Religion is a private matter and should be kept private to those who believe in it. Once your expression of religion is made public it is then an invasion of my privacy if I don't want to hear or see your expression of belief and will be responded to accordingly. Separation of church and state was done for this reason. Last I heard the DMV is run by the states so it should not consider any religious beliefs for exclusionary purposes as is outlined in most state constitutions. As a matter of fact this extends beyond just the DMV but to all those applying for any exclusions from state laws based on religious beliefs. By allowing the exclusion in this case lawmakers have violated their own state constitution.

Religion is a private matter and should be kept private to those who believe in it.

One of the biggest pushes in many religions is, in fact, to "spread the word". Private? Sure, for your personal conversations with whatever God you worship. The rest is most definitely public, and usually welcomed by those who practice.

Once your expression of religion is made public it is then an invasion of my privacy if I don't want to hear or see your expression of belief and will be responded to accordingly.

Want privacy? Stay the hell out of the public.

Separation of church and state was done for this reason

Wrong.

Separation of Church and State was done so that congress could not make laws prohibiting or otherwise making it harder for one religion to be practiced over another. It had *nothing* to do with privacy.

Where did you hear this stuff? Really? Someone's been feeding you a huge load of BS. Next time they try pulling this crap on you, tell them they might actually want to *read* things like the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc...

This is unbelievable. Some psychopaths kill people and refuse medical treatment on their children, because of their religious beliefs...should we allow that too? Then again anyone who believes in all that crap probably shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place. I say ban anyone who refuses to have their photo taken from driving.

I thought that the law was supposed to be above religion....

I thought that the law was supposed to be above religion....

yet another lemming who thought wrong. The US Constitution clearly states that the government cant make any law that infringes upon religious beliefs. The whole seperation of chruch and state thing, remember that?

Public safety over-rides government vs. state vs. religion.

Welcome to the nanny-state - let us take away some more rights in the name of safety and security.

The WV state government is going about this the wrong way. They need to revoke these people's driving privileges and only allow them to have ID cards instead of drivers licenses. It's not safe to have people driving motor vehicles that can't easily be identified by authorities. Also, other states don't have to follow the driving laws of other states and can therefore consider the WV licenses without photos invalid. Imagine the mess this might create.

The difference between this and nanny-state is "clear and present danger".

Trans-fat doesn't present that danger, nor does smoking. Smoking may be stupid, but it's opt-in, so to speak.

I despise the Nanny state. I welcome laws keeping untrained drivers ...

...well...

..off my damned lawn. ;)

Great.

More people going out of their way to be idiots.

Hey, they're free to do what they want. Just as we are free to enforce our mutually agreed upon rules and laws and lock their asses up the moment they get in their cars without a valid license.

Guarantee you that if that had been Muslim women not wanting to uncover their faces they would not have done that. Re3ligious freedom my @$$, Yeah but only if you are Christian. Wlecome to Noe-Con-Fundy Fascist America.

Religious beliefs should not be considered a valid reason not to have a photo on a drivers license or DMV ID card. People should not be considered "special" because of their religious beliefs and therefore exempt from certain laws that everyone else has to follow. In the state of Oregon it's required that EVERYONE have their picture on their drivers license or state ID card and it has been for more than 40 years, no exceptions as it should be everywhere in the USA.

"Religious beliefs should not be considered a valid reason not to have a photo on a drivers license or DMV ID card"

It has been agenst the Amish people to have there picture taken for what the last 100 years ? So since has this been new?

Amish get a special exemption to have an outhouse because it is agenst some codes in states to have them

Amish people are so behind the times there's probably not much they need an ID card for. There are very few cases where an ID card without picture would be considered legitimate since there's no way to tell who the ID card really belongs to.

So some West Virginians correlate RealID with the mark and don't want it, therefore it's open season for all the religion haters to spew their hate at all Christians or whoever. Good going haters. You speak for your kind well.

Anyone who believes in imaginary space daddy is a retard.

as opposed to those who believe in the other religion, evolution, which has yet to have any proven basis in reality?

which has yet to have any proven basis in reality?

