Comments on: Religious minorities face Real ID crackdown

Some religious groups object to having their photographs on driver's licenses. But licenses without photos don't comply with Real ID.

[PKADavid]

No-brainer

It seems like a no-brainer that an ID should have a full-face photograph. How else are you supposed to ID the person? Although I am an atheist, I am for religious freedom as long as it does not impede on my own freedom or safety. Why should believers have the right to bypass certain security procedures? At what point does a belief become an ?official? religion that can then also bypass security measures? There is a line that needs to be drawn, and religious people need to realize that certain sacrifices need to be made in order to function in society.

[inachu]

I say let them be.

If they do not want an ID card then they should not have to get one.
Besides this national ID card will be merged with data that is compatible with NAFTA and the spp.gov website so people can go anywhere.

Anotehr part of the Bible would almost for sure call this the MARK OF THE BEAST.
Some websites are saying alternatives to the national ID card are the implantable rice sized scannable ID's and this reeks of "Mark of the beast." 666 is the number of mankind and not a paticular person. Stanley Kubrick(soylent green) warned us of humanities creulties to mankind and this is the start of it.

[Renegade Knight]

You Nailed It.

Their freedom doesn't impede your safety. Why punish them for it?

A Photograph isn't a security procedure. It's a tool that can be used for security purposes. Would they object to a finger print? That's more fool proof than a photo. It's not like we don't have the technology to read a print. They stick them on Laptops and PDA's now. Automatic Facial Recognition is actually harder to implement.

[42istheanswer]

Constitution

If you throw out the first amendment of the Constitution, you can force her to get the new ID. If you abide by it, she should be able to NOT have a picture on the ID based on her religious belief.

This whole argument will boil down to the rights of individuals. The Civil War took care of States Rights. The next one will abolish individual rights. My guess is there won't be blood shed in the next one. The citizens of the U.S. will just let the Fed do what it always does. Assume more power and control.

[DV2]

No picture ID, no fly

That's the way it is now and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't just stay that way. There is no right to drive or to fly, it is a privilege.

[Grailking]

"Official" religion.

Since when does "Official" religion come into play? The Constitution does not say anything about "Official" religion.It states simply that religious freedom shall not be infringed.

And non-religious people need to realize that this country is based on the freedom to practice our individual faiths freely.

You want National Security? Build a Wall on the Southern Border, and then round up the Illegal Aliens and cast them out of the country. If they come back in, execute them as foreign invaders.

Sorry Folks - 12 Million Illegal Aliens are called an Invading Army.

[inachu]

disfranchisement of the highest order.

Soon employers will demand they have rights to all the data on the card which will bypass the rights to medical privacy.

Sorry sir you must allow us into every facet of your data on your national ID card. If not then sorry sir you will not be hired or employed with us anymore.

[PKADavid]

Unlikely

That is somewhat unlikely as it borders on discrimination. If you do not get hired because of it, you would likely win in court.

[rreigle]

pay the piper

hmmmm, you obviously expect your employer to blindly pay all
your medical bills without being entitled to any details about
your medical history that might impact those costs.

nice!

more to the point, these religious folks who object to a
tightened identification system are absolutely free to travel by
car, bus or train (if, of course, their god lets them) without any
problem.

the point here is, if you receive something you have to give
something -- your employer deserves some transparency when
s/he provides you with discounted healthcare plans; society
deserves a simple way of identifying someone who wants to
travel on a plane (a mode of travel incredibly vulnerable to even
a single malicious traveler).

that's life. you want to play, you gotta pay the piper!

[MadLyb]

Ummmm, HIPPA?

The insurance relationship is between the insurer and the employee, not the company.
The insurer does not cost the company based on individuals, but overall expenses of the company plan.
HIPPA locks the company (and pretty much everyone else) out that data loop.
Of course, I expect some backlash against HIPPA because of the overly broad interpretation of the law. Been kicked out of a doctor's office for using a phone with a camera in it? I have.

[rbkirk]

No disinfranchisement

Companies already have the right to ask for drug screening. HIPPA and non-discrimination statutes already on the books would prevent them from asking for a greater amount of medical information as part of the hiring process, or they would open themselves to extensive lawsuits on the basis of violating HIPPA and federal non-discrimination statutes.

