Glory

</strong>

You are forgetting the other side of the coin. A woman who, for religious purposes, refuses to unveil for a license photo will not unveil in person for strangers. It doesn't, in way matter what the picture looks like if you never see the license holder's face either. There is no connection between appearance and the ability to drive. She will not be able to use her license for ID purposes or to show proof of age nor will it be of use to someone looking to pass themselves off as the license holder for any purpose. This has nothing to do with driving. I can see no reason that a woman should be barred from driving because it is against her beliefs to show her face to strangers.

I certainly would balk if I wanted to drive in a country which used breasts as identifying criteria rather than faces or some other body part I consider private.

If you can show that it is extremely humilliating to you and utterly agianst your beliefs to show your face to strangers than you could veil yourself as well. Unfortunately, one picture of you smiling at the camera would pretty much blow your case as would any one person's account of your being seen in public without your mask. Of course, you would also be unable to use your license for any ID purposes. It isn't a double standard. It is freedom from religious discrimination. Muslim women should be allowed to drive without the humilliation of baring their faces in public just as I am allowed to drive without being required to show my vagina to any cop who might want to see it.

Glory

One of the last sane

I believe that decorating a tree at Yuletide is much older than Christianity, but I could be wrong. Anyone?

pescifish

neko,
Since this appears to have become a discussion about the rights of driver's license or religious freedom (and not how you should respond to your friend), I'm going to move this from SL&S to CSS&A. Apparently the crowd over there has familiarity with this discussion. And SL&S isn't a place for this sort of debate.

Anyone wishing to give neko advice on how to respond to the email, or to discuss the legal/religious issues, please follow this thread to

Gregg

Here, you might point out that our FIRST national motto was E Pluribus Unum: Out of Many, One. That's a blessing for pluralism and multiculturalism if I ever heard one. The whole premise of this country was that people of different religions, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds could get along if they shared a love of freedom and the rule of law.

See above. What unites us is (or should be) a shared love of freedom, self-government, and the rule of law. Beyond that, vive la difference!

Actually, I have to agree here. We do need to be able to communicate with each other.

This is just so wrong. It's out-of-the-ballpark wrong. It's complete bull dung. Here, I would pull no punches with your friend. First, explain that "In God We Trust" did not become our national motto until the mid-50's, the early years of the struggle against the "Godless Commies." So it certainly was adopted mainly as a political slogan. Second, explain that a number of the Founding Fathers (I like this fellow's own attempt at political correctness, but there were no Founding Mothers), including Thomas Jefferson, were Deists, not Christians. Mention that Jefferson rewrote the New Testament to eliminate Jesus' miracles and claims of divinity, which he regarded as Church inventions. Refer to the Treaty of Tripoli, in which John Adams stated explicitly, "The United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Ask exactly what documentation shows that this country was founded on Christian principles, and then ask which principles, where these principles are to be found in the Bible, and how these principles are compatible with notions such as individual liberty, the right to own property, self-government, etc.

Well, you can't really argue with this, can you?

I can't really argue with this either. Doesn't make much sense for a person who doesn't like freedom or democracy to move here. We already have too many of those people as it is.

The pledge of allegiance, written by a Baptist minister and Christian socialist. He didn't include "under God" in it. That was added in (surprise!) the mid-1950's, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. Requiring schoolchildren ro recite it clearly violates the Establishment clause.

The national motto--was E Pluribus Unum for 150 years. Still is, as far as I'm concerned.

Cheers,

Gregg

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Gregg ]

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Gregg ]</p>

ybnormal

This hypocritical dude starts out with...

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or his culture.

...then proceeds to bitch about how he and his culture is offended. Pretty much everything said was meant to silence others' Free Speech and enforce cultural conformity. No one in this country is obligated to such unAmerican BS.

My advice is always to keep it extremely simple, by avoiding being drawn in by ANY of the details, because the argument would NEVER end.

The ONLY thing ANY individual is obligated to do in this Country, is obey its laws. Period!

