or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Muslima can't wear veil in photo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Muslima can't wear veil in photo

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
*
post #2 of 32
i have mixed thoughts on this.
i do not want to hinder anyone's religious practices, but what is the point of having a driver's license photo where you cannot see the person's face?
post #3 of 32
I agree, the point of the photo is mute if one wears a veil.

I can't believe this is the first Muslim woman to get a US driver's license. What have other's done about this law? Is it really a religious compromise to have a photo taken, if the photo is taken by another women?

I'm sincerely curious about the religious signifigance of this.
post #4 of 32
Thread Starter 
*
post #5 of 32
Thread Starter 
*
post #6 of 32
Regardless of religious beliefs, a drivers license is not a right, it is a privledge. If you don't follow the rules to get one, you don't get to have one. If you break the rules, it gets taken away. I think it's pretty simple and can't believe it's had to go this far.
post #7 of 32
Thread Starter 
*
post #8 of 32
Two things: In my various reading about this case everything I have heard about Christian sects who have gotten licenses without pictures makes it clear that it occured in other states. If you have something that says they are in FL I would be very interested to read it. If they are not in FL the judge has no reason to consider them at all since this is a state matter and each state has different laws and seperate courts.


Further, this:
Quote:
Freeman, a convert to Islam previously known as Sandra Kellar, started wearing a veil in 1997. She had a mug shot taken without the veil after her arrest in Illinois in 1998 on a domestic battery charge involving one of twin 3-year-old sisters who were in her foster care.

Child welfare workers told investigators that Freeman and her husband had used their concerns about religious modesty to hinder them from looking for bruises on the girls, according to the police records. The girls were removed from the home.
concerns me a great deal. Basically as a test case for the simplest question of religious freedom she was a remarkably bad example, having previously used claims of religious modesty to cover misdeeds.
post #9 of 32
Thread Starter 
*
post #10 of 32
Thread Starter 
*
post #11 of 32
Lots of sincerely held religious practice is hindered by law in the US. Quakers who refuse to pay war tax can lose their assets, and those who refuse all military service have gone to jail. In general, Rastafarians who use marijuana are not looked upon kindly by law enforcement. The LDS church discontinued the public doctrine of polygamy when it became apparent it was going to cause continuous legal problems. There are many more examples. I'm not saying that I think all these situations are right, but I don't see how this case presents any kind of new "slippery slope."
post #12 of 32
Thread Starter 
*
post #13 of 32
I was thinking about this case some more over the weekend--about how driving is a privilege, and not a right, and I was angered to think about the US's drunk driving laws. You know, I mean, by getting a licenses, we agree not to drive drunk--and yet, at least in WI, so many people do. And, even after being arrested and "losing" a license, you can still have an "occupational" license to get to and from work/church/school. That's AFTER showing blatant disregard for the "agreement" involved in accepting the responsibilities that go hand-in-hand with the right to drive.

I mean, I know this case was about religious freedom, but the arguments about the picture being a part of the deal to drive stick for me.

My understanding of Islam does not have a problem with photos (Yes, Hilary, we take LOTS of family snapshots! ). Nor does it require that I cover my face. But Islam is a broad faith, encompassing many variations of practice and beliefs. I don't think it is really at issue whether face veiling is "legitimate" practice for Muslims.
post #14 of 32


The point IMO isn't what is "officially" Islam. The point is what this woman believes to be her religious obligation or needs. Who is the Florida DMV to say what her religious/spiritual beliefs are or should be?

At the same time, why should there be particular exceptions made when the questionable issue doesn't cause a violation of someone's religious needs.

Guess my point is, I'm all for accomodation (sp?) as long as the basic laws of the land can be upheld. In her case, if she has a spiritual leader who can attest to the fact that it is for her a violation of her religious needs to remove the veil, then some sort of compromise should be worked out. Maybe a substitute could be found as an identifier, like a fingerprint on the license.

IMO.
post #15 of 32
I agree with what Shelbean91 said. I respect their beliefs and everything. But then i think they should respect our laws and "rules" This is for the safety of our country and everyone around Muslims included. I think there should be a pic on every drivers lic.
Say cheese
post #16 of 32
Thread Starter 
*
post #17 of 32
I agree wholeheartedly she has a right to challenge the rule. That is what makes this country great- the ability to speak out and have our opinions. I don't think she was trying to get away with something - I think she truly believes what she says. I also believe if it's that important to her, she will opt out of having a license since it's been decided she needs to show her face.

I don't think anyone is telling her that she can't follow her religion. I think they are saying unveiling for a photo is reasonable. If she broke the law and was arrested, wouldn't she still have to take the veil off for a mugshot? They need to have something to be able to compare to. If she is veiled in the car and gets pulled over, would the officer be out of line to ask her to remove the veil to verify she is the person in the photo. Heck, if she wants to buy beer, will the clerk accept a veiled photo as id?

I don't think this is an us and them thing, but an american thing. As far as I know, all states require photos on DL. Don't passports also require photos? Do they allow veiled? (I don't know the answers to these questions I'm asking.)
post #18 of 32
Thread Starter 
*
post #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally posted by shelbean91
As far as I know, all states require photos on DL.
No. There are states in which the license to drive does not do double duty as a form of identification. There are states in which you must pay extra for a picture if you want your DL to also be ID. There are also states that still accept a religious exemption from taking the photo, as Florida did when she first got her license there.

And the fact is that it is not the photo on her license they are interested in. It is the photo in their database. They have said as much and simple logic would make that clear. This isn't about a traffic stop. If she were stopped and the officer had some doubts as to whether she were the person whose license she was showing she could simply be detained until it could be sorted out. Her refusal to be photographed is interfering with Big Brother gathering a snapshot of every person in the country. And Big Brother doesn't like that.

Edited to say: See, you type slow and someone makes your point better while you are laboring away at it! C'est la vie!
post #20 of 32
Hilary, you're confusing Mahdokht with Safiyyah, I think--M was saying that she got an exception to have her passport photo taken with her hair covered. I believe Safiyyah has said she does not do photos, but makes exceptions for things such as govt-require IDs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Muslima can't wear veil in photo