Really? This guy seems to think so;
Let’s you and him fight.
Your snippet contained no counter evidence nor argument beyond, “It’s mean.” I have now read the whole thing and that is still true.
CAIR challenged it in court, using that same argument, and lost.
The appelation is in current effect to the best that I can tell, has survived an OIG review and a court review. The evidence against the organization seems decent and one judge describes that evidence (including, possibly, things which they were able to view that are not publicly available) as criminal conspiracy.
That the government did not indict and charge anyone in CAIR, obviously, leaves a lingering question. But the impression one gets from the court decisions is that there wasn’t a real question. There may have been some tertiary considerations to the decision of whether to prosecute that had nothing to do with guilt. E.g., they would have had to expose a source who was more valuable elsewhere, the political hit for attacking the group would have been too large, or the evidence is good enough for intelligence experts and Federal judges but insufficient to convince a jury composed of your average persons. I don’t know.
Whether ACLU believes that to be fair or not, it remains true that the FBI has, in court, stated on the record that CAIR was founded with the explicit purpose of raising funds for Hamas. They said that the founder of the organization is the person who is in control of that, and that person is still the leader of the organization. FBI advisory to Congress not to talk with members of CAIR still stands (whether they follow it or not).
Says nothing about them fucking, you imbecile.
It specifically states for citizenship.
It is possible for people to enter a sham marriage for reasons of immigration without having sex. I’ll grant that this is a hard assertion to prove, but I do believe that it’s an obvious truth that doesn’t really bear the need to defend.
If your sibling was separated from the family by war and the only way to get them back without having to wait five years was to pretend to marry, would your first instinct on finally meeting them to be to get down and start fucking? If not, and if that’s a patently absurd thing to envision happening, then why would that be your first instinct to jump to? Are you sure that it’s because you have a desire to discuss the topic in good faith, using reason and evidence?
Meanwhile, to the argument at hand:
I didn’t answer any of this because the author, you, and several others clearly didn’t read the OP/link where all of those questions were addressed.
Which is not even remotely surprising.
An excellent question which you are guaranteed not to get a serious answer to.
No, that’s entirely different. The government accommodating individual expression of personal religious belief—which is what our constitutional right to freedom of religion entails—is not the same thing as the government engaging in official state expression of religious belief, such as putting statements of religious belief on US currency.
The US government doesn’t have the right to make statements of religious belief (or disbelief) on behalf of the nation as a whole, but it also doesn’t have the right to interfere with personal expression of religious belief by individual members of the nation (outside of certain narrowly defined areas where it has a compelling interest).
There, there, there. You seem to have got yourself a little mixed up about what religious observances are actually protected in which circumstances, and why. Here is a summary of the different rules on religious accommodations in driver’s-license photographs in the 50 US states.
Recall that the driver’s-license-photo issue we were originally talking about, where both CAIR and the ACLU have legally defended the right of Muslim women to religious accommodation, involved the wearing of the hijab or headscarf rather than the niqab or face veil. AFAICT all constitutional challenges to headscarf bans in driver’s-license photos have been successful, but there’s only been one challenge to the post-9/11 prohibitions against niqab or veils, which was unsuccessful.
Interestingly, as my first link points out, it’s not just some Muslim women who have to weigh the apparently conflicting requirements of getting a driver’s license against their religious beliefs: some Christians of both sexes (including some Amish and Mennonite groups) maintain a religious prohibition against being photographed. Thirteen US states explicitly allow no-photograph versions of driver’s licenses to accommodate such issues, and only three explicitly prohibit a no-photo option.
My second link concurs with BigT’s point that a photograph isn’t an indispensable or even necessarily the most effective means of identifying an individual. Technology may soon eliminate this whole problem for us by means of portable fingerprint scanners instead.
