Security versus freedom of religion: Which takes priority?

SGM Erik Marquez — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:09:30 -0500

GA lawmaker attempted to add Muslim face covering garments to anti-masking law that was written to battle KKK masks, he withdrew the bill.
Begging the question is it acceptable to mask your identity when you go to get your drivers license or state ID?
If an officer has probable cause for an ID and a person wearing a head garment covering all but eyes how does he confirm ID? Religious requirement vers ID?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2016 6:14 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:14:33 -0500

Mosque Monitoring was SOP in Kirkuk, Iraq. I don't think mosques have the expectation of privacy if an IMAM (who is rogue) preaches hate and destruction of the government. It should be done here too.

Response by CPT Jim Schwebach made Nov 20 at 2016 6:15 PM

CPT Jim Schwebach — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:15:34 -0500

The purpose of identifying documents(driver's licenses, state ID's, passports etc.) are to provide identification. Masking one's face defeats the purpose and should not be permitted for anyone applying for any of these documents whatever the reason.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Nov 20 at 2016 6:16 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:16:47 -0500

In this case Security, you can still worship showing your face, to hell with catering to people that want us to die or convert.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Nov 20 at 2016 6:19 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:19:35 -0500

I was surprised a little, research shows this is not as clear-cut as I thought it was

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LWVJ.pdf

LWVJ.pdf

'vÆÿgùåÄÉ)ÏãÉ{PaÊ16Ú[ecüÔûÑ8=ÝG@SScýÜ#Âìe^Dv¿=»Ý8ö·77ûý$9`¶_ñÙÊp§!'Î2Hìáßöÿñs@ÜºcßpãyÚªôBiXTQzÖÍâc»Áð8%(å'Üû9µJìÎN;K;Øã)6Æ§dßòÉ-j)\)N$Æè.gTÈfQXCÌ0á ?b¡EKÊi|stµp$ÍrÒmTÏÖCüÐºö5dã

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2016 6:20 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:20:19 -0500

SGM Erik Marquez It is not acceptable to hide your identity when obtaining an ID.

Response by SFC George Smith made Nov 20 at 2016 6:28 PM

SFC George Smith — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:28:37 -0500

Both... especially when you have one religion hell bent to Dominate the world... restrict immigration.....to protect the others here...

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Nov 20 at 2016 6:44 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:44:47 -0500

@SGM Erik Marquez SGM Erik Marquez Wow, a tough one...I think if I had to choose...I would choose Security because without being secure I would not have freedom for my Religion.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2016 6:54 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:54:25 -0500

There's no reasonable argument for not having your photo taken. Otherwise, there's no need for any photo. I haven't heard anyone argue they shouldn't have to get their photo taken for a US Passport. If it's such a burden, don't get a driver's license and essentially live as most veiled women do in Saudi Arabia, without driving. We all have choices. You just have to live with the consequences.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2016 7:18 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:18:56 -0500

I havent heard of anyone complaining about not being able to wear a face covering garment while taking a ID picture. I have no idea why a lawmaker would waste time with this.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Nov 20 at 2016 7:19 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:19:40 -0500

I recently had a Saudi Student stay with us for about a week. We had the discussion about women wearing full coverage clothing. I related a story from a few years ago about a woman here in the US who wanted her driver's license photo wearing her entire garb. My friend, first related that there is no such problem in Saudi Arabia, because women can't drive, and therefore do not have driver's licenses. Additionally, he pointed out that many Saudi women DO have passports, and it is required that their face be visible on the passport photo for the purposes of identification. I see no conflict. If it is necessary to identify a person for a valid reason, it is impossible to do so with one's face covered.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2016 8:44 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:44:30 -0500

Following the laws on the books legislated by congress, the peoples' representatives, would be a start. And the law actually has a religious test for persecution. Can anyone prove the persecuted aren't actually those creating their country's instability? Asking someone if they are a terrorist or if they support sharia law without the benefit of a international task-force performing background investigations will certainly get an honest answer, right?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2016 9:06 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 21:06:41 -0500

If the purpose of a DL is to identify a person licensed to drive and and impediment is in place to defeat the purpose of the DL then the impediment should be removed. Since no one has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle the choice is not security versus freedom of religion rather, one's desire to operate a vehicle on public roads versus a desire to wear such clothing.

