Where do you stand on religious freedom?

Veil dispute begins in Florida courtroom
I will be interested in seeing the outcome of this. I understand the State's interest but I think the woman's religious rights come first. How about some LEO input?

"A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle."
— Vique

Why not re-write the law and allow a DNA sample as an alternative to a photo?

Gloria Steinem -- "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."

It is hard to do a curbside DNA test /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wits' End said: I understand the State's interest but I think the woman's religious rights come first.

Well...I'll start by saying I highly prize the right to practice whatever (including none) religion I want without our State establishing only one religion we all must follow.

Having said that...

I think part of this answer is in this:

Is it a right to have a driver's license?
-you have to take a test
-you have to be a certain age
-you must be able to operate a vehicle safely
-you can lose your privelege if you operate under the influence of a drug

My answer is that it is a privelege to operate a vehicle and have a driver's license. One of the restrictions I think the State could put on that privelege is that you have to have a clear photo of yourself for identification purposes.

If your religious beliefs prevent you from having such a clear photo...then, maybe you don't get a driver's license.

If getting on an airplane requires a photo ID, I don't think we'd let people on without one. If it was part of a religious practice to carry a sharp sword, I don't think we'd let people carry one onto an airplane.

As a Christian living in England (and a part of it where we're not being persecuted yet) I am grateful to God for my freedoms. People in places like Bosnia and Kosovo are not so fortunate. And in Saudi Arabia you can be arrested for carrying a Bible.
I am what you would call a non-religious Christian where my relationship with God has more importance than ritual or ceremony. I mainly have problems with others who do not like my style or the fact that I'm a muso and a biker, after all its not what your'e like on the outside, but what your heart is like. Man looks on the outside, God looks at the heart.

Church and State are two separate entities in the United States. And this case seems to revolve around Islamic Law (or its interpretation). Problem is, Islamic Law isn't the basis for our legal system. People have the right to live their lives according to whatever religioius law they want, but when those religious laws conflict with official laws there's gonna be trouble.

Photo I.D. With Veil = Fingerprints With Gloves On

I don't think there's an easy answer to this...

How willing are you to give up your religious freedom for security?

Remember that the Florida District Attorney's argument on the premise of not issuing her a drivers license ID is that not having her face exposed in the drivers license consititute a breach of "public safety interest". That's the argument for not giving her the "privilige" of driving... That premise could then be applied to any religion, and for issues even larger than this...

Giving up religious freedom for security isn't a tradeoff I'd be willing to compromise. I understand the reasons behind why they want her to unveil, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

I think it's best to wait out and let the Islamic Law professors, religous leaders and experts testify about the absolutes of the veiling customs before I can even come to a concrete opinion on this...

I have to again agree with ikendu /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif She is absolutely free to get a non-picture ID (and lets be honest, a picture with her veil on is identical in function to a non-picture ID) but then she will not be able to enjoy the privileges that are gained by having that identification. Nobody will force her to take it off fir the picture, but then she doesn't get the ID.

There is a very interesting problem with freedom of religion. If you are free to practice your religion in any way you see fit, then we cannot force your religion to embrace the same tolerance that allows you to practice it. Whatever religion is in favor will take the opportunity to try to legislate things that are important to it. So a basic feature of a system where you are free to think what you want means that you have no motivation to give the same consideration to anybody else.

I have never been such a strict observer of any religion that I couldn't bear living next door to anybody of any faith or shape that could tolerate living next to me. But a lot of people aren't that flexible.

There are a lot of benefits to living in a system like this where you're very free if you are willing to make a few considerations to the state. I am not at ALL in favor of most of the things our government has done recently to increase my security. I write my congress people to let them know what I think about increased surveillance and the patriot act. So please don't think I'm some kind of apologist for a government ID program or anything. But I think in this case it's really a matter of if the government will allow her to use an ID that will not ID her. The answer should be clear.

OK. Veiled individual is pulled over for speeding. LEO asks for identification. I.D. contains picture of veiled figure. How does the LEO know who he's dealing with? LEO requests that the individual remove veil. LEO still has no idea who he's dealing with, even if individual complies. LEO must now get identity verified through some other means. LEO must take individual into custody just so they can be identified. And all this for a speeding ticket.

Even better: Veiled individual questioned for suspected drug possession after traffic stop. LEO requests that the individual remove veil. Individual denies request. Now, how exactly is the LEO supposed to verify that the drugs are not hidden inside the mouth?

And yes, driving IS a privilege. If driving weren't a privilege, it would be a right. Privileges can be taken away. Just like driving privileges can be taken away, be it by a judge, a parent, or a repo-man.

how about a picture of her butt instead?
then when the officer asks for ID, well, you can picture the rest.

Seems to me that the structure of law (ours) has been designed to include, protect and guarantee certain rights and privileges including religious freedom but naturally there will be certain bounds and/or conflicts where a certain freedom or privilege is denied by the law. The veiled identity is one of these. I suspect if some of the older, no longer practiced religions that included human sacrifice in their structure were to become popular again, there might be some conflict here as well. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

- Don

It seems to me that if someone wants to take advantage of a privilege that requires identification, then they have to make themselves identifiable.