As to voting issues, this would enhance the integrity of the voting system by avoiding fraud

[whois101]

The map graph paints a false picture

In the map picture, the states who said 'Yes' and the ones that asked for an extension are all listed the same 'Yes' color. That might be a decent indication of who can travel after May and who cannot, but it also suggests that the majority of states accepted the Real-ID for sure.

However, if you read the captions per state, you can see that for several states requesting an extention does not mean acceptance yet. The map would be more honest if it also made a difference between the states that actually said 'yes' and the ones that asked for an extension. Again, these states that asked for an extension could still be 'no' states in the end.

[declan00]

map graph

You're right. Sort of.

There are two questions here: One is whether the state will comply with Real ID or request an extension so its driver's licenses can continue to be used to travel/enter federal buildings starting May 11.

The other is whether a state will eventually not comply with all the requirements, meaning that licenses will work past May 11 but will cease working for flying/federal building purposes at some future date.

We debated which to have our map reflect, and we chose the first. But there are a bunch of states (Washington state, for instance) that are almost certainly going to be in the second category.

We explained this at great length in day #1 and day #2 of our series. Click on the links on the right of the article for the background.

[edickins]

Re: The Map Graph Paints a False Picture

I agree! I was looking for a way to make this very comment when I saw your comment. I clicked on about 95% of the states in green and they all said they were not committed to RealId but requested the extension to have more time to look into it.

[JM_Brazil]

How has this become an issue?

Do those religions who bar their followers from being photographed allow them to drive a motor vehicle?

Do these Muslim women who wear face veils wear veils while they drive? Did they object to being photographed for their passport to enter this country?

Would they allow an expert artist to draw an accurate rendering of them, (subject to inspection and approval, of course) for their license?

The answer is simple ? If these people are so devoted to their religion that they cannot comply to basic, essential laws which every other American must abide, then giving up the right to drive a motor vehicle should not be a problem. Why should the state need to make sacrifices for these people? If they believe so deeply in their religion, let them make the sacrifice ? take a bus.

[whois101]

Claim relegion to stay under the radar

Correct. Aside from that, anybody can claim whatever religion that will allow them to come in under the radar. There is absolutely no purpose for a Real-ID if somebody can make subjective claims to avoid having it.

[DV2]

There is no right to drive a motervehicle

It is considered a privilege and we all need to be careful when talking casually about peoples rights, sometimes no such right exists!

[nuckelhedd]

You Completely miss the point..

The real id has almost nothing to do with drivers licenses except they chose that vehicle to push this on us. I would say ity was a wise decision on the lawmakers part because it has all of you focused in the wrong direction. The issue is quite simple States are supposed to protect our rights. They don't dictate when and if we have a right (read the constitution ( if they allowed you to learn to read in whatever school you went to)) and the Federal government now wants to make sure each and every one of us is trackable always. First problem they don't have that power legally. Second their power derives from us remember? We aren't supposed to be asking anyone in government to make sacrifices no matter what state or federal. THEY WORK FOR US i repeat THEY WORK FOR US. Now get off your mnothers teat get a job save for your future and quit suckling off the bureaucrats. If we don't need them then they won't have a job. I can guarantee if any of you sheep out there actually ran a company of your own (yes i do) you would have fired these clowns a long time ago. WAKE UP

[PzkwVIb]

This is not about drivers licenses

It is about ID cards that will be mandatory to enter Federal buildings. For most people it will be their drivers license that is their real ID compliant identification, but this also about State ID's and about the right of any citizen to enter a Federal building. You are exactly the kind of thoughtless sheep that the administration wants. Learn to think, and then keep thinking.

[MadLyb]

Making a sacrifice

If your religuous beliefs do not negatively impact the security and safety of others, then have at it. But, as in this case, where there is a clear impact, expect some sacrifices.

If you don't want your picture on an ID, then the government should have a process in place to address. For example, at airports, you would be put through a much more stringent search process. At Federal buildings, you would have to accompanied at all times while in the buildings.

Would these be bad for the person, probably, but then again, I don't want people on the same plane with me that have not been properly screened.

[JM_Brazil]

John-ism

And who foots the bill for these additional necessities? BS. No picture, no access, no exception. Common people, rules cannot apply to some but not to all.

According to MY religion, (John-ism) I'm exempt from paying taxes. Think the IRS will bend the rules for me?

[Renegade Knight]

Which Came First?

Religious Freedom or The Real ID Act?

