LeMod Pol

Public interest vs. minority rights

By Peter A. Brown


The outcome of a case, believe it or not on appeal,
involving a Muslim woman could tell us much about the
relative importance of rights vs. responsibilities and
society's overall well-being in post-9-11 America ¯ and
whether the common-sense standard still rules

When Utah joined the union, its heavily Mormon
population agreed to forsake a religious doctrine ¯
polygamy ¯ to join the United States.

In the 1890s, there were no major concerns that
enforcing that requirement might somehow violate
constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.

Common sense said that the views and values of most
Americans took precedence in the cultural clash. The
perceived well-being of the many took precedence over
the customs of the few.

However, now that diversity and minority rights have
come to rival godliness as a universal virtue, it's not
certain whether such a deal would even be possible.

Would some civil libertarian with deep pockets and an
eye for playing to the news media's penchant for
celebrating victimization try to tie the whole thing up
in the courts?

The Utah issue comes to mind because of the case of the
Muslim woman who is arguing on appeal that religious
freedom entitles her to drive without an identifiable
picture on her license.

The disposition of the case could tell us much about
the relative importance of rights vs. responsibilities
to society's overall well-being in post-9-11 America,
and whether the common-sense standard still rules.

It goes to the heart of the question about what kind of
society we have become. Especially in an age of
terrorism, only a fool would deny the possibility that
those who want to kill us because we are Americans
happily take advantage of our society's basic freedoms
to plot their crimes.

Let's be clear: Not all, or even most, followers of
Islam are terrorists, but it is clearly true that the
majority of terrorists who want to harm the United
States are Muslim.

This creates an uncomfortable climate for Muslims who
are American citizens, and we must be sensitive to
their concerns. Obviously, restricting the rights of
Muslim U.S. citizens because of their religion would be wrong.

Sensitivity is one thing; compromising the public
safety to be politically correct is another.

The question is: Should society make an exception to a
rule that applies to everyone, and is manifestly in the
public interest, because of an individual's (in this
case, a Muslim woman from Winter Park, Fla.,) religious customs?

If so, the best interests of the United States become
hostage to an inflexible standard of individual rights,
and we take another step toward embracing the notion
that, in a secular society, we can afford to make
exceptions to policies that promote the general welfare.

Don't get me wrong. The fundamental basis of our
society must be protection of the individual. But we
have seen an uncomfortable drift to making exceptions
from equally applicable standards in the name of
protecting the rights or aspirations of those with
special pleadings.

Unfortunately, because this issue often gets tangled
into issues of race, we really don't talk about such
things in polite company.

This case involves a woman who claims that Islam's
prohibition against having her picture taken without a
veil covering everything but her eyes should trump the
legal requirement that she have an identifiable picture
on her license.

It would be a sorry turn of events if the admirable
effort to offer the rights and privileges of American
life to all is used to undermine national security and
further erode a national sense of shared values.

The full-face-picture requirement is based on the need
for authorities to know someone is who he or she
purports to be.

It is only common sense.

A lower court upheld the state's position, but the case
is on appeal, with the woman's lawyers arguing that
there are alternative ways to establish her identity
that government should offer.

They argue that even though such means would be less
effective and much more cumbersome for police,
government should go the extra mile to protect the
woman's rights.

The principle that deserves to be upheld is that the
law may infringe on an individual's religious freedom
if doing so fulfills a compelling public interest and
does not apply just to members of a particular religion.

The legal requirement is not that only Muslims be
photographed. That would be wrong.

But so would be allowing special exceptions to a
necessary policy because of a specific religious belief.

Responding to an even more ludicrous effort to
circumvent the public welfare, the U.S. Supreme Court
properly ruled that the law prohibiting use of certain
drugs, in this case the hallucinogen peyote, took
precedence over those who claim it is needed for their
religion's rituals.

Allowing someone to drive without a simple way to check
his or her identity would be just as unacceptable,
setting a bad precedent for 21st-century America.

