digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How cops deal with suspects' religious beliefs

lohud.com — When cops insisted a religious Jewish woman remove her wig for a booking photo, it touched off a firestorm of controversy. It raised an interesting question, though: How far should police go to respect suspects' religious beliefs?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Crackerpat, on 07/07/2008, -19/+116People who get arrested really don't seem to be too religious when they are breaking the law.
    • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -1/+46I would generally agree with you; though in this case she's accused but not convicted.
      • mnky9800n, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0In all cases in America you are accused before you are convicted.
    • Royall, on 07/09/2008, -15/+4Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
      • NeedzABetterSN, on 07/09/2008, -3/+16Go ***** yourself.
      • Lythium, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6Don't know about you, but I've never been arrested....
      • coyote1284, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Why let that stop me? *starts flinging rocks*
        /Heh, you're getting stoned.
    • bugsy187, on 07/09/2008, -3/+5There are times when the law is out of line. Sometimes this is true in the US... I've also heard horror stories of what cops pull off just across the boarder in Mexico.
    • Phyraxus, on 07/09/2008, -5/+12Well, the REALLY religious ones would be stoning people for working on Sundays.
      • ostracize, on 07/09/2008, -7/+5Not really. Try actually reading and understanding religion before you embarrass yourself.
      • Phyraxus, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4"For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.” Exodus 35:2
    • wexmajor, on 07/09/2008, -1/+12Religion != Law
    • Charun, on 07/09/2008, -4/+13Innocent people never ever get arrested.
    • Xenth, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9You don't have to be a criminal to be arrested. All that requires is being charged with a crime, no matter how baseless it may be.
    • lrdntwnd, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8I'm pretty sure that the law states that one is innocent until proven guilty. Simply being arrested and charged is not the same as actually committing a crime. The rights of the individual under suspicion should not be infringed merely because they are suspected of committing a crime.
      • mnky9800n, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1so a gang member wearing a turban doesn't have to take it off before he enters a jail? And now he has brought in a knife inside his turban?
      • czarr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1@mnky9800n: no...you idiot.
    • VBDon, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Religion is trumped by safety and legal requirements. A wig alters a person's appearance and can be changed. A mug shot is a representation of what an accused person looks like. Letting her wear the wig would be like letting someone wear a fake beard or a mask. No where in the Jewish faith is a requirement that women wear wigs. Her complaint is phoney and the whole matter is a joke. Who thought of digging this?
  • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -0/+46Kotlarsky said it best towards the final paragraphs. Wig or no wig the facial features remain the same. I think if an arrested woman is wearing a wig then regardless of religion a female officer should be allowed to search it for contraband, as with any other head wear, i.e. burka, hat, etc.

    In terms of the photograph, it should depict the way this woman appears in public as long as her face is shown.
    • wexmajor, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6Why a female officer? What a pain in the ass. Maybe if cops didn't have to deal with ***** like this that makes their job harder they wouldn't be such oppressive ***** in general.
    • smacksaw, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2That whole article was nothing but 1 sentence "paragraphs" LOL
  • Eezyville, on 07/07/2008, -7/+74The cops should go by the set rules to effeciently and effectively do their jobs. Their job is to enforce the law as well as abide by it. The Jewish religion is NOT law. If this woman broke the law then she will not get special treatment because of her religion. They shouldn't adjust the sysetem to accomidate the needs of a specific person or group. And if she doesn't want this to happen again then don't get caught breaking the law.
    • AmyVernon, on 07/07/2008, -1/+12part of the problem here is that the department didn't have a totally clear set of rules; and the state sets no guidelines in the matter...
      • revisrev, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9To me it seems that the rules were pretty clear... they just didn't have any special rules for this religion, which is reasonable, because it doesn't matter what her religion is. Also, a booking photo isn't exactly in public. As long as she doesn't end up on America's Most Wanted it won't even be an issue.

        It's a pretty simple process. Take off glasses and head wear... where's the issue. I may have a wig because I'm bald, and I may find it humiliating to take it off, but if I get arrested nobody will care about that. Being a religious person does not mean that you don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
    • smotpoker, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3"Their job is to enforce the law as well as abide by it."
      Part of abiding the law is not infringing on people's right of religious expression and not assuming guilt before it is proven in a court.

