit
----------------------------------------------------------

It IS generally accepted that we enjoy a "right of travel" on the public byways. Frequently, the snide comeback is "very well, then you can WALK, or ride a horse".

There are a lot of flaws with that position. First: pedestrians and horses are generally prohibitted on the highway, and even if they weren't, it'd be a bad idea to walk or ride there anyway.

Furthermore, we find ourselves living in a world that has evolved over the last 100 years around the automobile, to the degree that it is largely impractical to carry on normally with your life without an automobile*. It isn't practical to work, obtain food, or engage in all the normal pursuits of our culture. Being denied the "privilege" of driving isn't like being banned from the movies; it has severe lasting consequences in your life, and that is why many people who have their licenses revoked or suspended have little practical alternative to ignoring that fact, lest they lose their jobs and ability to provide for their families.



*Urban areas are the significant exception to this, but don't tell me to move to the city, as you simply don't have the right to dictate how or where I shall live.

----------------------------------------------------------
Shifting gears a bit
----------------------------------------------------------


And by advocating for driving as privilege, what are we defending here, anyway? Under what circumstances is the "privilege" revoked?

Typically, it's revoked "in the interest of public safety" for:

-Serious crimes: generally vehicular homicide and mayhem, based on the theory that a person who did that once may tend to do it again.

-DWI/DUI based on the theory that such irresponsible behavior is SO dangerous that its repeat must be prevented and

-Accumulation of "too many points", based on the theory that the driver in question demonstrates disregard for safety, and is therefore a menace to society. (aside: we all know that speeding is a crock. Limits are preposterously low, and I've NEVER seen a policeman doing 55, and in some places, ticketing is blatantly and openly considered a REVENUE activity, with minimal or no pretense paid to "safety".)

-Underage drinking, EVEN IF THERE IS NO AUTO INVOLVED. This is based on a nebulous theory I don't pretend to understand.

In all these cases, there is punishment, ranging from fines to prison, and a revocation based entirely on what a person MIGHT do. In some cases the prediction of future behavior is well founded, and in other cases it isn't, and in some, it's outright suspect to say the least.

But certainly, for good or bad, the precedent of curtailing rights/privileges is now solidly established, where it was not before.


------------------------------------------------------------
Winding it up
------------------------------------------------------------

Acceptance of this has set the stage, and is directly relevant to our current situation with RKBA.

The People has accepted an assertion of the State it probably shouldn't have, re: driving.

Thus conditioned, many people are starting to accept another Assertion of the State, that the RKBA is at the pleasure of the state, and this they MUST NOT DO.

Even the language is similiar: Unlicensed firearms owners are BAD, just like unlicensed drivers. Unregistered firearms are also bad, they're out of control, just like unregistered cars.


It's too late for cars. Soon, it'll be too late for guns, unless we engage in continuous action to engage the levers and mechanisms of power to change the outcome.

Phew.

---------------------------------------------
Final Note:
---------------------------------------------
Oddly enough, the dark and fascist state of NJ passes out licenses to people over 25 WITHOUT A PHOTO, which reminds me, it's time to renew.

[Destructo6]

Can't touch her to take finger prints (prohibited to be touched by anyone but male relation),
Yeah, that was a poorly worded sentance. Should have been "touched by any but a male relation."

My concern wasn't terrorism. My concern is whether the person behind the wheel is licensed to drive or simply borrowed, perhaps even stolen, the license and/or vehicle. It's a primitive check, but quick, effective, and cheap.

[cuchulainn]

Destructor.

The point is that she can be touched by strange women, and thus fingerprinted (and biometric finger scans like those now used on the Mexican border for newly-issued day-worker passes do not require someone else to touch the subject).

My terrorism comment wasn't directed at you.

Your last paragraph is the closest anyone has come in 4 pages of posts to giving me anything remotely resembling a compelling state interest in a photo DL.

But I'm still not willing to throw out this woman's 1A/14th rights based on such a weak (IMO) interest:

1) DLs don't increase safety given the laughably low bar set for getting one.
2) DLs are laughably easy to fake, duplicate, etc.
3) States without photo ID do not have more dangerous roadways.

[cuchulainn]

If this woman's rights are not being violated by forcing her to go against her religious convictions in order to be allowed to drive (no one is forcing her to do this; she can choose to forgo the privilege of driving)...

...Then your RKBA is not violated when the state forces you disarm when driving (no one is forcing you to do this; you can choose to forgo the privilege of driving).