Peter A. Brown is an editorial page columnist for the
Orlando Sentinel. Comment by clicking here.

© 2004, The Orlando Sentinel
Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services
Posted by Permission
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

Daniel J. Stern

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Miles wrote:

> Amish do not like the photograph on IDs and DLs because they consider
> them graven images.

Good thing Amish don't drive, then.

LeMod Pol

zerkanX wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:57:27 -0400, LeMod Pol wrote:
>

>
> Here again we re-enforce the concept of 'clash of cultures' (ie US the good one
> united culture.. Muslims the one united ignorant and bad). Our Sacred Values
> vs Their Ignorant Customs or The Drivers License Photo, a cornerstone of
> American values, is being attacked by the same religion that did 9-11. HAVE
> THEY NO SHAME?!?!

It is you that has no shame! ..... and you lie like a
rug.

> Says a deep pocket commercial writer for Knight Ridder/Tribune Information
> Services who will much more likely be at the same party this weekend with the
> 'deep pocket libertarian' than anyone reading this.

FYI Peter Brown is a black man who writes for the
Orlando Sentinel which is owned by the Chicago Tribune.

What an idiot you are.

1- A permission to drive on the public roads is
required by the state. It is not an unlimited license
and can be suspended and/or revoked at any time.
It is not a "right" civil or otherwise.

If anyone from abroad wants to drive in America or
Canada they must first get permission which require a
number of tests.

Short term visitors may drive with international
permits for up to 30 days.

Florida erred in issuing a permit to that muslim girl.
She would not get one in Saudi Arabia nor in most arab countries.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

Andrew Spartz

Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Driving is a privilege. In order to have the privilege, one must meet
> certain criteria. Having a photo ID is one of those criteria.

I agree with this point. However, is it also a privilege to purchase
tobacco, alcohol, a firearm or a Playboy? Each of these requires a
gov't issued photo ID also.

ARS

LeMod Pol

Andrew Spartz wrote:
>
> Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Driving is a privilege. In order to have the privilege, one must meet
> > certain criteria. Having a photo ID is one of those criteria.
>
> I agree with this point. However, is it also a privilege to purchase
> tobacco, alcohol, a firearm or a Playboy? Each of these requires a
> gov't issued photo ID also.

You must be a juvenile, grow up you'll get over it.

--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

LeMod Pol

C&E wrote:
>
> I may be mistaken, but in Muslim countries where women must wear clothing
> that forbids others (specifically non related males over age 13) from seeing
> their faces such as Saudi Arabia, are these
> women even allowed to drive?

definitely not

> If you claim that for religious reasons you
> cannot have your photo taken would you not also be obliged not to drive for
> the same reason? You can not pick and choose which religious rules you want
> to follow, either follow them all or not.

Right on

> By the way if you argue that prohibition against driving is a custom and not
> a religious edict, the same can be said about the woman's garb. Early
> Muslim women did not wear these uniforms.