      Unfortunately, in most jails people who aren't convicted (and who are the portion most likely to be innocent) are typically treated with less regard and more hostility than those who have been found guilty. Why? The assumption that everyone who ends up in jail must have done something wrong and that the bad treatment might act as a "wake-up call" to those who stand a chance of being decent citizens. Hence the law (and the public) nearly always sides with law enforcement and corrections officers. There is little room for the possibility that anyone could be innocent or deserves rights equal to those who can afford bail or evade incarceration by some other means

      I say accommodate everyone and their beliefs so long as they do not infringe on others'. If it is too tedious or expensive for corrections officers to maintain, stop arresting so many people for, and extending sentences on, victimless crimes and give the poor who are often forced into crime or unjustly arrested adequate representation for a change
      • JeffD, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Letting her wear the wig is infringing on societies right to accurately identity her. If we let people wear wigs and different kinds of headgear for mug shots then pretty soon every career criminal who isn't brain dead (assuming they exist) will suddenly convert to the religion that best lets them hide their facial features, making them harder to identify in the future. Wear a wig when you get busted, then next time you're hiding out from the law take it off and the police will be looking for someone who looks markedly different.
      • smotpoker, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Society does not have any specific right to identify people. In fact, except in certain circumstances with proven dangerous criminals, our right to privacy and religion trump your right to know who I am (unless you're a cop and I am in public or I am on your property).

        I realize it can seem a threatening idea to deal with... but unless it's *proven* they are an actual criminal (who is likely to repeat) or an imminent, there is no justifiable reason to dismiss most religious rights. In this particular case, would you suggest making someone with a dye job dye their hair to it's natural color for their mugshots? What about a pregnant lady who gets arrested? Should she be forced to abort it or take pictures again at a future date in order for a completely accurate depiction of her?

        Plus not every criminal would be as quick as you think to jump on the hide-from-the-cops bandwagon. They frequently and openly volunteer information on scars, tattoos, piercings, residence, etc - all of which could be used at a future date for apprehension and/or identification. Not only this, but many people in jail are christian enough to catch extra charges for beating fellow inmates who take god's name in vain, so I somewhat doubt most would deny their religion and risk eternal damnation on the vague hope that they *might* make things a bit harder for the cops at some future date.
    • geardosdotnet, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2orthodox Jewish women sometimes shave their hair and wear wigs. It's a custom tied in with culture and to an extent the religion. It's a question of modesty. It would be the same as forcefully removing the hijab of a muslim women of the turban of a sikh man.

      If you think the police should have the right to violate anyone regardless of their culture than so be it, there will be controversy.
  • Hetman, on 07/07/2008, -4/+47This is stupid. If you have a wig on for any reason you have to take it off. That is not to much to ask. Take of your wig. It is that simple. They make bank robbers take off there mask, why would they not make this women take off her wig?
    • jgtg32a, on 07/09/2008, -6/+5Because for her it is a lot to ask and a wig doesn't interfere with taking a picture.
      • DevilInPgh, on 07/09/2008, -4/+4Correct. For observant married Jewish women, exposed hair is considered to be a "sexual" object, meant to be seen only by her husband. That is why they wear headscarves or wigs when outside or with other people.
      • NuclearIsShit, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7What if she has an AK in her wig, and then when they go to cuff her, she waxes all their asses. Then how would we all feel?
      • Chompy, on 07/09/2008, -1/+16OK, now what is to stop *anyone* from claiming that they observe this religious custom and that they, too, must be allowed to disguise themselves for photographs? Legally, anyone could claim anything; there is no accreditation process for a religion's validity. What if I believe that the FSM requires that I wear a clown mask at all times? What if I believe that being photographed at all will steal my soul? Everyone has to be treated the same, which means that nobody gets special treatment, for any reason. The wig comes off.
      • se1zure, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3The thing is that she was not convicted yet. It would be like the police coming up to you, saying you killed a guy and then telling you to get naked. Why should your privacy be invaded when you have yet to be proven guilty?
      • JeffD, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7@se1zure

        So you're saying murder suspects shouldn't be searched for concealed weapons until after they have been convicted?
      • Elliuotatar, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2When and how do cops search you when you get arrested anyway? Like, if they put you in a holding cell in the station, do they just pat you down, or do they give you the full jailhouse strip search and anal probing?

