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.  

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.