BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Driver's License, Picture ID, Freedom of Religion. Two Bad Options

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Stone Mirror
17:12 / 02.08.02
I'm also missing the problem with offering Driver's License tests in 34 languages. Why not offer the test in as many languages as possible?

Because (just for example) short-term hazard signs (i.e. "Slow down! Wreck ahead!") are only put up in English. As I said when I brought it up, a subsidiary question is whether someone who doesn't speak one of those particular 34 languages can claim "cultural insensitivity" on the part of the state for not catering specifically to hir "needs".

(Why is it that the sterotype of the American in France, expecting people to understand him just because he's shouting loudly in English is so widely decried, yet the expectation is that speakers of Hmong, Tibetan and Tagalog will have their own special versions of every piece of paper that anyone issues...?)

Though, as a worshiper of Tezcatlipoca, your human sacrifices may not be legal, you would still be able to drive a frickin' car in order to get your groceries.

Only if I were willing to have my picture taken.

That's respecting your religious beliefs while protecting the rest of the population, which is what this thread is all about.

How so? I have no religious beliefs regarding getting my picture taken, just about performing human sacrifice (and those ones aren't being respected...)

And what's with the snottiness about converts? Like her faith is any less real because she converted to Islam 5 years ago instead of having been born into the religion...

This issue is that her convert-hood undercuts the entire "cultural sensitivity" argument. She was born and raised in this culture.
 
 
Abigail Blue
17:59 / 02.08.02
This issue is that her convert-hood undercuts the entire "cultural sensitivity" argument. She was born and raised in this culture.-SM

But she identifies with another culture, and has become part of it, through her faith. Her identification with Islam and of herself as a Muslim woman isn't harming anyone. Therefore, why demonize her? Why not make an exception, provided that viable safety measures are in place? I'm not saying that she should be allowed to drive around without being able to prove that she is who she says she is. I am still just saying that there are options which are palatable to both sides, and which respect the concerns of both. And that folk should be looking for more such options, instead of whining disingenuously about the fact that they aren't allowed to make human sacrifices.

Aside: I personally think that, if you follow Tezcatlipoca and want to make human sacrifices, and you find another follower of Tezcatlipoca who wouldn't mind being sacrificed, then happy slicing to the both of you! But imposing that shit on someone who doesn't share your belief system is not cool. And before someone jumps in with "But Sultaana Freeman is imposing her religion on me by wearing a veil": It's not at all the same thing, and I think that we all know that.

Plus, if everyone's really in post-Sept. 11th paranoia mode, why not make everyone have fingerprint scans? As Morlock/1 mentioned, just think of all the things that Driver's Licenses are used for! And just about any pasty-white, dark-haired girl could pass herself off as me using my ID, just as anyone wearing a veil could pass themselves off as Sultaana Freeman.

Because (just for example) short-term hazard signs (i.e. "Slow down! Wreck ahead!") are only put up in English.-SM

Yes, and in very basic English, which most folk understand. And the international symbols help, too. Chances are, though (and I could be wrong here, never having taken the test) that the test is in significantly more complicated English than that used on a Stop sign. A person's ability to understand and follow basic and pictorial road signs is not accurately measured by a written test in a language which isn't their mother tongue. All of which is beside the point.

Getting back to it: I agree with M/1 that this has to do with more than driving. This has to do with the rights of the Individual vs. the demands of the State, and with how to temper post 9/11 hysteria with 'let's all get along and hold hands and sing songs' type multiculturalism. So? Thoughts?
 
 
Stone Mirror
18:34 / 02.08.02
Therefore, why demonize her?

No one is "demonizing" her. The Department of Motor Vehicles of the state of Florida is following the legislation in force in that state which requires a full-face photograph on the license.

t.o.d.d. would be treated exactly the same way if he insisted on wearing his ninja suit for his photo.

(And Sultaana Freeman is imposing her religion on me, or on her fellow Floridians, at least, by requiring that they foot the bill for portable fingerprint scanners for every policeman in the state, just in case they happen to pull over Sultaana Freeman, or by requiring that they supply full-face photographs, whether they like it or not, when she is exempted from doing so.)
 
