*DAMN R6 Forum

Tell me guys what do u think about this topic lol.  

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Religion_News

Personally I think the woman is out of her mind by even trying this when a liscense is part of you're personal identification, but hah, it figures.  anyway let me know what you think.

Hmm, the one thing I don't buy is the defense that it is her religious freedom being violated if she can't keep her head cover on.  Islam does not mandate such covering.  Certain Islamic states do but not the religion itself.  All the religion says is to retain modesty which is most generally applied to below the neck or including the hair, but not the face.

The question that woman should be asking herself is whether females driving is actually allowed by her 'religion'. Rediculous case really.

lmao... you know what cracks me up? Click the link for the ACLU story and read sme of their shpeil. Gawd they'er stupid.

There are different sects inside the Islamic faith, just like the Christian one.  And, just like with different Christians, they can have different rules.  Some very different rules.  Look at Mormons and Witnesses and compare them to a Catholic or Baptist.

Anyway, Bondo is wrong when he says they don't have to cover themselves.  Some sects do require you to cover yourself (and just like not eating meat on a Friday, not everyone does it either).

Point is, it's her faith, and the government isn't supposed to trample upon it.  She'll always be wearing it, so take her damn picture in it.  I'm pretty sure that they thumbprint in Florida now too (many places do it now) so they'll have that if they aren't sure.

Since we have a very large concentration of them here, we are used to it.

I can't believe you guys are so intolerant.  You scream for equal pay and standards of living but mock a persons personal faith.  That's really disgusting.  

Believe it or not, I agree with Bucc.  Pretty well said, although I think kami did have a point.  Do any Islamic sects allow women driving priveleges?  I think it's weird to be so devout that you can't uncover your face, but still expect equal rights.  It just seems to be a weird attitude to have.  However, since it's part of her religion, I don't object to it.  I just don't really follow her line of thought in being equal but covering herself as an inferior.

     Loud, you just used the words "religion" and "thought" within hailing distance of each other. You need to remember that they have mutual restraining orders against each other, and neither is allowed in the same mental process as the other.

loth is right.
Modern religion is nothing more than a bunch of accepted cults

any catholics/christians in CCD remember how they said jesus was persecuted?
hmm, you think the romans did that for fun? no, it's because they percieced judaisim and christianity as a dangerous cult which went against their way of life, which it  did. romans were scared shitless about death. the afterlife was cold, dark, ugly, and an althgether not nice place to hang out. there fore they lived extravagantly before they died. christians/catholics/jews on the other hand believed that there was something after death. something better, namely heaven. by not being afraid to die, and by saying the roman pattern of life was wrong, marked them as a threat to the roman way of life, and there for they needed to be eliminated, so the romans too jesus and tried putting him to death the most humiliating way possible, by cruicifying him.

now, fast foreward to when the roman emperors first accepted christianity. it stoped becomming a cult, and started becomming main stream

how many other religions have a story about a key figure being persecuted. if tthey were cults too at one time, makes sense that the would be persecuted right?


think criticaly about the way most major religions worship their respective higher powers, dont alot of those look like things a cult would do or would have done?

Maybe it's because I'm retarded or just tired but, I don't get your point Brain.

Bucc, pardonmy intolerance where saftey is concerned, but as the drivers liscense is used as ID, a picture with a full face veil isn't much ID. Imagine the trouble if someone stole... all they'd have to do is find someone of equal height and slap the hajib on 'em. Instant new identity.

Also, following your argument, if me and a bunch of other fellas started our own radical arm of christianity, wrote up a doctrine, and included in it that all men must wear only ski masks and thongs, that would be our right and we could wear this everywhere, even to get ID photos? If we had our holy book and practices, they couldn't do jack squat. It's our right, eh?

The parts that I found bullshitish is that she even refused to take the picture with no men present... just snap a  picture for the license, stick it in your wallet when you get it, never pull it out unless you have to. Does she have ANY identification with a  photograph? If not, how do we know that's really her? Yea, I know that sounds alarmist.

Actually Bucc, I'm not wrong, what I claimed is true.  According to Islam, which is based literally off the Qur'an, there is no religious reason for her to cover her face.  If she has a religious reason for doing it, it isn't an Islamic one.  I'm not being intolerant btw, I'm just saying what Islam states on this issue.  Covering of the full face is as related to Islam as Osama Bin Laden's Jihad cries...that is, it is not actually based on the the principles of Islam.

