A Muslim mother of two, who was detained at a Kentucky jail earlier this year, says she was forced to remove her hijab and underwent “an unnecessary full body strip search,” which was “filmed and projected” on a TV screen for men and women in the jail’s lobby to see, according to a lawsuit she has filed.
Same treatment for everyone, your religion shouldn’t afford you any privileges and men should be booked by men, women by women, that’s it.
Should a woman that wears full face covering be booked with with only their eyes visible? What about if they wear a burqa with mesh in front of their eyes? They can’t leave their home without it either…
Should a woman that wears full face covering be booked with with only their eyes visible? What about if they wear a burqa with mesh in front of their eyes? They can’t leave their home without it either…
The thing with face covering is that it actually defeats the purpose of ID pictures. That’s my line. As long as that’s not crossed I believe the government should respect its people’s beliefs, religious or not. It’s the same as Sikhs being allowed to take knives of a certain length with them to court.
It’s less that religion should afford people privileges and more that this shouldn’t be a privilege; if someone has beliefs or circumstances that prevent a certain government action from taking place and that action isn’t strictly necessary, the action should be modified, not forced on people.
The government should respect its people’s belief by letting them practice whatever they want to practice in their private life as long as it doesn’t put other people in danger, the moment people interact with the State their religion has fuck all to do with the law and shouldn’t be a factor to change the way they’re treated and you would agree with that if it was a situation where people were arrested just for wearing a hijab that we were talking about. Neutrality doesn’t care if it’s sometimes in your favor and sometimes not.
Someone that wears a DNC/RNC hat at all times when they’re out of the house wouldn’t be allowed to keep it for a booking picture would they? Why? Their freedom to express their political opinion is just as important as other people’s freedom to practice their religion.
I believe the state should be concerned with people’s rights, safety and wellbeing and then their confort and convenience. If that means making religious (or otherwise) exceptions then I don’t see the problem with that. As long as whatever needs to be done gets done the idea of no religious exceptions is just counterproductive. Again, Sikhs getting to take their knives to school and court is a good example; as long as no hard is done there’s no need to blindly stick to the rules since the point of the rules is to improve people’s lives.
Separation of church and state doesn’t mean the state’s rejection of religious belief; it means religious institutions don’t get to participate in lawmaking.
What if one officer thinks that one thing is ok but another officer thinks it’s not?
Have a clear line that can’t be crossed. For example in booking pictures that could be the face, or otherwise enough that you can recognize the person when you see them. Make exceptions in the fluff, so to speak.
“Everyone has it bad” is worse than “some people have it bad”.
A hijab is not a face covering, though. Letting her leave it on no more hides her facial identity than the fact that, even if you photograph her hair, she could get a cut and dye or wear a wig. Other than noting her current hair color l am not sure what a photo of their current haircut is going to do. Even the color thing might be useless, for those same reasons.
I think that the same class of accommodations that are made for things like driver’s licenses or other government IDs can be made here.
I personally am a strong atheist, meaning I have a positive belief that no gods exist. When talking about such things, I prefer the use of the term “god-concept” instead of “god” because it emphasizes that we’re discussing a particular characterization rather than a being. I am also an anti-theist and I am anti-religion in general (while recognizing that religion can and has served an evolutionarily important function historically, which I would be more than happy to talk about).
In any case, I don’t see that the value added is justified when measured against the cost in terms of community relationships. If there’s a specific (and justified) rule about photographing birthmarks and tattoos - and I’m skeptical but open - then that’s fine. But I believe that every reasonable accommodation should be made to ensure that anything we do with people who have been arrested should be minimally intrusive and driven solely by actual, data-driven needs and reviewed by an independent community board. The penal system in the US is already bad enough with racism and classism that I’m not going to just take their word for it.
Because why not? That’s the only reason needed; if the state can do something to make life more convenient for its people at no convenience for itself then there’s no reason it shouldn’t. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean rejection of religion, and too much of the latter can (basically has) become a religion in its own right.
