billege

We need to see her face on the license.

Everything else is over-analyization of this issue.

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

Atanvarno

There is no need to "see her face on the licence". You must be able to know quickly that the licence belongs to the person presenting it without the use of much equipment.

Right now, unfortunately, that means either a photo on the licence or a separate photo-ID.

__________________
Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

butthead

So what's your point? "Seeing her face on the liscense" isn't needed, but now it is because we do not have more advanced identification methods in mainstream use?

If she can have her photo on another ID, why not on her liscense?

Atanvarno

My point is that all that is needed is a way of proving that the licence belongs to the person presenting it. This need not be a photo on the licence, but I cannot think of a good alternative right now. Others may.

__________________
Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

SecretMethod70

Sorry bud, but that sounds to me like "this is terrible! I can't think of anything better but we certainly can't have this!"

Well, until you or someone else can think of something better then this is how it has to be.

Want something instead of photo IDs being required? Well, how about everyone in the US is required to have their fingerprints in a database and - when the computer power gets good enough - the police can take our fingerprints at their car and match it with the database. Or, how about everyone has chips implanted in them at birth? Oh...so I guess having a stupid little photo on your license doesn't seem so bad now does it? THOSE are the alternatives. Having a photo is not unreasonable - and they tried to accomodate this person in such a way that there would be nothing that she did against her religion yet she STILL refused it.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Atanvarno

Secret, yes, I know that's the best alternative I've been able to come up with as well (a safer one, in fact, than photo).

If you look back on my previous posts in this thread you'll see that I have argued against this woman. I support the judge's decision, but on a general basis, I think the state should be flexible when it is possible. And I don't support the "Everyone must have Photo now and always" - line.

What I have been saying is. Your licence must be possible to connect to you and you only, quickly, and with little equipment. The way I see it that is the only requirement that should be made.
As it is, photo is the way of connecting you to your licence. That doesn't mean that a photo is the requirement. It means a photo is what is used to meet the requirement.

ATM, there is only a theoretical difference between the two.

__________________
Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

gov135

I always felt that having a drivers license is a privelege.

You must abide by the same uniform set of rules as everyone else to have the privelege. If you choose not to, you forfeit the privelege.

4thTimeLucky

This won't endanger anyone. Nobody in the UK drives with a licence in their car and the licences don't have photos. Its not a problem at all.

Besides if its such a threat then we simply make it harder for terrorists to pass undetected using the photo-exemption than to pass undetected by simply geting or faking a photo licence. How can we do that? Well, by saying that everyone must use photo ID licences unless they come to the registry office with a religious reason. Then they must provide a stringent set of ID (birth certificates, national security number, pay slips, utility bill) and register the details of their cars, which will be shown on the new photo-lacking ID. When they are stopped by the police then they have their ID checked, they make sure the car details match the licence and they take a fingerprint. That is then checked back at the office - if it fails then you know the full details of the person who has given their ID away. No terrorist would risk that. They'd just get a genuine photo ID or buy a fake one.

Is this an imposition on the state? Hardly. I would expect no more than a tiny handful of people to go through this rigorous process and cite a religious reason. And then the chances of them being pulled over the police are going to be tiny as well.

Is this worth doing for the people concerned? Yes. They would rather be put out by a lot of bureaucracy than contravene their religious rules. You try getting a Jew to eat pork or a Hindu to eat beef or a Muslim to disparage Allah. Then you will see how impirtant people's religious beliefs are.

Because at the end of the day we are all just individuals and the state is their to serve us. The state should not be allowed to trample on people's religious beliefs just because it feels like it or can make up some ridiculous claim to a securiy threat or because it will only hurt a few people and we don't really 'get' them anyway.

To be frank Ashcroft is taking Americans rights away left right and centre and none of you seems to be concerned about this. It is only when you yourself finds yourself at the end of a secret phone/email tap, having you library records searched or are imprisoned without charges or access to a lawyer that you will take note and complain.
By standing up for people religious rights you send a message to the state that they cannot steam roller over peoples liberties.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

krwlz

4thtime, the state should not indeed trample people rights, but if tewre is going to be a rule/regulation/law, it needs to apply to EVERYONE! Regardless of race/religion/creed/sex, etc. If it doesnt, it has no worth as a law.