Bondo, I don't know much about Islam, but I do know that there are several different sects of it like there are in Christianity. In both cases, all of the sects follow the scripture of the Bible or Kuran, but each different sect interprets the writing in different ways.

As for my 2 cents on the issue...if a picture is the only way to identify her, she should take her face coverings off. If there are alternative ways to ID her, then she should be able to wear her face coverings.

As far as i know the only reason that she wears the black veil is because her husband has died or something to that nature.  Otherwise it would be white, but I do have to agree with  Capt. Anarchy because the drivers liscense in the US is also THE main form of identification.  And ya cant use that as ID if the main features of identification are covered.  I do believe in freedom of religion, but I also do believe that she should take off the veil for the picture.  This way for identification purposes she can be identified in some way.  Plus if that were the case and she were to get away with not having her picture shown on the Drivers Liscense she could hand the liscense to her sister or someone with the same veil and say go for it, no one will know hehe!  Not saying that she would, but the possibility as always there to do so.  

Sin, there are various sects, Sunni, Shi'ite, and Sufi...but the thing is, unlike the Bible which is a lesson in contradiction and is written by many people, the Qur'an is the work of one man and avoids such contradiction and thus is easier to interpret.  The main difference between Sunni and Shi'ite is lineage, a debate over who the proper heir as leader of Islam was after Muhammed.

I think most religious leaders in Islam would agree, neither Sunni nor Shi'ite interpret the Qur'an as forcing women to cover their faces as a religious mandate.  And those two sects make up 99% of the Islamic population.  What was done in Afghanistan was a non-religious based oppresion of women.  I'm just saying that while women often voluntarily wear the face coverings, it is not religiously perscribed that they keep it covered, so for the purposes of a photo ID, religion is a poor excuse to keep covered.

I'm fresh out of the Comparative Religions class I took this spring and Islam is what we studied last so I am fairly confident in my knowledge about this...I can quote my texts on related issues if anyone wishes.

Works for me.   the last time I took any classes on reliegion it was Eastern Religions, so I am not aware of the Muslim faith too much because it is considered a western religion, even though it originated in the middle east.  But it sounds like u know what you are talking about Bondo.

Sab, sorry but that's just absurd to think. Wearing a black burkha has nothing to do with if one of your relatives have deceased... Black being the colour of sorrow is largely a western phenomenon. If it had been as you said, then 90% of the females in Iran for example, would have lost their husbands, is that what you think?

And regarding what the holy book says (the Qu'ran), it doesn't say anything about wearing a big blanket to cover your face, it just says that you should dress with modesty. Interpret it the way you like but that's all it says. Personally I don't think that should mean that you have to wear your god damn blanket when you're getting an ID.

Kami, what's being overlooked here is that the Koran is being interpreted.  That's what the church does (in all religions).  That's why different sects have different beliefs, even in Christianity.  Same goes for Islam.  

You can't tell her that it's not in her religion, because she is taught by her "church" that it is.  You may interpret the message one way, but it's her faith we are talking about.  So you have to judge her by her religious community, and it's standards.  If those standards exist, and they do, you can't force her to remove her hijab, not in America.

As for ID purposes, she can't remove her hijab in front of a cop either (think in our culture how it would be if women were forced to expose themselves naked to a cop when pulled over, and that's pretty much the feeling).  Plus, like I pointed out before, the thumb print is there.  They get around this problem all the time in this area, it's only being made a fuss about because of religious intolerance towards Muslims and it being in a community that isn't as experienced with the practices of Islam.

Religious freedom is a right.  You can't advocate taking the rights away from someone just because you don't agree with the practice.  Her having her picture taken while wearing a hijab is no danger to anyone else, and there are other ways to identify her.

I gotta agree with Bucc on this one. Although I would give her personal advice to take off the hijab because I bet alot of people wont accept her identification and it will eventualy become a large inconvenience to her. So wear the hijab Florida woman!

As I said, I agree, however, I am curious about the alarms people raised.  I guess there's not all that much harm a fake driver's license/ID will do, but this case does open the door to potential fraud.

Any state that is under the illusion their IDs can't be duplicated to a great degree of accuracy without much work is living in a fantasy world. At first I was skeptical of this woman, but after reading the quotes about the state officials fighting against her, I can see where she is coming from:

"It was only after the September 11th attacks that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles sent Freeman a letter instructing her to replace her old photograph with one showing her entire face. After she declined, her license was revoked.?" - This smacks of blatant racism and anti-Islam.

"public safety concerns outweigh her religious beliefs" - I think that a few airline pilots on a Jihad disproved this.

