Muslima can't wear veil in photo - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-07-2003, 11:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
mahdokht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the growing place
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*
mahdokht is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-07-2003, 11:57 PM
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
Elphaba is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 03:14 AM
 
barbara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
barbara is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 03:25 AM - Thread Starter
 
mahdokht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the growing place
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*
mahdokht is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 11:49 AM - Thread Starter
 
mahdokht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the growing place
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*
mahdokht is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 02:28 PM
 
shelbean91's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 9,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Michelle -mom to Katlyn 4/00 , Jake 3/02, and Seth 5/04
shelbean91 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 03:58 PM - Thread Starter
 
mahdokht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the growing place
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*
mahdokht is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 04:30 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 05:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
mahdokht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the growing place
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*
mahdokht is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 07:04 PM - Thread Starter
 
mahdokht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the growing place
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*
mahdokht is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 11:11 PM
 
EFmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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."
EFmom is offline  
Old 06-09-2003, 10:49 AM - Thread Starter
 
mahdokht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the growing place
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*
mahdokht is offline  
Old 06-09-2003, 11:30 AM
 
1jooj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
1jooj is offline  
Old 06-09-2003, 12:57 PM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.
merpk is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 02:55 AM
 
christymama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
christymama is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 03:22 AM - Thread Starter
 
mahdokht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the growing place
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*
mahdokht is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 04:16 AM
 
shelbean91's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 9,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.)

Michelle -mom to Katlyn 4/00 , Jake 3/02, and Seth 5/04
shelbean91 is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 04:30 AM - Thread Starter
 
mahdokht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the growing place
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*
mahdokht is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 04:37 AM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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!
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 10:41 AM
 
1jooj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
1jooj is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 11:00 AM
 
Lucky Charm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: brett favre's house
Posts: 7,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
If Muslim women agree to have a photo without a veil, for their passports so that they can travel around the world, what is the difference between having a photo for your driver's licence so that you can drive?
ITA.

I totally agree with what Hilary has said. (OMG! I agree with Hilary! )

She wants the privledge of driving but doesnt want to sit for the required photo? Whats up with that? I wonder if it really bothers her that much, or if she wants to cry discrimination. some folks will do anything to stir the pot.....and that goes for every religion, race, etc.
Lucky Charm is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 11:38 AM - Thread Starter
 
mahdokht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the growing place
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*
mahdokht is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 02:51 PM
 
shelbean91's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 9,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think you were laughing at me (well, maybe you were, but that's ok). I hope I'm not coming across as too ignorant. I honestly don't know much about the Muslim faith. I'm just basing my opinion that I need to have a photo on my DL (most everyone knows that the DL photo is the worst photo ever taken), why should anyone else be different?

I know I'm not really able to have an intelligent discussion because theres so much I don't know about the facts of the situation. Again, I completely agree with the fact she has the right to challenge the law, I just think the law is right in this case.

Michelle -mom to Katlyn 4/00 , Jake 3/02, and Seth 5/04
shelbean91 is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 10:16 PM
 
barbara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have to say I really respect this woman for standing firm in her faith and what she believes in, but the end result may be that she forfits her driving privledges.

I'm sure the crux of the matter is as kama'aina mama says:
Quote:
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.
barbara is offline  
Old 06-14-2003, 04:05 PM
 
Hilary Briss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Been there, done that...
Posts: 3,412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
She should be in prison. I no longer have any sympathy for this woman, having read this in the Times this morning:

Quote:
Although the evidence wasn't permitted in court, the woman, Sultaana Freeman, was convicted of aggravated battery in Illinois, The Chicago Tribune reported, in the beating of her twin 3-year-old foster children. According to police reports, child welfare workers said she invoked religious modesty to hinder investigators from looking under the children's Muslim garb, where one daughter had a broken arm, and both were covered with bruises. The mother's mug shot was taken without a veil.
Hilary Briss is offline  
Old 06-15-2003, 03:48 AM
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Not to appear too intolerant, but if this Muslim woman were in a Muslim country, she could not acquire a driver's license nor could she acquire a passport to leave the country without her husband's permission.

So, she is in a Catch22 position. She is in a country in which the federal system allows her the freedom to change her religion and live that way without persecution; but there are state laws that require her to do something as actually take a picture so we can see her face for the PRIVILEGE of driving and establishing her correct identity.

No one guarantees her or anyone else the RIGHT to drive. Everyone's PRIVILEGE to drive is at the discretion of the state in which they acquire their license to drive.

The Judge who allowed her to go forth with this ridiculous law suit is an idiot.
member234098 is offline  
Old 06-15-2003, 03:52 AM
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The United States is in a state of emergency and war since 9/11/01, and therefore certain "civil rights" can be suspended.

Abraham Lincoln suspended the federally constitutionally guaranteed writ of habeus corpus during the Civil War.

Some historians argue as to whether it was ever officially reinstated.

Therefore, she better get used to it and take off her veil. She may find she has less rights than she realizes.

And we may also.
member234098 is offline  
Old 06-15-2003, 04:13 AM
 
barbara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If she was convicted of aggravated battery in Illinois, for beating of her twin 3-year-old foster children, why is this picture for the driver's license even a question. It seems obvious to me she is using her "religious modesty" for her own purposes. How did this lawsuit even get to court?? The plot thickens....
barbara is offline  
Old 06-15-2003, 07:54 AM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Good points. Screw the Bill of Rights! The hell with her right to practice her religion. Anyone who insists on their Constitutionally guaranteed rights is hiding something anyway.

Welcome to the United States of Eastern Europe.
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 06-15-2003, 11:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
mahdokht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the growing place
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*
mahdokht is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off