Driving is not a right, it is a priviledge. In order to get this priviledge y ou must do a couple of things:
a) get a learners permit...or drive illegally in parkign lots until you learn enough to..
b)take and pass the written and road tests.
c) stand in some long line and have your picture taken for a photo ID.
Do these things and you too can drive in the US. If you do not do these things you cannot exercise the priviledge of driving.
So she has a choice, as she cleary indicated in her testimony, she can break custom for "emergenicies" and "neccessities." Clearly she does not see driving as a neccessity. Neither does the State. Therefore she should not have a licence...priviledge..to drive in the state of Florida.
The state's argument is only undermined by the fact that it has issued licences without photos for other people. I don't know what those circumstances are but they will need to explain why those exceptions are made. I thought that ytou could NOT recieve a licence anywhere in the US without your picture being taken, so that fact came as a surprise. Still I think she is being unreasonable. As the veiling is specifically to protect against lust filled men who may jump on a woman if her body or face is visible. Also the fact that not all Muslims don veils undercuts the Koranic argument. The Judge said that they are not there to pass judgment on Islamic customs, but only to evaluate her specific belief as it pertains to Islam. I think the prosecution should (have) made her state very specifically what her beliefs are based on and show that she indeed picks and chooses that which she ascribes to.
On another note: It is simply sick that she and her daughter take markers to faces on cereal boxes and her daughter thinks that a visible female face is "yucky." That alone shows how sexist that particular sect of Islam is.
Should any bearded men shave for theirs? Interesting how you singled one group out.
Interesting how? Hasidim are required - by their interpretation of the Torah - to maintain an untrimmed beard. The woman in question is required - by her interpretation of the Qu'ran - to wear a veil. I thought it was a pretty apt comparison...
On another note, does anyone know what Islamic law says about women driving?
speculation:
It says nothing.
What does Christian law say about women (or even men) driving?
Notta.
Surprise, surprise.
I have a funny feeling that there is a thinly vieled jingoism behind the comments that say her religion is not a defense for her not wanting a picture (with her face).
In the case of religions that require sacrifices the religions practises runs precisely contrary to the law -- that people should not commit murder, but there is also the example that religions that have use of drugs as part of the ceromonies are allowed to purchase and poses small but usable quantities of drugs. Similarly, giving alcohol to underage children is against the law but many Synagouges and Churches do just that or the parents do. Religion has and does give a person leeway within the law, so much as it doesnt necessarily hurt others... Her not having a picture that shows her face is not hurting anyone. It complicates enfocing the law (but so does many other similarly trivial day to day practises), but that is the law's problem and the manner in which it is enforced and not the person who btw is not refusing to have her photo taken...
i think the problem is (for security/ID reasons) you don't know who's actually driving that car. it could be someone with 5 outstanding warrents borrowing their friend's license who has none.
they get pulled over, cops have no idea who the hell is driving that car.
as for beards, you can't see the difference between what a beard is and what a sheet is? if you have facial hair, it's a natural growth from your body. a sheet is not.
Basically what alcimedes said, but I'll add that I'm sure the DMV/RMV/whatever would have no problem if a woman wanted to take her photo with a full, natural beard.
Conversely, I'm sure they would equally object to a man who wanted to take his photo wearing a veil.
I bet her license (assuming the state caves to this innanity) is going to get jacked every time one of her daughter's friends comes over. Imagine how cool that would be for a 14 year old. "I'd like a case of Cider Jack and a 2 cartons of Marlboro lights, please. Yup, here's my photo ID. Yes, sir, I'm 37, it says so right here. Yes, I wear this veil all the time [snicker], see they even took my driver's license photo in it [snicker snicker]."
A beard can be quite distinguishing as a feature. A veil, by design, obscures as many features as possible. Even a full beard covers less of the face than a veil.
On the other hand, it could be argued that if the woman's always going to be wearing a veil in Florida, that's distinctive enough; it might be harder to identify her if she's driving veiled and her license shows her bare face.
It's an interesting conundrum. Of course, driving is a privilege, not a right...
as for beards, you can't see the difference between what a beard is and what a sheet is? if you have facial hair, it's a natural growth from your body. a sheet is not.
Obviously there is a difference between wearing a beard and wearing a veil (or 'sheet' if you prefer to couch the discussion in bigoted terminology), but both can effectively be used to alter an individual's appearance. How about if someone completely obscures her face using the hair that grows naturally from the top of her head? Would that be okay?
What most likely makes this an issue for the woman involved in the case is if she is obliged to pose for a photo without her veil, will she be obliged to remove her veil when presenting the license as identification?
Sultaana Freeman, a former evangelist preacher who converted to Islam about five years ago and wears the traditional niqab, says her religion doesn't allow her to show her face to strangers.