So all your spluttering fulmination about “stupid fucking superstitious bullshit” and “backwardness” and what-not, while I hope it made you feel better, is not actually germane to the issue of what the government should do about religious accommodation in photo ID. The government is required to make reasonable accommodation for individuals’ exercise of their right to freedom of religion, and is not allowed to hold any official opinion about whose religious opinions are or aren’t “stupid” or “backward” etc.
crowmanyclouds, I would also like to note that I didn’t reply earlier because I didn’t see your posts. You didn’t quote me and your posts weren’t substantive, my eye skipped over them. I was not avoiding your question, I just did not see it.
But, since this is the Pit, I’ll point out that I had already linked to an official FBI release that made the designation and an OIG analysis which confirmed that the designation held and that the field offices were being bad by not following the guidance. Your need and desire for a list was stupid. Whether one had existed or not, it remains true that you decided that between a written, explanatory text that explicitly designated CAIR a funding source for Hamas, or a list of names with little-to-no explanation of what they are, why they are together, or what any one of them might have done, that somehow the list form is better and more damning.
That is, as said, stupid.
You gambled on your format not existing, so that you could try to claim a small personal genius while avoiding having to read an actual explanation of what was problematic - in the eyes of the FBI - about the organization. If you had won that gamble, you would have disappeared off into a hole feeling smug and happy, but you would have unknowningly been nothing more than a deluded ignorant.
Before seeing my evidence, you decided what format that evidence must come in. On seeing that evidence, you disregarded it because you had already predetermined the format. What was it about the topic that lead you to take that path?
Uh, that’s a pretty misleading description of what the ACLU letter actually said. In fuller detail:
Cite? AFAICT from reading through all the links you gave twelve posts ago, that isn’t what they say. Please point out exactly what you are claiming as evidence for your statement.
Kimstu, halfway through your post I was intending to break out a mea culpa of the “I stand corrected” variety. But then I read about this deal with some states (thankfully not a majority) allowing non-photographic drivers licenses. :smack: Fuck that shit. :mad:
(And yes, it does make me feel a little better to rant about how stupid all this ignorant, benighted religious bullshit is. Thanks for asking.)
So, I’m not gonna get a link to an FBI page that list the organization(s) that the FBI designates as anti-Semitic?
CMC fnord!
Are genuinely questioning whether Hamas is a terrorist organization with a mission to murder Israelis?
No, but that’s not what you claimed is it?
Shall I refresh your memory?
CMC fnord!
:rolleyes: Dude. While I acknowledge and support the state’s legitimate interest in promoting safety and security by being able to confirm that vehicle drivers are who they say they are, we need to avoid turning the concept of the photo ID into a fetish object.
There is nothing intrinsically indispensable to the continuance of civilization in having photos on driver’s licenses. Believe it or not, young grasshopper, my own first driver’s license (and possibly some subsequent ones too, I forget) did not have a photograph on it, and yet the world managed to survive “that shit”.
For something else to make you feel better, I offer some thoughtful comments from the last link in my previous post:
And from my first link:
So the notion that being able to have a driver’s license without a photograph of your full face on it automatically poses some kind of catastrophic threat to the secure functioning of society is really kind of an overreaction.
After all, the fundamental point of ID is not to see what you look like, but to confirm that you are in fact the individual you say you are. At our present stage of technological development, facial photos on laminated cards happen to be the most customary and efficient way to do that. But they’re not the only way, and even while they’re the overwhelmingly dominant way, there is no reason to think that allowing a tiny minority of the population to use a different way will cause the gears of civilization to grind to a halt. Chill.
I’ve stated my opinions in previous threads on the varying legitimacy of the use of niqab/burqa in different aspects of life in a modern western society, so I won’t rehash them here. But they aren’t really germane to the fundamentally administrative question of whether everybody needs to have a full-face photo on their driver’s license.