Correct my if I am wrong 4th, but wasnt this case in the US, Not the UK?

Billege summed it up nicely, we need the face. Thats just how it works.

4thTimeLucky

Many laws apply differently to different people. I listed some of the cases where the difference is religious on page one. Other differences that laws recognise (and apply differently to) are: age, disability, sex, nationality, job, income, criminal record...

So it is quite clear that laws need not apply to everyone in a blanket fashion to be valid or worth anything. In fact it is the subtle nuances of laws, and not their crude 'one size fits all' nature, that can make them effective.

Yes this case was in the US. My point is that the UK has been fighting a terrorist 'war' on its soil for many, many years. We have had Prime Ministers nearly assassinated and our cities bombed. Yet we have never needed to resort to photos on driving licences - there is simply no point to them. Anyone can sit a driving test, pass and get an ID. Sticking a photo on it doesn't cause any more bother to a terrorist, who after all is just an ordinary person but with an evil intent in their mind. What does the photo really help achieve? It makes sure you know that this piece of paper belongs to this person and that they have passed a 40 minute road skills test. Wow!
My other point is that the UK experience (no photos) is matched by 14 US states, so it isn't as if the concept is alien to the USA. Those states have presumably been getting along just fine, as the UK has.

That just begs the question.
It is also factually untrue. It is just how it works in some places, but not others.
You make it sound like it has been some fundamental principle of government for all time that driving licences must have photos on them! "Thats just the way it is son. God made it that way. Don't ask questions"!

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

seretogis

That is absolutely the most hilarious thing I have read on this board. It shows just how off-base that claims of "religion > rules" are in this country. If you can justify any breaking of laws/rules with "freedom of religion", I'm going to start a religion that involves random human sacrifices and refusal to pay taxes.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Cicero

Driving is a privilege not a right, but you do have the right to have a fair chance at your privileges. I like this one brain teaser, there’s a foot race, but some people have a bum leg, do they deserve to have a head start to run the race, or do they just deserve the to opportunity to run and nothing more?

Atanvarno

seretogis, I think it's more of a matter of being a bit flexible on the rules to accomodate to other's needs when it doesn't *really* cost you much.

__________________
Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

gibber71

If women cover their faces because of traditions from other country they come from, and expect to be granted the same courtesies in America, is absolutely insane to say the least.These people have enough freedoms in the world without demanding more.

Hmmm,..Imagine this women being pulled over by the police,who just happen to have their faces covered,she's arrested and briefly appears before judge whose face is also covered.

Can you smell civil liberty lawsuit.

Take the cloth off your head for the picture or be sent back to where you are from,if you are not U.S citizens.All it takes is one person conceiling their identity and setting a precedent.Many people are very lucky to be in America.They should at least adapt to the culture rather than trying to change it.

seretogis

They offered to have a woman take a photograph in a separate room so that she would not have to go against her beliefs. She denied that very acceptable option. Flexible is one thing, completely ignoring rules is another.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

seretogis

EXACTLY. When exactly did we change from a "melting pot" to a compartmentalized tackle-box? The adage "when in Rome, do as Romans do" should be common courtesy when you visit or live in a nation which is not your origin.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

HiThereDear

4thTimeLucky, in the US the license is used as more than just proof of permission to drive. It's used very much for identification, for example to buy liquor or gamble in Vegas, so if you can't tell whether the person in the photo is the person in front of you it's useless.

hotzot

The muslim sect she says she belongs to doesn't allow women to drive.

__________________
The Bully Boys are here!

-Ever-

good

__________________
Embracing the goddess energy within yourselves will bring all of you to a new understanding and valuing of life. A vision that inspires you to live and love on planet Earth. Like a priceless jewel buried in dark layers of soil and stone, Earth radiates her brilliant beauty into the caverns of space and time. Perhaps you are aware of those who watch over your home And experience of this place to visit and play with reality. You are becoming aware of yourself as a gamemaster...
--Acknowledge your weaknesses--

Xiomar

Atanvarno and Shades.... They pretty much summed it up. Nuff said.


