Security vs. Religion
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Security vs. Religion

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    9

    Security vs. Religion

    I know this is an old issue, but it still makes me upset.
    The lady in Florida who got to have her driver's liscense picture taken with her veil on was wrong. It is a matter of security that we have those liscenses. We need to know who you are!! Even if you normally go around with your face covered, we need to know what that face looks like. Now anyone can use her liscense as long as they have their face covered by a veil. She stated that is was a violation of her religious beliefs that we were asking her to uncover her face for that photo. And if someone steals her purse, puts on a veil, and goes around committing unlawful acts, then what?
    Am I totally wrong here? Does anyone understand what I am trying to say?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    168
    I understand what you are saying. If her religion means she cannot show her face, she has three options...

    1. Invent some kind of camera that can see through her veil.
    2. Give up on that religion and get a new one.
    3. Do not drive a car, or possibly drive without a licencse (illegal).

    Anyone else got an opinion on this? :-)
    \"Why is the bomb always gettin\' the last word?\" - Will Smith - Lost & Found (2005)

  3. #3
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    If that is true, Florida must have been annexed
    by California.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  4. #4
    Purveyor of Lather Syini666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    553
    Exactly, the whole purpose of the picture is identification. Not only could they commit illegal acts, they could also purchase guns under her identity that they might not be permitted to under their actual identity.

    rcgreen > where did you get that picture you have for your avatar, ive been trying to figure out what exactly it is.
    You're not your post count, You're not your avatar or sig, You're not how fast your internet connection is, You are not your processor, hard drive, or graphics card. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of AO
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,255
    I'd hate to point this out, but requiring that would mean you're intentionally violating the US constitution. Wearing a veil is a part of their religion, therefore it is perfectly acceptable under law. A good thing? Probably not, but change the constitution if you so fully believe that it's wrong that someone's religion would interfere with a photograph.

    Another thing, you saw these pictures are used to determine who you are, but if a person is wearing a veil all the time anyways, you can't just spot them walking down the street, you'd have to stop them specifically.
    Chris Shepherd
    The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
    \"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
    Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?

  6. #6
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    That is from The Garden of Delights by Hieronymus Bosch

    http://cgi.di.uoa.gr/~grad0146/English/delight_r.html
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    9
    I'd hate to point this out, but requiring that would mean you're intentionally violating the US constitution. Wearing a veil is a part of their religion, therefore it is perfectly acceptable under law. A good thing? Probably not, but change the constitution if you so fully believe that it's wrong that someone's religion would interfere with a photograph.

    I know, and therein lies a problem.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    856
    ///quote///I'd hate to point this out, but requiring that would mean you're intentionally violating the US constitution.///quote///

    Ok guys,
    you know me, I'm all for freedom of religion. But just curious, what specifically in the Constitution says
    that such a person would not have to have their picture made?
    For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    (Romans 6:23, WEB)

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    9
    preacherman...they didn't have pictures back then. Doesn't it also say somewhere in the Constitution that we have these freedoms as long as they don't interfere with the safety and security of others?
    I am, of course, paraphrasing.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    856
    Hi,
    Lafs, I know they didn't have photographs back then, I was just asking specifically what part of
    the law would requiring her to have her picture made violate.
    For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    (Romans 6:23, WEB)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •