Should Muslim women be required to remove their veils for ID pictures?

[Diva]

A Muslim woman sued the state for suspending her drivers license after she refused to remove her face-covering veil for a drivers license photo. Should Muslim women be required to remove their veils?

[kittyroze]

it's impossible to id someone properly without showing their face at this point. Perhaps if we used finger prints or something else, it would be fine, however, we don't. In the name of keeping church and state seperate she should not be an exception to the rule just because of her religion.

[GLADIATOR]

Originally posted by kittyroze
it's impossible to id someone properly without showing their face at this point. Perhaps if we used finger prints or something else, it would be fine, however, we don't. In the name of keeping church and state seperate she should not be an exception to the rule just because of her religion.

However we must respect peoples religions, that's what democracy is about.

The Jewish religion has many dietry laws which now controvene certain countries animal welfare, however most Governments have made allowances/concessions to these, enabling Jewish people to follow the laws of their ancestors. I find it hard to therefore stop Muslims following theirs.

[kittyroze]

I don't agree to making exceptions for religion, period. I very much dislike the fact that churches aren't taxed like everything else, as for food your church can set up regulations and whatnot for you, I don't see why the government should be required to.

I don't think that refusing to make exceptions for relgion is disrespecting them. I will concede however, that religion (especially Christianity) has always been allowed to be the exception to the rules. But I don't agree with that in the least. I want goverment and religion completely seperate. I'm not proposing that a person who has beliefs should not be allowed to hold office, but I do feel it is easier to make no exceptions rather than try and pick and choose between a few. Especially since different beliefs can conflict and it is impossible to make EVERYone happy. How would the government then decide which relgion had more of a right to their beliefs? The government should support your right to HAVE your beliefs. But I don't think that laws should be made (or broken) on the basis of accomodating some religion or another. :kissy:

[GLADIATOR]

Originally posted by kittyroze
I don't agree to making exceptions for religion, period. I very much dislike the fact that churches aren't taxed like everything else, as for food your church can set up regulations and whatnot for you, I don't see why the government should be required to.

I don't think that refusing to make exceptions for relgion is disrespecting them. I will concede however, that religion (especially Christianity) has always been allowed to be the exception to the rules. But I don't agree with that in the least. I want goverment and religion completely seperate. I'm not proposing that a person who has beliefs should not be allowed to hold office, but I do feel it is easier to make no exceptions rather than try and pick and choose between a few. Especially since different beliefs can conflict and it is impossible to make EVERYone happy. How would the government then decide which relgion had more of a right to their beliefs? The government should support your right to HAVE your beliefs. But I don't think that laws should be made (or broken) on the basis of accomodating some religion or another. :kissy:

I can only really talk for the Jewish religion. Our dietry laws call for the killing of animals in a very specific way, which controvene modern Government laws.
Our Synagogue cannot overule Government, therefore we must negotiate a concession to the law from the Government. I know the same issue applies to Jewish people in USA.

Without that concession Jewish people could not eat the meat supplied.

I understand and agree your point on charity exemption. My comment is more directed at religious laws from the bible, and not 'excuses' made up afterwards.

Religion is very important to many people, and violating someones religious beliefs is no better than Hitler did in WWII.

Well that's my view anyway. But that's cause I am a minority religion.

[kittyroze]

But that's cause I am a minority religion.

As am I, since I have none.

My point mainly is that it seems silly to try and accomodate EVERYone's beliefs, since some are contradictory. But if you do it for one, you should for all...and then we end up in a heap of trouble.

As for ID, allowing people who are Muslim to cover their faces for their photographs would defeat the purpose of having identification.

[GLADIATOR]

Originally posted by kittyroze


As am I, since I have none.

My point mainly is that it seems silly to try and accomodate EVERYone's beliefs, since some are contradictory. But if you do it for one, you should for all...and then we end up in a heap of trouble.

As for ID, allowing people who are Muslim to cover their faces for their photographs would defeat the purpose of having identification.

Agreed.

[Gracie]

OK....... I am totally all for freedom of religion, speech, and whatever... but this is a law here in the states and if you intend to live here and be free to practice whatever religion you want and say whatever you feel you need to conform to the laws here.