They should just overturn this shit, the ACLU is rarely wrong.

Hmm, I wasn't aware of the circumstances that they were pushing this.  That is fishy and certainly under such circumstances it Florida should be prevented from forcing the issue.

LOL,

You change your mind just because they started doing it after 9/11?  When they started trampling her rights shouldn't make a difference.  Either it was right or wrong.  

So you don't think the reason they are now asking her matters?

I still don't think it is a religious freedom to keep her face covered, I just don't think the state of Florida should be allowed to act now in this manner because of what is basically racial profiling.  They needed to have standards or set standards now but make it for a good reason.

It's been the same reason the whole time.


Religion isn't a race.  They are profiling her religion, if anything.  Nobody has talked about WHERE she is from, just her beliefs.  So what's the difference now?

As much as I want to say that under freedom fo religion she should do what she wants, a line must be drawn somewhere. Taking a complete, uniinhibited picture a pre-requisitre for a driver's license. If the bitch trulu has a problem with it, stay in the kicthen and cook.

Couldn't she compromise?  Does her religion say anywhere her veil has to look exactly like it does?  

Why not put some kind of distinguishing mark permanently on the veil itself. . .I'm sure people could think of something - and then take that in the picture.  It could be something as unique as a facial feature. . .I don't know off the top of my head.

The only reason I take 9/11 into account is because I think it gave a lot of people an excuse to discriminate against the islamic religion or people of arabian descent in general. As you have probably noticed by now, I take people's motivations into account when making any decisions. Why is it OK before 9/11 but not after?

Bucc, you don't think that the reason why they are suddenly so interested in this is obvious? You're marking words when you're debating with Bondo here... And they are racially profiling in a sense since she's probably of an arab.

I don't think implementing finger print ID just for a few cases like this would be feasible, sure it might work in some arab countries but that's because there are so MANY people with veils. Just having it for this one woman and a few others would really be unnecessary and just consume money.

If she wants to drive in the US, do it like everyone else or don't drive at all. Might sound bad but sometimes you have to draw lines.

Kami, what I've said is that 9/11 should have no effect on it being right or wrong.


As I said, we already do it in some places.  It's not just for this woman, or people like her.  But it does get around the proving it's her ID problem.

And like I've also said, we deal with this all the time in my area (and I'm not in another country).


Kami, what if they drew the line somewhere that went past your own beliefs?  Maybe you have never had your rights trampled over.  Maybe nobody in your family has.  Maybe you've only read about it or seen it on TV.  But our LAWS say that we can't infringe upon her religious freedoms.  This is an infringement.  If you start moving the line, where do you stop it?  Like I've said before, I'm a firm believer in many of the ideals this country was founded upon.  And this goes back to the biggest reason people came to America in the first place.

There is nothing sacred about the drivers license as a photo ID in this country.  They haven't always been used, and two states still don't require them (giving paper with no photo instead).  However, there is something sacred about protecting a person's right to practice their faith, without any interference.  So those saying she should just give in a little, remember what has happened in the past when our country has compromised on it's own values.

Can u explain which two states dont use drivers liscenses, cause I neer heard of that till u said something.  I had always thought that in the United States a drivers liscense was the main form of identification.  Even many Europeans come to the U.S> to get a drivers liscense cause of the obvious reliability of the liscense itself to be used as identification.  Plus the simple fact that it is usually around 10 dollars to get one.  In many countries including Mexico it is used as a major form of identification.
     Now if people were allowed to wear a veil in the ID saying that it was religious freedom then the U.S. picture ID would become of no use.  OK, let's say you had to use fingerprints instead of the picture.  Now how many places that carry credit card machines and checks carry a machine to check for fingerprint ID's?   None that I know of.  So the fingerprint id would be invalid as a form of identification.  I can understand religious freedom, but I cannot understand why they could not take off the veil for the picture.  It does not mean that they will go to hell or be seriously ashamed for having a picture of them, they can still wear the veil with no one seeing their face.  But for picture ID purposes it seems only fair that they take the picture without the veil.

Bucc, I think this is a case of doing the right thing (requiring her to have the ID picture taken without covering) for the wrong reason (as a result of terrorism, not because it just is the way it should be).

Florida needs to pass a law that states all individuals who want driver's licenses must have their full face shown.  Then it would apply to people of all religions and wouldn't be racial/religious profiling.  But again, I don't consider this to truly be an issue of religious freedom, I've already given my reasons on that point.