What a load of horseshit. Uber regularly makes me take a selfie to prove I’m not lending my phone to someone else. I suppose Muslim women should be exempt from that requirement too? :rolleyes:
Another philosophically bankrupt notion. We should not have special rules that are considered OK because they apply only to small portion of the population. If it’s a legitimate rule, it should be able to be applied to the majority if everyone converted to Islam tomorrow.
There was one silver lining in the opinion:
So there’s a little sanity left, at least. Here’s hoping those businesses “freely” avail themselves of this option and tell veiled customers to get bent.
BTW, that’s wild that you once owned multiple rounds of non-photo drivers licenses. I didn’t think there were any such people left, outside of the rare centenarian.
Of course we should, and always have. For instance, we have rules under the Americans with Disabilities Act that state Departments of Transportation have to provide ride services for people whose disabilities prevent them from using regular public transportation. If these rules applied to more than a small portion of the population, they’d be too expensive to implement.
Likewise, we have rules that observant Jewish or Muslim prison inmates are entitled to receive meals complying with their religious dietary restrictions rather than having to eat non-kosher/non-halal regular prison fare. If these rules applied to more than a small portion of the population, they’d be too expensive to implement.
If demographic changes cause any such rules to apply to more than a small portion of the population, then we’ll have to re-think how we balance providing accommodations for individual religious belief, disability, etc., with practical limitations such as expense. In the meantime, there’s absolutely no reason not to provide the required accommodations to the small portion of the population that they apply to.
Your proposed Communistic alternative of the State offering a single one-size-fits-all option in public services that everybody has to identically conform to, irrespective of their individual beliefs or needs, is not a better solution.
Oh, you sweet naive summer child. My native state of New Jersey didn’t officially discontinue issuing non-photo paper driver’s licenses until 2004.
You don’t know that, and for human rights purposes you are only falling for what “trump’s favorite dictator” is telling us.
Lots of tap dancing to ignore the obvious, you are relying on what a dictator is doing and saying, I had enough experiences in the past to know that even if one thinks that a likely sympathizer of revels should be captured and tortured just for expressing bad things the end result is to capture many who are innocent or were not really involved.
Good because once again VOA did not report anything about the alleged connections with Omar.
Safer for your dumb armchair deductive “capabilities”, yes we know /s
Elsewhere, on the SDMB a conservative made the point about how communications and telephone companies are helping people come out of poverty, should we then ask for the banning of that poster for not mentioning how many owners of the telecom companies in the third world are bad hombres?
Yeah, but enough about how you are approaching this.
Again, that was not VOA, if you even try to get back to your tiresome “but that are reliable sources” you are correct on that item only, but grossly and monstrously wrong on ignoring how VOA are not reporting that Omar is involved with the terrorists.
Sure there is you numnut, that is called presumption of innocence and until involvement with terrorists is shown in a court of law (or due process that Egypt and even many Americans like you (if you are one) should learn about)
You are so deluded that you are willing to ignore that Human rights groups do not agree with your stupid posting, they were the ones that pointed at the Abdelmoniem case as one that deserves attention.
Yeah, like Obama and Ayers, only that history showed that working in the same government or charity organizations in Chicago does not mean that Obama was “palling around with terrorists”; or that it was a bad decision to be together when local orgs caused Obama and Ayers to be together, in the end it was not Obama the one that revealed state secrets or undermined the USA just because of shits and giggles like Trump.
There is a bad decision here, it is the one that the ones fighting monsters ignore many times nowadays, you have to be careful that you do not become a monster yourself, a monster that ignores human rights and swallows not only what Trolls post out there, but also the bait what dictators in Egypt and authoritarians like Trump are tossing.
Now the following should give you one important bit of evidence that shows how inadequate are the reports about the daughter being in league with terrorists:
Can you guess what that implies?
Choosing to ascribe to a particular superstition about imaginary deities is in no way like having a disability. If people could choose to stop being disabled, then those special ride services should not exist either.
I didn’t know about this, and it makes me sick. No fucking way should they get that special privilege, unless every prison inmate can choose to get those meals.