Should Religious Minorities Be Allowed to Wear Head and Face Coverings in Photo IDs?
58The world is One. Give (in) a little.
Several states have already banned the coverings...
Religious minorities the world over have been persecuted since the beginning of human history. But is keeping the face available for view in state documents such as drivers' licenses a form of oppression to those groups who wear burkhas (burqas) and veils? Here's a short clip from a PRWeb news release that will give you an idea of what's going on. Perhaps you'll leave a comment at the end and also visit PRWeb for the entire release (Enter Pass ID Act of 2009 in the PRWeb Search box).
Washington, D.C. (PRWEB) September 4, 2009 -- Yesterday, an interfaith group of civil rights and community organizations representing millions of constituents throughout the United States wrote to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs today requesting amendments to the PASS ID Act of 2009 in order to protect the right of individuals to wear religious headcoverings in driver's license and other identification photographs.
For the letter to the Senate Committee, click on this title:
letter addressed to Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins
The groups include conservative Jews, Sikhs and traditional Muslims. Some support from Christians but not much.
Remember this as you consider your opinion: ID photo cards must necessarily show the face of the carrier. If the face is covered, what's the point of the ID card? I know that some sects of Islam are averse to showing a woman's face anywhere, let alone in a permanent photo. But this is not Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Some religious concessions may be helpful in a democratic society. But the common good must outweigh the nit picky details.
My opinion: No coverings in legal photo ID documents.
What's yours?
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
You're right. People so often confuse right with privilege. Covering one's face in ID photos is not a right.
Thanks.
The letter to Lieberman and Collins applies to turbans, yarmulkes, and hijabs. If you're dealing with a Sikh, a Jew, or a Muslim with a scarf, the face can still be seen.
The letter even says that it does not apply to "items that conceal the face." I don't think the groups support giving licenses to people with veils.
I agree with you, in part. I would not be allowed to wear a hat in a photo to be placed on a legal document i.e. license, state ID card, VA card, etc. Sometimes half the identification of a person involves the head. But women are allowed to wear wigs. There can be some leeway.
I agree that head coverings, if not hiding the face, should be allowable if identification of the person is not inhibited.
As I understand it, in some Muslim countries, particularly where women are completely veiled, they are not allowed to drive anyway. Am I wrong? So licenses, even in the US, are probably a moot item.
I'm a Christian and wear a headcovering according to the Bible similar to a nun's covering. Some of my hair shows but my face is not covered. I feel that the face needs to be seen for an ID or Drivers License and one should be able to wear a covering for the photo.
I agree. If you want the privilege, follow the rules. It's important to remember that driver's licenses and other ID cards are privileges rather than rights. If you do not wish to comply with the rules, then you must relinquish your claim on a public ID. It ultimately is for everyone's safety and protection. Or am I wrong?
My opinion, of course.
A New Thought Blog
- New Thought Blog--Spirit Feast - Richard Kent Matthews\' Executive High Watch
Articles, interesting news releases, meditations, opinions, from the progressive New Thought perspective. Enjoy!
tony0724 says:
4 months ago
In California the right to a drivers license Is a privilege not a right . So oddly enough for once I am In agreement with you .