 
Stone Mirror
18:39 / 02.08.02
But she identifies with another culture, and has become part of it, through her faith.

And that was her choice. As the old Spanish proverb runs, "God says, 'Take whatever you like, and pay for it.'"

For her to whine that she has to have her picture taken to get a driver's license (just like everyone else in the state does) is as misguided as if she were to convert to Jainism and then complain that she wasn't issued a state-subsidized broom with which to sweep insects out of her path...
 
 
Abigail Blue
20:02 / 02.08.02
And Sultaana Freeman is imposing her religion on me, or on her fellow Floridians, at least, by requiring that they foot the bill ...-SM

I hate hate hate the "I, as a taxpayer, have the right to say where my tax dollars go" argument. Not because I don't believe that we should have that right, but because I'm not naive enough to believe that we have any say at all. The State says 'Give me your tax money', and as soon as we say 'okay' and fork it over, we lose all control over it. So with all due respect, SM, your tax dollars are already going towards paying for things that are more heinous than Ms. Freeman's Driver's License. Like the War on Terror, for example... As I've said, I would rather my tax money go towards helping people feel at home and included than towards building more big ass bombs to be dropped on wedding parties and hospitals.
 
 
SMS
02:11 / 03.08.02
But she identifies with another culture, and has become part of it, through her faith.

And that was her choice. As the old Spanish proverb runs, "God says, 'Take whatever you like, and pay for it.'"

In a way, I suppose it was her choice. I mean, I bet it would be pretty hard for her to just decide to be an atheist. Choosing what you believe isn't quite the same thing as choosing which T-shirt you wear.

What about freedom of religion only protecting your right to go to worship every week?

Let's suppose I'm, a lawmaker and I hate the Muslims, especially the really conservative Muslims and especially women Muslims. Now, in my state, violent crime is on the rise. Some 7-11's have been robbed, lately, and this has gotten quite a lot of press. The robbers were wearing ski masks. So I get a law passed that no one can go out in public (or in a number of specified public squares) with a covered face. Then I tell some of the law enforcement officials out there that I know where a bunch of people hang out who cover their faces all the time. After a while, all these women have come to realize they have to confine themselves to their houses if they want to stay out of both jail and hell.

This is quite different from the laws in this case, because the laws about the driver's license were not written with any consideration at all for women who wear niqabs. It wouldn't cross anyone's mind. But the lawmaker who hates Muslims said he was doing this to help keep down violent crime.

I'm not claiming this is a full argument. That is, I don't think that it immediately follows from the contents of this hypotheical story that the Florida law needs to be changed. I'm just saying that it's something to consider.
 
 
Stone Mirror
03:15 / 03.08.02
...that was her choice. As the old Spanish proverb runs, "God says, 'Take whatever you like, and pay for it.'"

In a way, I suppose it was her choice.

Well, it's certainly a decision she made, and just as she accepted the consequence of having to give up barbequed ribs as a consequence, she has to accept other consequences that come with that decision.

Choosing what you believe isn't quite the same thing as choosing which T-shirt you wear.

No? You might get an argument on that score from the chaotes in the Magick. You'd certainly get an argument from Aleister Crowley--see Liber III vel Jugorum, III.1.b...

What about freedom of religion only protecting your right to go to worship every week?

No one's infringing that. Three simple words: Take. Public. Transit. Three other words: Call. A. Cab.

I'm not claiming this is a full argument.

Imagine my relief. I think it's contorted beyond usefulness, myself. This situation, as far as the Florida DMV is concerned, has nada, zip, zilch, nothing to do with Islam. t.o.d.d. and his ninja suit would be treated no differently, and it wouldn't have anything to do with anti-Japanese sentiment, or a dislike for Michael Dudikoff movies, in that case.

On a note that we haven't managed to hit upon yet, having gone back and looked at Ms. Freeman's erstwhile license picture, do you imagine that it's even safe for her to be driving in her niqab? I'll bet there's something in the Florida vehicle code that specifies that one may not legally drive with one's vision impaired by masks, etc. That'd seem to be a fairly clear public safety issue, but should we just let it slide as well so as to accomodate Ms. Freeman?

