A Christian and a Muslim walk into the DMV… October 19, 2006 Jill A Christian woman refuses to have her picture taken for her driver’s license. A Muslim woman wants to have her picture taken with her niqab on. Both go to court. Guess who gets to avoid having her picture taken?
Personally, I don’t think either of them should have been issued a license. Ridiculous. What if I called my landlord and said that since it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven, I have given up all of my money and can’t pay rent? Should he just say OK and bend the rules to fit my delusions? What good does it do us to encourage this sort of, frankly, stupid behavior?
When Quaring purchased groceries displaying pictures on the labels, she either removed the labels or covered the pictures with a black marking pen. How does she pay for these groceries? Does the store accept her cheque without photo id? ‘Cause currency is pretty much nothing but “graven images”.
Give me a break. It should be no picture, no license for everyone. There is no point in issuing licenses if there is no picture to identify the holder of the license.
She’s not even interpreting the Bible verse correctly!! The verse means images of GOD….what, does she think she’s God?
Although, the purpose of a picture is to identify the card holder. If a woman wears a niqab on her driver’s license picture, and she’s wearing a niqab when she’s pulled over, well, she’s hardly misrepresenting herself. She was willing to have herself photographed, but not in a way that satisfied the DMV. (In case someone needs it pointed out — note tongue in cheek.)
“What good does it do us to encourage this sort of, frankly, stupid behavior? ” Thank you. I am left wondering the same exact thing. Since I am an atheist, and as many theists will tell you that automatically means I have no morals and no love for life*, then can I murder someone and employ this “my beliefs make me special and therefor exempt from your rules” defense? I mean what’s good for the goose. . . (* – I trust that it’s clear that this isn’t the line of thinking here.)
Wow, it’s an honest-to-goodness iconoclast, right here in the 21st century! I guess I didn’t study Byzantine history for nothing. But yeah, the point about handling cash is a good one, I think: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy (rarely) and all those guys.
That’s almost like a classic compare-and-contrast assignment with the recent British Airways decision raising such a fuss overseas: Employees at the counter can’t display crosses, but muslims can wear turbans and hijabs (which ordinarily violate the BA dress codes). Personally, I don’t think the christian woman should have gotten a license. But that said, i don’t think the muslim woman should have been allowed to abstain from a full-face photo either. I also note (for those who don’t know this) that these are two different courts, so the “inconsistency” isn’t all that odd.
But yeah, the point about handling cash is a good one, I think: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy (rarely) and all those guys. – Mikey S But there is an exeption with that, so long as she pays her taxes — ya know: “render unto Caesar”. I’m wondering, though — how does this woman spend her Saturdays? Did she refuse to take an “oath” at the trial, lest she even accidently mis-state something and thus accidently take the Lord’s name in vain? It really wouldn’t be that much of a sin, but if you’re going out of your way to erect a proper fence around the law so that you don’t even look at pictures (which, btw, are not graven), you ought to do your best to avoid making vain oaths, nu? And the 10 commandments are not the only commandments. If she is so keen on following the word of God, does she proclaim God’s unity every morning and evening? And does she go by the verses following that proclaimation and commendment? E.g. does she teach them dilligently to her children? Does she bind them as a sign upon her hand and let them be for frontlets between her eyes (i.e. is she laying t’fillin?)? Does she post them on the doorposts of her house and on her gates? Etc. The Christian woman can make this complaint when even J.D. Hayworth’s hatchet-couple cannot assail her lack of religiosity and when she follows the 613 better than even Holy Joe. Until then, isn’t she being a hypocrite to pull one verse out of the Bible and ignore so many of the rest?
Both arguments are a bit daft, but I don’t see that it shows a pattern of discrimination. The Xian ruling was from the 8th Circuit, a federal intermediate appellate court. The Muslim ruling was from the Florida Court of Appeals, an intermediate state appellate court. If these were from the same jurisdiction, or the same panel (intermediate courts are typically composed of panels of different judges), then I’d say discrimination. As it stands, the 8th Circuit rendered what seems, at first blush, a remarkably stupid opinion.