Right again

> "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
> news:41195283.5EBB8317@igs.net...
> >
> >
> > Public interest vs. minority rights
> >
> > By Peter A. Brown
> >
> >
> > The outcome of a case, believe it or not on appeal,
> > involving a Muslim woman could tell us much about the
> > relative importance of rights vs. responsibilities and
> > society's overall well-being in post-9-11 America ¯ and
> > whether the common-sense standard still rules
> >
> > When Utah joined the union, its heavily Mormon
> > population agreed to forsake a religious doctrine ¯
> > polygamy ¯ to join the United States.
> >
> > In the 1890s, there were no major concerns that
> > enforcing that requirement might somehow violate
> > constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.
> >
> > Common sense said that the views and values of most
> > Americans took precedence in the cultural clash. The
> > perceived well-being of the many took precedence over
> > the customs of the few.
> >
> > However, now that diversity and minority rights have
> > come to rival godliness as a universal virtue, it's not
> > certain whether such a deal would even be possible.
> >
> > Would some civil libertarian with deep pockets and an
> > eye for playing to the news media's penchant for
> > celebrating victimization try to tie the whole thing up
> > in the courts?
> >
> > The Utah issue comes to mind because of the case of the
> > Muslim woman who is arguing on appeal that religious
> > freedom entitles her to drive without an identifiable
> > picture on her license.
> >
> > The disposition of the case could tell us much about
> > the relative importance of rights vs. responsibilities
> > to society's overall well-being in post-9-11 America,
> > and whether the common-sense standard still rules.
> >
> > It goes to the heart of the question about what kind of
> > society we have become. Especially in an age of
> > terrorism, only a fool would deny the possibility that
> > those who want to kill us because we are Americans
> > happily take advantage of our society's basic freedoms
> > to plot their crimes.
> >
> > Let's be clear: Not all, or even most, followers of
> > Islam are terrorists, but it is clearly true that the
> > majority of terrorists who want to harm the United
> > States are Muslim.
> >
> > This creates an uncomfortable climate for Muslims who
> > are American citizens, and we must be sensitive to
> > their concerns. Obviously, restricting the rights of
> > Muslim U.S. citizens because of their religion would be wrong.
> >
> > Sensitivity is one thing; compromising the public
> > safety to be politically correct is another.
> >
> > The question is: Should society make an exception to a
> > rule that applies to everyone, and is manifestly in the
> > public interest, because of an individual's (in this
> > case, a Muslim woman from Winter Park, Fla.,) religious customs?
> >
> > If so, the best interests of the United States become
> > hostage to an inflexible standard of individual rights,
> > and we take another step toward embracing the notion
> > that, in a secular society, we can afford to make
> > exceptions to policies that promote the general welfare.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. The fundamental basis of our
> > society must be protection of the individual. But we
> > have seen an uncomfortable drift to making exceptions
> > from equally applicable standards in the name of
> > protecting the rights or aspirations of those with
> > special pleadings.
> >
> > Unfortunately, because this issue often gets tangled
> > into issues of race, we really don't talk about such
> > things in polite company.
> >
> > This case involves a woman who claims that Islam's
> > prohibition against having her picture taken without a
> > veil covering everything but her eyes should trump the
> > legal requirement that she have an identifiable picture
> > on her license.
> >
> > It would be a sorry turn of events if the admirable
> > effort to offer the rights and privileges of American
> > life to all is used to undermine national security and
> > further erode a national sense of shared values.
> >
> > The full-face-picture requirement is based on the need
> > for authorities to know someone is who he or she
> > purports to be.
> >
> > It is only common sense.
> >
> > A lower court upheld the state's position, but the case
> > is on appeal, with the woman's lawyers arguing that
> > there are alternative ways to establish her identity
> > that government should offer.
> >
> > They argue that even though such means would be less
> > effective and much more cumbersome for police,
> > government should go the extra mile to protect the
> > woman's rights.
> >
> > The principle that deserves to be upheld is that the
> > law may infringe on an individual's religious freedom
> > if doing so fulfills a compelling public interest and
> > does not apply just to members of a particular religion.
> >
> > The legal requirement is not that only Muslims be
> > photographed. That would be wrong.
> >
> > But so would be allowing special exceptions to a
> > necessary policy because of a specific religious belief.
> >
> > Responding to an even more ludicrous effort to
> > circumvent the public welfare, the U.S. Supreme Court
> > properly ruled that the law prohibiting use of certain
> > drugs, in this case the hallucinogen peyote, took
> > precedence over those who claim it is needed for their
> > religion's rituals.
> >
> > Allowing someone to drive without a simple way to check
> > his or her identity would be just as unacceptable,
> > setting a bad precedent for 21st-century America.
> >
> > Peter A. Brown is an editorial page columnist for the
> > Orlando Sentinel. Comment by clicking here.
> >
> > © 2004, The Orlando Sentinel
> > Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services
> > Posted by Permission
> > --
> > LP
> > In politics, moderation is the best policy

--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

LeMod Pol

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Miles wrote:
>
> > Amish do not like the photograph on IDs and DLs because they consider
> > them graven images.
>
> Good thing Amish don't drive, then.

