Is picture ID on a DL and a CCL an absolute must to ensure public safety?

[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]

cuchulainn

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 right

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?

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.

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]

cuchulainn

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!!! 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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.