Randi and the Hutterites

[westphalia]

Sounds like a band, doesn't it?

Other than the joy of swinging at an easy target (strawman, anyone?), I'm at a loss to understand Randi's exasperation with the Hutterites. I'm pretty confident that a pacifist, communal sect won't be spawning any terrorists that have to be visually identified, and I'm sure the Hutterites already understand the danger of identity theft inherent in standing by their beliefs. These people keep to themselves. Their religious conviction against driver's license photographs deserves a good mocking on the commentary page?

They are religious - yes - and Randi isn't, so I understand why he doesn't care for their beliefs. On the other hand, what harm are these people doing? Why pick them?

Muslims are bombing their own citizens, bombing troops sent to (among other things) rid them of a brutal regime and bring them some form of democracy, violently intimidating a whole continent into repressing journalists who hold contrary opinions, forcing women and free-thinkers to live in conditions akin to the seventh century, etc. Christian televangelists are reaping in billions across the world from the gullible and desperate, etc. So, in this target-rich environment, Randi goes after the Hutterites?

Why would anyone scoff at Canada's perfectly reasonable - and eminently defensible - decision in favor of freedom - even religious freedom? In this time, when Western civilization and liberal freedoms are under attack on all sides, we should be happy - not exasperated - with this decision. Like it or not, freedom holds sway, even when it is the freedom for people to adhere to superstitions others have discarded.

When will we grow up? :confused:

(And I ask this as a long-time fan and admirer of Randi's.)

[RyanRoberts]

Well I guess it's because equality before the law regardless of philosophical conviction should be a fundamental principle of a democratic state. The fact that the group holding the beliefs is seemingly benign doesn't matter whatsoever.

Would you consider extending the same right to opt out to a group of conspiracy theorists, who believe that having their photograph taken sets them up for alien abduction? Or to a group of crazy ass libertarians who are fundamentally politically opposed to identity cards?

It is the fact that because their belief is being indulged because it is religious in nature, not merely political or philosophical. I have strong political and philosophical beliefs, should I be exempt from laws which I disagree with if I were to codify them as "heartfelt religious conviction"?

[Jekyll]

Muslims are bombing their own citizens, bombing troops sent to (among other things) rid them of a brutal regime and bring them some form of democracy,
This one is probably just down to people being people, rather than being entirely religion based.

But I think the point is; why let people off the hook because of their religion? Either it is a stupid law which shouldn't be enforced on anyone, and shouldn't have been passed or it matters and by compromising to religion they are putting others at risk.

I don't really think it's acceptable to let people off games because they claim to have a note signed by god(no you can't look at it, we burnt it with holy flames) as it were.

[ChristineR]

I'm pretty sure the Hutterites are demanding that they be allowed to have driver's licenses without photos. That's how I read it. There are clear and convincing reasons why driver's licenses should have photos, and as we have the technology to put photos on all licenses, it is in the public interest that driver's licenses have photos. The obvious solution is for the Hutterites not to drive, like the Amish.

[westphalia]

Freedom of religion, whether we like the idea of religion or not, is a foundational principle of Western democracy. The vast majority of people in Canada and the US are not atheists or agnostics, and never will be. I understand that folks don't like the religious nature of their beliefs, and don't understand why objections to certain practices are allowed simply because they are based on religion.

Some folks on this forum shriek in horror at the idea of a US run by fundamentalists, and what would happen to our freedoms if such an eventuality would arise. I wonder if I don't have just as much to fear from a nation run by atheists and fellow agnostics.

[tkingdoll]

Freedom of belief is not the same as freedom of action.

You can believe what you like but you must act within the law.

Your religious beliefs should not give you carte blanche to ride roughshod over laws that people with other beliefs are obliged to obey.

[westphalia]

I wonder if we'd feel the same way if, say, these were some kind of indigenous folks with superstitions about photography?

[tkingdoll]

I wonder if we'd feel the same way if, say, these were some kind of indigenous folks with superstitions about photography?

I'd feel the same way, I can't speak for Randi though :D .

No-one has the right to circumvent a law because of superstition. If you want a driver's licence, you should have to comply with the same rules that everyone else does. I don't see why anyone should be exempt from that for any reason.

[Yahzi]

Freedom of religion
Down here in Arizona, we have a place called Colorado City. Under the guise of "freedom of religion," they want to marry multiple wives (we're talking 50 year old men and 16 year old girls) and sexually molest their daughters.

Should we allow them to do so, in the name of freedom of religion?