Seems simple to me. No matter how hard you try to turn Americans into Cookie Cutter Citizens it's just not going to work. The Feds need to find another way to keep us safe than eroding our freedoms in the name of security.

[inachu]

I'm 50/50 on REAL ID myself.

REAL ID should only do 2 things and 2 things only.

Prove you are in USA legally.
Allows you to fly in and around USA and outside USA borders.

Anything else I consider abuse.
Health data on the card is violation of privacy.

[pstodgel]

Consequences

Since when did ID's and Drivers Licenses become a right. These are
privledges. If these individuals do not want their picture on the ID,
then they do not have to have one and they will have to deal with
the consequences of these actions. The whole purpose of the ID is
to include the picture. One without the picture really is not much
of an ID to begin with.

[TV James]

Is this really new? (Horse Drawn Planes?)

When I want a hamburger and there's no drive-through, I have to get out of my car and walk into the restaurant. I can't declare my religion prevents entering the restaurant and therefore they must bring my food to my curbside.

And if my three-year-old wants to participate in craft time at preschool, she must help tidy up the toys first.

Sometimes if you want to be a part of society, you have to play by the rules.

I've been required to show photo ID every time I fly for years now. Are these religious minorities who can't even watch TV or drive a car (generalizing, yes), really allowed to even fly on a plane that flies under its own power? Do these people also avoid all stores and public places that have video cameras or intersections with speed cameras? You're already on camera any time you're anywhere near a federal building or airport.

This doesn't sound like a religious choice so much as someone who has had any sort of self-esteem or self-worth beaten or bred out of them to the point that they lack (or are not permitted) to place any value on who they are. Or they are hiding from something. Do they hold jobs or social security cards? Or pay taxes? I just don't buy the religious angle. Seems like a cover for something negative, either by their choice or forced upon them.

(Yes, I am a Christian, but I've never heard of anything in my Bible to suggest that I should not take photos of my family.)

[digital dropout]

Biometrics

The word photo or biometric was not in the Hebrew or Greek vocabulary, so one should not expect to find those words in the scriptures.
As a Christian when last did you read the second commandment, or other passages in the good book for that matter?
Check Christ out in Matthew 22:21. Whose image and superscription are you? We in fact are talking aboat something new here. It is not a photo we are talking about but your god given image IMAGE as a badge of servitude, for an electronic automated buying, selling and tracking system.
Check out Revelation 13:14-18 in the original Greek and you just might discover these marks Mr. Mike Chertoff wants from amidst your eyes and face as well as the right hand may just be the kiss of death eternal we have all been well warned about.

[JM_Brazil]

Not a National Security Issue

Agreed. This is not necessarily a case of National Security - it's about a Police Officer validating that the driver of a motor vehicle is indeed licenced to do so. It's about ensuring that little Johnny isn't using a fake ID to purchase alcohol. It's about impeding little Johnny's dad from being able to forge a check.

[m.meister]

it's about collecting data

it's about having a single id# that allows the gov't to easily track
your actions.

Big deal you say? Yes -- because we've already seen that the
gov't is ready and willing to abuse authority (Patriot Act) given
under the premise that it would affect very few.

Checking for fake IDs is only valid if you force the owner to
track the information for later retrieval. So now the gov't will
force business owners to track citizens for them -- sort of like
AT&T, but it won't be optional.

[Drummond1]

Photo ID

Why is the state pandering to these dopes who don't like photo ID? Anybody who thinks having a photo taken is an infringement of liberty ain't playing with a full deck.

[Dr_Zinj]

RealID is Unconstitutional

1st Amendment of the U.S Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Ergo, the requirement for a photo id is unconstitutional and cannot be used by the federal government in any way, shape, or form to discriminate against that person.

If the federal government uses state licenses as their RealID 'vehicle', then the holding of a federalized state license no longer is a privilege, it becomes the right of that person.

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF SOMETHING IS A PRIVILEGE OR NOT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A PERSON BASED ON THEIR RELIGION!

[rbkirk]

RealID is Constitutional

Since getting a "Real ID" is not compulsory, it does not restrict religion.

If the government ORDERED everyone to obtain a RealID, that might be a different issue.

Also, the courts tend to give some latitude in the interests of preserving other rights that may come into conflict. For example...Free speech...but you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater...

There is also the need to insure the voting process is free from fraud, and reasonable measures to insure that are a must.

