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.
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.
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.