Doesnt that sound weird...... freedom but laws? lol I just re-read this and ... well I dunno.... I hope I am making the point I want to make.

[Sterling]

Religions should not get special treatment from government. End of story. If some religions happen to have outdated rules which are no longer compatible with modern society, then they're going to have to suck it up and change.

Muslims will have to change their rules about women showing their faces, because in today's society we have ID cards.

Perhaps Jews should similarly ditch their dietary laws, which made perfect sense when you were living in the desert, but maybe aren't so compatible with our modern industrial farm economy, with its animal welfare and hygene regulations. Actually, most Jews I know already have - sure, they don't eat pork, but they don't exactly skip coming out to dinner because the restaurant isn't kosher.

[GLADIATOR]

Originally posted by Gracie
OK....... I am totally all for freedom of religion, speech, and whatever... but this is a law here in the states and if you intend to live here and be free to practice whatever religion you want and say whatever you feel you need to conform to the laws here.

Doesnt that sound weird...... freedom but laws? lol I just re-read this and ... well I dunno.... I hope I am making the point I want to make.

So Gracie are you saying that the modern laws of the state should supercede the original laws of some pwersons religion.

Are you saying that the Jewish dietry laws should be banned?

My understanding is that laws are there to improve peoples safety, freedoms ect, not deny them.

Remembering the first law that "Thou shalt not comit murder" came from the 10 commanments.

[Sterling]

So Gracie are you saying that the modern laws of the state should supercede the original laws of some pwersons religion.

That would seem perfectly reasonable to me. The laws of the state derive from legislation enacted by democratically elected bodies. The 'laws' of religions derive from arbitrary decisions of a handful of individuals hundreds or thousands of years ago. Doesn't appear to be any contest.

Are you saying that the Jewish dietry laws should be banned?

If they are shown to be unhygenic, or cruel to animals, then yes, they should.

Remembering the first law that "Thou shalt not comit murder" came from the 10 commanments.

I suspect that many ancient societies (Aztecs, Native Americans, Ancient Egyptian) would smile somewhat condescendingly at that spectacularly ill-informed statement.

In any event, while it may be true that often societal norms, and hence laws, have their roots in ancient superstitions, that is not really a good reason to continue to honour them today. The main trouble with religious laws is that they are inflexible and undemocratic. There is no mechanism for popular change of those laws. If any power to change the laws exists, it rests with a tiny handful of 'elites' within the religion, none of whom are democratically elected.

So, if you're asking whether religious laws should be superceeded by modern, democratically derived legislation, then my answer is absolutely yes.

[jred]

You know, the state of Florida isn't denying her access to health facilities. They aren't saying she can't walk the streets, listen to music, go to church, or practice her religion. They simply refuse to issue a driver's license (it's not clear if it's a driver's license or an ID, I know in TN we have both). A driver's license is a privelege, not a right, and if you don't follow the rules, you don't get a license. It's your choice, whether it be for personal or religious reasons. If it's actually an ID card, well, it's impossible to identify someone wearing a veil, so why should the state be expected to validate her true identity if they can't confirm it. It's really a brain-dead issue if you think about it for a second, and realize that no one is saying she can't practice her religion, just that the state can't guarantee her identity.

On the kosher food issue, as far as I'm concerned the Jewish (Islamic, Mormon, COGIC, etc.) should be allowed to have exceptions to the related laws. Heck, if they want to skin the animals with a butter knife, roll it in mud, and barbeque it over a dog poop flame, let them have at it. Let them breed mosquitoes in it, whatever. I'm not going to pretend to know what makes food kosher (I think the way the animal is bled has something to do with it). As long as it's clearly labelled and explained, so I and anyone who cares can know whether to stay away from it or not, it should be allowed.

Oh, and happy 31st birthday to me :)

[GLADIATOR]

Originally posted by Sterling

So, if you're asking whether religious laws should be superceeded by modern, democratically derived legislation, then my answer is absolutely yes.

Well it's lucky for me and many other minority groups that you have between nothing and little to do with it.

To me it's a pity some if the Biblical laws are not brought back, they show a lot more common sense with a few modern day legislation.

Originally posted by Sterling

would smile somewhat condescendingly at that spectacularly ill-informed statement.