Does the state put tags on their horses and wagons? <G>
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

Jeff Strickland

That is only true when one has the good fortune to look 16 when they are
really 26.

I look 50 - I often get the senior citizen discount to get into the movies
(extended to those that are 55+) - and I can't remember the last time I
needed a photo ID to buy tabacco, alcohol, or a Playboy.



"Andrew Spartz" <aspartzNOSPAM@pinenet.com> wrote in message
news:1gicwxj.fz9v8huvz2cqN%aspartzNOSPAM@pinenet.c om...
> Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Driving is a privilege. In order to have the privilege, one must meet
> > certain criteria. Having a photo ID is one of those criteria.
>
> I agree with this point. However, is it also a privilege to purchase
> tobacco, alcohol, a firearm or a Playboy? Each of these requires a
> gov't issued photo ID also.
>
> ARS
>
>

Andrew Spartz

LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:

> > I agree with this point. However, is it also a privilege to purchase
> > tobacco, alcohol, a firearm or a Playboy? Each of these requires a
> > gov't issued photo ID also.
>
> You must be a juvenile, grow up you'll get over it.

BZZZZZZ incorrect. In fact I work retail where I am required to card
people under pain of fines for failure.

ARS

Jeff Strickland

"Andrew Spartz" <aspartzNOSPAM@pinenet.com> wrote in message
news:1gid305.1ipcz9no6yueeN%aspartzNOSPAM@pinenet. com...
> Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > That is only true when one has the good fortune to look 16 when they are
> > really 26.
> >
> > I look 50 - I often get the senior citizen discount to get into the
movies
> > (extended to those that are 55+) - and I can't remember the last time I
> > needed a photo ID to buy tabacco, alcohol, or a Playboy.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Andrew Spartz" <aspartzNOSPAM@pinenet.com> wrote in message
> > news:1gicwxj.fz9v8huvz2cqN%aspartzNOSPAM@pinenet.c om...
> > > Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Driving is a privilege. In order to have the privilege, one must
meet
> > > > certain criteria. Having a photo ID is one of those criteria.
> > >
> > > I agree with this point. However, is it also a privilege to purchase
> > > tobacco, alcohol, a firearm or a Playboy? Each of these requires a
> > > gov't issued photo ID also.
> > >
> > > ARS
> > >
> > >
>
> Actually in the ProfMn, A retailer can require ID for any customer. The
> "laws" just mention carding anyone who looks under an arbitrary age, got
> alcohol, the maging number is 35.
>
Arbitrary age? Hardly. One might not agree with the age, but it is hardly an
arbitrary number.

But, there is no requirement to show ID to buy a gallon of milk or a dozen
eggs. There is no requirement to show ID in virtually any cash transaction,
with the possible exception of very large cash transactions, or transactions
involving firearms. Certainly one would be hard pressed to identify a
consumer transaction where ID is required and cash is used to conduct the
transaction. ID is only required as a matter of routine in credit
transactions, and this is due to the fact that many credit transactions are
fraudulent and the merchant has a bonafied need to protect his interests in
such a transaction.




> My point is this: The gov't is requring people to carry "papers". The
> reqirement is has been creeping up gradually, much like a lobster who
> started out in a pot of comfortable water.
>

Your citing of what a merchant might require is not evidence of what
government might require. Sorry, try again. And, a photo on a driver's
license is not a new requirement, and this is the topic of this discussion.



> A recent SC decision demands that a free citizen present said papers to
> an LEO on demand.
>

Now, that is a distressing development, and one that should make everybody a
bit uncomfortable. However, that is far removed from the topic here.

edward ohare

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:57:27 -0400, LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:



>Let's be clear: Not all, or even most, followers of
>Islam are terrorists, but it is clearly true that the
>majority of terrorists who want to harm the United
>States are Muslim.