As someone else pointed out, people are free to believe whatever they want. But when that crosses into action, then the State has a right to defend the rest of us from their stupidity. The Hutterites don't want their picture taken, the Catholics don't want the Davinci Code shown, the Muslims don't want pictures even drawn of the prophet...

How much longer until some religious group realizes they can silence all dissent by saying, "Every time you say in public that our religoin is false, you offend and defame us. So now you have to stop."

These simple-minded savages need to grow up and join the 21st century. If they don't want to do that, then they shouldn't be allowed to play with toys from the 21st century. It's that simple: live in our century or live in whichever one you want; but you can't live in the 10th century and still have television, automobiles, and nuclear power.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[westphalia]

Well, I understand how you feel. I do, however, think that if tomorrow we discovered an indigenous tribe of folks living in Canada, or the American hinterlands, Lefties would be stampeding over each other to pass all kinds of "no-touch" laws protecting everything about those folks - including their superstitious beliefs about being photographed.

I'd suggest, too, that there's no reason these folks couldn't be fingerprinted. We don't know if they have an objection to that. Fingerprints are better identifiers than a visual image, anyway. It probably wouldn't help a cop in the field who pulls a Hutterite over, but it would negate the worry about identity theft. And considering there are only 37 licensed drivers (before the decision) in the area, anyway, this hardly seems like a hotbed of late-night, nefarious, criminal activity. I don't suspect many Hutterites will be out driving intoxicated and raising hell on a Saturday night.

I wonder, like other atheists and agnostics, why we are "America's most hated minority." I think Randi's commentary, and some of the responses on this forum tell us why. Folks who do cling to superstitious beliefs - beliefs with which we don't agree, but beliefs that have formed an integral part of the human experience for as long as our species have been around - don't trust us with the wheel. They fear that their rights would be run over roughshod if an atheist or agnostic majority took over, and I think they're right.

We're absolutely correct to complain about ID creeping into the schools, forced recognition of religion in publicly-funded places, etc. But I don't want to be part of any movement that forces folks to compromise their religious convictions, whether I believe that religion is superstitious nonsense or not. Civil liberties are too precious.

[bruto]

It's an interesting dilemma, because while it seems reasonable to say "rules should apply to everyone," that principle also neglects the idea of why rules are there at all. From the practical standpoint, I think it's pretty certain that the few Hutterites in question will not pose a threat to the system by not having picture licenses, and since I believe Hutterites are usually communal livers with little or no property of their own, I doubt identity theft would be much of a threat either.

All our lives we run into people telling us "rules are rules" or "it's company policy, I don't make the rules," as a way of passing the buck and not having to think or take risks. I have to agree with Westphalia here, that it seems like a rational decision in favor of religious freedom, with little if any civil risk.

By the way, I do not have a picture on my license either. It isn't a religious thing, it's a Vermont thing. Here in the "safest state in the union," we can still walk around with no pictures on our licenses and no licenses on our guns. So far.

[westphalia]

Down here in Arizona, we have a place called Colorado City. Under the guise of "freedom of religion," they want to marry multiple wives (we're talking 50 year old men and 16 year old girls) and sexually molest their daughters.

Should we allow them to do so, in the name of freedom of religion?

The Colorado City case is deplorable, as is Utah's complete unwillingness to do anything to protect minors in their state, too. I do agree with age of consent laws, of course, but I have no particular problem with folks willing to practice polygamy, if age of consent laws are followed, and welfare laws changed to make families with 43 kids ineligible for the public dole.

The Hutterites don't want their picture taken, the Catholics don't want the Davinci Code shown, the Muslims don't want pictures even drawn of the prophet...

How much longer until some religious group realizes they can silence all dissent by saying, "Every time you say in public that our religoin is false, you offend and defame us. So now you have to stop."

I didn't defend the Muslims (I actually jeered them). The Catholics aren't filing suits to keep The Davinci Code from being shown - they are asking their members to boycott it. I have no problem with that. I think they're wrong to make such a fuss over a third-rate book and second-rate film, but that's their business.

A religious group here in the States suddenly realizing that they can object to dissent is unlikely to happen (save in the case of the Muslims), because we have a long history of civil liberties in the U.S. Folks here are accustomed to freedom of the press, religion, association, etc. I'm not going to debase freedom of religion, even if I disagree with their reasons for believing what they want. Which freedom do we attack next?

The Hutterites have religious objections to being photographed. We can't fingerprint them? We can't find a way to protect their liberties, considering that they are hardly likely to spawn terrorists or intimidate the rest of western society? I still say that if they were natives on a remote island, we'd be stampeding to protect every vestige of their culture and practices.

These simple-minded savages need to grow up and join the 21st century.

Yikes.