So she could tranquilly show her face to anyone she wanted to, like 99,9 % of the american women can, for the first 29 years of her life.
Quote:
Sultaana Freeman said she never had trouble in Illinois, where she worked as a civil engineer with the state's utilities company. That state, without objection, issued her license with a photo that showed only her eyes.
Scary. i don't want to be in a car in illinois, if the eyes are (t)here enough to proof an identity.
Or better still, i will try to get an american ID with the veils covering full face, and then be an atheist convert so i can go around without the veils, and still use as my identification a covered id. where can i can get ID papers for 5'9" heigh, slim, chinese looking blueish eyes?
Quote:
In Daytona Beach earlier this month, Najat Tamim-Muhammad, 41, was refused a Florida identification card because she declined to remove her hijab.
okay, so the other muslem (original or converts) do not get an ID card without showing their face.
from the case of freeman, logically...
1) she got her DL, and only the further checks found out that her photo was not very descriptive. so that for the checks. there are no checks for the DL photos.
2) she had a previous DL in illinois. thus illinois allows women (and men, by equal rights i suppose) to wear a burqa in a DL photo.
3) continueing from the IL DL, she had no problems revealing her face for the first 29 years of her life.
4) if she has ANY OTHER FORM OF IDENTITY PROOFS such as id cards, passports etc; a) in those other forms the burqa photos are valid, or b) she does not have a valid ID proof.
5) for getting a DL, you need a valid proof of your identity. so before she got her first DL, she HAD a valid id. (i could for semplicity assume this happened durign her first 29 years of life). SHE HAS NOT complained the burqa pictures being a problem in any OTHER form od id proof, THUS not just in illinois but also in florida, the burqa pictures are ok in the ID cards.
Technically, driving is a right - just not on government-owned roads. Of course this really means nothing because virtually all of the roads are government-owned roads.
But, still, don't go for the idea that Washington "gives" you your rights. All they can do is take them away.
What does Christian law say about women (or even men) driving?
Notta.
Surprise, surprise.
Well, what I meant was law based off of Islamic code in much of the Islamic countries. Obviously, the Koran would say nothing about driving because it didn't exist when it was written. The same goes with the Bible.
if a specific group such as muslem women are allowed to get over with the facial photos for the identification purposes with a burqa picture, i find it discriminating for everyone else. SO if that is allowed, it should be allowed to anyone unregarded their sex or religious orientation. so all men feeling like they cannot show their face in the presence of unknown and unrelated women should by all means be allowed to do so.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
I'd like to see the passages in the Koran that state she can't take her veil off for a driver's license picture.
a) get a learners permit...or drive illegally in parkign lots until you learn enough to..
b)take and pass the written and road tests.
c) stand in some long line and have your picture taken for a photo ID.
Do these things and you too can drive in the US. If you do not do these things you cannot exercise the priviledge of driving.
So she has a choice, as she cleary indicated in her testimony, she can break custom for "emergenicies" and "neccessities." Clearly she does not see driving as a neccessity. Neither does the State. Therefore she should not have a licence...priviledge..to drive in the state of Florida.
The state's argument is only undermined by the fact that it has issued licences without photos for other people. I don't know what those circumstances are but they will need to explain why those exceptions are made. I thought that ytou could NOT recieve a licence anywhere in the US without your picture being taken, so that fact came as a surprise. Still I think she is being unreasonable. As the veiling is specifically to protect against lust filled men who may jump on a woman if her body or face is visible. Also the fact that not all Muslims don veils undercuts the Koranic argument. The Judge said that they are not there to pass judgment on Islamic customs, but only to evaluate her specific belief as it pertains to Islam. I think the prosecution should (have) made her state very specifically what her beliefs are based on and show that she indeed picks and chooses that which she ascribes to.
On another note: It is simply sick that she and her daughter take markers to faces on cereal boxes and her daughter thinks that a visible female face is "yucky." That alone shows how sexist that particular sect of Islam is.
Originally posted by Outsider
Should any bearded men shave for theirs? Interesting how you singled one group out.
Interesting how? Hasidim are required - by their interpretation of the Torah - to maintain an untrimmed beard. The woman in question is required - by her interpretation of the Qu'ran - to wear a veil. I thought it was a pretty apt comparison...
Edit: Torah not Talmud
each country has its own set of laws aka
an uniform civil code which must be adhered to
regardless of religion
i.e the state shall not discriminate on the basis
of religion
conversely citizens are bound by an uniform code
equally applicable to all
sounds simple & clear cut
pete
Originally posted by AppleMaster
On another note, does anyone know what Islamic law says about women driving?
speculation:
It says nothing.
What does Christian law say about women (or even men) driving?
Notta.
Surprise, surprise.
I have a funny feeling that there is a thinly vieled jingoism behind the comments that say her religion is not a defense for her not wanting a picture (with her face).
