Should there be religious exceptions to Homeland Security photo rule?

[Woodmonkey]

Amish couple sues over Homeland Security photo rule

PITTSBURGH An Amish couple in Pennsylvania has filed a lawsuit against the federal government over immigration rules requiring photographs.
The husband is a Canadian citizen, and the photos are required so he can become a permanent resident. The Old Order Amish believe having one's picture taken violates the Biblical injunction against making "graven images."

But the lawsuit itself also runs counter to an Amish principle -- nonresistance. The couple's attorney has asked a federal judge in Pittsburgh to let them proceed with the case anonymously. He says they could be excommunicated if the Amish community learned of the suit.

The government once allowed immigrants to waive the photo requirements for religious reasons. But anti-terrorism legislation has done away the exceptions.

The Source

[Snowden]

There should be no exception, IMO. "Religious reasons" is hogwash now - they'll just have to get used to the fact that they live in a time when knowing the face of a person is essential. Not "important," essential.

Guess who would be the first ones to use this excuse for remaining hidden behind a religious law.

[Woodmonkey]

Looks like we would have the Christians paving the way for the Islamics.

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Looks like we would have the Christians paving the way for the Islamics.

Exactly. They've already tried this in Florida; not having their picture on a drivers' license. And I believe we've been treated already to a man being under that veil once or twice too.

And just think what a great way for a criminal - any criminal - to avoid having his/her face known. This type of exclusion is ridiculous.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Snowden

Exactly. They've already tried this in Florida; not having their picture on a drivers' license. And I believe we've been treated already to a man being under that veil once or twice too.

Yes, and, on a safety level, no one should be driving who cannot see and that slit for the eyes insures they are a danger to innocent drivers who share the road with them.

Even more dangerous though, is to allow showing faces that will endanger our security in this country. No religion should be allowed to do that whether it is a small Christian sect or an Islamic.

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Yes, and, on a safety level, no one should be driving who cannot see and that slit for the eyes insures they are a danger to innocent drivers who share the road with them.

Even more dangerous though, is to allow showing faces that will endanger our security in this country. No religion should be allowed to do that whether it is a small Christian sect or an Islamic.

The veil, with slits for the eyes, allow for no peripheral vision. I believe there should be a law outlawing anyone from driving while wearing them. This isn't discriminatory - it's a safety law. You must wear seat belts, you must have your vision unimpeded.

I'm afraid I don't follow your second paragraph here, Katie. Did you leave out a word?