Oh, and just to let u know Kami, about the statement you said before about the black being only for western religions.   hate to break it to ya but Muslinism is considered a western religion.   And as far as I know black does stand for sorrow or death in the Muslim faith.  An eastern reliegion would be like Buddhism where for example white is the sign of death, not black.  Even Zoroasterism, the predecessor to the Muslim faith is considered an eastern religion, but Muslinism is not.  Sorry.

Bondo, it is a law, one being fought as unconstitutional.  It was a law that was largely ignored pre 9/11.

Also, for Kami, she converted a few years ago, so she most likely isn't of Middle Eastern decent.  I forgot to mention that before, sorry.

Since so many don't actually bother to read the news, but just to comment.  Here's a concise little snippet.

"Freeman, who became a Muslim in 1997 and started wearing a veil shortly after that, told Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe she is opposed to being photographed or being seen without her veil.

It was a mistake that allowed Freeman to be photographed for her drivers license wearing a "niqab," a religious veil that covers all of the face except the eyes, said senior attorney general Jay Vail.

The state has revoked Freeman's license until she agrees to a new photograph showing her full face. Freeman is suing the state, charging that the demand violates her religious freedom.

Thorpe, who is presiding over a non-jury trial expected to run through Thursday, must decide if the state's public safety and other interests in requiring the full-face photo outweigh Freeman's religious beliefs."

Saberian,

I didn't say they don't use drivers licenses.  I said they don't require pictures on their drivers licenses (sorry for not being more clear).  In both cases, I think it's up to the person getting the license.  To answer your question, Alaska and New Jersey.  And to reiterate, many of your parents probably didn't have photo's on their licenses when they started to drive (could be wrong since some of you are so young though).  Photo drivers licenses came into being here around 1970 if I remember correctly (I didn't look it up, so I could be wrong).

Also, while people have been using a drivers license as a form of universal ID, that isn't it's purpose.  If it were, all people would be required to have them.  And people that come to America to get a drivers license are fools.  Since 1) there are international drivers licenses and 2) if they come here, they have a passport, which is a much more real form of ID, as that is it's purpose.

And your arguments about retail stores is meaningless.  Not only do they not need a photo ID (they need a SIGNATURE ID), but there is CASH for those stores that want more ID and the person can't provide it.  Add to that, the woman wouldn't remove her niqab to use a credit card anyway (so how would they know the picture was of her?)  So that whole argument is really meaningless.  The people that actually can REQUIRE her ID (the police and government) can and do have the ability to pull a thumbprint (or they wouldn't bother with it).

And last, you still keep instilling YOUR values on HER faith.  That's not how it is supposed to work.  If her faith tells her she must remain covered, it's not up to you or me to say she should compromise it.  

Like I've said before, we can't compromise those cornerstones of our ideals.  We've done so too often in the past, and terrible prices have been paid by many because of it.  Too many people here are way too willing to compromise.  

Fine Bucc, so it is selective enforcement of a law already existing.  That is a problem as well.

And I'm not applying MY values on HER faith.  I'm applying HER faith's values on HER faith.

Say I'm a Christian and I start a sect where smoking pot is one of the fundamentals of the religion.  I can't start using that as an excuse to avoid the law against smoking pot.  Because Christianity does not promote that.  Why don't I just have a religion where any potential illegal action I take is part of the religion and thus argue freedom of religion whenever I am thought to have broken the law.

And when Moses look to God, God said unto he, "Thou shalt get stoned if you becometh high and stoned as such that you act like a bastard son of a goat."
[Cossack 9:49}

Second time through this.

You are applying YOUR interpretation to HER Faith.  It is a RECOGNIZED PRACTICE for Muslim women to cover themselves as their faith's interpretation of what constitutes modesty.  You are putting your values on modesty over what she is taught.

And your analogy to pot smoking is way off.  They didn't make this sect to get around a law, as you suggest.  And it has been upheld that pot can be used in some native american rituals since it is older then the law too.  Two strikes on that one Bondo.

This is the same problem with Bigamy laws.  They are unconstitutional as they stand today.  Funny how conservative you are on this issue.

Bucc, that's rediculous to say that they should be next to the law just because their traditions are older, why don't we just hang some people up in trees on christmas like they did back in the viking age, those traditions are much older than any laws after all. I know this is a bit extreme but you know as well as I do that there can be no total freedom.

Sab, if I wear a black cardigan and black jeans one day, you'll think my mother just died? Yeah right.
When you're pointing out that Islam is a western religion, you're just marking words, you know exactly what I meant. And yes I do know that white is the colour of death and sorrow in buddhism, thank you for reminding me.