...as opposed to your religion's basis in reality??

I have no religion :) There is no god and we didnt evolve from apes, we got here somehow and I dont care to know how or why, we are here so screqw history. History is written by the victors anyhow so is always biased :)

...and your basis in reality for such a "belief"?

Go study up on white moths and DDT. Then try drug-resistant bacteria.

Bloody idiots.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how having your photo digitally is any different than a hard copy. They STILL HAVE YOUR UGLY MUG PHOTO!!

There are too many reason that people give to b**** and whine about these days. Look at all the patents suits! A digital photo is a dumb thing to complain about. Now the RFID chips are another story: http://www.wired.com/pol...rity/news/2004/10/65243

Gee how about a Credit card, or a social security number, or a federal tax id, or just about any other of a million different numbers used to Identify people in a computer... All the way down to the most basic the digital representation of a fingerprint. And up to as complex as the digital sequencing of your DNA structure.

What I am saying is Give me a break with the Religious BS. The whole my god is better then your god garbage has been responsible for more deaths then any other thing in history. So when will we be done with that nonsence already? If god wants to strike me dead for it so be it. I welcome it, so I can spit in his face for allowing reality to be what it is.

I believe in god, I really do. But what passes for religion of ANY faith on this planet is foolishness at best. A ploy for power at its worst. And quite frankly I doubt god thinks of anything within this planet as anything more then a minor infection of life inhabiting 1 of a million other planets in reality. So why would anything we do here matter to a being of that magnitude?

Its like us taking an interest in an ant farm. Its interesting for a time, but in the end we let them escape or kill each other from overcrowding of their population.

I'll bet they won't mind a photo ID to collect their welfare checks.

Reject REALID! It is TOTAL GOVERNMENT ENSLAVEMENT.

You pissed off the wrong cop this time: "delete".

The resolution of image is capable of facial tracking by government cameras already in use. The license has a RFID chip in it that can track you by passively monitoring specific locations.

Its scary, its the NAZI GERMANY of our time coming upon us, get ready patriots.

triadfreedom.blogspot.com

Please...

Facial recognition is in its infancy at best. It is still under testing and is only about 60% accurate under the absolute best circumstances.

You just violated Godwin's Law and so you automatically lose the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Your outlawing of Nazi talk is very Hitlerish.

*laughing*

Wait, did these people have licenses before? Weren't there pictures on them? How is a license even useful if there's no picture on it to identify the proper holder of the ID?

My state drivers license was renewed while I was out of state and it has no picture. I have had it for about 20 years, and it says "valid without photo" and the expiration date says "indefinite". It's just a paper card. I've been told "this is not valid" and "you need a new license" a few times, but my "belief" is that I don't need one, not for any real reason, just to say I have it. There are a lot more folks than you would expect that still have DL's with no picture on them in the US.

That's fine for the 1970s.

Even Floriduh keeps your photo in their database and can reprint your licence with photo at any time.

Here, there was the Christian fundamentalist who took up Islam and decided to wear the whole head covering so that only her eyes were shown. The first time, they refused. The second time, they allowed it, but the court came back and took it away.

People need to be identified correctly.

I agree...

I'm Sorry, but you need to give up certain freedoms to be able to do certain things in this country.

Don't want your picture on a drivers license? Don't get a license!

We need to be able to identify people and the drivers license is one of the few ways to be able to do it.

As a christian, I'm embarrassed by this.

Not only that, but do these people, who present themselves to be true "believers and followers", really think they can somehow delay the onset of "Biblical prophesy" by refusing to have their photos included on their state drivers license ?? I really don't think satan is very concerned about the DMV.

That's what I find to be even more embarrassing, as a Christian.

Don't be. These people aren't acting upon Christian beliefs. They're acting upon paranoia. There's nothing Christian about that. Jesus didn't tell us to reject authority. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that having your picture available on a computer network is evil.

You'd be surprised how many Christians believe in the End Times nonsense out of the Book of Revelation in the bible itself. The Evangelical movement in the States is big and very dangerous.

