neko

I know I'm new here, but infidels, I need help. I recieved a nasty email from a girl I used to be very good friends with. I need ideas on how to "reciprocate" this hateful garbage. I don't want to alienate her, but I would like to show her how nasty this is without causing a complete rupture in our friendship. (I'd also like help in discerning all of the fallacies within...I know they are there. I'm thinking about dismissing it, line for line, regardless.) Help?! Please?

Here it is, in all of it's glory:

<Subject: A Great Editorial


After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face
covered, one American had had enough. This is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. Did quite a job, didn't he?

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or his culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better
life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely comprised of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.
This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak
ENGLISH, not Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language! "In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right-wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, a
fact which is abundantly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
If the Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't
care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to
express his opinion, and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you're done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great American freedom: THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

If you agree, please pass this along.>

(If this belongs somewhere else, please move it. I thought it best suited here.)

ashibaka

There have been two threads about this particular pile of carp before (variants on it, anyway), with some great replies you could make to the person who sent the letter.

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001074" target="_blank">Ichi</a>, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001318" target="_blank">Ni</a>

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: ashibaka ]</p>

Enai

Hello neko,

I too am fairly new here, and I was lurking here quite some time before I registered. This exact same godspam has been discussed multiple times in the church-state separation forum a few months ago I believe, but unfortunately I can't find it in the archive. It may also have been in the rants, raves and preaching forum. It seems to be some kind of "worm" that gets perpetuated by unthinking people. I think it spawned post-911.

Enai

Edited to add: Oops! Cross posted with ashibaka.

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Enai ]</p>

Hypernovean

Not that I'm supporting that, but you must admit allowing the muslim woman to cover her face on the license photo is pretty stupid. The whole point of the photo is to allow people to match the holder's face with that on the photo; if you can't see the face on the photo fully, it belies the point of it in the first place. Irregardless of cultural differences, driver's licenses should show the person's whole face for general ID purposes.

neko

Thanks for the help, ashibaka and Enai . I'll be sure to check those threads out. I lurked here for quite some time, too, but I guess I missed those threads.

neko

Hypernovean: I agree with you about the head covering. I just hate to see that story used to justify this piece of crap. I understand the woman's motives for not wanting to take her headcovering on, but as far as anyone else knows, she could be anyone under there.

She could be a very patriotic American for what the nasty writer of this letter knows. She's just different, and that's her right.

Derec

Yet it is not her right to withhold her picture for id purposes on her driver's licence. If she does not want a picture of her face taken she should not have a driver's licence and ride the bus or something.

What is so wrong with the idea that immigrants should conform to the law of the land and that laws should apply to everyone regardless of their religion?

Danish

This sort of political correctness bullshit pisses me off too.

Every Christmas time in Toronto, they have a huge Christmas tree in Nathan Philips Square. This year, however, it isn't a Christmas tree. Rather it's a "holiday" tree. How stupid is that! Compromising our traditions to suit others. I'm not a Christian, but I still celebrate Christmas and have a Christmas tree!

Buffman

UglyManOnCampus

A federal law.

<a href="http://www.epic.org/privacy/drivers/" target="_blank">http://www.epic.org/privacy/drivers/</a>

Some state rights views

<a href="http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/DLRCSG.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/DLRCSG.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.aamva.org/Documents/drvcmvsa.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.aamva.org/Documents/drvcmvsa.pdf</a>


(Extracts)
Today, although driver's licenses are also used for many permissive purposes tied to verifying identity - from obtaining a library card to cashing a check to boarding an aircraft - the principal purpose of a driver's license remains unchanged; the only required use of a driver's license is to prove state sanction to drive. And, except for the commercial driver's license (CDL), states retain control of the standards governing driver's license issuance and enforcement. All states have required drivers to be licensed since 1954.

It is also important to note that those who advocate the use of the driver's license to stop the much larger and vaguely related problem of "identity theft" in its various forms admit that they want to expand the required use of a driver's licenses to non-driving purposes (e.g. the verification of identity for a host of other activities - banking, health care, etc.). This has enormous implications. Doing that would require tying public and private databases together. Such a system could certainly not be characterized as anything less than a "national identification system," with significant opportunities for misuse of information, violations of privacy, and license holder "tracking." Additionally, a large percentage (approximately 33%) of American citizens, residents, and visitors don't have driver's licenses because they don't drive. It is probable that such proposals would ultimately lead to the requirement that everyone be "licensed" in some form by the government whether they intend to drive or not. In other words, the driver's license would become an identity license.
(End extracts)

Here is a different view of the situation..

<a href="http://www.mtoomey.com/" target="_blank">http://www.mtoomey.com/</a>

And yet another view,

<a href="http://archive.aclu.org/issues/privacy/National_ID_Feature.html" target="_blank">http://archive.aclu.org/issues/privacy/National_ID_Feature.html</a>

And a situation in which I was an unwitting participant until the news story broke.

<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/News/12399/State/Florida_has_sold_lice.html" target="_blank">http://www.sptimes.com/News/12399/State/Florida_has_sold_lice.html</a>

So, what was the original reason/intent behind including personal photos on driver's licenses?
(To sell more Polaroid Land Camera new technology to the states?)

Derec

And how exactly do you propose to prove "state sanction to drive" without a recognisable picture? In this case any aquaintance of the woman who has no DL could dress in a ninja suit and drive with her licence. Obviously the picture on the DL serves a purpose other than selling Polaroid (your state DMV still uses those?) cameras to DMVs.

Let's say I accept your arguments. Does that mean that I can have my face covered by a Halloween mask for my DL too? Or are muslims the only one that can claim that right? Why that double standard?