Bucc, I think I've stressed that the covering of the face is a cultural adaptation of the religion, not the religious mandate itself.  And my interpretation of religion comes via the interpretation made of Islam by Islamic clerics (attached to this story in one source was statements by Islamic holy men saying that she need not keep her face covered).

Also Bucc, as far as I know, the Native American Church was given permission to use peyote, not pot.  Although it is a similar point.  However, it was found that the use of peyote could be grounds for being fired from a public job because it fails to meet the drug code.  So the religious freedom was restricted by the state in the long run.

Anyway, I personally don't like the idea of criminalizing victimless crimes, and religion cannot be used as a defense in crimes against others.  So I'm fine with bigamy being legal, or pot smoking being legal.  The point of my example was that just because I interpret a religion beyond that of the traditional interpretation and it conflicts with a law, I shouldn't be able to argue religious freedoms.

I think Bucc has made clear that a driver's license isn't really necessary for ID, nor is photo ID all that essential.  However, I'd be curious as to what they'd do about her passport?

There, I think there is a demonstrable enough reason for picture to justify using a full-face photo, regardless of religion.

Kami, read the first amendment.  And don't give an analogy that is a bit absurd (since it involves harm to OTHERS, and VIKING isn't a religion).  There is no security risk involved, she is not a harm to others.  

Bottom line, if the practice of her religion isn't a harm to any other, doesn't violate anyone else's rights, then it is unconstitutional for any law that forces her to disobey her religion.


And I think I've stressed that I completely don't agree with that opinion, and why.  If her "church" is telling her, that is her religion.  What you are doing is the same thing as saying that a Witness has to shave his beard and remove his hat, because it's not covered in the Bible.  We all know it's part of the Church they belong to though, don't we?  

Again, Islamic law says that she must be modest and cover herself, yadda yadda yadda.  But it's up to her church to interpret that for her.  What does modest and cover herself mean?  To many muslims, it means covering their faces.  It is not your place, or more importantly, our governments place, to tell them otherwise.


And there are plenty of Iman's that will say she needs to keep it on.  Just like not all christian churches agree, even those within the same sect.  Look at the Baptist Church, do they do wine or grape juice at communion?  Depends on the church you happen to be at.


Well, as a matter of fact, almost exactly one year ago today, a Federal Court upheld the rights of pot in ceremonial practices on Federal Lands and Territories.  Unless this got overturned since then and I haven't heard about it yet.  The case involved a Rastafari, but came down to the Religious Freedom Act of 1993, and carries over to all Federal Land (which includes Native American reservations).


First, I should have used the peyote example, since it's more well known, but my own NA people used hemp, not peyote, so I'm more familiar with the pot side of it.

Second, employers are not the government.  Employers could not hire this woman if they could prove wearing it was an unavoidable safety risk.  You have to remember that Employment is a completely different matter, you don't always have freedom of speech either, etc.  You are being paid and sign an agreement to give up some rights to some degree.


Ah, and right there you said the magic word.  TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATIONS.  It is a very traditional interpretation for muslim women to not expose their face in public.  Some sects may not think so, but it's still a tradition in that church.  That's why this is about religious freedoms.  It's not if you believe it's important to her religion, it is if SHE believes it, and it IS the TRADITION of her church.  Get her own Iman out there to tell her it's wrong, then I'd agree, but otherwise, it's her right to wear it.

And honestly, I know you don't live in a big culture with muslims, but I do.  And I do know that it's not a small minority of muslim women that believe you have to cover your face.  Around here I'd say it's about 40 - 50 percent of them.  So please don't act like it's something out of the norm, because it simply isn't.


I'll ask my brother-in-law and try to find out what they do now (there could well be special agents with women only to help take care of this for all I know).  But, passports are international, and not really covered by the constitution (since we are only one side of at least two that would care about a passport).  I'm not up on the international law regarding them, but you could probably look it up.

Notice I specifically stated public job...as in employed by the government.

You should have said "employed by the government".

Even then, same thing applies.  Government can stop people with physical disabilities from being in the military, can stop people from speaking about their job, do I need to go on?

My points are still valid.  Employment is a different animal, no matter who the employer is.

Fair enough, but I don't think it was proved that his religious freedom was actually interfering with his ability to do the work.

Who in the hell are you talking about?

If you are looking for cases where someone wasn't allowed to wear a religious article because of employment, I'm sure we can find one.  But that's not the issue at all.