(And tell me, what do you think about the Amish, eh? Fine for them to be on the freeway after dark in an unlit horse and buggy with no "slow vehicle" reflector on the back?)
 
 
SMS
04:17 / 04.08.02
The Amish, yes. Well, I'd need to hear a bit more, but the public safety issues are clear and quantifiable. I'd like to see the Amish case, but I think the state has a very strong case. How many lives are saved (on average, and what's the standard deviation) when laws such as these are in place? How many accidents involve Amish vehicles per year? What does this law deprive of the Amish?

I admit, this is kind of messy. These aren't just decisions I can make by plugging the problem into a mind-algorithm and getting the answer.

The safety of driving with a niqab is an incredibly important factor, here. I bet that it is safe. I wear glasses to drive, so I have generally lousy peripheral vision. The veil looks like it would do about the same thing. If it is shown that it badly impairs Mrs. Freeman's ability to drive, then she shouldn't be allowed to drive.

That doesn't solve the problem of the picture ID, though.


What about freedom of religion only protecting your right to go to worship every week?

No one's infringing that. Three simple words: Take. Public. Transit. Three other words: Call. A. Cab.

Sorry. The story after I said that was supposed to address the idea that freedom of religion is strictly limited to going to worship.

Imagine my relief. I think it's contorted beyond usefulness, myself. This situation, as far as the Florida DMV is concerned, has nada, zip, zilch, nothing to do with Islam. t.o.d.d. and his ninja suit would be treated no differently, and it wouldn't have anything to do with anti-Japanese sentiment, or a dislike for Michael Dudikoff movies, in that case.

It doesn't intend to have anything to do with Islam, and it doesn't have anything to do with anti-Muslim sentiment. The difference between the law in the story and the law in Florida is that the law in Florida didn't intend to target Muslims. But you can't even prove that the law in the story did intend to target Muslims. That's why I think the story has relevamce. To the public, both situations may look very much alike. A supreme court decision in this case will set a precedent.
 
 
Baz Auckland
19:47 / 05.08.02
I think she's in the right and can't see any reason why she shouldn't get a license. Her belief regarding clothing is different from someone showing up in a ninja suit.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
12:38 / 06.08.02
Her belief regarding clothing is different from someone showing up in a ninja suit.

Why? Because the concept has been around longer, or has a larger fanbase, or has a slightly less bizarre justification? I could put in an invisible man effort, turn up swathed in bandages and wearing sunglasses because of the aforementioned belief that photography drains the soul and making this the only way to survive the surveillance society. Alternatively, I may believe that superficiality is the root of all evil and so will not allow people to judge me by appearance, even through secondary sources like photographs.

If you're going to make statements like that, you'll have to try to explain why the one idea is more valid than the other...
 
 
Baz Auckland
10:24 / 07.08.02
If you follow the "wear-a-ninja-suit" religion, then your suit should be allowed as well.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
12:26 / 07.08.02
But she is not following the 'wear a niqab' religion, she's a Muslim, and one of the parts of that religion, for her, is wearing that gear.
 
 
Stone Mirror
12:57 / 07.08.02
But she is not following the 'wear a niqab' religion, she's a Muslim, and one of the parts of that religion, for her, is wearing that gear

Since the vast majority of Muslim women seem to have found a way to manage to get acceptable pictures taken, evidenced by the fact that there have only been three cases like Ms. Freeman's, I think it's quite arguable that she is following the "wear a niqab" religion.

Especially since there's nothing particular in the Quran regarding this.

Do you feel that "following the Christian religion" suffices to describe a snake-handler?
 
 
MJ-12
13:06 / 07.08.02
Only if they insist on having their driver's license photo taken with the snake.
 