EDIT: seretogis also...

4thTimeLucky

i) She isn't asking to break the law she is asking for the law to respect her beliefs.
ii) The law on murder would not be given exemptions for religious beliefs and I would not want it to. Neither would she or the ACLU. What we are asking for is reasonable. The case is in Florida, where their 1998 Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the state of Florida must not interfere with a person religious practice (a right protected under the First Ammendment) unless there is a "compelling government interest".
My case is that there is no "compelling government interest", they are just being too lazy, inconsiderate and paranoid to set up a non-photo system for the handful of people who need it.
I have already made suggestions as to how a safe and cheap system could be set up and this would negate the "compelling" argument.

You are spot on. She came to Florida from some strange, distant land: Illinois.
She is an American citizen who converted to Islam.
And those Pentecostal Christians, where do you plan to ship them back to? England?
Her rights are your rights. If you want to be allowed to practice and believe according to your faith then you should allow her to do the same.
And "These people" clearly do not have enough freedoms, otherwise she wouldn't be in court trying to defend those that have been taken away from her.

Remember: For the last 17 years of her life (assuming she got her licence at 17 and is now 35) she has been or would have been allowed to drive with a licence with no photo. No compelling reason for all those years and for the dozens of years before it.
Then one day that government takes away her licence and says "there is now a compelling reason". Erm, what? Where did it spring from? It can't be 9-11 because we've ruled that one out. So what on earth can it be?

She is a Muslim. A pretty devout out at that it seems. Do you really think that she would mind if her driving licence only let her drive and not go gambling in Vegas or buy alcohol?

And let me get this straight: For the purposes of the shop keeper, a signature is not adequate for identifying that the person is who they say they are on the driving licence, but a signature is adequate for identifying who they say they are on their credit card?

------
What I see is a group of people who talk about "them" and "those people". Who seem to think "these people" are a sponge and inconvenience in America and should go back to "their own country". Who see a religious belief that they don't really 'get', so you don't really respect. Who are scared that her kind are a threat to you somehow.
She is a US citizen. She is one of you. She has the same rights and freedoms as you do. She pays the same taxes that you do to uphold those freedoms. All she wants to do is drive her car in peace without having to disgrace herself and her religious beliefs by showing her face to a stranger. What her precise religion is is irrelevant. You could place anyone into this story, so long as they believed that the taking of their own photo was morally and religiously wrong. It is the First Ammendment principle that a person is free to express, follow and practice their religion that is at issue here. She isn't asking for much. To the state it would be no hassle at all - they could even charge her a special licencing fee to cover any costs - but to her it is a matter of giving up her beliefs or her right to drive.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Atanvarno

gibber, seregotis, the woman in question was American, so I don't think making any remarks about "going back to where you came from" makes much sense. But as previously stated, I completely agree that there has been enough flexibility for this woman.

What I have rather been trying to argue is that in general, photp is not required on the licence, but a form of identification is.

HiThereDear, the fact that it's used for that is just a convenience matter, there are plenty of other things you could use for that.

seretogis, being part of "your" nation (American) requires you to be Christian? Or just non-muslim?

4thTime, the fact that signature is sufficient for Credit Cards makes me feel unsafe, it is not good enough.

__________________
Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

SecretMethod70

If the law states that a photo ID is required (and while it may not say that explicitly, that's what judges do - interpret laws) then she IS asking to break a law.

That's just the thing - she DOESN'T "need" it. They DID offer to set up a system that wouldn't go against her beliefs at all. What's so hard to understand about that?

Please recap these suggestions because apparently I'm missing them. A person carrying 6 forms of ID - none with a photo - is no more clearly the possessor of that identification than a person carrying only one form of ID without a photo.

I live in Illinois, and as far as I'm aware pictures are required on our licenses as well.