You brought up that employers right to fire someone, and I pointed out that you can sign away some of your rights (it is your choice) for the money (employment).

Don't get hung up in the analogy, point stands.  The job is at will, so you don't have to violate your beliefs, you choose to (if that's the choice you make).  You enter a contract with the employer, to the advantage of both.  That's not the same ground as a drivers license.

Bucc, then why not hang goats and cows in the trees instead? They did that too. And by the way, 'viking' is not a religion, the Norse mythology was a living religion however.

You've never seen a goat hanging from a tree?  You need to get out more in the muslim neighborhoods around here I guess.  When was the last time you were in a muslim neighborhood in America Kami?

They allow people to do that? How barbaric... and no I haven't been out in any muslim communities over there.

Which leads me to ask why a European is arguing Constitutional protections of American Citizens?  Especially when you don't have a frame of reference on it?

I said it many times, they've dealt with muslim women in this area for a long time now.  No problem at all.  Florida just needs to get with the program.

In the UK when applying for passport or driving licence it is clearly stated that you may not wear a had, dark glasses, be vailed or otherwise conceal your face. This is for obviouse reasons. how can u identify a person if their face is covered? A driving licence or passport is considerd to be a vital form of identification.
And there are no complaints about it... Those who want to drive or travel and require those documents must abide by the rules. It applys to everyone. race, gender, religion are not differentiated. And there are no complaints.
On issues like this is seems daft to suggest 'exsemtions' (bad spelling). It instantly brings in the element of 'well if he/she is allowed to why can't I' argument.
If things were changed.... where would you draw the line on what constitued a recognised religion? who would retain the power to say "well that argument is fine as we understand this religtion... but that isn't ok as thats not a proper religion".
One size certainly dosn't fit all.. but i'd belive given the nature of the documents, there needs to be a 'one size fits all' to retain the relevence of the reason in having the documents in the first place!....

Case closed.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/florida.license.veil/index.html

Just ruling in my opinion, there's a good list on that CNN link there about what the laws are in muslim countries, eat that Bucc.

Kami, nice thing is, it can still be appealed in Federal Court if they want to pursue it. And again, we are talking about America and it's rights Kami, not any other places.  Oh, that's right, if you don't agree with it, it's a stupid right and should be ignored, I forgot.

BFG, the UK does not the have the separation of church and state, nor the constitutional protections of freedom of religion that the US has.  Running from religious persecution in the UK, and the rest of Europe was a major reason of immigration to the USA back in the day.  So the rules are different here.

Bucc, the laws of the UK and other European countries have changed in the 400 years since the colonies started florishing.

And once again, just because she claims it is part of her religion doesn't make it so.  The point kami was making, the muslim world doesn't consider covering of the face essential, just because she wants it to be doesn't make it how the religion is.  Besides, if as they say only a woman is present to take the picture it is a moot point, modesty is related to coed environments, and is not demanded in front of other women.  You keep arguing that it is her religious right when it isn't a religious issue.

Lol. Thankyou for pointing that out bondo ;) its quite a different place now... Not going to start another thing about america... What Religiouse persecution are we talking about exactly? Who got persecuted? Not the puranistist / virtually fundamentialist Christian groups?

What Bondo said.

Changed, but not equaled in scope.


The judge agreed that it was part of her religion and that he felt her belief was enough.  Or didn't you bother to read the decision?


The judge agreed with the points I made both about her religious freedom and about it not being necessary for security.  The point we differ on is he thinks letting a female take the picture in a private room makes all the difference.  I point out what about all the men that will see that picture (people processing the license, etc).  I think the judge failed to take that into account.  

But you should read the judges decision a little closer.  The judge made it part of her religion, so, in the words of Kami, eat that.

BTW, notice when you called me a conservative the other day.  But you sure took the conservative side of this issue.  Security over freedom of religion is the conservative side.

I never argued security over freedom of religion.  I argued it isn't a religious matter and thus freedom of religion doesn't apply.  And to hell with what the judge thinks, I am talking about what all the Muslim countries think quantifies the religious application of modesty.

But what would me taking a conservative point on an argument mean, I told you I was less liberal than you were conservative, so if I'm taking a conservative point, then it would only be proving what I said.  Another conservative side I have is small federal government and larger state governments.

In other words, what Bondo just said is... she's a dumb dothead whore that should have gone to an accepting hippie school like the other foreigners.

Yeah, as if either Sunni or Shi'ite are liberal sects.  Both are ultra-orthodox.