ETA: The Supreme Court in 1985 heard a case involving a woman who refused to have her picture taken for her driver's license on religious grounds, but ultimately was evenly divided. Thus, her own claim was upheld, but it had no precedential value. The question probably arose under state or federal RFRA rules by now.
Interestingly, the vote was originally 5-3 against her and a draft majority opinion pre-Oregon v. Smith that provides more moderate approach was written. The public nature of the license, lack of a criminal penalty and non-individualized exemption (cf. unemployment compensation) were factored in. The neutral and non-"hybrid" rule not the only line. Intriguing approach.
Her request was open to some ridicule, which is not surprising, but I'll take it seriously. For one thing, it is fully benign in this context -- the colander she is wearing does not cover her facial features and does not even cover all her hair (she wears in long). Compare this to the third party harm and bother that is now back in front of the Supreme Court regarding contraceptive mandates as to employees or various cases involving prisoners etc. Religious exemptions for "serious" religions are myriad too and can cause a lot more difficulty than as applied here for reasons that might to many of us seem somehow absurd.
The exemption does seem to apply to her. It is true that it does not seem to be mandatory to wear it as compared to what some think about a yarmulke or such. So, for purposes of "substantial burden," again if we apply this seriously on both sides (e.g., someone might pretend that it is a big burden on their sense of principle when it really isn't), it isn't the same thing. But, the exemption does not seem limited by that and the "facial features" limit shows not much is really at issue here. Some do not like religion being singled out, but sorry, that's old news given the First Amendment. And, religion is a core aspect of human society and such, especially if seen in a broad sense as conscience and belief. Respecting her can help others respect that principle.
The woman argued for a sense of equality since other religious faiths were allowed an exemption. On some level, this is a bit too much for me. Again, for them, it is likely that they usually wear some sort of head covering. It is not like someone by choice wearing certain religious garb or symbols like a crucifix that they might also choose not to wear or take off at certain times without an issue. Atheists and others without beliefs some think of as "religion" have certain beliefs and practices that can fall within "religion" in some sense and it is important to respect it. Thus, e.g., couples have ceremonies to marry that have a sacred character even if God isn't involved. And, these ceremonies might have aspects some find silly, even perhaps a Pastafarian aspect. But, it is a special thing -- a way for them to carry out a special life event their way. Such is their right.
Wearing optional garb in a driver's license photo is not quite of that caliber and it isn't religious favoritism to say so. The point holds again if someone wanted to wear an optional religious head covering of some other sort or a cultural one for that matter. The same applies if some public school had a uniform though I'm not that gung ho about school uniforms as such for public schools in general. Perhaps, a person likes to wear their cultural colors. And, generally speaking, they should have the right to do so, including at jury duty or something. But, this is not quite the same thing as a conservative rejecting a school uniform as not covering enough pursuant to proper obligatory religious guidelines for women (or men in certain instances).
So, kudos for her right to wear her religious head garb of choice here, but let's have a bit of perspective about the whole thing.
Interestingly, the vote was originally 5-3 against her and a draft majority opinion pre-Oregon v. Smith that provides more moderate approach was written. The public nature of the license, lack of a criminal penalty and non-individualized exemption (cf. unemployment compensation) were factored in. The neutral and non-"hybrid" rule not the only line. Intriguing approach.
Miller said, "As a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I feel delighted that my Pastafarianism has been respected by the Massachusetts RMV. While I don't think the government can involve itself in matters of religion, I do hope this decision encourages my fellow Pastafarian Atheists to come out and express themselves as I have."Massachusetts generally bans head coverings for driver's photos except for medical or religious reasons. The manual linked there notes that even there the covering must not hide facial features, leading me to wonder how they handle veils. This led to a member of a group that is often more of a parody of religion (the reference is often made online in comments to ridicule religious belief or claims for exemptions) but let's grant that lines can be hard to draw there to ask for an exception to wear a colander on her head in the photo as an expression of her own religious belief.
Her request was open to some ridicule, which is not surprising, but I'll take it seriously. For one thing, it is fully benign in this context -- the colander she is wearing does not cover her facial features and does not even cover all her hair (she wears in long). Compare this to the third party harm and bother that is now back in front of the Supreme Court regarding contraceptive mandates as to employees or various cases involving prisoners etc. Religious exemptions for "serious" religions are myriad too and can cause a lot more difficulty than as applied here for reasons that might to many of us seem somehow absurd.
The exemption does seem to apply to her. It is true that it does not seem to be mandatory to wear it as compared to what some think about a yarmulke or such. So, for purposes of "substantial burden," again if we apply this seriously on both sides (e.g., someone might pretend that it is a big burden on their sense of principle when it really isn't), it isn't the same thing. But, the exemption does not seem limited by that and the "facial features" limit shows not much is really at issue here. Some do not like religion being singled out, but sorry, that's old news given the First Amendment. And, religion is a core aspect of human society and such, especially if seen in a broad sense as conscience and belief. Respecting her can help others respect that principle.
The woman argued for a sense of equality since other religious faiths were allowed an exemption. On some level, this is a bit too much for me. Again, for them, it is likely that they usually wear some sort of head covering. It is not like someone by choice wearing certain religious garb or symbols like a crucifix that they might also choose not to wear or take off at certain times without an issue. Atheists and others without beliefs some think of as "religion" have certain beliefs and practices that can fall within "religion" in some sense and it is important to respect it. Thus, e.g., couples have ceremonies to marry that have a sacred character even if God isn't involved. And, these ceremonies might have aspects some find silly, even perhaps a Pastafarian aspect. But, it is a special thing -- a way for them to carry out a special life event their way. Such is their right.
Wearing optional garb in a driver's license photo is not quite of that caliber and it isn't religious favoritism to say so. The point holds again if someone wanted to wear an optional religious head covering of some other sort or a cultural one for that matter. The same applies if some public school had a uniform though I'm not that gung ho about school uniforms as such for public schools in general. Perhaps, a person likes to wear their cultural colors. And, generally speaking, they should have the right to do so, including at jury duty or something. But, this is not quite the same thing as a conservative rejecting a school uniform as not covering enough pursuant to proper obligatory religious guidelines for women (or men in certain instances).
So, kudos for her right to wear her religious head garb of choice here, but let's have a bit of perspective about the whole thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!