Mennonites Leaving Mo. Over Photo Law

AP via SFGate ^ | 3/21/7 | ALAN SCHER ZAGIER

[SmithL]

Huntsville, Mo. (AP) -- The grocer, the butcher, a cabinet maker and several other members of the town's Mennonite community are said to be planning to move to Arkansas over a Missouri requirement that all drivers be photographed if they want a license.

The Mennonites — a plain-living sect whose members are similar to the Amish, but usually more worldly — say the 2004 law conflicts with the Biblical prohibition against the making of "graven images."

"We want to respect our government. We're not trying to fight them. But we still have our beliefs," said Ervin Kropf, a bearded, overall-wearing grocer whose market draws customers from miles around for the fresh milk, brown eggs and spices supplied by his fellow Mennonites.

Kropf said he is looking to sell his store. He said if he cannot find a buyer, he will stay in Missouri but rely on someone else to bring in his supplies, because he will not be able to hold a driver's license without agreeing to a photo.

Around Huntsville, community members say more than a dozen families altogether are preparing to move south to Arkansas, where state law offers a religious exemption to the photo requirement. Other Mennonite enclaves near Rolla, Springfield and Vandalia are facing a similar dilemma.

Missouri had an exemption similar to Arkansas' for more than 30 years. That changed in the security crackdown after Sept. 11. Now, those who object to the photo requirement can have their pictures left off their licenses. But the photos must remain on file with the state.

Many Mennonites in Missouri find that acceptable and plan to stay put. But "there are a bunch of us who don't want to do that," Kropf said.

[San Jacinto]

A photo is a graven image, huh? Then just don't drive. Simple.

[theDentist]

Sorry, but when the Muslims whined about photos of women we made many good arguments about why they needed to "unveil", and it's really not a big problem. Same here (IMO). I appreciate their religious conviction, but I disagree.

[Mr. K]

someone hand them a dictionary


a photo is not a 'craven image'

[zook]

Guess they're gonna have to take a hike, Mike! I mean, I'm sitting here right now looking at book filled with photos of Pennsylvania Mennonites.

[SmithL]

me too

[NonValueAdded]

Not craven, graven as in carved or sculptured: a graven idol. Since the word came into being in the 1200's, one must go back to the original language to determine the real scriptural meaning. As with the headscarf kerfluffle, this is a group making a rather extreme interpretation of an ancient text.

Sorry, but if the technology to take a photograph is too extreme, then so must be the automobile. Even if they got an exemption to the photo requirement, there are always those red light cameras to wreck their day. Imagine a ticket and a guaranteed trip to h-e-double-hockey-sticks from a single transgression!

[zerosix]

This "story" if true is of a miniscule amount of people as they must have photo IDs to travel, which I certainly notice them doing, personally was on a flight with a couple of ladies, and there was a huge contingent of Mennonite farmers joining our cruise when some AG company sponsored the group!!!

P.S. I used to live in MO so SHOW ME the huge Mennonite exit.

[festus]

a photo is not a 'craven image'

The actual passage reads...

"...any graven image, or any likeness of anything...."

Which is where they get this view from, a photo being a likeness.

Poor reporting of why the believe what they do.

That said if we let them get off the hook for photo id then we let the muslims off too or else we are playing favorites..........

Unless we scrap all photo id's which isn't to bad of an idea.

[montag813]

Yet another tradition goes by the wayside because of Pisslam. Just like grandmas getting the third degree in airports because we are too much of pussies to simply single out Muslims.

[Andrew Byler]

Then just don't drive.

Driving on the public roads is a natural right as a form of travel (freedom of movement), and should not be subject to licensure by the state (meaning you need the equivalent of a Communist Soviet Style Internal Passport to move around the US - not only in driving, but also in flying or taking the train).

[fishtank]

You've got to be kidding.

I'd agree with you if you said that WALKING on the roadway is not subject to licensing, but a motor vehicle requires an operator's permit.

[Andrew Byler]

I'd agree with you if you said that WALKING on the roadway is not subject to licensing, but a motor vehicle requires an operator's permit.

By current positive law, you are correct. You must have a driver's license to drive a car, fly, or ride a train.

And anyone is free to walk or ride a horse or a bike or a bus - for now.

But really, why is it that our freedom of movement should be restricted in this way? Is there some natural power in government which obliges it to license drivers? Aren't the interests of public safety simply served by testing users once to ensure they can see, hear, and know the laws of the road? Why is a perpetual license then needed, except as a reminder that we are not really free to travel, and that it can be taken away by the government at its whim or as punishment?

Do advances in technology vacate the force of natural rights we hold? I.e., we have freedom of movement so long as it doesn't involve any use of modern technology?

This is no different than saying we have the freedom to live in any house we wish, but must obtain a license of government permission to build one if it is anything more sophisticated than a mud hut. Actually, come to think of it, that is exactly how building permits work.