Quote:
Originally posted by Atanvarno
But like 4thTime I have been trying to take this discussion a little bit further and expanding it to a general issue.
|
In general, a photo id of any kind should have a recognizable photo of the person represented. Wearing a veil which obscures all of your face but the eyes does not constitute a recognizable photo, and so should not be acceptable photo identification.
If you are a member of an African tribe that firmly believes that cameras steal a part of your soul (
seriously - link) and you refuse to have one taken of you, fine, but you have no photo identification and are restricted because of it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Atanvarno
Then comes another issue, if the case a religion forbids it's members to be photographed at all, and there is an alternate form of identification that is as good, should the state allow the use of such a form of identification?
|
It is not the state's responsibility to determine the authenticity of other forms of identification, and so I would have to say no to this. As is, it is currently possible (in MN at least) to get a photo-less drivers license which is essentially just a piece of paper with your personal info on it and a stamp by the DMV to certify that you are able to legally drive. It is not a photo id, and doesn't pretend to be, but it allows you to drive.