And he knows how to argue, too.

I thought true Muslim women were not allowed to drive a car. So there shouldn't be a problem.

As far as I'm concerned...."separation between state and church" its as simple as that......

velcro, the problem lies then in the fact that the laws of the United States has never been separated from the Christian religion since most of them have been built upon Christian beliefs and moral values, so the "state" and the "church" have never really been separated completely.

At its base, both Christianity and Islam are based on Jewish ideals. The issue of saying this is a Christian state is rather bogus, though there's a kernel of truth to it.

I actually reckon that Drivers licences should have all people photographed from the waist up, to better show the "stature" or build of that person. The face should be clearly visible. Question? does this person have a passport? with photo?

The rules were established before 9/11. Yes - 9/11 is an easy scapegoat for those that think they are not part of it. But here's some basics, for those that have not stood up for our nation:
1) Our Constitution allows certain rights for our citizens (Driving is a priveledge - not a right).
2) This lady was prosecuted for violations (in Illinois) where she had no problem showing her face. Yes, the past should stay in the past, but what you did is what you did.

I hate people....this woman is one reason why. First she beats 3 yr. old foster children and now this?!?! WTF?!?!?!?

denim, much change in 1300 years :)

And if the laws were based on a morale that said polygamy wasn't bad, then there would be no law against polygamy.

what I find interesting is the argument of "seperation of church and state" in the first place.

Whether you agree with it or not - and people agreeing with it is what has created this myth of its existence - the "seperation of church and state," the way most people intend to mean when they mention it, does not legally exist.

The first amendment, which supposedly creates this right, simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

In other words, congress can't make a law saying people must adhere to one religion or another or make laws that people can't adhere to certain religious beliefs.

The term "seperation of church and state" came from a LETTER (i.e. no - that is, ZERO - legal precedent) written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in response to a rumor that they had heard that a different Christian denomination was to become the national religion.

He wrote,
This was a direct reference to something which a Baptist preacher had said - remember, he was writing to Baptists - which was:
In this, he means that there must be a seperation between the church and the state so as not to corrupt the church. In Jefferson's view - and his is the view that matters if you're going to bring the phrase "seperation of church and state" into this - the church must be protected from the state, but the state needs no protection from the church. One needn't look very far into the lives of the founding fathers to see that they felt this way - the Declaration of Independence, while not a legal document, doesn't say NATUER cerated all men equal. It says God, and that says a lot about the mindset of the people who wrote it.

America, having been founded on the heels of a situation in England where people were persecuted for not following the state religion there, was created in such a way that a LEGALLY state sponsored religion could not exist - enter the first amendment. That's not to say that a de facto state religion cannot exist, just that the state cannot make it a law so that those who are not part of the de facto standard are not persecuted outright for their beliefs.

People who do not believe in being photographed are not being persecuted because of their religion. They are simply living an unfortunate inconvenience of not being part of the de facto standard in America.

Like I said, when something comes that can reasonably replace a system such as this, we should look to it. But the "seperation of church and state" - which doesn't even exist in the way people intend it to - has nothing to do here. If you want that kind of seperation - legally - you'll have to work for another amendment to the constitution. Until then, what we have are legal rulings with no actual precedent to them which, if anyone was truly interested in the intentions of laws rather than what they WISH the intentions were, would be stricken down immediately. And, frankly, I have no problem with de facto standards, so long as peple aren't being persecuted for not adhering to them. It's no different than de facto standards for social behavior - it may make it a little more difficult if you're a bit different, but there is no legal persecution of you for it.

Yes, and much has changed in the last 1300 years as well. That doesn't change what I said earlier today, though. :D

LOOK... we seem to be straying from the real point here...

to re-state what many have already stated...

1) driving is a PRIVELEDGE... not a right...

2) separation between church and state was intended to save people from religious persecution based on their beliefs...

this is not a case of persecution, or a rights violation... it's a legal playground for lawyers and the ACLU... it's stupid... it's bullshit, and in my opinion... a WASTE of our tax dollars...

there are millions of well deserving causes for our tax $$ in this country... the lack of care for the elderly... the milllions of children in need of better eduction, food, clothing, shelter, etc...
the list as you know... could go on and on...

this woman... if she lived in a "true" muslim culture would not even be allowed to drive in the first place...
her lawsuit... is a joke... she should be ashamed of herself, and her lawyers to boot.

this world is full of rules... some of them don't seem "Fair"... but they are there for the greater good of the masses...

i say... GROW UP and GET OVER IT.

*stepping off my soap box & kicking it under my desk*
sorry if that sounded like a rant folks... i just can't believe this is even an issue.

Driving is a previlage, not a right

Something just occurred to me. (drum roll, please!)

Given that she's a "proper" Moslem woman who won't let her picture be taken w/o a veil,

Given that her sect doesn't allow her to drive in the first place,

Given that the veil allows her to hide her identity,

"Her" driver's license is clearly for someone else who will dress in "drag"!

Therefore, the "terrorism" reference was well made, and they should just throw the rest of the case out of court.

brilliant denim!