[Seminole]

Then your RKBA is not violated when the state forces you disarm when driving (no one is forcing you to do this; you can choose to forgo the privilege of driving).

Interesting point. And it is worth mentioning that Florida statutes explicitely state that this Muslim woman with a completely covered face can carry a firearm in her vehicle as long as it is in a closed container such as the glovebox or console. One wonders if the State really believes allowing her to drive without a photograph on her Driver's License is more dangerous to the public safety than allowing her to be armed. :scrutiny:

[XLMiguel]

FWIW, every Muslim country that issues passports requires a facial photo. Women do cover their hair, but NO VEIL.

The religion thing is BS. Local Mufi and Imams have said as much, though some said there is a 'weak' opinion that she should cover her face, it is not mandatory. I have several Muslim friends (some pretty religious), who also confirm that the veil may be custom, but not mandatory.

IMNSHO, she knew that this is a secular Western country when she came here, it is not up to us to accomodate her, she needs to figure out how to get a long. No one is preventing her from exercising her religion, but we do have a legitimate need to be able to ascertain that you are who you say you are, and the law pertainng to driving says 'photo id'. Get over it or don't drive.

[Mike Irwin]

Ya know, the technology to put pictures on state-issued DLs and other IDs existed for a LONG time before it became common place... More than 50 years, actually.

I got my first photo DL in the middle 1980s -- my Grandfather had his picture ID from the plant where he worked during WW II. It was laminated very nicely.

I'm not really buying that this is a critical national security necessity.

[cuchulainn]

Mike in VA: custom, but not mandatory. Being a "mere" custom makes it no less a protected religious expression. Are you saying that only mandatory religious rites and practicies are protected under the First Amendment?

Mike in VA: No one is preventing her from exercising her religion, And no one would be preventing you from exercising your RKBA with a ban on carrying while driving, right?

"Get over it or don't drive," indeed.

[XLMiguel]

Right, I've got a VA CWP, do it all the time. The fact that I need a permit is onerous, to be sure, but I digress . . .

Back to the chase. As I said, she knew this was a secular, pluralistic Western society when she came here, and it is NOT our job to accommodate her, she needs to figure out how to function HERE.

In our society, those who cover their faces are looked upon as bandits or robbers, someone with something to hide. She can practice her religion (approx. 7 million Muslims here do -), she can preserve her ethnicity, but if she wants to be American, she needs to assimilate to the degreee necessary to be a functional, contributing member of society.

If she wants to live in a 'pure' Muslim society, she should have stayed home. JMNSHO.

[Destructo6]

Mike, she is home. She, formerly known as Sandra Kellar, is a recent convert to Islam.

Somebody here said she has a criminal record. I can't find any information on that, but if it's true, we've got somebody using religion to pull a fast one. She moved to a different state, changed her name, and refuses to be photographed for a new ID card. Sounds like a wholesale change of identitiy to me.

CNN lists a number of conservative Muslim Arab countries that do not allow veiling for picture ID.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/28/license.veil.ap/

She really doesn't have a legitimate religious basis for her argument.

[cuchulainn]

Mike in VARight, I've got a VA CWP, do it all the time. The fact that I need a permit is onerous, to be sure, but I digress That's not what I asked. I asked if you would consider it a violation of your rights if the state (VA in your case) BANNED you from driving armed. Period. Even CCW holders would be banned from carrying guns while partaking in the privilege of driving. Got it? No guns in cars whatsoever. None. Nada. Your CCW would be invalid in a car. You could be arrested for driving while packing even though you had your valid CCW permit in your wallet.

Driving is a privilege, so the state can make CCW holders give up their RKBA and leave their guns at home (or in the trunk), right?Mike in VA In our society, those who cover their faces are looked upon as bandits or robbers, someone with something to hide. That is an utterly bogus statement, bordering on an ad hominem against her. Americans know full well that she wears the veil for religious reasons. Maybe one in 10-million Americans would be stupid enough to think she was hiding her face with criminal or nefarious intent, and 99% of them would be under 5 years old.Destructor I can't find any information on that, but if it's true, we've got somebody using religion to pull a fast one. Maybe. Maybe not. But you are making an ad hominem argument against her, nothing more.

This particular woman's character is irrellevant to whether Muslim women -- in general -- have the right to refuse to violate their 1st Amt rights (religious expression) in order to enjoy the immunities and privileges of a citizen (see 14th Amt).

You are really reminding me of the gun grabbers who argue that there is no 2nd Amt right for individuals because Miller and Emerson were both bad guys.