There are even some who believe that driving is a god given right and they don't need a license at all to drive. That the Bill of Rights is sent from god as well. (Even though freedom of belief does violate the commandment against having other gods, but they believe that is only freedom of Christian belief.)

Religion is the greatest evil ever created by Man. Religion is also how Man creates god in his own image.

Be careful with rampant generalisations; you're lumping a very large group together that has very disparate views on pretty much everything. Not all Christians are Evangelicals or Fundamentalists, and not all Evangelicals or Fundamentalists are Christians.

I am a Christian that believes the Bible should be taken seriously rather than literally. There are great lessons on how to live a fulfilling and loving life; the fundamentalists in the listed story have totally missed the boat. That doesn't mean we all have.

I was taught to love my neighbor, obey the laws of the land, and that being judgmental is counterproductive and opens the door to a world of hatred. I am saddened by how people such as these have muddied that message and caused people like you to think we're all a bunch of crazies.

I didn't say all Christians. I had said the Evangelical Movement and they number well over 100 million and they have much political clout.

BTW, seriously, and literally mean the same thing in this context. If you don't take the bible as the word of god, meaning literal, then you don't really believe in it as the word of your god.

It has been "muddled" since the second century AD. You don't know the real history of Christianity. It is very bloody. Religion is just a means of control. Those in charge just put together some common sense rules to "pretty" it up, but in the end it is still just about controlling people. Because you live in a time when Christianity is on the decline you get to believe in it as you choose, that wasn't always so. This is a good reason why Church and State should never be allowed to mix. A theocracy is the worse form of government.

JER 13:14

"And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."

I always find it facinating how religious detractors (more typically just anti-Christians) are the first to tell the faithful that they have no understanding of their own faith. You have no idea what that person knows about the "real history" of Christianity. You are guilty as charged, again, of generalistaions and assumptions. You claim that "if [Christians] don't take the bible as the word of god, meaning literal, then you don't really believe in it as the word of your god." For someone who presents themself as a leaned, that level of ignorance is surprising. Most Christians know the difference between the word of God and the words of the men who wrote the majority of what is contained in the scriptures (they even have that nifty red text to help out).
I could easily assume from your comments that you had a bad exeperience with Christians, perhaps as a child attending worship, leading to your underlying hatred of all things Christian. However, I refuse to fall victim to that kind of thinking, although in my experience this is nearly always the case. As for Christianity being "in decline", that depends on how you define Christianity. If you're talking about anyone who belives in Christ as the Messiah, then you couldn't be more wrong. Church rolls in nearly all denominations have remained steady for the past twenty years (some of the non-denominational "mega-churches" have steadily increased their followings, but thats a discussion all to itself). There is a proportinate decline in the number of practicioners of all faiths in the Americas due to increasing population. I do agree 100% about the seperation of church of and state - you have only to look at Islam to see the consequences of theocratic regimes. However, its important to remember that the founders of the American republic were talking about freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. They believed that faith was quite possibly the most important cornerstone in a free and just society.

Of course, I may be giving you far too much credit as I notice that anyone who supports the ideas of freedom or faith on this site you attack as "nutjobs". If thats the best you've got, you're probably just another troll.

The truth is that more often than not most Christians DON'T know what's in their bibles, nor even any of the actual history of their beliefs either. They primarily depend on their clergy to tell them what to believe.

ALL of the bible is the word of Man since religion is what Man uses to create god in his own image.

BTW, you are also guilty of using a fallacy as an argument as well. I expect such a show of ignorance from theists. I have news for you. I wasn't mistreated, nor any such thing by the Church. Plus, I don't hate it either. Hate is a theist's game. I say the same of any dominance-based theistic religion. Religion is evil. Even the Modern Christian's idea of hell is wrong from the original. To the first Christians it was either to be in heaven with god, or in the grave dead. To them being without god was hell enough. It was the later Church who invented the modern idea of hell as a means of control. The image of Satan is even modeled after the pagan god of nature pan. The name of Satan is also taken from two pagan forces of nature called Sat and tan.