You are 100% correct to point out there are many gaps in my education. However where we differ Sterling, as I was taught some manners.

You should learn to respond to the facts and not the person. You want to help or impress me, post the facts/answers. This is not some personal vendetta (well not by me) just a debate of opinions.

Now if my post is so uninformed go post the facts, so we can learn from you.

[Sterling]

I thought I already did post the facts, in parenthesis. I gave examples of earlier civilisations, all of whom, I assume, had laws. I think you just don't like to be called on your Judeo-Christian-centric bullshit.

To me it's a pity some if the Biblical laws are not brought back, they show a lot more common sense with a few modern day legislation.

Hahahaha. There's so many punchlines to that I'm just spoilt for choice.

For example, the Bible apparently endorses slavery (albeit for time limited periods), check it out:

"Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. " - Exodus 21:1

Or, banning sex while women are menstruating:

"Not to have intercourse with a woman, in her menstrual period" - Lev 18:19

Cross-dressing is right out:

"That a man shall not wear women's clothing" - Deut 22:5
"That a woman should not wear man's clothing" - Deut 22:5

And don't even get me started on the Biblical attitude to homosexuals.

Yup, those whacky Isralites, they certainly nailed some laws with are in tune with modern times...

[GLADIATOR]

Sterling I am still trying to understand which of those whacky laws you disagree with, within the Jewish religion.

I am not sure if you like dressing up in womans clothes but it does little to me. Nor Not to have intercourse with a woman, in her menstrual period, but maybe you are that way.

In conclusion, I cannot understand which laws you think are so whacky. Homosexuality possible?

[Sterling]

I think the stuff about slavery was pretty distasteful (I notice you somehow neglected to comment on that one).

And why the hell shouldn't people be able to dress how they like. I notice plenty of women wearing suits with trousers - are you saying they should be thrown in jail for that (or maybe that only warrants a fine)?

And please explain why you think it's okay for homosexuals to be persecuted.

[Gracie]

WOW!! hehe I agree with what you said sterling about my comment and about glads questions.... but heres my answers anyways :)

1.So Gracie are you saying that the modern laws of the state should supercede the original laws of some pwersons religion.

yes

2.Are you saying that the Jewish dietry laws should be banned?

Not banned but the united states law should override any religious practice that could potentially be harmful to its citizens.

3.My understanding is that laws are there to improve peoples safety, freedoms ect, not deny them.

exactly....well said

4.Remembering the first law that "Thou shalt not comit murder" came from the 10 commanments.

I think the comandment goes......" thou shall not kill" and I am pretty sure that the united states has bent and twisted every known comandment and law to suit them. The united states kills everyday, and yet we live here and can say we dont agree with that. My whole point was that if you want to have the freedom that the united states offers, and you want to live in this country then you must comply with laws such as getting your photo taken.

they never said she isnt allowed to wear her face cover, just that she must remove it for a second and have he photo taken. Its really just for safety and yes so the government can have some sort of control over its people.

[jred]

Originally posted by Gracie
they never said she isnt allowed to wear her face cover, just that she must remove it for a second and have he photo taken. Its really just for safety and yes so the government can have some sort of control over its people.

They didn't even say that. They just said she couldn't have a driver's license/ID. That's all. And why? Because she can't be reliably identified while wearing a veil.

You guys are really getting worked up about your religions or lack thereof. Screamscream, yellyell. Hey, Mr. Christian, is the atheist going to change your mind about your beliefs? Why do you think you can change his? Hey, Athiest! If anyone should be tolerant of other's beliefs, it should be you.

Whenever I see a flamewar like this, I'm reminded of the number of people who are killed in the name of God. When God should be the only one punishing sinners, isn't that what Hell's for?

Now I'm going to shut up.

[Gracie]

LOL A-Men ......

P.S. Driving is a privledge prolly not given to her by her own country so it seems funny that she would want to drive here but not change a bit to fit into a new society.

[kittyroze]

Actually I think she converted here in the states. I'm not positive but I think she was American. Please correct me if I'm wrong :)

[Gracie]

Well then that would be even more weird......... Obviously I havent read anything about this subject and prolly have no business talking about it :) was just tryin to make a point I think