As other have mentioned - the religion she is basing this argument on doesn't even allow her to drive. You brought up conscientious objectors concerning the draft in the US earlier. See, the thing is though - the government WON'T give someone conscientious objector status (where they would STILL force the person to participate, just in something along the lines of a medic unit) unless that person can prove to a reasonable extent that they believe and FOLLOW THE BELIEFS they claim to have. In other words, if I were to get drafted and claim conscientious objector status, based on my religious beliefs, and I couldn't show that I follow those religious beliefs and follow them well then the government would not grant me conscientious objector status. Similarly, she has proven that the beliefs which she is claiming to have that cause her to not be able to be photographed are really not all THAT important to her - because if they were she wouldn't be driving in the first place.

Freedom isn't an excuse for anarchy. There's no such thing as a set of rules that accomodate everyone and it's only detrimental to attempt to find one.

Again, as an Illinois citizen, I'd love to see something that says people can drive without a photo ID here.

Yes, the reasoning is silly. 9/11 isn't a reason that this ruling should be as it is. The fact that it never should have been otherwise is.

Devout, eh? So why is she driving if the sect she belongs to says she can't?

Like Atanverno, I too think that a signature is inadequate. Not only is my signature probably easy to forge, it's almost never the same, sometimes not even resembling past signatures.

Last I checked, "driving" is not protected by any amendments to the constitution. It is not a right, it is a priviledge.

It's not a matter of not respecting her religious beliefs. But religious beliefs can't just give a free ticket to do things differently. A line must be drawn somewhere. And they were willing to draw that line in such a way for this woman that she wouldn't have needed to violate ANY part of her religion (at least no part she wasn't already violating by driving in the first place) in order to be able to drive.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

JadziaDax

#1. I did not LAUGH at her being unable to make her yearly pilgrimage... I stated she WILL NOT be able to because if she refuses to be photographed for something as little as a driver's lisence, do you really think she'll let them photograph her for a passport? You do the math:

NO passport picture = NO passport
NO passport = NO International flights
NO International flights = NO pilgrimage to Mecca
(especially since the last time I looked, no one makes a yearly pilgrimage to Florida for religious reasons).

I didn't see a single "haha" in there anywhere, did you?

#2. I don't think it's people "caring so little about the religious beliefs of others". It's more about people caring about their safety and well being. Follow whatever religion you want.

Honestly, this is such an incredibly stupid arguement. Considering that driving is a PRIVILEDGE not a RIGHT, having a driver's license is a PRIVILEDGE. And if this woman does not want to abide by the laws dictated by the State she lives in, then I have two words for her: "Tough Shit." I could care less if she were Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, Born Again, Buddist, Islamic, Hindu, Athiest, Confucianist, Yoruban, Santerian, Sikh, Baha'i, Shinto, Jain, Cao Dai, Tenrikyo, Scientologist, Unitarian, Rastafarian, Neo-Paganist, Zoroastrianist, Ch'ondogyo, Taoist, Falun Dafa, New Age, Vodoun, Wonbulgyo, Mandean, or any other religion, organized or not. The law is the law, and no one is above the law.

Atanvarno

Jadz, the point is that at the time the law was passed little though was taken to problems certain minority religions might have with it.

Due to that, it should be posisble to make a reasonable effort to go around the problem, as has been done, IMO in this case.

__________________
Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

4thTimeLucky

For SecretMethod:

Illinois
Breaking the law?
This is pure semantics and we shouldn't get distracted by it.
She had a legal driving licence with a photo of her wearing a veil. And she had her beliefs. All was well in the world. THEN the judge changed the law on her. She is saying that this change in law contravenes her rights under the First Ammemendment and Florida state law. Her argument is that the change in law is itself breaking the law! So we can argue all we want about what is a change in the law, what is abreaking the law and what is ammending the law. It is all beside the point. All I ask is you don't slander her by implying she is trying to break the law here. She isn't. She is just exerting her constituonal right to question the validity of both new and existing laws.

ad hominem
This brings me to my second issue. For the sake of good debate and discerning the right legal principle, we should not raise issues personal to this lady. You can call her a criminal and a bad mother and a bad Muslim all you like. It is, again, irrelevant. Yes a persons belief should be genuine for them to be granted exemptions. So, lets imagine a different person. Lets call her Jane Doe. Now Jane Doe has a genuine religious belief that her photo should never be taken - with or without a veil - but her religion lets her drive. Now, should she be forced to choose between her religion and her car?