Most of the primary founding fathers were deists and free masons. Democracy is not a theistic tradition. They adopted it despite their religious beliefs. BTW, its freedom of belief, you're assuming it just means religion. Freedom of belief also violates the commandment against believing in any other god.

Christianity is in decline because it has lost most of its power. The growth rate is also below world population growth as well. Islam is the fastest growing religion now.

It is those "mega" churches which are preaching this End Times nonsense.
Finally, thanks for proving my point.

"Religion is evil"

I'm curious - what standard are you using to define your interpretation of "evil" on? If you're defining what is right and what is wrong yourself, it would appear as if you're the victim of being subject to a subjective morality, which is in itself a oxymoron and an utter farce. "It is no morality at all; it is a mere game. If I (or we) make rules, I (or we) can change them. If I tie myself up, I am not really bound. And a nonbinding morality is not morality, only some "good ideas". It has no laws, nothing with teeth in it; only "values": soft, squooshy things that feel like teddy bears.".

Your kind of mentality is exactly why society in general is "more violent, dishonest, crude, selfish and superficial".

http://homepages.paradis...schedj/ca_morallaw.html

"Religion is the greatest evil ever created by Man. Religion is also how Man creates god in his own image."

While describing something so innately human, you conveniently overlook a lot in your shallowness.

"I really don't think satan is very concerned about the DMV."

C'mon! Anyone who has ever been to a DMV knows it's Hell on Earth!

as a human I am embarrassed by everyone proclaiming to be a "christian"

Isn't it where the guy goes to return the demons to Hell in The Reapers?

I think a better description given of religion would be "counterproductive to reason and rational thinking" and "potentially (if not already from fundamentalists and radicals) dangerous" rather than "evil". If you don't believe in any religion, then you're always going to be the target of hatred from theists, and you'll be a target regardless of what religion you hold dear, because they all squabble arrogantly about how theirs is the "one true" religion.

Hogwash, I say.

I'm an athiest, but I think that if someone wants to be a believer in a religion, that's their perogative to live their life out in what I personally believe is a delusion based on codes of conduct and ceremony that are hundreds, even thousands of years old.

So be it. There are going to be religious people in the world whether I like it or not, just don't try and chop *my* head off because I don't believe in a magic happy land waiting for me after I die, and don't think that I will let you convert me at the point of a sword, either.

I feel that RealID is a threat to individual privacy, though.

Twelve out of how many million? It should be - no picture, no license.

My feeling is.... um.... my feeling is what the hell does this have to do with beta sofware?

Exactly. A driver's license is a privilege. It is not a right. They should just refuse to get Driver's licenses in the first place. After all, this stupid rule does nothing to remove a unique identifier (the supposed "mark of the beast"). They still have a driver's license number. Idiots.

It's about computerized records. You may have noticed: Betanews doesn't just have news about beta software. It's a tech news site.

bc: Butch Paugh, whom I've heard on the radio, had not had a lisence in many years so you are wrong.

Now, the scam perpetrated againt Americans is to beleive that they can't get in their cars and travel without a lisence to do so.. well, what is a lisence? It is a permission to engage in an activity. What people like you, wincement, fail to understand is that TRAVELING is a RIGHT. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that a RIGHT cannot be converted into a PRIVLEDGE and have a lisence be required to exercise it! See http://www.teamliberty.net/id18.html

Wrong. Travelling might be a right, so people without licences can get a train or bus. Driving IS NOT A RIGHT so either you play by the rules, or you don't drive. Very simple.

See what I mean. Nutjobs.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage OR BY AUTOMOBILE, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

Nutjob.

Yup - a citizen can freely travel in a car... you're right. But they CANNOT necessarily operate one! Understand the difference?

if you actually read that, no it doesn't say he can operate one but it doesn't say he cannot either...
what it comes down to is if you are rich enough you could probably use some of this to get you off if pulled over driving w/o a license, but if you are that rich, unless you are making a statement and or initiating a movement (so to speak) then why are you driving w/o a license? :)

and for that matter, why is everyone who points out some little known fact that may be true (in this case it probably is but is very open to interpretation as the definitions are vague as to whether you can drive or not) all of a sudden a nutcase if he shows the complacent brainwashed ppl a fact they may not have known?

that said, back to the topics of this post :
[1] - wv law about drivers licenses w/o photos
and
[2] - REALID in general.