In fact, forget Muslim women at all for a moment and ask yourself:

Should the state have the power to force you to forgo exercising your rights in order to enjoy the immunities and privileges of a citizen?

For example, should the state have the power to disarm you before allowing you the privilege of getting on a public road?

[longeyes]

The brutal irony in all this elaborated debate is that a devout Moslem woman ain't about to grant you the freedoms you, a freethinking Constitutionalist, are so fervid to grant her. Argue your way around that.

[Destructo6]

I'm attacking her motivations, which I believe are relevant here. This is a specific case after all.

The premises of her argument, that Islam forbids her face being photographed, are false. That's relevant, too.
You are really reminding me of the gun grabbers who argue that there is no 2nd Amt right for individuals because Miller and Emerson were both bad guys.
I don't think I've ever heard that argument.

[XLMiguel]

Cuch-
I understood your question, I was jerking your chain, but yes, I would have a big problem with your premise. I don't equate the right to self defense with religious custom. She is not beingdenied the right to practice her religion, she is being required to provide positive identification for a number of legitimate reasons that trump her backwards notion of 'modesty'.

Regarding banditry, the large infux of Muslims and corresponding number of veiled Muslim women on the streets of America is a relatively recent phenomena. Traditionally, we like to be able to look people in the eye and see their face when we do business and otherwise interact. I don't think I'm off base with my opinion that Americans tend to feel that people who hide their face may likely have other things to hide also.

As previously stated, every Muslim counrty that issues passports require full facial photos on the ID for men and women. How do I know? I have friends who work at State Dept and with US Customs (you know, the folks that check ID at the door, i.e. the international arrivals terminal at Dulles airport), who have assured me that this is so. Obviously, they can show their face when the 'have to'.

I have flagellated this deceased equine enough and will stick with my opinions for now: She's a whiner pullin' a fast one.

[cuchulainn]

Longeyes The brutal irony in all this elaborated debate is that a devout Moslem woman ain't about to grant you the freedoms you, a freethinking Constitutionalist, are so fervid to grant her. Argue your way around that. Eh? I do not see a reason to try to argue around that. I simply choose to stand up for the rights of someone who might not stand up for me. I'd argue to stop someone from disarming Sarah Brady. Despite her gun grabbing ways, she has just as strong an RKBA as we do. I don't think people lose their rights just for attacking others' rights. (I'd argue to protect your rights, despite your unwillingness to stand up for this woman's rights ;) )Destructo6 I'm attacking her motivations, which I believe are relevant here. This is a specific case after all. OK, but by using the differences in this specific case to argue that there is no rights violation, you raise the question of whether a Muslim woman of lily-white character could mount a similar challenge. In fact, if this woman's bad ways are what kill her argument, then you actually are strengthening my argument that Muslim-woman in general would be protected from being forced to unmask in order to drive.

Of course, I'd like to hear a valid argument about how this woman's prior acts rise to the level that justifies violating her First Amendment rights. Destructo6 The premises of her argument, that Islam forbids her face being photographed, are false. That's relevant, too. No it isn't relevant, with all due respect. Optional religious practices are just as protected as mandatory practices.
Destructo6 I don't think I've ever heard that argument. If you can stomach it, go look at what VPC and Brady said about Emerson's alleged domestic violence.Mike in VA I don't equate the right to self defense with religious custom. So then you'd have no problem whatsoever with the cops raiding churches today to put a stop to the practice of serving alcohol to minors, right?Mike in VA She is not being denied the right to practice her religion, she is being required to provide positive identification for a number of legitimate reasons that trump her backwards notion of 'modesty'. 1) Being "backwardly" modest is part of how she practices her religion and the state is denying her the ability to do that. How can you argue she is not being denied the right to practice her religion?

2) That's the same logic grabbers use when they say licensing and registration are not RKBA violations because you still get to have guns.

3) Calling a right that you want to infringe "backwards" is straight out of the grabbers playbook. Mike in VA I don't think I'm off base with my opinion that Americans tend to feel that people who hide their face may likely have other things to hide also. Perhaps they feel that way about people with stockings over their heads, bandanas over mouths or wearing hockey mask. But Americans are savvy enough to make distinctions about other forms of face covering. Anyone with a TV (there are one or two sets in the USA) can recognize Muslim dress. They understand it is not worn with nefarious intent. Your argument might have held water in the 1880s

On a cold day, do Americans run around squealing in fear at all the "bandits" walking around with scarves covering their faces?Mike in VA As previously stated, every Muslim counrty that issues passports require full facial photos on the ID for men and women. Well what did your research subjects say about how the photographing and checking are done? Do strange men take the photos? Do strange men do the checking? I've acknowledged various times the validity of a compromise that allows her to be photographed with accommodations that the photos and checking be done by women.