Another option - one of several
I do not suggest that Jane Doe should carry around nine forms of ID. I suggest:
- Jane Doe be required to visit her driving licence registry office.
- She must bring four forms of quality ID: birth certificate, national insurance card, wage slips, utility bills, passport (if she has one), bank statements. These are all accepted for other government purposes and can be accepted here.
- She will give her fingerprint, which is stored on a computer database with all the other fingerprints
- She registers the details of her cars.
- In return she is given an ID card that lists her name and details along with the details of her cars.
- In the unlikely event she is ever pulled over by the police (I know of noone who ever has been) she will show the card. They will ask to see a credit card or other form of ID (I think they do this in UK). They will check her car registration matches her ID card. They will, if they have any doubts, take her fingerprint and check it back at the station.
- Any cost for the registration process will be charged to Jane Doe in the form of a special registration fee.

Now, I ask you....
@ What terrorist in their right mind would go through this process instead of buying a fake ID?
@ What does the state lose by giving her this option? The cost is covered by Jane Doe herself and we have agreed that there is no new post 9-11 threat.
@ Would criminals use this rule to hide behind? Well, they would have to track down one of these rare Jane Does. Convince them to hand over their ID card, a credit card (or something else signifcant with their name on) and their car. Then they would have to give their fingerprint to the policeofficer who stopped them. Is any criminal in their right mind going to do this rather than use a normal fake photo ID and just drive on?
@ How many people will take up this option? Hardly any.
@ Will it benefit the people who do? Enormously. They will be allowed to drive (and remember how important that is in America) and they will be able to keep their religious beliefs.

Your other points
- This is not anarchy. It is a few Jane Does trying to lead a good religious life.
- Illinois driving ID. See above.
- Glad we agre on the 9/11 point. At least that's a start
- Devout? Again ad hominem. Jane Doe is devout. Very.
- Driving: No driving is not a protected right. But Jane Doe does have the protected right to demand that her state respects her religious beliefs, unless it can show (in Florida) "compelling government interest".
- Drawing the line: I have made my suggestion. I don't think it is asking very much. Especially when you consider what the state is asking Jane Doe to give up. Neither the Judge nor anyone here has given me a "compelling government interest" that means they cannot enact my suggestions and must force Jane Doe to give up either her car or her religious convictions.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

4thTimeLucky

Jadzia

It was your tone that made it sound as if you were enjoying the fact that by following her religious beliefs she would be shooting herself in the foot.

If this wasn't the case, then I apologise.
However I do not apologise for maintaining my position or pointing out the inconsistencies in what people have been saying.

@ You say "Follow whatever religion you want" but then you would deny her reasonable procedures to let her do so.
@ People say '9/11 is not the issue, there is no new threat'. Then they talk about a threat to "safety and well being" or "security". I ask you: Show me that threat.
@ "No one is above the law". Very true. But some laws are wrong and should be changed. It is currently illegal in parts of America to have consensual sex with other men in your own home. There are threads about in TFP. But I don't see anyone in those thread saying "Tough Shit Homosexuals, no one is above the law". Instead people are saying "that's an abuse of state power, an invasion of privacy and denial of basic human rights". Why there and not here? [please don't come back to me saying that the gay sex issue is different. I *know* its different. But they have fundamental things in common which mean that I feel I must stand up and protest against government activity on both of these issues]. Laws can be unjust and a blind appeal to "its the law, so just shut up and accept it" isn't going to convince me and it isn't going to help society.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Mr. Mojo

I just wanted to say to <b>4thTimeLucky:</b>

Damn! I dont agree with you, but i do admire the way your standing up to everyone.

__________________
When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

Daval

my 2 cents.

Agree to the license requirements or start taking the bus.

It's ridiculous some of the double standards we allow in the name of religion.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

~springrain

well said... i couldn't agree more...
this isn't rocket science... but then again, the lawyers are really running the show here aren't they?

denim

Agreed. If she won't follow the rules, she doesn't have to drive.