        On the one hand, you assume they don't strip search everyone, but on the other, anyone could have a weapon on them that a mere pat down wouldn't detect. How do they ensure the safety of other prisoners in the same cell if they don't get a person out of their clothes to make sure they don't have knives? Do they use metal detectors maybe to get the majority of the stuff?
    • oxymoron69, on 07/09/2008, -6/+1Exactly, a criminal is a criminal and when you become a criminal you lose certain privileges.... Like wearing a ***** wig!
      My zombie jesus, if I (white male ages 18-35) got arrested wearing a wig and claimed some religious garbage about wearing a wig because without it i'm naked, they'd promptly take it away, like your shoes and the rest of your clothes.

      Damn, if all the jews got up in arms about her wig for mugshots, what happens when they're forced to get naked for a strip search?
  • louiebaur, on 07/07/2008, -5/+46I agree no special treatment for a criminal regardless of their religion. Religion out of Crime and out of politics.
    • cheezintern, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2She probably just has a really good lawyer who's making a controversy to get her off.
    • lrdntwnd, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1You are not a criminal until you are proven guilty. Don't go assuming things which aren't true.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/07/2008, -23/+5Welcome to the totalitarian regime that pisses off everyone except the petty rich.
    • mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10i am so sick of people going on about how the US is a totalitarian dictatorship. get some world perspective or shut the ***** up please.
  • v4veer, on 07/07/2008, -15/+3gud post mate....
    • itspuddingtime, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1wish I could say the same for you
  • MattBD, on 07/07/2008, -4/+36If someone is wearing something that can be used to disguise their features, the police should be able to make them remove it if necessary. I remember hearing a story a few years ago about a university in London where everyone had to have their photograph taken for their student ID, but female Muslim students were allowed to wear a burkha and cover their faces so you could only see their eyes. What's the point of that? The whole idea is that you should be able to recognise that person from their ID, and under a burkha that could be anyone.
    • oxymoron69, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7Even a MAN!
    • eclipse007, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10That's weird, I know several schools (including mine) where if female students had religious obligations, a female took the picture and printed the card, then at every exam one of female personnel checked the ID (in a separate room) to match with face. Everybody was happy.

      But if somebody, as in your example doesn't want a clear picture of their face taken, then maybe they'd better stay out of school. I doubt they'll be able to use whatever they learned later anyway.
    • scy1192, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7how else would a Ninja keep his identity? If he was found out, he'd have to kill you...
  • CVL4317, on 07/07/2008, -0/+20ID is not an ID when it will not help in IDentifying someone clearly. and as long as i remember, burkha is not religious things, but rather cultural. Request confirmation on that for clarification.
    • AmyVernon, on 07/07/2008, -0/+17well, it is a religious custom, but, like many religious customs, it's an interpretation of a requirement. Muslim holy law proscribes that men and women dress modestly. In some Islamic nations, women are required to wear a burqa except in their own homes.

      In this case, Orthodox Jewish women believe they must wear wigs over their natural hair when out in public; it is not specifically ordered in any holy book, but it is the interpretation of certain religious leaders that requires it.

      you do raise an interesting point, however, on the issue of the photo needing to properly identify someone. In this case, some said that the woman would more easily be identified if she were wearing her wig, as she wouldn't be seen without it.
      • revisrev, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2One set of pictures with the wig, one set without... problem solved.
    • scamper22, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1how do people make this kind of statement?
      "burkha is not religious things, but rather cultural."

      The burkha is a religous thing if the person wearing it thinks its religious. Weather or not its origins are cultural is completely pointless. Otherwise, we'd need some authority that determines what is the correct interpretation of a religion (remember separation of church and state...). For reality's sake, religion is anything someone wants to be believe. You have that freedom to believe what you want.

      The law should be applied equally based on reason.
      If a facial ID is needed, then all facial features must be visible.
      If the wig in no way impairs the use of photograph, then she should be allowed to keep it.

  • sogeshirts, on 07/07/2008, -4/+81Its against my religion to get arrested by the cops so you can't arrest me.
    • danielpyle, on 07/07/2008, -2/+27Ok ....can I be a member of that religion...oh and also the one
      that gives out free beer to members....daily. Thanks!
    • Gizza, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4I am of a Vampiric religion which requires me to kill and drink the blood of someone every night. Now allowing me to do that is oppressing my religious beliefs.

  • Akaricloud, on 07/08/2008, -1/+29I personally respect everyones right to follow a belief or religion in my country. Be-it Christianity, Muslim, Judaism, Hinduism etc. However I also believe myself, that when a person chooses to continue to follow that belief in a country, the also have to follow the rules and laws of the countries governments and bodies (stay with me here) Now, in most western countries we pride ourselves on our legal system and law enforcement system on being completely neutral, impartial and BLIND to things such as a persons wealth, power, religion etc. We pride ourselves so much on that infact that our symbol for law is the blind folded woman with the scales of justice and sword in hand.