Hey, we accommodate red-blooded American women's "backwards" notions of modesty by calling in women cops to frisk them (frisking implies a greater safety need than ID checking). Let's accommodate this woman.

[longeyes]

I do not see a reason to try to argue around that. I simply choose to stand up for the rights of someone who might not stand up for me. I'd argue to stop someone from disarming Sarah Brady. Despite her gun grabbing ways, she has just as strong an RKBA as we do. I don't think people lose their rights just for attacking others' rights. (I'd argue to protect your rights, despite your unwillingness to stand up for this woman's rights

That is very noble but to me more than a bit culturally suicidal. I'm a pragmatist. Survival rules. Defend freedom for people who would toss aside that very principle for others? No, sir. I think the time in America when we could blithely ignore the long-term consequences of various cultural and social decisions is past. We are harvesting the America that lay in the seeds of our neglectfulness over the last three, four decades.

[cuchulainn]

Longeyes,

"Then they came for me and no one was left."

[Ed Brunner]

Good one on Paul's Horse. Maybe everyone else got it too?

I have had a driver's license for many years and it is only recently that a photo has been required.
Can somebody explain while the world is safer because of the photo?

[XLMiguel]

Cuch-
I guess turn-abbout is fair play -
Well what did your research subjects say about how the photographing and checking are done? Do strange men take the photos? Do strange men do the checking?
I have no idea if the men were strange, or if women did the photos. Don't know, don't care, the broader point is that they've got to have their picture taken.
So then you'd have no problem whatsoever with the cops raiding churches today to put a stop to the practice of serving alcohol to minors, right?
The Church did that by itself, I guess with the concent of the congregation at large. A sip of sacramental wine for a minor communicant (with parental consent) doesn't offend me, alter boys guzzling in the sacristy (BT,DT), or with the encouragement of the priest, does. The state has no interest in this until it becomes abusive.
Hey, we accommodate red-blooded American women's "backwards" notions of modesty by calling in women cops to frisk them (frisking implies a greater safety need than ID checking).
No problem. I think it's entirely appropriate to have female officers do a thorough frisk where circumstances permit. However, it is not always reasonable to do this in the field under trying circumstances. At that point, I'm willing to rely on the officer's professionalism and JUDGMENT to do the right thing. Not always a perfect bet, but better than ignoring some ***** in a burka hiding an RPG, than failing over issues of false modesty.

Frankly, sir, I find your 'absolutist' positions to be a bit too much, your analogies weak and spurious, your arguements to be overly emotional, and hardly even pragmatic. Let's focus on what 'works'.

Vote early, vote often. M2

[longeyes]

"Then they came for me and no one was left."

Know your friends, know your enemies, know the principles on which your world rests.

[cuchulainn]

Mike in Va Frankly, sir, I find your 'absolutist' positions to be a bit too much, " I've already said many times in this thread that there can be valid reasons for civil law to stop religious practices. The most extreme, of course, would be stopping human sacrifice. There probably are others.

I even have said that I'd be willing to accept what is being done to this woman IF someone gives me a compelling state interest in having photo DLs. No one has. Photo DLs don't make the highways more safe, don't stop crime or terrorism and (being so laughably easy to fake) don't even assure the identity of the holder.

Fact: No matter how much anyone belittles this woman's religious conviction, suggests that her veil is "not mandatory" or questions her character, her 1st Amendment right to express her religion convictions by dressing a certain way is being infringed.

Fine. Infringe her religious expression. All I am asking is that someone first give me a compelling state interest for setting aside the First Amendment.Mike in Va Let's focus on what 'works'. Well, "what works" certainly isn't photo DLs. In fact, we haven't learned what photo DLs "work" to do in four pages of posts.

We're simply willing to infringe her rights on on the assumption that the need for a photo DL is self evident. Sorry, the need is not self evident.

[longeyes]

Let's carry your view of the 1A out to its maximum expression. What America will become will be a constellation of "religious" enclaves. That may or may not be what you intend or what the Framers intended or were comfortable with.

