| |
|
To echo SMS, your culture/religion doesn't give you the right to murder (except in special circumstances, I think, but which are part of a whole other thread somewhere other than this). Taking someone else's life and covering your own face as part of your religious practice are so far apart, degree-wise, as to not even be part of the same argument. (Though I realize that this thread is rapidly headed towards becoming an argument about Individual rights vs. State control in general, and not about this case in particular...)
I'm also missing the problem with offering Driver's License tests in 34 languages. Why not offer the test in as many languages as possible? What's wrong with making sure that people who are going to be operating potentially lethal machinery fully understand how to safely do so? *Shrugs* I dunno. I live in Canada, and we tend to offer all kinds of information and government forms in as many languages as possible, based on the general theory that a) Immigrants/refugees feel isolated enough without being excluded by bureaucracy and b) I'm guessing that it's kind of hard to collect taxes, etc, from people who don't read/speak the language on the forms. Not that we do anywhere near enough for new Canadians, but it's at least something.
That crack about "pesky darkies" assimilating with our culture was free-floating and, on close inspection, has jack to do with the case at hand. -SM
Um, I think that the crack had everything to do with the case at hand. We're discussing the mind-set of 'You can come to our country, you can convert to another religion, but unless you're willing to bow to our cultural norms, you cannot enjoy the same freedoms as all other Americans'. Think of it this way: Though, as a worshiper of Tezcatlipoca, your human sacrifices may not be legal, you would still be able to drive a frickin' car in order to get your groceries. That's respecting your religious beliefs while protecting the rest of the population, which is what this thread is all about.
Now. Since Ms. Freeman is not interested in endangering the rest of the population, she just wants the freedom to practice her religion, I'm again signing on with SMS: Folk who have no issues with photo ID can keep their photo ID. Those whose religion/faith/philosophy/whathaveyou prevent them from having their photos taken can work out a compromise, be it fingerprinting or something else.
Yes, yes, cost is an issue, but I, for one, would rather spend money working towards an inclusive society than working towards annihilating Afghanis, say.
And what's with the snottiness about converts? Like her faith is any less real because she converted to Islam 5 years ago instead of having been born into the religion... |
|
|