There is also the question about how society as a whole can function if individuals do not have to prove their identity in a myriad of transactions.

I would expect the court would find some proof of ID reasonable, and not overly burdensome.

If you want a society of laws, it may be a necessity...a requirement in the terrorism/electronic age to establish that you are you.

[JM_Brazil]

You're right

You're absolutely right. And sice a driver's licence isn't mandatory, those who don't want a photo document allowing them to drive don't need one. A driver's licence is not necessary to use public transportation.

[OlderThanOld]

There is no discrimination...

In contrast to your assertion, there is no discrimination--anyone who wants to get an ID has to have a full-face photo on said ID. That's absolutely non-discriminatory, as far as I can see.

Besides, you're missing the main point about RealID--the underlying linking of databases that contain numerous bits about all our lives.

As concerned as I am about personal liberty and privacy, I am not opposed to requiring a photo ID to have an actual _photo_. Until every cop, every border guard, every TSA screener, every bailiff, and every other person in a security function has a readily accessible scanner that can compare a person's ID card with the person themselves, through fingerprint, aura, or the smell of their armpits, and communicate that information for verification instantly and securely to the national data center, until that status is in place, I want to see photo IDs with real photos.

The primary mission of any government is to coerce. If you think that doesn't apply to the US government, check out an article about the Whiskey Rebellion. I think the US government does about as good a job of balancing coercion with liberty as any government on this planet. In this case, I'm siding with coercion.

[Phillep_H]

Oookay

By that criteria, the fedgov cannot make an exception for people because of their religious beliefs.

[kapstaad]

Give me a break already!

Im sure nothing pleases the terrorist leaders more than watching the dumb-ocracy here stall any effective measures against infiltration while it argues over infantile patent absurdities like whether or not some minority's arcane superstitions should take precedent over an entire nation's security.

Yes, Real ID is imperfect; name something that isn't? Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best idea we've come up with so far, so we stick with it and try to improve on it. Same with Real ID: until something better comes along, it's much better than our present wide-open vulnerability.

Security is an all-or-nothing deal. As soon as an exception is made for even one minority group, an aspiring terrorist wishing to bypass security merely needs to claim membership of the minority group. Since by it's very nature, the minority's members are un-identifiable, any claim of membership is impossible to verify or refute.

We can't even stop under-age drinking with current ID technology, but American citizens seriously expect their security forces to protect them from terrorists by using the same ineffective tool? Duh!!

Oh, and let me guess; the next "news item" will be "illegal immigrants face Real ID crackdown"?

Spare me.

[PzkwVIb]

Real Americans

Are more concerned for their freedom than ther saftey. Cowards are the other way around.

[duggerdm]

Economic responsibility.

Sorry, but as a fellow tax payer - I am not willing to foot the bill for handicapped compartmentalized thinker's personal belief systems. Their subjective belief systems are their choices - whether by default (inherited belief systems from parents) or by choice (compartmentalized and or limited non-critical thinking processes). As such they must be directly responsible for any consequences - especially economic for those choices.

If you want special ID and search procedures for people with special beliefs whether its Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or other religions - ok let them pay for the complete cost for those special requirements - all of them. That would have to include set up of the "new" agency in charge, all the bureaucrats who justify their existence within that agency and empire building with its power, the rent for their space and the costs of all the resources they require.

Its time this country and this world quit confusing or excusing the mentally lame with the mentally lazy. Critical thinking is not a luxury or an option if your are a responsible citizen - any where. If you chose not to make choices in your life without critical analysis of their basis, worth, validity and subsequent consequences - you should pay for it - all of it. Insurance company's have finally wised up to those who chose to be addicted to tobacco, alcohol, etc. It only seems fair to extend the same logic to the supernaturally addicted - whose chosen belief systems require that they receive additional care and consideration. This includes making the third largest business in the US pay its appropriate share of taxes - that being religion.

[semi4]

Should we honor some religions that believe in Theocracy?

Some religions believe that the only true government is some form of Theocracy. Should we honor their religious beliefs too?

Religious freedom is not an absolute. If religious freedom were an absolute, we should then be allowing terrorists to blow up more buildings?after all it is their religious beliefs that drive them to strap bombs to their chests.