But from what I see around me, in terms of the growth of "special interests" and those who believe various groups and categories and tribes all deserve exemptions from commonly held and respected civil laws, that day is fast arising. A balkanized America is not a prospect I find especially appealing, particularly one where the fragmented groups are able to get subsidies from the main body of "believers." How long such a country will survive in the global reality is anyone's guess.

I still say only a fool grants freedom to people who would take it from him. That's not magnanimity, that's a desire for self-annihilation (and that, by the way, strikes me as a core predicate in so much of today's leftwing thinking).

[cuchulainn]

What America will become will be a constellation of "religious" enclaves. It already is. It has been for centuries. For centuries we've granted exceptions to civil law for religious acts. The Republic has not fallen. I still say only a fool grants freedom to people who would take it from him. This woman has not attacked anyone's freedom as far as I know. Many here have attacked hers.

The point is to put up walls against infringement wherever it occurs. The target of the infringement is less important than keeping the infringers in their place.

I'll see your aphorism and raise you with my own aphorism: "Those who would give the wolves the keys to the city because tonight they target only the houses of those who never stand watch, give the wolves access to their own homes tomorrow night."by the way, strikes me as a core predicate in so much of today's leftwing thinking And I see it as just the opposite. Placing civil law above religion to "protect" us from clashing religions is predicate in leftwing thinking. Horrors that we might be subjected to Christmas carols in public schools or menorahs on the courthouse lawn. Help, Help, we're being balkanized. First menorahs at the courthouse; next civil war! Save use ACLU! Save us.

[XLMiguel]

Sir, the 'ingringement' is rather trivial, if it is one at all - she has to put aside the veil long enough for a picture to be taken, and perhaps again if she ever finds herself in a situation requiring that she establish her identity. It hardly prevents her from expressing her religious beliefs or mode of dress.

The closest I can come to a compelling state interest is as follows: In order to get a DL, one must prove basic competence to operate a motor vehicle. A DL is proof that the holder meets that minimum standard (such as it is-). In the event of an accident or code infraction, the state has a legitmate need to know who it is dealing with and are they indeed, authorized to be operating a motor vehicle. The DL is part of that 'authorization'.

A photo ID may not be the be all-end all of identification, it is but another data point, and as such, it's pretty useful and definitely better than nothing. Granted, it isn't perfect, it can be faked, but faked ID is pretty good proof of nefarious intent, no? I mean, if you're up to no good, are you going to quibble over a like thing like ID (or gun control laws)?

This arguement can go way over the top as far as how intrusive the .gov could go in requiring proof of identity (and we all fear that it's likely to get worse in the future). Fact is, we all validate our identity numerous times a day in the course of taking care of business. There are literally hundreds of circumstances where positive ID is necessary when dealing with the .gov (and others), and photo ID is part of the deal. It is a two-way street, ya know.
:rolleyes:

[cuchulainn]

Mike in Va. In the event of an accident or code infraction, the state has a legitmate need to know who it is dealing with and are they indeed, authorized to be operating a motor vehicle. The DL is part of that 'authorization'. Speaking of "what works"...

Did the states truly become more able to do that with the addition of photos on DLs?

Do states that still do not require photos have a greater difficulty in establishing identity? (edited to add "not" oops).

And BTW, I got a traffic citation about two years ago in Virginia. I started to get my license out, and the cop said it wasn't needed. I got the ticket, and he never looked at my license -- he simply punched my car tag into his computer and got all my information. He took my word that it was "my car."

If the photo on my DL was so vital to his needs, why did he wave it off?

There are literally hundreds of circumstances where positive ID is necessary when dealing with the .gov (and others), and photo ID is part of the deal. It is a two-way street, ya know. That changes the subject from the need for a photo on a DL to the need to identify yourself in non-driving circumstances. That raises the debate of whether DLs ought to be universal IDs (and the "yes" side is losing that debate, partly because of how Virginia DLs aided the 9/11 terrorism).

[XLMiguel]

OK
And BTW, I got a traffic citation about two years ago in Virginia. I started to get my license out, and the cop said it wasn't needed. I got the ticket, and he never looked at my license -- he simply punched my car tag into his computer and got all my information. He took my word that it was "my car."
And if your state puts a digital photo on your license, he probably got that on his computer, too, which may be why he didn't question your ownership. Then again, maybe he's just a good judge of character;)

As stated, the pic is a useful datapoint and required by law. If you don't like the law, change it. In the meantime, live with it. I'm with Longeyes - sick and tired of every crappy litttle minority group yammering for 'special' treatment and the puddleheads that want to give it to them.