However:

1) I do not want to live in a country where the exercise of my basic freedoms require that I identify myself. I believe that I should be free to travel anonymously.

2) If the requirement is identification, and a simple photograph of the face cannot be used (for any reason, injury, religion, insufficient accuracy, etc.) then it seems to me that an attempt should be made to permit an alternative.

I agree that a photograph of someone under a veil is essentially useless for identification purposes. But what about a thumbprint?

-Jon

[ QUOTE ]

1) I do not want to live in a country where the exercise of my basic freedoms require that I identify myself. I believe that I should be free to travel anonymously.


[/ QUOTE ]

This really doesn't apply. You are free to travel anonymously. Nobody makes you register at check points or call ahead to tell the government where you're going and when. But if you want to be the one doing the driving, you have to be able to prove that you qualify for that.

[ QUOTE ]

2) If the requirement is identification, and a simple photograph of the face cannot be used (for any reason, injury, religion, insufficient accuracy, etc.) then it seems to me that an attempt should be made to permit an alternative.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fine, I agree completely that it would be nice to have an alternative. unfortunately we don't have an alternative at the moment. how is the officer who pulled her over supposed to verify a thumbprint or a DNA archive or something like that? A photo is a LOT less offensive than either of those possibilities. I would rather NOT have my fingerprints on file anywhere if I can help it, but a picture is pretty ubiquitous. It's not 100% validation of identity, but it's pretty good for an officer in the field. Those other things are future fantasy and it would be years and cost millions (if not more) to give that to all LEO's in the field.

Where I stand on religious freedom, and where I stand on this issue are quite different. This issue is NOT about religious freedom at all.

The issue at hand assumes that driving is a *RIGHT* -- but it is not (though it has been treated that way for quite a while). So, instead of spelling it all out again - what Ikendu and James and Don and even Photonboy said. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Nobody is taking away any rights, or preventing this woman from practicing her religion. Not by a long shot. A privilege is simply not being allowed because she will not comply with the requirements of that privilege. If one's religion prohibits one from paying an entrance fee, should that person be allowed into the theater for free?

Oops, there I went and spelled it out. Sorry. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It's important to remember the state is not requiring her to do anything. By choice and privilege she is choosing to drive and therefore must assume the requirements of the privilege. What if a religion thought red was satanic and an invalid color? Does that mean they should be allowed to ignore stop signs and traffic lights? Freedom is great until it infringes on the freedoms and rights of others. Smoking is a good example of this and has been dealt with. The precedent she and the ACLU are trying to set infringes on our right to reasonable safety precautions. Will the next religious freedom be the elimination of pork in restaurants and grocery stores because a religion finds pork offensive? How about the Southern Baptist, they are opposed to alcohol? Does that mean everywhere a Southern Baptist decides to go must be an alcohol free environment? Or does it mean people, regardless of religion must accept certain rules if they choose to engage in an optional activity? The whole argument seems asinine to me because we are talking about a privilege not a requirement or an infringement of rights. It's a waste of our tax dollars and another example of political correctness running amuck.

Driving (and doing several other things) are priveleges, NOT Rights.

You and your religion have freedom to do what you want EXCEPT when it causes the rest of us trouble. I have to provide a PHOTO id whenever a policeman asks. I also need one at the Bank. A veiled face photo means NOTHING.

Diesel Dave said at least 90% of what I'm thinking.

Here in Kali we have to show a valid driver's license to be able to buy a gun.
The Dept. of Motor Vehicles issues you a DL based a set of THEIR rules. Ok so far. The DOJ requires that present your valid DL to the clerk in the gun store. No car-no gun. I spoke directly with DOJ regarding this subject and asked them what criteria in the Driver's Handbook prepared a person to own a gun. Their answer was - they didn't know what was in the Driver's Handbook but you need a valid DL. That's it! What if I don't drive? No gun. Seizure disorder? No gun. Can't see well enough to drive? No gun. Environmentalist? No gun.
Welcome to Kali.

2dogs, not true! You can go to your DMV and get a picture ID with ALL of the other privs attached to a drivers license except that it has "not for driving" or some such printed on it. You do not have to take any of the drivers test stuff to get it, just the ID proof. While I can't be sure that they will do this in CA, They have had such available in the 4 other states I've lived in over the years.

I had to do this once when my regular drivers license was temporarily detained by the state of Illinois and places I frequented at the time would not accept the hand written form the LEO provided me with as proof of ID /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Here's the link:
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/pubfaqs.htm#11

And here's the important part:
"As part of the DROS process, the buyer must present "clear evidence of identity and age" which is defined as a valid, non-expired California Driver's License or Identification Card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. A military identification accompanied by permanent duty station orders indicating a posting in California is also acceptable."

What does this mean?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ."

On this particular issue, IMO we are not talking about a "law respecting an establishment of religion". IMO the woman in question is free to choose to exercise her right to exercise her religion or the privilege of driving a car in her state . . . or she can drive without a licence as an act of civil disobedience so long as she is willing to live whith the consequences of doing so . . .