Your opinion on the veiled women

Uh oh. It looks like the ACLU is making a fool of themselves again.

 

Driving is a privilige not a right.

And I dont care what this stupid lady says, its not about being muslim, its about the fact that shes covering her face.

 

I'm with the conservatives on this one. If it's so offensive to her, she doesn't have to drive. This isn't a case of her exercising her religious freedom, this is her trying to impose her religion on us, because she's taking her private religious practice into the public sphere in a way that interferes with public action. This isn't a Sikh wanting to keep his beard.

Geez, I hate to sound like this, but if it's so important to her that she not be photographed without her veil, she can go to Saudi. She can drive all she wants to there.

Oh. Well, maybe not.

 

What IS the status of this case anyway? I remember hearing about it when it first surfaced but haven't seen any updates. FWIW, I think she needs to take the veil off for the picture and whenever her identity needs to be verified. If she can't handle that than she can stay home all day...

 

maybe its to help her underage sister get into bars - cuz there would be little discernable difference between the two if the sister wore a veil and tried to sneak into a bar.

Anything that gets more underage girls into bars is a good thing in my book.

 

She wouldn't be able to drive in the Muslim holy land anyway, so why does she want to drive here?

 

Driving is a state-regulated privilege. Lose the veil for the photo (and when requested by cops for ID purposes), or lose the license.

 

That's nice, except that in most of the country it's a necessity.

I agree completely, but religious rights are important as well. We have to look at it case by case, not just say driving isn't a right.

 

Aside from the excellent point made by DJ Poopypants, this one is pretty obvious.

As an aside, my guess would be that any Muslim whose beliefs are fundamentalist enough that they would require women to be covered head-to-toe 24/7, also would prevent women from driving (which they are not allowed to do in Saudi Arabia or Iran, and weren't allowed to under the Taliban). In other words, it's a scam and she's lying about her beliefs.

 

Women can drive in Iran.

 

This woman is wrong. The law requiring that you be identifiable in your license photo applies equally to people of all religions. If she does not wish to comply to this eminently reasonable requirement, she can take a cab. It's not like anyone will be driven to a lustful frenzy by seeing a damn drivers license photo, especially considering how most people end up looking on their licenses.

 

She's living in a country which gives more religious freedom than any other, by far. The least she can do is have the common decency and common sense to show it respect in such a matter as this. It doesn't infringe on her beliefs one ioda.

 

It's not our place to judge her beliefs. But I do wonder, considering that her lawyer entered a copy of the Quran as evidence, how much this practice of covering up is really based in Islamic law. Surely many Muslims don't believe women should have the right to drive, nor the right to sue the state. On the other hand, does she need to practice every tenet of Islam in order to qualify for exceptions based on religion?

It's pretty muddled territory, when you think about it. I mean, I'm not particularly religious, but I'm pretty sure the Bible says something about me not ever having to pay taxes. Anyway, that's my interpretation. You gonna commit religious persecution and tell me I'm wrong?

 

She'd have a case for religious bias if she could show that the law lets, say, Zoroastrains or atheists take their pictures with their faces covered but not Muslims. But the law applies equally to everyone. So she has no case. If she wants to drive, she has to conform to the law.

Edited to point out that she could also try to show that the original law was religiously motivated. However, I don't think even the dimmest judge is going to fail to see that there is a bit of a strictly practical reason for wanting someone's face on a photo I.D. that has nothing to do with religion.

 

I can't really understand your argument because you're trying to talk with pebbles in your mouth.

 

Actually, I think she could also win if she could prove that it's not necessary to have an uncovered face in the photo.

I think, joseph, you understand this, but I just wanted to point it out. It's not really necessary for schoolchildren to recite the pledge, so if your religion forbids it, you can opt out. But a driver's license with a covered face obviously defeats the purpose of a driver's license.

I mention this, because I think I recall a case last year where a Sikh sued over his beard and won. I don't remember all of the details, but he won by demonstrating that the ban in that situation over facial hair wasn't really necessary.

 

I thought about that immediately after posting and edited my original post to include exactly this possibility. Either way, she has no case as the law is enforced uniformly and is based on secular practicality that does not make unreasonable demands. She can lose the veil for a few seconds or start walking.

 

Exactly

 

Have the Amish filed an amicus brief?

 

PA requires the Amish to put reflective signs on the back of their buggies. Once again, it's a public safety issue, not a freedom of religion issue.

I know that NYC has had cases of Sikh police officers going to court because the rules of the NYPD require all officers to wear police hats. Don't know how those case turned out.

 

We had an issue with that here in my hometown of Calgary. A simple compromise was quickly found. A Sikh policeman would be able to wear a turban, as long as it's blue and has a badge on it. Both sides were quite happy with the solution.

 

Recent converts are more likely to embrace stricter elements of a religion.

However, what I do not understand is why she has to cover her face. Most Islamic women I know - including a few very strict Muslims - wear a headscarf which complies with the requirement of covering their head (modesty) but they do not cover their faces.

This woman purports to subscribe to a strict interpretation of Islam. Where there is conflict between Islamic law and the laws of a country in which a Muslim lives, a true Muslim would generally seek a compromise or a balance. She would not be compromising her principles under Islam were she to wear a headscarf rather than wear full burkah. This would also enable her to be identifiable under FL. state law.

For 15 minutes of fame, as someone on this thread pointed out earlier, is it really worth being so pedantic ?

Edited to add:
I understand that more devout Muslims believe that the photographs taken of them also take away their soul. In addition, one could argue that it is not modest for a woman to drive a car, but more modest for her to be driven, as required.

With those religious reasons in mind, the lady in question probably should opt not to have a licence, in the interests of not compromising her beliefs.

 

Just to play devil's advocate (so to speak)...

Say she doesn't want a driver's license; instead, she wants a state photo ID card. Does she have to remove the burkah?

Or, say she acceeds to having her photo taken with the burkah removed for her driver's license, but she requests all male employees and customers (or whatever the hell you are when going to the DMV) be removed from the office when her photo is taken. Should the state grant this request?

Say that they do and she receives a driver's license with her photo on it. If she's pulled over, can the officer request that she remove her burkah?