 
Grey Area
17:41 / 07.08.02
The bible doesn't specifically mention the clerical collar worn by priests. Does this make the symbol, and the dedication of those who decide to wear it, any less meaningful? The point I am trying to make here is that there are many different interpretations of most holy writings, Islamic and Christian. Less fundamentalist (and I use that word with caution) versions of Islam do not require the wearing of the niqab, or only a version that covers the hair and neck and leaves the face exposed. Ms. Freeman has chosen to convert to a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, and therefore it is a part of her religion to wear the niqab. Not accepting that is like not accepting that there are some Catholics who still refuse to eat meat on a Friday and complaining that your cafeteria has had to modify it's menu in response (and yes, I realise that this example has nothing to do with public safety and driving, but it's the same principle).
 
 
gridley
20:09 / 07.08.02
I've enjoyed this whole debate, but I still think this woman is just getting to wrapped up in a symbol. There is no real importance to her gesture. It does not affect her life in the slightest whether she is wearing the veil in her picture or not. This is just a ploy for attention, primarilly for her, and secondly on behalf of her adopted religion, which if she considered it at all, was a big mistake, because it's just made Americans think Muslims are that much more robotic, that they can't give even slightly in their rigid beliefs, and that is very worrying to me. If she was born into a Muslim society I would be more forgiving, but her inflexible born-again Muslim zealotry is just annoying and irresponsible....
 
 
SMS
02:51 / 09.08.02
Why can't we just explain to her that her religion is wrong?

I might be willing to accept that religious freedom does not extend as far as this case, but I have absolute respect for what she's doing right now. What some may see as rigid and robotic I see as a strong commitment to her faith and her god. This is a woman who will stand up for her principles. This speaks well of the Islamic religion.
 
 
SMS
03:01 / 09.08.02
Someone should mention the spinoff topic "Freedom of Religion in Post-Liberal Democracies"
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
11:54 / 09.08.02
gridley I've enjoyed this whole debate, but I still think this woman is just getting to wrapped up in a symbol... This is just a ploy for attention, primarilly for her... If she was born into a Muslim society I would be more forgiving, but her inflexible born-again Muslim zealotry is just annoying and irresponsible....

This is why I stepped back from this thread. We're starting to read into that one article and our own discussions any number of things that may or may not be true, unless gridley has access to other sources of information on this than we do? Has this been making big time news? Has she given interviews which show her to be an inflexible born-again Muslim zealot?
 
 
gridley
17:54 / 09.08.02
I think this one action sure makes her look like an inflexible zealot. Absolutely. (And since she put herself in the spotlight, it's up to her prove otherwise.)

I though the same thing of my mother when she refused to go to eat a fortune cookie (in a fit of born-again christianianty) because "they are witchcraft and come from Satan."

The more people believe in something (anything), the stupider they tend to get about it, the less objective. And, there's no zealot worse than a recent convert....
 
 
SMS
02:00 / 10.08.02
Your mother is superstitious. I doubt this qualifies as zealotry (refusing to eat a fortune cookie, make a sigil, use a ouji board).

To be zealous is to be passionate. I don't think being passionate about your beliefs is a bad thing.

Maybe Mrs. Freeman is not passionate about her religion. I hope she is, and you are probably right in assuming that she is.

I don't claim that the passionate (ir)religious have done no harm. They have, and will continue to do harm. They have also done quite a lot of good.

No no. I'm twisting your words a bit, here. A zealot carries the connotation of being fanatical. So here you get to uncritical devotion. Passion with uncritical devotion. So this implies that she doesn't think about her faith before acting upon it; she either takes the word of the Koran or some religious leader. The Koran is ambiguous on the niqab, so, if her actions are to be evidence of zealotry, we have to assume that she either didn't read the Koran carefully or that she has listened to a religious leader. I will assume that she listened to a religious leader. That seems more likely. The question, though, to address your claim, is whether she gave wearing the niquab any thought, or whether she blindly obeyed. Perhaps it is not possible to be a sensible human being and insist upon wearing a niquab.

If I place a high enough value on modesty, then it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The only other thing we know about Mrs. Freeman is that she is trying not to be denied certain rights/priveleges. This is more political than it is religious. She has the religious matter settled. The only question, now, is how much she will have to sacrifice in order to obey God.
 