No one is denying them the right to practice their religion and this is silly anyways as there is no requirement to wear a burqa or veil in the Quran or in the Hadith only a requirement for modest dress.

Response by SSG Steven Mangus made Nov 20 at 2016 9:08 PM

SSG Steven Mangus — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 21:08:40 -0500

Religion has nothing to do with it..the law of the land says the way the picture has to be taken no exceptions..if people don't like it, don't get a license..furthermore in these United States adults are required to have a picture ID. with that being said if your religious belief prevents you from taking the required picture it is time for that individual to find a new religion or find a new country to live in..

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Nov 20 at 2016 9:08 PM

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 21:08:57 -0500

We can't have special rules for some groups of people and not all. Identification is simple, We need a full facial view otherwise any document that should have a photo is useless ! Everyone needs to conform to the rules of the nation, You don't get to invent Your own rules. If You can't make Identification possible then its simple, You are not entitled to Be issued any official document which would include drivers license, Passports or any other which is used as photo ID. What religion You practice has nothing to do with having a proper photo ID with a full unmasked facial view. If You don't want to unmask then No ID should be issued !

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2016 11:26 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 23:26:56 -0500

Security in this case. An ID should show a person's face. If a person has their face covered while wearing a religious garment that person should be required by law to unmask and identify themselves to match their ID. I saw the perfect example of this when going thru immigration in Dubai a couple years back and that is a Muslim country.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2016 11:46 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 23:46:53 -0500

Here is my opinion... people (anyone) should be allowed to cover their face while in public space (streets, parks etc). They should not be allowed to cover their face on ID, while driving, or while carrying a weapon (concealed or otherwise) and schools, government offices, businesses, private residents, etc, should be 100% within their rights to ask ANYONE to "unmask" in the interests of security without risk of being sued (pipe dream I know).

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 21 at 2016 12:56 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:56:30 -0500

If they want an official photo they must show their face - otherwise, what's the point?

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Nov 21 at 2016 5:53 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 05:53:02 -0500

Security should come foremost.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Nov 21 at 2016 7:08 AM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 07:08:03 -0500

Driving is a privilege and not a right. We are free to practice any religion we choose, but it must not interfere with the security of our nation. We are pretty accommodating as a society. In your specific example regarding pulling someone over, if I need to call in a female officer so she can verify the identity, then that's what I'll do.

Freedom of religion doesn't exempt me from the laws of our country. I can't marry off my young daughters in exchange for political station. I can't abduct, kill, and then bury a woman next to my unmarried son because he died before he could be properly married. I can't kill someone in my own family simply because they embarrassed me.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Nov 21 at 2016 11:22 AM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:22:46 -0500

For me, security because you never know who is behind that burqua or what their intent(s) are/is,

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Nov 21 at 2016 11:36 AM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:36:02 -0500

We need to opt for security in the case of people who might want to hide their identity from law enforcement. If they have such strong religious convictions that they cannot remove their face covering for an official government function, like an ID photograph, then they should forgo the function and any rights or privileges that go with it. Also, it should be mandatory for any person to remove their face covering for the purpose of identification or emergency assistance when a law enforcement officer asks them to do so. Failure to comply should be considered an admission of guilt, same as refusing to take a breathalyzer test for DWI, to a misdemeanor with a reasonable fine and up to 30 days in jail. It's common sense; something we need a lot more of in this country.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Nov 21 at 2016 2:17 PM

CSM Richard StCyr — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:17:06 -0500

I think if you want to drive which is a privilege not a rite you should conform to the same standard as everyone else, same with ID.
Probably wouldn't have gotten same level of push back if the law wasn't tied to the KKK anti masking thing. No body wants to be associated with that band of heathens.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Nov 21 at 2016 5:34 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:34:25 -0500

I don't see why the existing Georgia law would need to be revised. It applies to everyone equally and a persons religion should not provide a shield from the law.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2016 6:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 18:58:56 -0500

First, I don't believe one can safely drive in a Burka or even some Hijabs. So driving while wearing something that obstructs perifial vision should not be allowed. Second, removing a hijab or other face covering at the request of law enforcement for identification purposes simply needs to be accepted as a requirement of living in the West.