By that thought, does that mean I can drive freely at 100mph and suffer no consequences?

If we are talking about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what if my happiness is raping children? Does that mean I should be allowed to pursue my happiness without punishment?

What if I like beastiality? Should that be allowed since it is part of my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"?

Alan, look up Operator in your State's Motor Vehicle Statutes, you'll probably be surprised.

Aaron, No one is advocating licentiousness.

There is no such thing as private liberty that violates another's liberty.. Crimes like rape are common law crimes with real victims.

You seem to enjoy your own personal brand of fundamentalism.

*yawn*

It's a right, eh?

So what car were you given upon birth?

Oh, right...soemone else's labor had to go into building it...so it had to be *paid* for.

But now you own one, right? So *now* it's your "right"? Okay, I'll let it slide, for the sake of the argument:

By the agreements between the people and the state, certain rules were put in place to guarantee the safety of anyone (and from anyone) driving a motor vehicle. These rules *include* the need to be licensed (trained, certified) to drive that particular vehicle if you are on public roads.

Don't agree? Tough s***. Find a country where such agreements are not in pace.

Let us know how that works for ya...

Read my response to your first absurd comment.

Right!=Complete lack of regulation.

Speed limits, licenses, liability laws, all exist not because the state forced them upon us, but because we wanted to be able to *survive* the industrial age...

being in the majority doesn't make it necessarily right...

lets put this into perspective, the majority USED to thin the earth was flat; the majority USED to believe the earth was the center of the universe; there are way too many things to list here what all the wrong headed majority used to think - and it took 1 person (per instance) to start down a path where everyone else followed eventually ...

I am not saying that they are right or wrong, just saying it is wrong for someone to impose their will or their beliefs on someone else

once a tool always a tool

By the agreements between the people and the state, certain rules were put in place to guarantee the safety of anyone (and from anyone) driving a motor vehicle. These rules *include* the need to be licensed (trained, certified) to drive that particular vehicle if you are on public roads.

the very first drivers license was in fact requested by a motorcar operator, so that noone could ever complain about his loud car disturbing them, it was a license that gave proof to the ppl around him that the government allowed his car on the road - brought about because ppl complained about the disturbing racket it made. Google first driver's license and find out yourself

don't be an idiot, comparing a physical crime against another person is NOT even in the same league as one person's right to move their personal property (their car in this case) harmlessly down the road

the very first drivers license was in fact requested by a motorcar operator, so that noone could ever complain about his loud car disturbing them, it was a license that gave proof to the ppl around him that the government allowed his car on the road - brought about because ppl complained about the disturbing racket it made. Google first driver's license and find out yourself

*laughing*

Leave it to you to bring up something *completely* pointless to the discussion.

The agreement came *after* the license, as proof of training (hence my parands above).

Chicken/egg BS aside, the point remains, which you utterly neglected to comment on. Go figure...

once a tool always a tool

How cute. Couldn't resist trolling, eh? Didn't you just make a post below slamming others for name calling? At least they were more original...

They can carry it.

They can roll it.

They can pay someone else to do it.

The second they get in a motor vehicle, they become a safety concern to everyone else on the road and *must* be able to produce evidence of training in the operation of that motor vehicle.

The Driver's License has become the mutually agreed upon form of evidence for that training.

what it comes down to is if you are rich enough you could probably use some of this to get you off if pulled over driving w/o a license, but if you are that rich, unless you are making a statement and or initiating a movement (so to speak) then why are you driving w/o a license? :)

How do you explain the countless Hollywood celebs getting their licenses revoked???

BTW: sjc001 is the only one calling people "nutcase".