OTOH, if she drives with an invalid license, they get to arrest her and ... process... her into the klink. That seems to me to be likely MUCH MUCH worse than having to show her face. Unless I miss my guess, having yourself stripped and cavity searched is probably considered taboo, too. She should either not drive, or accept the lesser of two bad things.

denim

If you're stopped while driving, you have to produce your license on the spot. If you don't match the license or don't have one, you can be arrested.

They offered a clean situation for her personal benefit: a room with only females who would take her picture with no men present. This twit turned them down. They didn't have to offer that.

Yes, and there are 50 states.

Whatever form of id she uses, ultimately it's going to become a photo id, which will require a bare face. There is no escape.


Not even close. They don't let Mormons marry multiple women. They won't let AmerIndians smoke peyote. Those are tolerance issues. This is just some twit who doesn't want to comply with simple rules.


It doesn't really have anything to do with terrorism. They shouldn't have mentioned that. What it has to do with is being able to positively identify a person. She not only has to allow her picture to be taken, but she also has to prove, during a traffic stop, that she's the person on the license. The only way she's ultimately going to do that is to show her face in public and on the spot. She can't escape AND drive. She can escape OR drive. Period.


You're not dealing with the same reality we are. The federal government is God, and can do anything to us serfs. Didn't you know that?

They can steal our property (drug raid! eminent domain!), they can stop us on the street and take us to jail w/o actually charging us, and they HAVE. Recently.

denim

Because we're evil, isn't it? I think that's what I've heard. (snicker)



Nah, I think her sect requires her to drive on the left-hand side of the street. So we've got to "respect" that, right? RIGHT??

denim

Also, what happens when normal traffic cameras take her picture?

denim

I see. So the veil doesn't restrict her vision and hearing in traffic, right?

(edit) Maybe it's a one-way veil?



Or everyone has to leave a DNA sample with the government and, when the computer power gets good enough, they will give a sample during a traffic stop and have their sequence verified on the spot. What a happy idea that is!

denim

Now you're begging the question. Try again?


The reality is that there is no "non-photo" system in use. For this one woman, we should recreate licenses for all people in the state? And meanwhile, what do they have to identify her with? And how does the liquor store on the corner quickly verify the ID presented by Joe Shmoe under your "non-photo" method, w/o having to buy equipment or take more time to validate a person's age? Sorry, but you're really off the wall here.


Uh, where'd you hear that? Do all the other states she's driven in not require a photo id license? Some how I kinda doubt that.


Ah yes, the keyword: seems. Is she actually what she says she is? Will you not allow us to think she might, God forbid, be lying?


That's right, the standards between what cops want and what bankers want are different. Amazing, innit?

Actually, I think you'll find that she didn't. If you want to speak of laziness, speak to the person who allowed that picture to be used in the first place. As soon as it was brought to Florida's attention that she'd done this, they fixed their error by requiring her to redo the picture.

You sound like you're her lawyer or something.

Seconded.

seretogis

The DMV made special provisions to take her photo with no men present. She refused and demanded to not remove the veil, which in that state is unreasonable. That should really be the end of the issue. She doesn't want to remove it, so she gets no license. If she wants a license, she needs to remove the veil.

4thTime: I'm not Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish), so I'm not really sure how you got any sort of pro-Christian message from any post of mine.

denim: Nice avatar ~

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

rsl12

i can't believe the ACLU would support something like this!

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

MacGnG

if she did wear it anyone that wore the same veil would look exactly like the photo, what would be the point then.

at least in america you can goto court for anything!

gibber71

I understand her right to freedom of religion,but freedom of religion has nothing to do with driving a car. Futhermore her picture on her license is for her protection so that she can be identified.What if the picture was taken with her identity concealed, and then her license is lost or stolen and then turns up at a crime scene.Is the judge supposed to believe or disbelieve she had nothing to do with the crime.If eye witnesses say they saw a women concealed in her religious garb,will this women be convicted if innocent. If she is involved or killed in an accident,how do the police determine if she is who her license says she is.

I don't want to go overboard but what happens when people start demanding freedom of expression.Can I get my picture taken for my motorcycle license with my helmet on? What about sunglasses and a baseball hat?

Rules are rules,you don't follow them,you don't drive.