Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Security risks

I am against the burka (aka niqab, based on who you talk to) and believe it should be taken off when the wearer enters an airplane or other secure location, for very real security reasons. I also believe that passport photos and driver's licenses need a photo on there for identification reasons - and hence the burka/niqab should be taken off in those instances. That said, recently the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Christian woman who does not believe in being photographed (something about 'graven images') could have a driver's license without a photograph. Go read Eteraz's post about this. The reasoning of the 8th circuit is pure insanity. Free exercise of religion does not give the religious person the right to subvert a law that is nonreligious in character with a substantial secular purpose. Those who say that women in burkas should have to take off the burka when going through an airport or taking a passport photo have no case if they support the Christian woman's arguments. Both arguments are insane and both lines of reasoning are insane. This is Christofascism personified. When Christofascists behave in this manner, I start to lose the ability to distinguish them from Islamofascists. Just sad, sad, sad.

11 comments:

Steven said...

Wow, your writing loads of fantastic and thought-provoking articles today. Good stuff. :P

Red Tulips said...

Steven,

Thanks for the compliment!

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

It isn't christofascism.

They want to kiss Muslim butt, so they can give them the right to cover their faces if they also give nutjob christians the right to not have pictures taken. These judges just successfully obscured the burkha argument!!

Plus, any judge appointed by democrats seem to be inclined towards anything that makes election fraud easier, so this is a two-fer in light of upcoming voter ID laws.

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

I have no idea what judge wrot the 8th circuit decision, but the 8th circuit is known as one of the most conservative circuits in the nation.

As far as how to characterize this...it is at the very least Christo-nutjobism!

Steven said...

Heya!

I left a really long post to Bint about moral relitivism over here.

What do you think Red?

Red Tulips said...

Steven,

I love it. You are so very clear in the way you approach arguments.

On a different note, I spoke to the Birthright Israel people, and it seems I have a trip for January! Yay!

Steven said...

Ooo. Fantastic!

Sadly I can't go yet, but maybe in the summer.

Have a great time. :)

-----

Thanks for the response to that essay, it needs editing but I think I will post it. :)

-----

About the article: I think that women should not have been given an exemption.

It is her decision if she wants a licence. She can either follow the perfectly reasonable rules or choose not to get a licence at all.

Jason said...

The simple reality is that society can no longer bend over backwards and shoot itself in the foot to accomodate religious idiocy.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

I would bet that the plaintiff was pulled in just to provide cover for muslims and their burkhas. This is how the left works, with straw plaintiffs.

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

Doubtful. In all likelihood, the plaintiff sued because she really does not want a photo taken of herself.

I find it hard to believe that this was a straw plaintiff.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

If someone could find the law review, it will probably be an ACLU lawyer who also works on the Burkha issue. But hey, maybe I'm just paranoid. But I guarantee that the pro nijab crowd wil glom onto this as justification.

But she could very well have this belief and wish. That doesn't mean that the ACUL wouldn't just drool over over her to support their pro-muslim work.