Why is it if one person starts name calling, suddenly everyone who emotionally or otherwise sides with the person attacked acts as if they themselves were insulted?

read again, the agreement MADE the license, and had nothing to do with public safety, so stfu nub

just because they produce evidence they passed a very limited series of tests does not make them safe.. I see more "licensed" drivers driving in an unsafe manner that i can shake a stick at. Just because they KNOW how to drive and KNOW the rules of the road, and choose to totally ignore those same rules IMO is just another reason to get THOSE licensed drivers off the road.

More often than not, unless provoked, unlicensed drivers are safer, they follow more of the rules so they don't catch the attention of the cops, which leads to the sexlights coming on and all kinda dangerous things afterwards.

A thread that ran through here a while back on just one aspect of safe driving... following posted speed limits. Those speed limits were placed there for a reason and are to be followed, they arent a suggestion... so if you are in the "fast lane" then that doesn't give you the right to go 15-20 mph or more over the posted speed limit. ALL lanes are restricted to that posted speed limit, yet LICENSED drivers will argue against that till they are blue in the face and get violent in some cases.

Just because you are licensed doesn't make you a safer driver than the unlicensed driver is all I am trying to say.

so the celebs get them revoked and drive anyway. the difference is that joe (or joan) commonfolk - they get caught driving w/o a license and they get a hefty fine, their car impounded etc, celebs get a slap on the wrist and ya, they may get their car impounded but the fee for celebs impounding should be higher, imo, because celebs make way more than commonfolk for one and for another, they are in the public eye and are supposed to be examples .. so let their heads roll.

they get caught driving w/o a license and they get a hefty fine, their car impounded etc

Really? I got caught two years ago (suspended due to an insurance mix-up, Minnesota got some heat over that one).

Pulled over for speeding, licence was suspended. Did not get the car impounded, and ended up paying only $320.

I think it depends more on the legal advice you can afford than who you are or what you do.

the fee for celebs impounding should be higher, imo, because celebs make way more than commonfolk

Flat fee. If they scaled it due to income, all those folks on assistance would be speeding, driving without licenses, without any kind of deterrent.

they are in the public eye and are supposed to be examples

Agreed, to a degree. They're still human....just like you and I.

just because they produce evidence they passed a very limited series of tests does not make them safe.. I see more "licensed" drivers driving in an unsafe manner that i can shake a stick at. Just because they KNOW how to drive and KNOW the rules of the road, and choose to totally ignore those same rules IMO is just another reason to get THOSE licensed drivers off the road

They at least have the knowledge at their disposal. Stupid is as stupid does. It's why we have laws designed to get them off the road...or at least wake them the hell up.

More often than not, unless provoked, unlicensed drivers are safer, they follow more of the rules so they don't catch the attention of the cops

*laughs* Because they fear getting caught. Remove the need for a license...and they no longer fear getting caught. You kinda just proved *my* side of the argument there. Oops. ;)

Speed limits: These laws differ by state. Many states have it in the books that these are merely "safe speeds" under "normal conditions", and in many cases, it is possible to argue, in court, that while the speed limit may have been 70, the fact that there were few people on the road, it was a bright, sunny, dry day, and there was little wind made 115 a safe speed.

...worked for me on the suspension/speeding issue. ;)

...but that;s Minnesota. Traffic laws differ slightly state to state. Check out Montana one of these days. Wow....


Just because you are licensed doesn't make you a safer driver than the unlicensed driver is all I am trying to say.

True, but according to your argument, removing the need removes the unlicensed driver's motivation to "fear the cops". ;)

Regardless, we still need some proof of training, even if they choose to ignore that training once they've gotten it. These are dangerous vehicles. Allowing someone who's never recieved formal training to operate them is absurd. If you've ever watched a 15 year old who's never driven before get in a car and attempt it, you know this...

*yawn*

Name calling? Really?

You are referring to the agreement you broght up about some dude who didn't want complaints.

*I* was referrign tot he original agreement I brought up...which came *after* the licences were first created. (Making them mandatory based upon passing drivers screening).

Do try to keep up, eh?