[ktmotox]

Hey I Never Thought Of That

That's a good one semi4. By stopping Islamic terrorists from bombing buildings and airplanes, we are interfering with their right to practice their religion. If the terrorists are US citizens, the federal government is violating their first amendment rights.

This shows how ridiculous our courts have become. By denying a person a driver's license because their religion won't allow them to carry a photograhpic image we are not violating their second amendment rights. The government doesn't require anyone to get a driver's license. However, if they want to drive on the public roadways they have to get one. It's their choice. Sometimes you have to give up some things you want in order to be faithful to your beliefs.

By the way, how much of an image is acceptable. If a head shot is not acceptable, then an image of your fingerprint should also not be acceptable. I'm now sure how the Amish could find one ok but not the other.

[Norman Moore]

Sorry

If we are to have a real ID and have it mean anything then it has to be universal or it means nothing. If people want to make an overly literal interpretation of the Biblical admonition against creating idols then so be it, however their choice can not be allowed to affect the rest of us. It is just like those primitives who believe that capturing their image in a camera will somehow steal their spirit and cause them to die. Pure superstitious balderdash!

[meski.oz]

-0-

<quote>Pure superstitious balderdash!</quote>

A better definition of religion I haven't seen for a while.

[duggerdm]

That ship sailed long ago.

The idea that you can keep the gov. or anyone else with substantial financial resources out of your records - medical or otherwise in this day and age is technically if not exceptionally naive. Somewhere some computer(s) is recording, analyzing, categorizing and archiving everything we write here. If you don't believe it - type your user name(s) into Google.

[doninvest]

Photo ID

Enough is enough we have a large percentage of our population who are in this country without any right to be here.

Its time to stop this now I pay for uninsured motorists who will buy insurance even if requided by law. My medical insurance is higher because we have a large population of uninsured by choice who feel they are never going to need medical,

If you don't like rules move somewhere else.

[PzkwVIb]

Sorry NO

I was born and raised in this country too. It is my right to object and if you don't like it then why don't you leave.

Being a citizen I demand my rights not be trampled on. You can give yours away if you wish, but hands of my Constitutional rights.

[JM_Brazil]

Can't reply

My religion doesn't allow me to post replies on forums or Blogs, and you can't make me. Period.

[m.meister]

Notice how REAL ID is already looking to expand

Did you catch the little statement about how DHS is looking to
require REAL ID compliant cards to purchase certain medications.

Expect this expansion of "oversight" to continue, since they can
do so without authorization from Congress.

I would not be surprised that at some point down the line, you
will be required to have a REAL ID compliant card to purchase
basics such as gas and food.

And then they'll have road blocks at each state border, where
they'll check and register your travels across state lines.

Now -- just so long as they don't accidentally "lose" our data
that they are collecting. It's not like they've ever done that
before.

Sure you're life and credit may be destroyed because some some
flub at a federal agency by some guy who hates his job -- but
don't you feel safer?

[axels_mommy]

It's all part of the plan...

Expansion into needing this so-called "Real ID" is going to go way too far. Eventually, it will all lead to the true goal of the government, RFID chips implanted into our very bodies... Not to mention that the second you do something the government may not look to fondly on, like speaking your opinion, they could completely shut you off from all your information, leaving you without any way to buy food, clothes, pay bills, etc... The government wants what it has wanted for centuries... To rule over everything with no boundries! A New World Order, it even says so on the dollar bill, is what the goal of this whole thing is. The war in Iraq, Real ID, even competition in the marketplace... it's all relevant and will lead to the world moving into a global form of communism and facism. It needs to end and now!!!!

[CraigSam]

Umm..the Amish don't fly on planes...

Amish people reject technology and prefer to stay part of their small-town style community. I really have trouble imagining long lines of Amish people at the Airport being held-up for not having IDs. They have no phones or TVs or computers or cars. Are we really talking about Amish plane trips? Really...?

[m.meister]

more than just planes

The problem is that REAL ID is about more than just flying on
planes. You'll also need one to enter a federal building, ANY federal
building. And they are already talking about expanding its reach to
when you buy certain medications. And I'm quite sure that is just
the beginning.

So even if the Amish aren't flying planes, they'll be affected.

[AnneBroache]

Re: Amish and flying

The story notes that the Amish do not generally fly on airplanes. Real ID, however, will also necessary be for other purposes, such as entering certain federal buildings. A representative of an active Amish advocacy group told me this is a concerning development.