Same treatment for everyone, your religion shouldn’t afford you any privileges and men should be booked by men, women by women, that’s it.
Should a woman that wears full face covering be booked with with only their eyes visible? What about if they wear a burqa with mesh in front of their eyes? They can’t leave their home without it either…
The thing with face covering is that it actually defeats the purpose of ID pictures. That’s my line. As long as that’s not crossed I believe the government should respect its people’s beliefs, religious or not. It’s the same as Sikhs being allowed to take knives of a certain length with them to court.
It’s less that religion should afford people privileges and more that this shouldn’t be a privilege; if someone has beliefs or circumstances that prevent a certain government action from taking place and that action isn’t strictly necessary, the action should be modified, not forced on people.
The government should respect its people’s belief by letting them practice whatever they want to practice in their private life as long as it doesn’t put other people in danger, the moment people interact with the State their religion has fuck all to do with the law and shouldn’t be a factor to change the way they’re treated and you would agree with that if it was a situation where people were arrested just for wearing a hijab that we were talking about. Neutrality doesn’t care if it’s sometimes in your favor and sometimes not.
Someone that wears a DNC/RNC hat at all times when they’re out of the house wouldn’t be allowed to keep it for a booking picture would they? Why? Their freedom to express their political opinion is just as important as other people’s freedom to practice their religion.
I believe the state should be concerned with people’s rights, safety and wellbeing and then their confort and convenience. If that means making religious (or otherwise) exceptions then I don’t see the problem with that. As long as whatever needs to be done gets done the idea of no religious exceptions is just counterproductive. Again, Sikhs getting to take their knives to school and court is a good example; as long as no hard is done there’s no need to blindly stick to the rules since the point of the rules is to improve people’s lives.
Separation of church and state doesn’t mean the state’s rejection of religious belief; it means religious institutions don’t get to participate in lawmaking.
The second you start making exceptions it means your need to draw a line somewhere and you’re then discriminating.
Not really? Just make exceptions whenever they don’t cause harm.
Or you know, just don’t make any exceptions so you can’t be accused of favoritism or discrimination?
What if one officer thinks that one thing is ok but another officer thinks it’s not?
Do you really want more subjectivity in the prison system? Really?
Have a clear line that can’t be crossed. For example in booking pictures that could be the face, or otherwise enough that you can recognize the person when you see them. Make exceptions in the fluff, so to speak.
“Everyone has it bad” is worse than “some people have it bad”.
A hijab is not a face covering, though. Letting her leave it on no more hides her facial identity than the fact that, even if you photograph her hair, she could get a cut and dye or wear a wig. Other than noting her current hair color l am not sure what a photo of their current haircut is going to do. Even the color thing might be useless, for those same reasons.
Easy to lower it enough to hide an easily identifiable birthmark on the forehead and it also hides the neck.
Anyway, I don’t know why people want preferential treatment based on religion in a State system in a country where religion and State are separate.
I think that the same class of accommodations that are made for things like driver’s licenses or other government IDs can be made here.
I personally am a strong atheist, meaning I have a positive belief that no gods exist. When talking about such things, I prefer the use of the term “god-concept” instead of “god” because it emphasizes that we’re discussing a particular characterization rather than a being. I am also an anti-theist and I am anti-religion in general (while recognizing that religion can and has served an evolutionarily important function historically, which I would be more than happy to talk about).
In any case, I don’t see that the value added is justified when measured against the cost in terms of community relationships. If there’s a specific (and justified) rule about photographing birthmarks and tattoos - and I’m skeptical but open - then that’s fine. But I believe that every reasonable accommodation should be made to ensure that anything we do with people who have been arrested should be minimally intrusive and driven solely by actual, data-driven needs and reviewed by an independent community board. The penal system in the US is already bad enough with racism and classism that I’m not going to just take their word for it.
Because why not? That’s the only reason needed; if the state can do something to make life more convenient for its people at no convenience for itself then there’s no reason it shouldn’t. Separation of church and state doesn’t mean rejection of religion, and too much of the latter can (basically has) become a religion in its own right.