If they don't want to do that, then they shouldn't be allowed to play with toys from the 21st century. It's that simple: live in our century or live in whichever one you want; but you can't live in the 10th century and still have television, automobiles, and nuclear power.

I wonder if Hutterites watch television? I'll have to do some digging and find out, but it would be interesting to know if they also object to seeing images of other people. Wouldn't that be strange?

[bruto]

I wonder if Hutterites watch television? I'll have to do some digging and find out, but it would be interesting to know if they also object to seeing images of other people. Wouldn't that be strange?

I don't know whether or not they watch television. They might not for cultural and religious reasons, but unlike some other far-out sects, they do not reject technology and machinery. Some years ago I lived in Connecticut nearby a branch of the Hutterite sect calling itself the Hutterian Society of Brothers, or Bruderhof for short. They had a very successful woodworking factory, and a printing operation as well. Many people who are connected with kindergartens, nursery schools and the like will recognize them under the name "Community Playthings," and if you work with the physically handicapped, they are also "Rifton Equipment." They made very nice, expensive but well made furniture and toys, mostly out of wood, but not eschewing the use of metal and plastic when it was appropriate.

Hutterites come in various flavors, of which the Bruderhof is a relatively mild one, but in general they're hardly medieval, however unpalatable we may find their religion.

[westphalia]

Hutterites come in various flavors, of which the Bruderhof is a relatively mild one, but in general they're hardly medieval, however unpalatable we may find their religion.

Interesting info on the Hutterites.

My experience with small religious sects is limited to Mennonites (two different flavors in my area), some Shakers (pretty hard-line) and Amish (all over the spectrum). When I worked for the Ohio Historical Society in the early 90s ('92 and '93, IIRC) I had to do quite a bit of research on other groups, but they had largely passed on. The Mennonites, Shakers and Amish were plentiful in the area where I grew up, though.

[to.by]

The danger is not that the hutterites will use licenses without photos to conduct crimes, but i you allow them those licenses it will be easier for others to make fake licenses.
By the way, should women using burkas be allowed the same kind of licenses, or would a picture of the burka suffice?

[DrMatt]

Well, I understand how you feel. I do, however, think that if tomorrow we discovered an indigenous tribe of folks living in Canada, or the American hinterlands, Lefties would be stampeding over each other to pass all kinds of "no-touch" laws protecting everything about those folks - including their superstitious beliefs about being photographed.

This experiment has in fact already been done, and your hypothesis failed upon the reefs of reality.

[jimlintott]

In Canada the provinces set their own requirements for what constitutes a proper license. In most the license has two pieces, a photo ID and a license part that shows that proper fees have been paid. In most provinces one piece alone is not a valid license. The fact that this Hutterite colony has had a drop in the number of licenses because now they don't require pictures suggest that they are in fact using their religous superstition to break the law. That is stepping over the line.

I see Hutterires and Mennonites quite regularly and they essentially all look the same. They can have a few licenses and pass them around. This means that frequently they could be driving without a license. It means that the young hutterite driving may never have been tested. Using their religious superstition to break the law is wrong and anti-social. But these people are not very social to begin with.

[bruto]

In Canada the provinces set their own requirements for what constitutes a proper license. In most the license has two pieces, a photo ID and a license part that shows that proper fees have been paid. In most provinces one piece alone is not a valid license. The fact that this Hutterite colony has had a drop in the number of licenses because now they don't require pictures suggest that they are in fact using their religous superstition to break the law. That is stepping over the line.

I see Hutterires and Mennonites quite regularly and they essentially all look the same. They can have a few licenses and pass them around. This means that frequently they could be driving without a license. It means that the young hutterite driving may never have been tested. Using their religious superstition to break the law is wrong and anti-social. But these people are not very social to begin with.

If your surmise is correct, then I would agree, all previous arguments are off. If the photo issue is an excuse for an end run around the license requirements, then they are indeed, not only breaking the law, but being woefully dishonest. It would completely change the argument, and would, in fact, constitute a good argument in favor of requiring the photo over their religious objections, since that kind of activity would not only demonstrate the practical need for photos but the fundamental hollowness of the religious scruples. But I would need a little better evidence that this lawbreaking is actually happening.

[Piggy]

When I read Randi's lament, "When will we grow up?", it seemed to me he was bemoaning the lack of rational thought: When will we, as a species, stop believing nonsense such as Biblical prohibitions against photography?

Someone else mentioned the possibility of this exception being exploited by those posing as Hutterites. And the legal recognition of photoless IDs does pose a serious security loophole.

But there are other serious implications when we begin to allow "freedom of religion" to trump science and law.