It's clear that your aren't going to change your opinion, nor am I, so I think I'll go cut the grass and then maybe a trip to the range. Adios.

[cuchulainn]

Mike in Va.

I hope your grass wasn't as long as mine after all this rain.

With all due respect, I do not see the logic in violating the First Amendment to :

1) assure that we can quickly determine that a person is the valid possessor of a license that you readily admit all but fails to ensure the ability to drive safely (see your statement: "such as it is").

or

2) condition a person's legal ability to drive upon the need to identify him at Walmart when he is writing a check.sick and tired of every crappy litttle minority group yammering for 'special' treatment and the puddleheads that want to give it to them. Why are you sick and tired of the puddleheads that want to give into the yammering of a minority of gun owners who want to get CCWs without proving they need to? Shall-issue advocates are a minority within a minority. The nerve of giving into their yammering.

We really should listen to the majority of Americans who want more gun control. This is a Democracy, not a Constitutional Republic, after all.If you don't like the law, change it. Um, that's why she brought the challenge to court. She is trying to change it.

[XLMiguel]

Yeah, it was closer to brininging in the hay, it's rained 23/31 days in May here, all sorts of outdoor projects half done or on hold. I ain't geting tan, I'm rusting.

I guess we'll just have to disagree, as I just don't see it as a violation of her 1st Amendment rights. (and let's not digress on the sorry state of the DMV and the quality of drivers they turn loose on our highways, that's a whole 'nother rant . . .)

The whole issue of ID & personal privacy gets pretty hairy pretty quickly, but we've got to start somewhere, and picture IDs are useful. Virtually any ID system can be defeated, it's just a question of how much time & $$$ you're willing to ivest to do so, but what's an acceptable minimum standard? FWIW, my VA CWP doesn't have a picture on it, but I believe I'm required to present it with my DL if requested.

RE; Shall Issue CCW,with all due respect, you sound a little paranoid. I believe at last count 34/50 states are currently 'shall issue', with a couple more pending. How did us 'minority' gun owners oppress all them state governemnts into going 'shall issue'? The truth is (depending on whose poll you believe) somewhere between 60 and 80-some percent of the American public believes in the 2nd Amendment. Even the Democraps have realized that 'gun control' is a losing issue ( at least as currently framed).

This is not to say that there isn't a very vocal, duplicious, evil and unethical minority of whiners that will continue to try and take away our rights. The price of Liberty, after all, is eternal vigilence, and we must continue to work very hard at protecting the RKBA, along with the rest of the BOR.

The puddleheads I was refering to would be all the whiney, blissninny liberal idiots who think that 'multiculturalism' is some sort or social goal, and think that we should 'celebrate diversity' and give a pass to every pissant special interest group that claims to be 'different'. "Fair" means fair for ALL. America is 'the melting pot', we are multicultural by definition. Always have been. The last thing we need is a bunch of politically correct, hyphenated "-Americans" to fragment things. It focuses on where you're from, not where you're going. High among the reasons we are the great (and still improving) nation we are today is because we have been able to assimilate and integrate the best features and values of all the diverse people (and their associated cultures) who have come to this country. American culture is a spicy gumbo of world cultures. It is unique, vibrant, evolutionary, and, oh, yeah, diverse - and that's what makes it "American", and we treasure that. And BTW, we gun owners ARE a majority, we just need to start acting like one.

Oh, yeah, as far as changing the law - I believe we still do that through the legislature, not the courts. I'll grant you that legal challenge/judicial review is a legitimate tactic as part of a balance of powers, but lately it seems that it is more typical of the gun-grabbers and corrupt city administrations who couldn't get traction in the legislature (generally, for good reason), than those with legitimate grievances (and most laws do go through a judicial review as part of the drafting and approval process). It's pretty onerous when abused.

[Erik]

"Fine. Infringe her religious expression. All I am asking is that someone first give me a compelling state interest for setting aside the First Amendment."

Well, since none of the arguments presented are compelling enough:

She is eroneously claiming first amendment protection:

Women who follow the Islamic faith are not prohibited by that faith from having a photo ID.

The "veil thing" is a cultural taboo, not a religious one. That some people who practice the Islamic faith seek to emulate Arabic culture does not make said emulation religious in nature.

As such, when she claims that her first amendment rights are being violated, it simply is not so.

A quick review of the passports and drivers licenses issued by nations where the majority is Islamic is all that is necessary to settle the matter.