    Therefore I like to think, and be reassured, that when the time comes in which the legal system must act; whether through the local police or the actual courts, a persons religion or personal beliefs should not gain them either leaneance or result in persecution.

    I've rambled, but my point is this. All people SHOULD be treated impartially by the police. If this means a person needs to remove their headscarf for a photograph or a religious wig, then it should be done. A persons religion, for good or bad, should not matter in the face of the law.
    • oxymoron69, on 07/09/2008, -8/+1Yes! If we are all to be equal... then we should all be treated equally.
      Mid eastern people better recognize the white mans power!
      The black man fought to be equal with the white man, and the jew fights to be different...
    • lordzelo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Akaricloud, you've made the best point I've read in all of these comments.

      When you enter into the criminal/criminaly charged processing system your religion gets left at the door.

      You want your religion to matter or be held above the law? Then get out of the US.
  • SteelChicken, on 07/08/2008, -2/+35Law > Religion
    • minorthreat, on 07/09/2008, -1/+15alot of people in our country believe religion = law
      • lsloany, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8And some believe religion > law.
      • NuclearIsShit, on 07/09/2008, -5/+2And some believe Rush Limbaugh = Fat Idiot
    • mescad, on 07/09/2008, -12/+2I think the First Amendment disagrees with you.
      • lsloany, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6Who pays attention to the bill of rights these days? The United States Government sure doesn't. Let us just blindly follow as to not make a big ruckus.
      • chiefbandit2200, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9No, you have to practice your religion in ways that aren't illegal. The first amendment is there to make sure the laws are unbiased toward any religion.
      • mescad, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1That's not entirely true, chiefbandit2200. In some cases, practices which would be otherwise illegal are allowed when they are done for religious reasons. For instance, certain controlled substances that are illegal to possess can be used in religious ceremonies. The current standard is that the government must prove that there is a compelling interest to enforce their laws.
  • btschul, on 07/09/2008, -5/+6If you don't want your particular religious customs violated, don't break the law. The law and the protection of others is exponentially more important that the fact that your god is offended by your natural hair.
    • oxymoron69, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2hahahaha, stupid jews, even their own god doesn't like their hair.
    • airforceteacher, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Dumbass - just because you've been arrested doesn't mean you broke the law. It means you've been accused of breaking the law.

      People that talk like you scare me. Everyone hates the slippery slope argument, but you clearly show the first step toward totalitarianism with that statement.
  • kjartan, on 07/09/2008, -1/+42you have the right to your religion, but your religion doesn't give you special rights.
    • chorley, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Religions should be made illegal, any "believers" treated as we do other mentally ill people
  • Apokalyps2547, on 07/09/2008, -1/+12The freedom to practice your religion must not be harmful to society. In this instance, she is hampering the police's ability to (lawfully) investigate crime.
  • stringerbell, on 07/09/2008, -8/+17I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and due to my religious beliefs, I am not allowed to be confined in any way or punished either (unless that punishment involves nothing more than restraints, strippers and beer). I guess my religion makes me immune from prosecution... And, before you go saying: 'You can't just go and make up ***** and call it a religion!' Is that not exactly what all the mainstream religions have done? Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster really ANY less believable than the poly or monotheistic gods? Me thinkst not...
    • mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -7/+5you think you are funny but you are not
    • se1zure, on 07/09/2008, -5/+1Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster really ANY less believable than the poly or monotheistic gods? Me thinkst not...

      you can't be serious.
      • Gizza, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3What makes you think the others are more believable?
      • stringerbell, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3"you can't be serious."
        Hey, they're really the same thing atheism and religion!... You wonder how it's possible that the son can be the father, which can also be the ghost, but at the same time they're all one and the father sent himself, the son, to die, but he didn't - while I wonder how it's possible for the Invisible Pink Unicorn to be both invisible AND pink at the same time... See, it's all the same...
  • TheSabre, on 07/09/2008, -1/+13*sits back and watches as Diggers' heads spontaneously explode over deciding whether or side with police or religion.*
    • oxymoron69, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2In this case, the police win.
      The average digger is a white male and would rather have equal treatment of prisoners than give jews special treatment because of their own personal rules.
    • Neiby, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Can you imagine if the police had tased her to get the wig off?
  • Yage2006, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3None at all.
    Its a slippery slope.
  • mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7I want to know what she was getting arrested for.
    • NuclearIsShit, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2Indecent exposure, she was stripping and she was getting to the wig when the cops came and busted her. Or should I say, she BUSTed them, ha ha ha... I suck
    • AmyVernon, on 07/12/2008, -1/+1welfare fraud.
  • gilbertj99, on 07/09/2008, -3/+13Wow a genuiniely interesting article on digg