Personally, I would simply accuse the writer of being "unAmerican" and leave it at that. Can't imagine anything worse for him to be told.

neko

Thanks, everyone. Sent her an email today. I directed her to a spot on snopes, where they point out some of the falsehoods in this "letter." If that gets a (negative )reaction, I will be sure to use the ideas that you lovely people have given me.

Thanks again!

Buffman

pescifish

I PMed neko a complete discussion conerning the topic letter before responding to UMOC.

UMOC

And how exactly do you propose to prove "state sanction to drive" without a recognisable picture?

Exactly the same way they did before they put pictures on them for "identity" purposes rather than as proof of having passed the qualification tests authorizing a person to drive a motor vehicle. That's why I went to the effort of reseaching all the URLs I provided. Was there a picture of you on your original driver's written exam papers or on your "Passed" driving test document? The physical license is just another method the states use to collect revenue which is ostensibily used to maintain safe highways and roads and as a convenient substitute for the other official documents. (Is there a picture of you on your Birth Certificate?)

(I was kidding about the Polaroids...but that's because I am older and was around to see them in use back in the Dark Ages. I even have old licenses that aren't enclosed within protective coatings.)

Does having a picture on a driver's license facilitate the police ability to identify the driver of the vehicle. Of course it does! However, what are the circumstances under which the police demand to see your driver's license? A traffic/driving violation/infraction which gives them the legal right to demand that you identify yourself...and the vehicle over which you have control...or no control...to their complete satisfaction. That is the official state law that trumps her religious right to remain covered. Under certain circumstances (sorry Glory), she might even have to submit to a legally authorized strip search...just like at the airports.

Glory has provided you with some valuable insights about the freedom to practice specific religious dogma versus the intercession of the state to deny you those rights. I can assure you that the State of Florida did not change its stance before this issue had been thoroughly examined by highly qualified legal experts on the potential of a 1st Amendment issue violation...especially so soon after the horrors of 9/11 and so many of the terrorists having spent time on the Florida highways using perfectly valid driver's licenses. The fact that some licenses weren't valid has nothing to do with the pictures on them.

Whether I agree with this woman and her religious beliefs is not the issue. I don't! However, I believe that she helped to demonstrate that we remain a nation of actual, rather than lip service, constitutional laws. She put our national beliefs to the test and they passed this time. That took great courage on her part considering the general psychological atmosphere about any Muslim in this country after 9/11. (Remember those three young Muslim men on the way to Miami and their medical school assignments.)

If you want the most accurate identity cards possible, then produce ones with DNA samples on them and have every one purchase "Handy-Dandy DNA Identification Kits." Then you can present your "facial" identity card and a sample of your blood in order to better confirm that you are who you say you are. (I bet Tim McVeigh passed his identity confirmation queries with flying colors with just his drivers license.)

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Glory

Yes, he did. He was required to show a driver's license to purchase the chemical components of his bomb. A driver's license was the only ID or credential he was required to show.

As for a strip search, three words: Probable Cause Hearing.

Glory

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

never been there

To speak up for the state (not for stupid ignorant f***-immigrant ranters), no religion requires women to cover their faces.

Some Muslims adhere to old interpretations of "modest dress" as meaning covering the hair, some do not. As someone pointed out, she may have been making a point, and maybe even a worthy one, but you can't claim religious freedom on this one.

Buffman

never been there

How do you feel about beards and mustaches?

<a href="http://www.sikhpoint.com/resourcecenter/sptdifferent_turbans.asp" target="_blank">http://www.sikhpoint.com/resourcecenter/sptdifferent_turbans.asp</a>

And here is some insights on a Muslim women's head covering.

<a href="http://www.khrn00.org/veil.htm" target="_blank">http://www.khrn00.org/veil.htm</a>

This high school senior seems to understand the meaning of religious liberty better than you do.

<a href="http://www.thecitizennews.com/main/archive-020109/opinion/ltr-09.html" target="_blank">http://www.thecitizennews.com/main/archive-020109/opinion/ltr-09.html</a>