But a few short years ago, people would have said the majority were
the militia types. Terry Nichols' sentencing a few days ago passed
almost without comment.


>Sensitivity is one thing; compromising the public
>safety to be politically correct is another.


Freedom involves risk. They are usually mutually exclusive. We've,
so far, accepted curtailments of freedom under the guise of the
Patriot Act. I doubt whether it has any more than a miniscule effect
on public safety.

LeMod Pol

edward ohare wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:57:27 -0400, LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:

> >Sensitivity is one thing; compromising the public
> >safety to be politically correct is another.
>
> Freedom involves risk. They are usually mutually exclusive. We've,
> so far, accepted curtailments of freedom under the guise of the
> Patriot Act. I doubt whether it has any more than a miniscule effect
> on public safety.

Ed: The patriot act was badly formulated and poorly
administered, but nevertheless, despite that jackass
attorney general it has succeeded in its mission when
it had to. Because it has not broadcast every little
success, do not think for one minute that there have
been none.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

Randy Hudson

In article <10hl6kgmg5umsb7@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There is no requirement to show ID in virtually any cash transaction,

Actually, there is. Right now, it's limited to cash transactions over
$10,000; but if it's Constitutional to require ID at that threshhold then
it's Constitutional to require ID at any threshhold, perhaps one cent.

So, if it's Constitutional te require naked-faced photos on ID, and
Constitutional to require photos for cash transactions, then you are getting
into questionable territory.

>> A recent SC decision demands that a free citizen present said papers to
>> an LEO on demand.
>>
>
> Now, that is a distressing development, and one that should make everybody a
> bit uncomfortable. However, that is far removed from the topic here.

Actually, they ruled that a Nevada law requiring that a person answer
(promptly and truthfully) to an LEO request for his/her name was
Constitutional. Since they can't even require that a person speak the same
language as the LEO, it strikes me as a bad law, but this court doesn't
consider bad law unconstitutional.

--
Randy Hudson

Randy Hudson

In article <411A3722.46772A22@igs.net>, LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:

> Florida erred in issuing a permit to that muslim girl.
> She would not get one in Saudi Arabia nor in most arab countries.

What do Saudi practices have to do with what is right for a US citizen?
Should citizens of British descent be forbidden to smile for their photos,
as the British government now prohibits smiling on passport photos?

Why is it wrong for Florida to issue a permit with a covered-face photo, but
not wrong for states to issue licenses with no photo at all?

--
Randy Hudson

Jeff Strickland

"Randy Hudson" <ime@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cgrbll$mpv$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <10hl6kgmg5umsb7@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There is no requirement to show ID in virtually any cash transaction,
>
> Actually, there is. Right now, it's limited to cash transactions over
> $10,000; but if it's Constitutional to require ID at that threshhold then
> it's Constitutional to require ID at any threshhold, perhaps one cent.
>

That's why I said "virtually any cash transaction." Certainly a cash
transaction for $10,000 or more is not a common occurance at a checkout
counter cash register.




> So, if it's Constitutional te require naked-faced photos on ID, and
> Constitutional to require photos for cash transactions, then you are
getting
> into questionable territory.
>
> >> A recent SC decision demands that a free citizen present said papers to
> >> an LEO on demand.
> >>
> >
> > Now, that is a distressing development, and one that should make
everybody a
> > bit uncomfortable. However, that is far removed from the topic here.
>
> Actually, they ruled that a Nevada law requiring that a person answer
> (promptly and truthfully) to an LEO request for his/her name was
> Constitutional. Since they can't even require that a person speak the
same
> language as the LEO, it strikes me as a bad law, but this court doesn't
> consider bad law unconstitutional.
>

We have seen many times that bad law and unconstitutional law are not always
the same thing.