    its:
    not cop bashing
    not religioon bashing
    not obama loving
    not mccain hating
    not digg loving
    not apple loving
    OBJECTIVE

    WOW

    • jamessavik, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Hell's Weather Service just issued a blizzard warning.
  • schrutefan, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6That's the price of freedom/equality - no one gets special treatment. You need one set of laws that apply to everyone or the whole system falls apart. Luckily a free society also allows you to move to a different country if you believe the law violates your religion. In other words, suck it up or GET THE ***** OUT.
    • ninesky01, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1indeed. you are correct.

      you can't pick and choose how implement liberty and freedom, just like you can't pick and choose how you implement law and detainment.

      it goes both ways.
  • gl77, on 07/09/2008, -11/+1oh christ here we go. its that time of the week for more senseless cop hatred here on digg. "oh man the police are soooo out to get you!!! kill them all!!!" ***** paranoid basement dwelling digger *****.
    • oldhick, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2I'm not paranoid. Don't have a basement. I'm active in the live music scene and active in my community. I'm one of the ones who's vocal on Digg about the police and my lack of respect for them.
      There are systemic problems within our law enforcement system in America. Its rife with corruption, arrogance, and misdirection. Giving someone power over you, your community, and your family is a POWERFUL thing. It should be an extremely difficult decision and it should be a topic that is discussed and debated regularly. The people to whom we give this responsibility must be worthy of it. Today, few understand and comprehend the responsibility.
      While you find it appropriate to be complicit in the ongoing corruption of a critical component of society, others find it necessary to at least vocalize their frustration and push for change. Most just accept that they are to be controlled and view this relinquishing of control to law enforcement as a natural thing. Others view this as one of the most appalling concepts imaginable. Try to understand that. When people say ***** the police. Its not always a personal attack on the police as individuals. Its a condemnation of an institution.

      ***** the police.
      • DiogenesJr, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Agreed. The police that I worked with did not see themselves as the enforcers of the law but the arbiters of morality and justice. They exercised racial profiling, they targeted certain individuals for personal reasons, they even manufactured charges in order to punish those they didn't like. It sickened me. But not so much as the apathy of the public that I informed about it. It was sad. It was as if no one was surprised.

        Just the other day I dared a cop to take me to jail. He said he was going to. I told him to go ahead and cuff me. He did not. This was because I was not committing an arrest-able offense. I told him that the next time he threatened to take me to jail, it had better be because I was doing something to warrant it (I was not. I was assisting a neighbor with armed trespassers because of the abysmal response time of the police to my neighborhood.). I informed him that I was a former officer and that I had zero respect for him. I told him that his threats would work on the peasant but not on me. I called him a scum bag and offered him one last chance to incarcerate me erroneously. At that point he began to ignore me. I told him to suck it, then I went home.

        I'm not some sort of tough guy. I'm a rational person who is well versed in the law (as I used to enforce it) and I will not let the police push me around. I don't recommend this everywhere or for everyone, but if you stand up for yourself (and there are witnesses) you should definitely put the police in their place.

        The police fear a well informed populace. They fear those that know their rights and will not forfeit them. They fear those of us that will stand up for ourselves. They have power that we have bestowed upon them. We cannot, obviously, remove that power from them at will, but we can put the police in their place.

        It's funny. These lowly public servants forget the whole "public servant" part of their job when they pin on the badge and get the free car and gas card. I despise the police because I was a cop. I fear a government that sanctions their actions, and I will defend my life and freedom from out of control cops any day. Thankfully, they know this and they leave me alone.
  • wexmajor, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11"It raised an interesting question, though: How far should police go to respect suspects' religious beliefs?"

