US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[Ramo]

Fair enough.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Whoha
ok, so replace head scarf with total facial covering then :P

There is an enourmous difference. The reason this was banned (only in some locations in the US right now for the record) is that it comprimised one of the key components of a drivers license which was to identify who the individual who was holding it was. Without a picture, a very large number of females could buy or borrow the license from the person who originally obtained it and drive around without being very worried about being caught. If you get pulled over, simply show your license, identify yourself by the same name as the person who has his name on the license and be on your way.

A person might be able to purchase multiple licenses so he can continue driving even after havings his or her license pulled. The interests of public safety happen to trump the religious beliefs of an individual in this case, (although there is always the option of not driving and therefore avoiding having your picture taken) but not because the issue is religious expression, you couldn't get a license with a ski mask completely covering almost all your face either.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen


I stand corrected again.

not that its terribly pertinent but "in god we trust" did appear on some coins before the 50's.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Which is why the assertion came out of an argument about the establishment clause initially meaning only among Christians

A. It wasn't a discussion on the Establishment Clause, but Free Exercise Clause. He says that:

I think its also pretty safe to say that by freedom of religion they meant freedom of the different christian denominations. not freedom of paganism or aetheism.

B. It also seems false. If you look at the history of the 1st Amendment (the 19 versions before the one which was settled on) and the debates over it, the debates seemed to center on a freedom of conscious for all, not just Christians.

C. If he meant more political liberal, then he used the terminology wrong as well.

no its not just about the free exercise clause. and I realize that jefferson and madison had very high ideals. but they were never reflected in the actual practice of gov't.

this is not an uncommon occurance to early america. every man is created equal. or 3/5th's equal or well...something of the sort atleast.

where was the TAX EXEMPTION for the Indian religions? hell where was their land?

the active interpretation of the constitution was not reflected in the ideals of madison and jefferson. it took later supreme court rulings to bend it towards what we now see as common knowledge about our ideals.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by yavoon


maybe the guy is jewish and thinks u r refering to the xtian version and not his, or muslim. maybe he is xtian but plans on lying and doesn't want to goto hell. maybe he is xtian and feels that god's authority is not neccessary in legal matters.

You could like to replace jewish and muslim by animist and krishna, because chistians, jewish and muslims share the same god.

[Imran Siddiqui]

where was the TAX EXEMPTION for the Indian religions?

I can easily argue where was the tax exemption for Christians? The 1st Amendment did not apply to the states until after the Civil War, and the states were the ones with the greatest power to tax. The federal government didn't have an income tax; they got most of their money from tariffs.

the active interpretation of the constitution was not reflected in the ideals of madison and jefferson.

We wouldn't know, because, once again, the 1st Amendment did not apply to the states and the federal government really didn't do much to curtain non-Christian free exercise (they couldn't.. they didn't have jurisdiction).

It would be silly to say that the Establishment Clause only applies to Christians, because that would mean that the government couldn't establish Christianity, but could establish Islam? That doesn't make any sense.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

where was the TAX EXEMPTION for the Indian religions?

I can easily argue where was the tax exemption for Christians? The 1st Amendment did not apply to the states until after the Civil War, and the states were the ones with the greatest power to tax. The federal government didn't have an income tax; they got most of their money from tariffs.

the active interpretation of the constitution was not reflected in the ideals of madison and jefferson.

We wouldn't know, because, once again, the 1st Amendment did not apply to the states and the federal government really didn't do much to curtain non-Christian free exercise (they couldn't.. they didn't have jurisdiction).

It would be silly to say that the Establishment Clause only applies to Christians, because that would mean that the government couldn't establish Christianity, but could establish Islam? That doesn't make any sense.

so the federal gov't thot every man was created equal but the states disagreed? I don't see how u can have a federal gov't proclaiming ideals that only apply to who? ppl who don't live in states?

and the federal gov't did plenty to curtail the indians practice of religion. and a few other practices.

[Imran Siddiqui]

so the federal gov't thot every man was created equal but the states disagreed? I don't see how u can have a federal gov't proclaiming ideals that only apply to who? ppl who don't live in states?

I see you have never heard of the incorporation debate. It was kind of a VERY BIG DEAL in US History! Before that time (selective incorporation, so the dates vary), the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to the states.

and the federal gov't did plenty to curtail the indians practice of religion.

True, but most of them were not considered citizens, and thus not covered.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by yavoon
not that its terribly pertinent but "in god we trust" did appear on some coins before the 50's.

However, it wasn't the "In God We Trust" that was established in the 50's - so I'm not surprised. It was the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance that was added then.

[Ned]

Imran, do you know what the thinking was in 1861 about the power of the Federal government to pass anti-slavery laws that could, for example, free the slaves? Erie RR v. Thompkins had not been decided. The South may have felt that the North could get such legislation through Congress.

But the 13th Amendment belies that thinking, does it not?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Mordoch

There is an enourmous difference. The reason this was banned (only in some locations in the US right now for the record) is that it comprimised one of the key components of a drivers license which was to identify who the individual who was holding it was. Without a picture, a very large number of females could buy or borrow the license from the person who originally obtained it and drive around without being very worried about being caught. If you get pulled over, simply show your license, identify yourself by the same name as the person who has his name on the license and be on your way.

A person might be able to purchase multiple licenses so he can continue driving even after havings his or her license pulled. The interests of public safety happen to trump the religious beliefs of an individual in this case, (although there is always the option of not driving and therefore avoiding having your picture taken) but not because the issue is religious expression, you couldn't get a license with a ski mask completely covering almost all your face either.

I know why it was banned, and have no problem with it being banned, I guess I should stick those smilies into posts where I attempt humor and fail.