In the case of religions that require sacrifices the religions practises runs precisely contrary to the law -- that people should not commit murder, but there is also the example that religions that have use of drugs as part of the ceromonies are allowed to purchase and poses small but usable quantities of drugs. Similarly, giving alcohol to underage children is against the law but many Synagouges and Churches do just that or the parents do. Religion has and does give a person leeway within the law, so much as it doesnt necessarily hurt others... Her not having a picture that shows her face is not hurting anyone. It complicates enfocing the law (but so does many other similarly trivial day to day practises), but that is the law's problem and the manner in which it is enforced and not the person who btw is not refusing to have her photo taken...
they get pulled over, cops have no idea who the hell is driving that car.
as for beards, you can't see the difference between what a beard is and what a sheet is? if you have facial hair, it's a natural growth from your body. a sheet is not.
Conversely, I'm sure they would equally object to a man who wanted to take his photo wearing a veil.
Originally posted by billybobsky
the woman will win.
no she wont...
if the judge has an iota of common sense the case
will be tossed out
i grew up in india which has a multitude of religions
& there was always some nutjob suing the state
for similar reasons
pix not allowd by religion or my religion
allows bigamy etc etc
in every case the judge tossed it out
as it violated the common civil code
here in the u.s we do have similar common laws
so this really is no different from other the cases
(both countries are secular democaries ..keyword here is
secular which is the basis for common law)
the woman will be laughed out of court.
& as various people have pointed out driving is a privilege
not a right
2c
pete
On the other hand, it could be argued that if the woman's always going to be wearing a veil in Florida, that's distinctive enough; it might be harder to identify her if she's driving veiled and her license shows her bare face.
It's an interesting conundrum. Of course, driving is a privilege, not a right...
Originally posted by alcimedes
as for beards, you can't see the difference between what a beard is and what a sheet is? if you have facial hair, it's a natural growth from your body. a sheet is not.
Obviously there is a difference between wearing a beard and wearing a veil (or 'sheet' if you prefer to couch the discussion in bigoted terminology), but both can effectively be used to alter an individual's appearance. How about if someone completely obscures her face using the hair that grows naturally from the top of her head? Would that be okay?
What most likely makes this an issue for the woman involved in the case is if she is obliged to pose for a photo without her veil, will she be obliged to remove her veil when presenting the license as identification?
Sultaana Freeman, a former evangelist preacher who converted to Islam about five years ago and wears the traditional niqab, says her religion doesn't allow her to show her face to strangers.
- from here .
So she could tranquilly show her face to anyone she wanted to, like 99,9 % of the american women can, for the first 29 years of her life.
Sultaana Freeman said she never had trouble in Illinois, where she worked as a civil engineer with the state's utilities company. That state, without objection, issued her license with a photo that showed only her eyes.
Scary. i don't want to be in a car in illinois, if the eyes are (t)here enough to proof an identity.
Or better still, i will try to get an american ID with the veils covering full face, and then be an atheist convert so i can go around without the veils, and still use as my identification a covered id. where can i can get ID papers for 5'9" heigh, slim, chinese looking blueish eyes?
In Daytona Beach earlier this month, Najat Tamim-Muhammad, 41, was refused a Florida identification card because she declined to remove her hijab.
okay, so the other muslem (original or converts) do not get an ID card without showing their face.
from the case of freeman, logically...
1) she got her DL, and only the further checks found out that her photo was not very descriptive. so that for the checks. there are no checks for the DL photos.
2) she had a previous DL in illinois. thus illinois allows women (and men, by equal rights i suppose) to wear a burqa in a DL photo.
3) continueing from the IL DL, she had no problems revealing her face for the first 29 years of her life.
4) if she has ANY OTHER FORM OF IDENTITY PROOFS such as id cards, passports etc; a) in those other forms the burqa photos are valid, or b) she does not have a valid ID proof.
5) for getting a DL, you need a valid proof of your identity. so before she got her first DL, she HAD a valid id. (i could for semplicity assume this happened durign her first 29 years of life). SHE HAS NOT complained the burqa pictures being a problem in any OTHER form od id proof, THUS not just in illinois but also in florida, the burqa pictures are ok in the ID cards.
But, still, don't go for the idea that Washington "gives" you your rights. All they can do is take them away.
Originally posted by billybobsky
speculation:
It says nothing.
What does Christian law say about women (or even men) driving?
Notta.
Surprise, surprise.
Well, what I meant was law based off of Islamic code in much of the Islamic countries. Obviously, the Koran would say nothing about driving because it didn't exist when it was written. The same goes with the Bible.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
How about someone who wears a facial prosthesis? Do they get to use their prostheses or do they have to show their real faces?
Yea. For example Michael Jackson has to remove his nose when the DMV takes his picutre.