That doesn't mean that if a woman wants to run around in a Hijab she should be stopped. Women should be allowed to wear whatever they want, as long as they understand that they may be required to identify themselves by allowing someone to compare a photo ID of their face with their actual face.

Response by SFC William Stephens made Nov 22 at 2016 2:44 PM

SFC William Stephens — Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:44:13 -0500

Security of Nation take priority as we stand. It don't mater in this country what religion you are because right now everyone is fighting over this election situation, they even have middle school students out of school protesting and this is where I draw the line because my kid is soon one of these middle schoolers' Our national security is at risk because their are so many hate groups and groups against our government that we could raie our security level against our own people. That's crazy shit.

Other countries just laugh us while we tare ourselves apart. I am sure once the Commander in Chief takes his Oath of office those protesting will be dealt with by force or action, the military will used in away that it has never been used in a way that it has ever been used before because, all these people in uniform on FB/RP and social media making comments better ready to defense themselves again non others then the country they live because they will be on the streets day and night patrolling helping the police and making sure those who want to be bad asses can be bas asses, come back to my post in few month a vote me up when the this country makes 180 degree turn when TRUMP takes office.

STEPHENS'

Response by SSG Pablo Torres made Nov 23 at 2016 1:14 AM

SSG Pablo Torres — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:14:30 -0500

Here is the way I look at it, Religion, Politics and policies should not be mixed, in regards to the law of the land. Everybody should be proactive when it comes to security issues and religion should not be a factor in identification of a person. For example I love to go to the range to shoot at some paper targets at the same time I have my conceal carry but I agree that people should get background checks and if you are proven to be a security risk you should not have a gun and this does not make me anti second amendment. Just an add on.

Response by CW3 John Rusyn made Nov 23 at 2016 12:18 PM

CW3 John Rusyn — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:18:04 -0500

Driving is a privilege, not a right. So to do so means you must be willing to accept some abridgment of rights. For example, the 4th Admen is abridge by your consent to stop and detection for a traffic infraction, also the requirement to submit to search and seizure regarding blood taken without a warrant in DUI cases. So if you choose to exercise the privilege of driving then you should be subject to a minimal intrusion of identification.
Additional if religion freedom is demand the next thing would be the requirement of female muslin drivers only being contacted by female officer. And on and on and on...

Response by Cpl Brian Johnston made Nov 25 at 2016 1:49 AM

Cpl Brian Johnston — Fri, 25 Nov 2016 01:49:34 -0500

We give way to much preference to so-called "religious" or other exceptional rights.
If a Sikh can wear a turban and still be considered in uniform, then any member of the military should be allowed to wear a turban, or maybe even whatever head gear that they want.
If a Jew can wear a yamulke in court, I should be able to wear my hat in court.
If a woman in the service can wear her hair long, a man in the service should also be allowed to grow his hair long, and vice versa.
Also, the government should NOT be providing kosher, halal, or ANY "special" food to anybody, except for medical conditions, whether to service members, prisoners in jail, POWs, students, refugees, whatever.
And if the law says that you can't wear masks in public, that should be WITHOUT EXCEPTION, unless with a lawful special event permit where anybody can wear a mask.
If you want to treated like everybody else, then accept what everybody else accepts!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2016 6:25 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 18:25:49 -0500

SGM Erik Marquez there is nothing in the Koran that says you have to drive a car. In countries like Saudi Arabia, a woman may not be allowed to drive a car. So if your religion says you have to wear a head covering any time you go out of your house, maybe you shouldn't leave your house.

It isn't incumbent on me or on society to make it easy for someone to practice their religion. It is incumbent on everyone to obey the rules of the society you live in, or to leave.