Not the veil again!

[South killer]

That is one of those nice ideas that gives everyone warm fuzzies but which, in practice, turns out to be extraordinarially stupid. I suppose we should have let the Germans choice there own way to deal with religious minorities? Opps, they did. The British were totally evil Christians who were pushing their values upon everyone else when the royal navy ended the tran-atlantic slave trade. Nope we can't have those damn WASPs telling people how to act. Coordinated action to end female sex slavery is imperialist so we'd better not try to deal with that issue. We don't want to offend anyone you know; we just want them to develop according to their own values.

First, you can't compare nazi ideology to the veil tradition. In the first one the government killed people and did the most terrible things and i don't agree with any ideology or custom that is racist or harms people. However, in the veil case most women wear it because they want. (although in some middle east countries the government forces women to use it, which, of course, i don't agree). In Irak women were forced to wear it but when saddam was gone and the US ''liberated'' irak, the women continued with the tradition, which proves that although some countries force women to wear it (which, i repeat, i don't agree with) the veil thing is a custom very arraigated on their culture. perhaps a society with equal rights and that stuff is better than their society but it's the job of that society to work out equal rights for themselves and other country should never impose its culture over other (except in cases where people really suffers ie: Nazi Germany, Afghanistan, etc.).

[St Leo]

ACLU

n January 2002, shortly after Freeman's license was suspended, the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit on her behalf, citing three separate cases in Colorado, Indiana and Nebraska in which the courts ruled that individuals with certain clearly held religious beliefs have a right to obtain licenses without photographs. Those cases involved Christians who believe that the Second Commandment prohibits them from having their photographs taken.

IMHO, she has a very good chance of winning.

[Ben Kenobi]

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;"

Many things can be idols, if they take the place of God in our lives. I don't see how photographs fit, because they are a representation of ourselves, yet we do not worship the representation.

[St Leo]

Which ten commandments?

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Surely you are familiar with iconoclasm, obi.

[Ben Kenobi]

Does this count as a threadjack?

Protestant
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before
me.
Catholic
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt
not have strange gods before me.
Hebrew
1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slavery.

Protestants and Catholics seem the same. There's a problem with the Hebrew one, in that this is not the first commandment. You're citing Exodus 20:2,

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

rather than Exodus 20:3
"You shall have no other gods before [1] me."

20:2 is the preamble, and not the commandment.


2nd commandment, again, protestants and Catholics are the same.

Let's see what your source cites for the Hebrew:

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the
Lord thy God in vain.

We should be seeing Exo 20:4-6

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Instead, you've cited the third commandment out of order. This throws off all the numbers by one down the list. The combination of the 9th and 10th commandments is seen in Exodus 20:17

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Exactly the same as the Protestant and Catholic citations.

All the other 'commandments' cited are not the Ten Commandments given to Moses, on the mountain of Sinai, as described in Exodus 20.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh God (no pun intended)! Now we have an argument on the SECOND COMMANDMENT!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by St Leo
ACLU

n January 2002, shortly after Freeman's license was suspended, the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit on her behalf, citing three separate cases in Colorado, Indiana and Nebraska in which the courts ruled that individuals with certain clearly held religious beliefs have a right to obtain licenses without photographs. Those cases involved Christians who believe that the Second Commandment prohibits them from having their photographs taken.

IMHO, she has a very good chance of winning.

Those judges should be removed from office. Authority from other states is only secondary though, so if the state of Florida wins, as it should, then it'll get settled in a decent CCA, not a loony one.

[St Leo]

The graven images commandment, whatever its number is, has been interpreted by several different religious denominations as banning all non-abstract pictures.

Early Islam and medieval Orthodox Christianity were iconoclastic. In fact, iconoclasm was one of the reasons for the split between the Catholics and the Orthodox Christians.

[The Vagabond]

Just recently, Russia's Supreme Court showed itself quite wimpy over the issue:

Russia's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that devout Muslim women would be allowed to cover their hair for passport photographs, despite a controversial point in Russian law explicitly forbidding it. "The court overturned the earlier ruling. So they will now be allowed to wear headscarves in the photographs," a court spokeswoman said.

An earlier appeal lodged by women from the mainly Muslim province of Tatarstan was overturned by the country's top court in March, in a ruling condemned by rights activists as a sign of growing anti-Islamic sentiment in Moscow.

President Vladimir Putin backed that ruling during a visit to Tatarstan last year, saying all regions in Russia should abide by national standards.

Devout Muslim women are required to wear a headscarf, or hijab, and cover much of their bodies as it is considered sinful for a woman to reveal her hair or skin to anyone other than her husband or immediate relatives.

The Interior Ministry, especially sensitive on the issue because of the security threat from separatist-minded Muslim Chechnya, says wearing a headscarf or hat in a passport picture makes identification difficult. "The Koran is not a legal document on the territory of the Russian Federation," a ministry spokeswoman told Interfax. "We have a secular state and no one religion should dominate."

Human rights groups accuse Russia, which has 20 million Muslims in its 147 million population, of fostering anti-Islamic feelings as part of Moscow's bid to halt a separatist rebellion in Chechnya.// Reuters

http://www.gazeta.ru/cgi-bin/newsarc.cgi?lenta=intnews&day=15&month=05&year=2003

[orange]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Of course there is another issue which is begging to be brought up. Let's say this woman gives in and gets he picture taken. What is to stop her from getting pulled over for speeding and refuses to remove her medieval head gear? The cop will need to varify that she is the person in the picture so he will need to see her face, yet, I am sure someone will claim that is against her religion.

you beat me to it. Minus the rolleyes.

[alva]

[q]quote:
Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail


How ironic is that? [q]
And her name being 'freeman'
-
Strange how some people can get away with anything, while others (non extremists) always end up 'paying' for their sh1t...

[Tolls]

"No, not a precedent, because the state will argue that the DMV employee didn't know the rule and made an honest error. Since there's no permanent harm as a result of that error, she can't hold the state to it."

I thought it would be something along those lines...administrative error type thing. Hopefully sanity will prevail.

I wonder if we'll start getting odd stuff like this over here (UK) now that photos are needed for new drivers licenses.

[Ben Kenobi]

has been interpreted by several different religious denominations as banning all non-abstract pictures.

St. Leo:

More evidence would greatly assist your claim. Until now, I'd never heard this interpretation.

[St Leo]

Wikipedia on Iconoclasm
Very biased Catholic Encyclopedia article on Iconoclasm

I may have exaggerated somewhat.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by St Leo
I may have exaggerated somewhat.

You exaggerate something? Say it isn't so!