    Answer: Zero distance.
    • DiogenesJr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Agreed. The police enforce the law (most of the time, their ego the rest). Still, as a government entity, they are obliged to treat everyone in a fair and consistent manner (though this is debatable for reasons other than religious too). If you begin to make exceptions for one group, then the slide down the slippery slope begins...
  • AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -13/+1These cops (fascist NWO pigs) will suffer for harming an agent of god. Maybe not in their mortal lives, but their eternal soul will face judgment at the gates of heaven.

    Ronald Paul would NOT infringe on the right to exercise your religious beliefs.

    SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS A MYTH - IT'S NOT ACTUALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION. JUST ANOTHER GLOBALIST SCHEME TO CONTROL OUR SOULS. VOTE RON PAUL '08
    • lsloany, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5As for separation of church and state, I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would disagree.
      • AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1SHOW ME IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE THE PHRASE 'SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE APPEAR'

        you cant. and those baptists letters? globalist commissioned hoaxes to fool the sheeple.
      • lsloany, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Show me where I said "The constitution has a phrase separating church and state."
    • NuclearIsShit, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Yikes!
    • Phyraxus, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1LOL
    • AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -3/+0Ahh i see the globalist have their shills on high alert watching my every post, ready to digg down.

      you zionist thugs cant hide the truth though. we know your game plan
    • scy1192, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul isn't even running anymore!
    • Lythium, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Absolute, your comment does not warrant a reply, but I shall give it anyway: while the wording "separation of church and state" does not in itself appear in the Constitution, it is clearly stated in the First Amendment, which you have clearly never bothered to read:

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

      The wording is not identical, but the concepts obviously are. If you're going to have the balls to claim to be a patriot, at least have the decency to know what your country is founded on. The Bill of Rights, being the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, presented for your amusement and edification: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti ...
  • grantmoore3d, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6Religion, go to the time out corner! And if I hear you pushing your illogical beliefs onto anyone else, you'll be staying inside for recess!
  • fani, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2What if Ninja is my religion ?
    • Lythium, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Then you'd damn better not get caught, neh?
    • DiogenesJr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5If you were a real Ninja, how could you be caught by the police in the first place? See, this is a non-issue.
  • diggenerate, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2maybe the highly religious bitch should obey the ***** law next time and this kind of ***** wont happen. I thought religion and morals went hand in hand. I guess Dawkins was right.
  • cheezintern, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8This is pointless. It's like the case of the Arab woman in Florida that wouldn't remove her burkha for her driver's license photo. How can a cop possibly identify someone if they're wearing stuff on their head in the photo? It'd be like a clown wearing their make-up for their driver's license photo.
  • dtfinch, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4"Please remove your niqāb"
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.htm ...
    • Obzerva, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1lol that woman's an idiot. What the hell is the point of a portrait on an ID if your face is covered?
    • diggenerate, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1in the case of the woman in the linked photo, she should have kept it on.
  • DDMX, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8Public Safety > Religion
    • C0MF0RTABLYnumb, on 07/09/2008, -9/+1Define public safety for me because, I don't think that one's religious beliefs have anything to do with public safety. Shouldn't one's actions be the only concern. Are you one of those persons that glorify the Patriot Act?
      • DDMX, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3No - the police need to get an accurate photo of the suspect
  • Phyraxus, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2It is against my religion to be held in jail. Now I'm going to go outside to fulfill another one of my religious requirements, killing humans.
  • Somedude2137, on 07/09/2008, -3/+10***** RELIGION!.... that is all
  • Bjp494, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0all the other stuff is blah blah blah, but i dont think they should have made her take her wig off. NOT because of her religious views but because obviously she will never be in public without her wig on, so say she kills someone... that bald wanted picture will really help people recognize her....
    • publiclurker, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1So killing someone is OK, but wearing a wig is right out. That would have to be one confused person.
  • jamessavik, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Cops deal with criminals all day long who are looking for any possible edge like claiming to be a Sikh to carry a sword or claiming to be a muslim woman to cover her check forging face. That is why they can't bend over for everyone half assed religious claim. What Muslim woman have you ever heard of got caught with a quarter ounce of crack in her burka? Certainly not an OBSERVANT Muslim woman. Just a scamming crack head.
  • DiogenesJr, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3For those of you who don't already know, I used to work in a jail. This is my singular reason for despising law enforcement in general as well as being distrustful of government as a whole.

    We removed all head gear and accessories that altered someone's appearance for the booking photograph. This is in accordance with FBI and department of corrections standards. We provided kosher or halal meals to those requesting them and, on one occasion, we allowed a female muslim to continue wearing her hijab after the booking process was complete...

