Few of us like the snapshot the DMV takes for our driver's license. It's rarely a flattering portrait — especially after a few hours of waiting in a DMV conga line. But bad hair day or not, when a cop pulls us over, he'll be able to match the face behind the wheel with face on the license that's handed to him. That's sort of the whole point of having an I.D. Otherwise, it could be anybody.

But if 35-year-old Sultanna Freeman wins her court battle with the state of Florida, she'll be able to get around the face-portrait requirement — at least partially. She says her Muslim beliefs forbid her being photographed without her veil — which leaves only her eyes exposed. Freeman — backed by the increasingly delusional American Civil Liberties Union — is challenging the right of Florida to require that she allow her face to be photographed, sans veil, for her driver's license — just like everyone else.

"This is about religious liberty," Howard Marks of the ACLU told the Associated Press. "It's about whether this country is going to have religious diversity." Florida Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail countered — much more sensibly — that public-safety issues trump the religious-expression argument, observing that a veiled photo on an official, government-issued ID is next to useless for identification purposes.

		Hanson: We Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet May: Apocalypse When? Lopez: Providence Provides Symposium: Climate of Fraud Symposium: Counting Our Blessings Hibbs: From the Projects to the Ravens Hanson: The New War against Reason Goldberg: Winner Take All on Health Care Lowry: Land of Abundance McCarthy: An Unreasonable Decision Lopez: The Week Sex Spruiell: Seven Big Lies about the Stimulus Costa: No Amnesty for Obamacare Geraghty: A Tale of Six Counties Spruiell: Saved, Created, or Fake? Williamson: War Is the Health of the Taxman

Freeman, of course, has every right to practice her religion as she sees fit — up to a point. Courts have always held that religious expression is not a blanket "freebie card" that exempts the practitioner from having to abide by laws and regulations involving public safety and/or the rights of others. For example, being Amish doesn't mean you don't have to abide by traffic laws. And religious rites that harm or endanger others are still subject to criminal prosecution — at least for the moment.

In a post-9/11 world, the idea that anyone should be given a religious exemption to obscure their appearance on the primary form of identification used to establish that a person is in fact who he or she claims to be is right up there with granting tax-exempt status to the Mafia on the basis of their "predominantly Italian-American" heritage — and the need to "encourage diversity," as the ACLU's Howard Marks might put it.

Moreover, Freeman does not have an unqualified right to a driver's license; it is a limited privilege conferred by the state, which sets forth requirements designed to protect the public safety.

Freeman's right to practice her chosen faith does not trump the right of Florida law-enforcement authorities to be able to verify the identity of people they pull over. If she wants to lawfully operate a motor vehicle on public roads, she should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else — or take the bus.

No I.D. required.

— Eric Peters is an editorial writer for the Washington Times and the auto columnist for America Online, Netscape, and CompuServe.