I am not a fan of Ashcroft - he does indeed take things too far. That said, I don't like the situation you described in China OR the one described in the UK. I believe in moderation. Not requiring some sort of ID - at least for specific tasks - seems silly to me. I personally think it makes perfect sense and is right that we are required to carry a photo identification when we drive which says we are capable of driving (and says a lot of other things as well in other situations as secondary purposes). Unlike China however, a police officer cannot just simply demand to see ID - there must be a reason. In driving, that reason is being puled over - which by your description apparently happens a LOT more often in the US than the UK. Being that it happens so much more often, I think that may be the basis of some of our disagreement over how required it is. Police here simply do not have the kind of time required in a long, drawn out identification process which, at the moment, is the only option other than photo IDs.
To sum up my relation of this to religion, it comes from the fact driving is not a right but a priviledge. Protecting people from persecution because of their beliefs is there to protect people from persecution BECAUSE OF THEIR BELIEFS. This woman - and anyone else who is opposed in any way to a photo on a driver's license - are not victims of something set in place specifically to victimize them and others like them. They are simply realizing that having religious beliefs - especially those not shared by a significant number of people - is hard. Do I think it unfortunate that their beliefs cause a situation where they can't drive? Sure. Do I think we should try to use a system that allows people with such beliefs to drive without compromising the speed and relative accuracy of our current system? Absolutely. However, at the moment, such a system doesn't exist. In fact, I'm not so sure - upon further thought over the idea of fingerprint scanning and retinal scanning - that a better one can ever exist. Any other system requires the government to have MORE personal information on database than they do now. Photos that are used on driver's licenses, if I'm not mistaken, are not entered into some mega-database spanning the state or country. They are simply taken, printed, and removed. In order for retinal scans or fingerprint scans to work, it would require a state or country-wide databse of all drivers' retinal or fingerprint information. I'm all for the government not having any more information than is reasonably necessary, and when photo IDs can accomplish, to acceptable accuracy, definitive identification on the spot, retinal and fingerprint data is not necessary.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout
"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
|