[Psudo]

The Chicago Tribune reports that, while controversial, there is a movement in Illinois to allow the Amish to be issued state licenses and IDs without having their photos taken (since it is against their religious beliefs). The recently passed Illinois House Bill 1484 is a step in that direction; it gives the Illinois Executive Branch the authority to decide the issue without new legislation.

The issue isn't entirely new. It came up in Minnesota in 2009 and Alabama in 2004 regarding Islamic head scarves (Hijab) in driver's license pictures. In the end, both of these controversies were decided in favor of religious expression.

There is a hint of a double-standard, though, if you ignore the distances between the cases in location and time. In both Islam-related cases, Republicans were on the side of full exposure of the face (until they backed down), and in the Amish case it is Republicans advocating for a complete religious opt-out of any facial exposure. If not cultural differences between states' Republicans or inequality of religious respect by Republicans, what else explains the difference?

Another issue is security. Drivers' Licenses and state IDs are used as the hallmark of photo IDs for a thousand uses, including boarding airplanes or acquiring passports. Can a non-photographic state-issued ID card be used those situations? What alternate identification method would be sufficient for such identity verification? Fingerprints, perhaps?

Perhaps the difference in treatment is the likelihood that Muslims, being members of the more contemporary and modern religion, would be more likely to need photographic identification for reasons of travel and prevention of identity theft. An Amish man who is adherent enough to prefer not to be photographed is unlikely to seek to fly the Concord to Britain or rent a car or have an electronic savings account threatened by identity theft. The risks to the individual and the workload on security-minded agencies are both probably lower for the Amish than for Muslims.

But is it ever right to treat people differently under the law based on religious adherence?

[BartSimpson]

Nope. Valid photo ID is a requirement of modern society and if the Amish don't want their pictures taken then they need to stay on the farm. Period.

[Psudo]

Bart, do you advocate a photo ID be presented in order to vote? If so, you're advocating that observant Amish be eliminated from electoral representation. I cannot condone systematic disenfranchisement of an entire religious group, especially one that has been here since before the Revolution.

I do advocate proof of identity to vote. I like photo IDs, but maybe fingerprint scanners on the voting machines or ballots would be a reasonable alternative. The same principle applies to other needs for clear identification. The rates of identity theft demonstrate that our current cultural standard for ID verification is too weak, and deeply flawed security is insufficient reason to discriminate against religions. Since the system needs to be replaced with a more secure one anyway, we should replace it with a more secure system that is flexible enough to allow for unusual cultural beliefs.

[Brenda]

I have to renew my passport soon. I have to go to the consulate in either Vancouver or Calgary for that, because they want digital fingerprints in my passport. If that was not needed, I could just have sent my passport in, with pictures, and a check, and be done. Now I have to f*cking drive 800 kms to get that shit done. Did I mention that I am 7 kms from the border, and every 3 months, when I get another visa waiver, they take my digital finger prints?

[/rant]

[Unsound]

I think, if you wan to drive you need a drivers license. That involves having your picture taken. If you don't want your pic taken then you can't drive. Pretty simple. Driving is a privelege not a right.

If the powers that be decide that there is something better or different than a photo that can go on a license to identify people, then fine. But it has to be available to everyone. Something like finger prints would work if the individual is willing to pay any extra costs associated with their special needs. i presume that would include an extra fee to help pay for every cop car and airport to be equiped with whatever they need to properly read the prints.

[raydan]

How good will these state-issued licenses be if the person drives out of state?

...especially if that other state does not recognize licenses without a photo.

[Wada]

I have any number of friends that don't have drivers lisences. I must ask one or two what they do for identification.

[Unsound]

Wada wrote:

I have any number of friends that don't have drivers lisences. I must ask one or two what they do for identification.

Some people use passports. A lot of people use generic government issued photo id which I believe costs less than s license and doesn't involve a test.

[Wada]

Ok I guess I had just never thought about it.

[Canadian_Mind]

I don't use my licence for ID purposes, I use my passport. I'm sick of being asked for two pieces of ID everywhere.

[Psudo]

Unsound wrote:

I think, if you wan to drive you need a drivers license. That involves having your picture taken. If you don't want your pic taken then you can't drive. Pretty simple. Driving is a privelege not a right.

What about State ID cards? They are not related to driving, are the only alternative to a Driver's License for a lot identification purposes (such as applying for passports, credit card applications, and potentially voting identification), and also require a photograph.

"We license people to drive, but not to live."

[Unsound]

I had a beautifully reasearched and written response for you, but then something went wrong with my puter and i lost it... so instead I'll just say shut up and quit making things complicated!!!

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Psudo wrote:

Unsound wrote:

I think, if you wan to drive you need a drivers license. That involves having your picture taken. If you don't want your pic taken then you can't drive. Pretty simple. Driving is a privelege not a right.

What about State ID cards? They are not related to driving, are the only alternative to a Driver's License for a lot identification purposes (such as applying for passports, credit card applications, and potentially voting identification), and also require a photograph.

"We license people to drive, but not to live."

Simple. If it's a right like voting or accessing gov't services, a system could be put in place fairly easily to allow for some form of biometric identification.
But hey, if you can't travel outside the country, or get a credit card, or even get a videostore membership because you don't want yer picture taken...tough shit.
I think it would be expecting a bit much for commercial enterprises to accept that form of ID.

[Unsound]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Unsound wrote:

I think, if you wan to drive you need a drivers license. That involves having your picture taken. If you don't want your pic taken then you can't drive. Pretty simple. Driving is a privelege not a right.

What about State ID cards? They are not related to driving, are the only alternative to a Driver's License for a lot identification purposes (such as applying for passports, credit card applications, and potentially voting identification), and also require a photograph.

"We license people to drive, but not to live."

Simple. If it's a right like voting or accessing gov't services, a system could be put in place fairly easily to allow for some form of biometric identification.
But hey, if you can't travel outside the country, or get a credit card, or even get a videostore membership because you don't want yer picture taken...tough shit.
I think it would be expecting a bit much for commercial enterprises to accept that form of ID.

Apparently my computer eraased my previous response becaus it knew you were about to say the same thing, but better.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I actually got the idea from Michigan. Back in the early 90s they instituted a biometric ID system for welfare recipients. It cost something like $15 million to set up and saved them around $50 million in welfare fraud in the first year alone.
Welfare recipients no longer got their cheques mailed to them either, they had to go pick them up(what else do they gotta do anyway? lol) so they could get their fingerprints electronically read to release their cheque.