With freedom comes responsibility. If there's good reason for a DL to carry a photo (and there is), and no rational objection to photography (e.g., it's not a health hazard), then if a small sect refuses to be photographed solely on their fringe interpretation of ancient middle-eastern scripture, then logically they are going to have to accept the consequences.

If, on the other hand, we accept that the state must bow to this sort of exceptionism in order to provide "religious freedom", then we get into the kind of situation we saw with Kennewick man.

In that case, we nearly saw the eternal loss of a scientific find of profound importance. Why? Because of the claim of a right based entirely on religious belief -- that Native Americans were created in North America and that there were no waves of migration, therefore any remains must be by definition (absent any scientific observation and investigation) direct ancestors of modern tribal members and therefore subject to rendition.

When there is a greater public good to be considered, rational and reasonable people must have the courage to draw the line.

[Almo]

Societies in general are held together by a set of rules that people agree upon. In my opinion, it is then up to that society to decide how bendable those rules are. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer about whether or not Canada did the right thing.

[Yahzi]

They fear that their rights would be run over roughshod if an atheist or agnostic majority took over, and I think they're right.
Substitute "priviliges" for "rights" and I think you've got it.

Remember, you will never, ever hear a Hutterite champion a Muslim's right to wear a head scarve. Or vis-versa.

If you're so superstitious you think photography is bad, I don't think you should be trusted with a car. They are, after all, the leading cause of traumatic death in America (guns are second).


(One of my previous links mentions that Muslims are now joining in on the Davinci ban-wagon, which would imply my second paragraph here might be an over-hasty generalization.)

[Yahzi]

The Catholics aren't filing suits to keep The Davinci Code from being shown
In our county. Yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4750283.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4987116.stm

I still say that if they were natives on a remote island, we'd be stampeding to protect every vestige of their culture and practices.
If they continued to live like natives, that would be fine. Any group that wants to give up the 21st century - all of it - has my blessing. My objection is to people who want to profit from science and technology, but not pay the price. There is a reason you have to pay the price: because if you don't, disaster results.

Giving nuclear weapons to people who don't understand science is like giving dynamite to a baby. Giving cars to people who don't understand why their religious ideas need to surrender to practical reality is not that much better.

[Jon.]

Just out of interest, anybody know what portion of the Bible is used to justify the belief that they shouldn't have their pictures taken? Is it the graven images thing?

[bjb]

Maybe.

Exodus 20:

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


'Any graven image' seems to exclude pretty much any image of any kind. By the way, those chrome fish that Christians like to put on their cars seems to fall in the category of a thing in the water under the earth.

[Jon.]

Maybe.

Exodus 20:

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


'Any graven image' seems to exclude pretty much any image of any kind. By the way, those chrome fish that Christians like to put on their cars seems to fall in the category of a thing in the water under the earth.

I guess it all depends on your definition of "graven" and whether or not that adjective also applies to modify "likeness". If it does, you're fine to draw something, or print it on an inkjet printer, as these activities cannot be seen as engraving. If not, I guess all images are out.

[Piggy]

Keep in mind that verse divisions are a later addition. Here's the verse in context:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me; thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

It's an injunction against idolatry. Unless they intend to worship the photographs, there's no transgression. Don't forget that graven images of cherubim adorned the Ark of the Covenant. And there were 2 gold-covered cherubim with 10' wingspans in the Temple of Solomon.

[Jon.]

They might have a point, then. When I was about 16 or 17, I worshipped that driver's licence!

[Euromutt]

By the way, should women using burkas be allowed the same kind of licenses, or would a picture of the burka suffice?That question came up in Florida a few years ago, if I recall correctly. I can tell you that Arab countries do require the bearer's face to be visible on a driver's license photo; that is, those Arab countries which allow women to drive in the first place (Saudi Arabia, famously, has side-stepped this question by not allowing women to drive).

ChristineR has it exactly right, in my opinion; if a Hutterite doesn't want his picture taken, he can achieve that by the simple expedient of not getting a driver's license, passport, etc. There's no law says you have to have a photo ID, is there? Of course, not having one can fmake life difficult in this day and age, but that's the choice you make.

I think the court ruling (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/10/hutterite-photos-drivers.html) sets an interesting precendent; after all, if one person can be exempted from a legal requirement, all can be (and should, if they so desire). I think every resident of Alberta should demand a new driver's license sans photo, and claim appropriate religious beliefs to support that demand. Though, I hasten to add, they should refuse to specify, let alone justify, those religious beliefs, as that would be permitting an intrusion upon their freedom of religion.