Colander Hats on IDs: Legitimate Religious Statement or Atheists Acting Childish?

[Apex]

I don't think it's reasonable to allow any kind of headgear on a photo ID. Headgear can dramatically change the appearance and can be used as a disguise. The photo ID needs to present a baseline appearance for comparison.

As some people already pointed out, this is not very realistic (at least in the US). If ensuring someones ID picture is as accurate as possible really were a priority here you would not be able to go years (sometimes a decade or more) with out ever getting a new picture taken. I had my learners permit picture (15 years old) all the way till I was 25.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some people can't appreciate satire, it seems.

I laugh at alot of things such as satire and irony, and I am quite the schadenfreude. But I find nothing funny about protesting the basic rights of others if those rights are not harming others. Funny that they are making themselves look like an *** (hilarious actually), but not funny that they are protesting a right that can only bother them if they let it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is satire truley appropraite in this context though (presented on official government issued documents)?

I'm not going to limit a person's ability to express themselves satirically unless there's a compelling reason. Can you think of one?

In fact, I would say that it's more important to protect the expression of criticism of governments and laws than it is to protect religious expression.

 

[Apex]

Personally, I take these photos as a way to start conversations about the role of religion in society, especially about the (at least perceived) tendency to give special regard to "religious" things without worrying about their merits.

IMO, he was going for "silly". By getting you to recognize that wearing a stupid colander on his head shouldn't be considered part of a specially privileged level of expression, he'll hopefully get you to start thinking about what criteria we ought to use for such special privileges... or if we should have such privileges at all.

That's my take on it, anyway.

If by "special privileges" you mean "reasonable religious accommodation" then I have no problem with it.

 

[Willamena]

Some people can't appreciate satire, it seems.

There's satire, and then there's getting a legal license made with a colandar on your head.

 

[Apex]

I'm not going to limit a person's ability to express themselves satirically unless there's a compelling reason. Can you think of one?

In fact, I would say that it's more important to protect the expression of criticism of governments and laws than it is to protect religious expression.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I did not mean appropriate in a legal sense, but more of an ethical or tactful sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If by "special privileges" you mean "reasonable religious accommodation" then I have no problem with it.

Why "reasonable *religious* accommodation"? Why not accommodation of deeply held views in general?

Speaking for myself, my inner libertarian (he's small, but he's in there) gets the screaming heebie-jeebies at the idea of a government passing judgement on what's a "legitimate" religion or not, but this has to happen any time we grant legal rights on the basis of religion. Also, if it's okay for some legal requirement to be optional for religious people (or people of a particular religion), then I think we should take this as a sign that we should re-evaluate the law in question and see whether it makes sense to make it mandatory for everyone else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I did not mean appropriate in a legal sense, but more of an ethical or tactful sense.

I don't see an ethical problem with it. It's of questionable tact, but I think that's part of the point and doesn't necessarily mean that it was inappropriate.

 

[LuisDantas]

I wonder what these atheists will feel compelled to do when religious people are granted the right to jump off bridges for their religious reasons.

Denounce the ethical questionability of that grant, of course.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is satire truley appropraite in this context though (presented on official government issued documents)?

Yes.

 

[Mycroft]

In a 2002-03 in Florida, a Muslim woman petitioned for the right to wear a face veil in a driver license photo, in accordance with her interpretation of the Islamic dress requirments. According to BBC News, the Florida court denied her claim. The judge supported the DMV's opinion that if she wanted a driver license, a brief removal of her face veil for an identity photograph was not an unreasonable request and therefore did not violate her religious rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a 2002-03 in Florida, a Muslim woman petitioned for the right to wear a face veil in a driver license photo, in accordance with her interpretation of the Islamic dress requirments. According to BBC News, the Florida court denied her claim. The judge supported the DMV's opinion that if she wanted a driver license, a brief removal of her face veil for an identity photograph was not an unreasonable request and therefore did not violate her religious rights.

Had FL granted that request, then you might see demands to wear Revoltingifarian headgear for ID pix....

 

[LuisDantas]

In a 2002-03 in Florida, a Muslim woman petitioned for the right to wear a face veil in a driver license photo, in accordance with her interpretation of the Islamic dress requirments. According to BBC News, the Florida court denied her claim. The judge supported the DMV's opinion that if she wanted a driver license, a brief removal of her face veil for an identity photograph was not an unreasonable request and therefore did not violate her religious rights.

Thanks for the example.

It illustrates beautifully something that I have been insisting on for some time now: accomodation for religious beliefs should be attempted, but the parameters of what is acceptable and what is not can not depend on the approval of the religion itself.

Instead, it is necessary to establish reasonable parameters in a purposefully religious-blind way. There is no other way to be fair.

 

[Willamena]

If, instead of a statement about religion, the Kiwi had made a statement about the silliness of having to carry around a photograph on a piece of plastic to demonstrate to others that you are who you are, he'd get my support.

 

[LuisDantas]

I want to hear your piece, Willamena. It can be silly, but it can be very practical indeed. What is your take on it?

 

[Willamena]

I want to hear your piece, Willamena. It can be silly, but it can be very practical indeed. What is your take on it?

I guess I'm unfamiliar with the ways in which it is practical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes.

For my university ID photo, I hadn't put much thought into what I was wearing, so I was surprised when I received my ID and saw my photo that the writing on my shirt ("Mr. Happy") looked like a caption under my face.

It was unintentional but I thought it was awesome.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess I'm unfamiliar with the ways in which it is practical.

Maybe you would have to live for a while in some place that did not have a cultural rejection of photo ID cards. It helps a lot in speeding up situations where establishing age or identity is important.

Come to think of it, I know precious little about why North Americans make a point of avoiding photo IDs. I know that there is a strong feeling on that regard (although it is a bit of an empty one, since driver's licenses fulfill pretty much the same role) and I seem to recall some vague statement that it relates to some American conceptions of what freedom is supposed to be.

But I truly need some education about that American perspective on photo IDs, and particularly its historical origins.

 

[Revoltingest]

Come to think of it, I know precious little about why North Americans make a point of avoiding photo IDs. I know that there is a strong feeling on that regard (although it is a bit of an empty one, since driver's licenses fulfill pretty much the same role) and I seem to recall some vague statement that it relates to some American conceptions of what freedom is supposed to be.
But I truly need some education about that American perspective on photo IDs, and particularly its historical origins.

We have photo IDs for many things here in Americastan.
I rarely hear any objection to it.
I have'm for:
- Driver license
- Concealed carry permit
- Airline access (Global Entry)
Where are you seeing all this opposition?

 

[Willamena]

Maybe you would have to live for a while in some place that did not have a cultural rejection of photo ID cards. It helps a lot in speeding up situations where establishing age or identity is important.

Come to think of it, I know precious little about why North Americans make a point of avoiding photo IDs. I know that there is a strong feeling on that regard (although it is a bit of an empty one, since driver's licenses fulfill pretty much the same role) and I seem to recall some vague statement that it relates to some American conceptions of what freedom is supposed to be.

But I truly need some education about that American perspective on photo IDs, and particularly its historical origins.

The "need" for photo ID is pretty much created by the same people who give us photo ID: the government. I use it once in a blue moon, if I need to pick up a parcel at the post office. The card is habitually forged (easily, if you believe Veronica Mars) and is central to identity theft. I've never had much respect for it, an attitude I shared with my mother who never got one until her early 70's, and only to pick up parcels at the post office.