    That is until a new officer decided to try to force feed her pork. When she protested he said, "You're in America now, you're gonna eat American food!" (imagine the stereotypical southern drawl). I informed him that this lady was American, that she was born here, and had lived here her whole life but had, for whatever reason, decided to become a muslim. I further explained to him that muslims don't eat pork, shell fish, dogs, and a whole list of other things. He said he didn't like some inmates getting special treatment. He said the jail offered only christian services and meals and that was because we live in America. I told him to shut the ***** up.

    He was later fired for telling her to take off her "hat" or he was "gonna" take it off her himself and that she'd probably end up in the hospital for making him do itt. Actually, I don't know if he was fired because of that or because he liked to arrange dates with female inmates before they were released from the jail. I hope that guy rots...

    Oh, and ***** the police and stuff...
  • Vektuz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Religion should have no place in law enforcement at all. None. If you're suspected of breaking the law, it'd be kind of stupid to claim that getting fingerprinted is against your religion. It'd be even more stupid for cops to actually aquiesce to such requests
    • se1zure, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1So you have to blindly follow orders that you find offensive (orders which are not required by law) because you are SUSPECT? It is one thing if convicted, but I could say you are suspect for murder and therefore you must do whatever I say.
  • devilclown, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0I dont think they randomly accuse people of WELFARE FRAUD. When any normal human being sees a person stealing from the poor they generally throw out any of the accused religious beliefs. When you go to jail you have no rights except for the right to remain silent and the right to legal council.
  • mediatedthought, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4File this under the "Too ***** bad for you, criminal" category
  • Sambora, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3This reminds me of a man who refused to wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle (it's the law here) because he had a turban. The cops were all over it and when it hit the media the final decision imposed by the courts was basically that if he wants to ride, he has to wear a helmet and if it means removing his turban, then that's what he has to do. Naturally, he didn't agree, and the cops gave him a stern warning. The basis behind it was that if he wiped out, they really didn't want to mop up his brains (or lack thereof) using taxpayers dollars. He ended up moving to a different part of the country where it wasn't the law.
  • spriggig, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4This is why separation of church and state is super-critical. The Flying Spaghetti Monster says that only photographs of my hands holding meatballs are allowed and you must respect my asinine beliefs because it is my RELIGION!

    People can hide all sorts of things behind religion; pedophilia, polygamy, physical abuse, denying their children needed medicine to the point that THE CHILD DIES, any of this sound familiar?

    An uproar in the "Jewish community" over a woman being forced to take off a wig for a mugshot is where it starts. Britain is having loads of fun with this right now, trying to figure out how to accommodate their Islamic immigrates.

    Protect the Separation of Church and State because it protects you!
  • welliwonder, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2religion is a lie
  • platypusREX, on 07/09/2008, -9/+1As usual the whining come from a frickin" joo. Frickin" throw her in a oven.
  • richw, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1um if your religion conflicts with U.S. rules, regulations, and laws, don't complain about it move somewhere else our country is not run according to religion like other countries. Pretty soon were gonna have bank robbers sueing police stations saying a ski mask is part of their religion. if you don't like the way things are run in the U.S. then gtfo
  • smacksaw, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1God came to me whilst reading that article and commanded me to start a new religion. It's like an add-on to your existing religion. He said that no matter what you believe, you are not to be fingerprinted, give DNA or blood to the gov't - ever.
  • vesendak, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Innocent until proven guilty you dolts
    • coyote1284, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1...unless you're accused of rape.
  • Epistaxis, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2"Hasidic Jews consider the removal of a married woman's wig in public a violation of her dignity and honor."
    Say what you will about the church/state issues, but it sure doen't seem like she was trying to increase her dignity and honor when she escalated her arrest (and the fact she wears a wig) into a public spectacle.
  • norris, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Do I get to refuse a photograph because I believe having my photo taken will steal my soul?

    No.
  • Hellman109, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Nothing is a crime in my religion, therfore the police cant stop me.

    The police should respect religious/cultural issues where it doesnt clash with what they need to do in protecting everyone. EG serve halal meals to those that request it, because it doesnt stop them detaining someone, but asking someone to remove a wig is fine with me.
  • Whiteknight117, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2How far should we go to respect their religions? not far enough that it grants them special treatment.
  • chorley, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2***** YOUR RELIGION!

    IT'S 2008 -- GROW THE ***** UP!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.