 
Stone Mirror
15:32 / 10.08.02
Ms. Freeman has chosen to convert to a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, and therefore it is a part of her religion to wear the niqab. Not accepting that is like not accepting that there are some Catholics who still refuse to eat meat on a Friday and complaining that your cafeteria has had to modify it's menu in response (and yes, I realise that this example has nothing to do with public safety and driving, but it's the same principle).

If it is, in fact, the same principle, it seems to make pretty apparent what the problem with Ms. Freeman's position is.

If the cafeteria I eat at changed their menu on Fridays to have nothing but fish or vegetarian entrees to accomodate one single Catholic (or even four of 'em) who insisted, at odds with the rest of the Catholic church, that they not only couldn't eat meat on Friday but that the cafeteria was somehow oppressing them by serving meat to others who weren't so scrupulous, my reaction would be pretty much the same: I'd think it an unreasonable attempt for them to impose their religious beliefs on the cafeteria and, by extension, on the rest of us.

I'd complain like hell.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
09:10 / 11.08.02
In this case it would surely be more accurate if the Catholics were complaining because the cafeteria were trying to force them to eat fish on Friday and so violate their religious beliefs?

But I think this topic is more or less exhausted now.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
07:01 / 07.06.03
Bringing this thread back from the dead for this...

Judge: Muslim Woman Cannot Wear Veil In Driver's License Photo

But a state attorney countered that Islamic law has exceptions that allow women to lift their veil and expose their face if the action serves a public good. Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail said arrangements can be made to have Freeman photographed only with women present to allay her concerns about modesty.
During the hearing, Freeman conceded that she has had her face photographed without a veil since she started wearing one in 1997...
 
 
Bill Posters
10:41 / 07.06.03
and if I may add, this bit is rather interesting:

During the hearing, Freeman conceded that she has had her face photographed without a veil since she started wearing one in 1997. She had a mug shot taken after her arrest in 1998 on a domestic battery charge involving one of twin 3-year-old sisters who were in her foster care. The children were removed from her home, according to records from the Decatur (Ill.) Police Services.

Child welfare workers told investigators in Decatur 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 Decatur Police records.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:14 / 07.06.03
I think a lot of it has to do with dedication- as with many religious observances, I guess (though I know very little about Islam, so feel free to correct me) that part of the niqab-wearing (and yes, I know there's a lot to do with not causing men temptation and all that malarkey) is to do with proving your dedication. That is, making sacrifices. Wearing a veil is gonna hamper your ability to do certain things. Driving may be one of them. (Obviously, this isn't what the Prophet had in mind, what with there not being cars, but I feel the point still stands.) Which is more important- God or your car?

It's like (sort of) the celibacy vow of Catholic priests. It's not so much that a priest shagging would be WRONG WRONG WRONG (they'd be able to seek forgiveness same as anyone), it's the sacrifice that illustrates their devotion.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:43 / 08.09.05
The Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld a 2003 ruling by an Orlando judge that Sultaana Freeman's right to free exercise of religion would not be burdened by the photo requirement.

"We recognized the tension created as a result of choosing between following the dictates of one's religion and the mandates of secular law," Appellate Judge Emerson R. Thompson Jr. wrote in Friday's opinion. "However, as long as the laws are neutral and generally applicable to the citizenry, they must be obeyed."

Freeman's attorney, Howard Marks, said Wednesday he was considering an appeal.

Another one?!
 
 
Saturn's nod
07:55 / 15.03.06
What about Amish & similar Plain church members who believe it's wrong to pose for photos? This is related to the references elsewhere in this thread to who believe they are injured by photography.

I believe the U.S. government allows (or has allowed in the past) Amish etc to have special passports without photos with a statement confirming that the person always wears religious dress. (I imagine the number taking this up has been small.) Does the fact that Plain church members are committed to pacifism make a difference?

I would find it interesting if this is still true and veiled muslim women are not allowed the equivalent leeway on the driver's license. The driver's license itself is not going to be an issue for buggy-driving Amish!

I think my information about Amish & passports came from Stephen Scott's book 'Why do they dress that way?' (U.S. Amazon, U.K. Amazon).
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply