Clever wench that she is, too, hiding in plain sight w/all this publicity.
On the OP - she’s an American citizen convert, right? sometimes converts are much more immersed if you will, in the object of their conversion.
however, I don’t see it as a freedom of religion issue, she can, in fact freely practice her religion as she sees fit. Should she wish to drive, she’ll have to make a choice to either keep a license or the veil.
Because the court may inquire into the honesty on the claimant’s claim to hold particular religious beliefs, but not the truth or appropriateness of those beliefs.
I have seen stories indicating that both the state and Mrs. Freeman intend to call religious scholars to support their claims about the requirements of the Qu’ran. But while the parties can call pretty much whoever they want and ask them anything as long as the other side doesn’t object, the court itself should not pay any attention to opinions of those scholars when making its decision.
Yeah, I know. Still, something’s not right with her whole story.
**
Granted, but if her take on the religion is more strict than in some of the Islamist countries, I’m not necessarily buying it. Per chance she has another reason? Not necessarily the crime aspect either, maybe having something to do with her two-bit husband.
We agree on that.
If we can tolerate the quirks and foibles of the Amish, why not cut a Muslim some slack? Whats the big hairy ass deal?
…The Amish don’t demand they get their pictures taken covered? (Yeah, yeah, they don’t allow their pics taken at all. Bite me)
Not only a faulty analogy, but wrong as well. When faced with compelling state interest, the Amish have to comply as well.
What “compelling state interest”? Is she asking to be excused from having tailights on her car? Nope. Want to mount heat seeking missile to smite the infidel? Negatory.
Most religious requirements are pretty damn silly to those who don’t share them, and it behooves us to try not to be petty.
If you were Jewish, would you let them tattoo “Jesus is Lord” on your face so’s you could drive a car?
“Compelling state interest”, my ass.
Elucidator, maybe if you read the other posts in the thread before posting, it would help? The state has an interest in being able to identify the driver of a vehicle in a rapid and efficient manner. No state, incidentally, has a compelling interest in your ass.
Your “tatoo on the forehead” strawman is too retarded to even bother refuting.
Elucidator, maybe if you read the other posts in the thread before posting, it would help? The state has an interest in being able to identify the driver of a vehicle in a rapid and efficient manner. No state, incidentally, has a compelling interest in your ass.
Your “tatoo on the forehead” strawman is too retarded to even bother refuting.
When I first read the thread title, I thought: Wow-DMV is giving away mugs to promote safe consumption of beverages while operating a motor vehicle. Where’s my DMV mug? Dammit-I just renewed my license and didn’t get one.
Regarding posts about the Amish, they are aplenty where I live, and don’t permit their pictures to be taken. They don’t need a driver’s license because they drive…HORSES!
Seriously, some sects of Amish and Mennonite do not operate motor vehicles, and although I may be mistaken, PA will issue non-operator ID cards that do not have pictures, such that they may participate in activities that require official identification, while maintaining adherence to their faith.
For those of you who were wondering what was beneath the veil, the Smoking Gun has a mugshot of the unmasked Sultaana Freeman (previously Sandra Keller) here, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html.
It was taken when Ms Freeman was arrested for battering a foster child in Illinois in 1999.
Thanks, World Eater for reviving this moldy oldie. I thought I saw another, newer thread, just recently. In any case, I hope Howard Marks, Freeman’s FCLU attorney, is dispatched up to NY after the trial and offers free assistance with my ongoing rastafarian naturalist, steel workers sect dilemma.
I don’t have a cite for this but I heard today that her husband had been found in posession of several fake IDs. If true, then it definately sounds like something larger is going on.
Finagle, I get the impression you are more interested in sticking it to me than whether or not a valid argument is being made.
Jealousy is a terrible thing, my child. It makes one peevish and small-minded, and blocks your development.
(pats finanklebite on the head in kindly and avuncular fashion)
Nope, Finagle is entirely right on this one.
Could happen, I suppose. What do you think the effect on the price of pork chops will be when pigs can fly straight to the market without transport?
But seriously, folks…howcum, Minty? As noted above, there are any number of situations where such licenses have been issued without pictures. Has the sky fallen? Are our highways littered with ruined wrecks from unphotographed drivers?
Howzabout a compromise? Lets say she gets a drivers license without a photo, but with the proviso that if she is stopped for a safety violation, her car is towed, or kept by the side of the road until some form of ID verification is performed. After all, as long as she is driving safely, and obeying all the rules of the road, there is no “compelling reason” for the cop to even need to see her license, much less her picture.
Whether a driver’s licenses have been issued in the past without a photo is irrelevant to the requirement now that all drivers be photographed with their faces visible. That is an entirely reasonable requirement, established for the purpose of enabling law enforcement officers to quickly and reliably establish the identity of the driver of a motor vehicle. It matters not one whit that other states apparently don’t care about identifying drivers, because Florida obviously does.
The question, elucidator, is whether this requirement discriminates against Mrs. Freeman or was intended to single out her and others like her who believe that revealing their faces is an affront to god. The answer to both those questions is, from all appearances, no.
Rastafarians don’t get a special dispensation to smoke weed. Pseudo-Mormon fundamentalists don’t get to marry 12-year-old girls. The Amish don’t get to drive their horse carts on the roads of Pennsylvana without reflectors on the rear. And by god, Sultanna Freeman can either put her mug on her driver’s license or she can take the fucking bus.
This whole issue is not even worthy of debate or a Pit thread. Driving is a privilege, not a right. One of the prerequisites for obtaining a driver’s license is correct and irrefutable identification of yourself. Fingerprints cannot be accurately checked in the field. A photo is the most accepted way of doing so. To protest such measures is well within her rights. To expect a license to be issued to her without submitting a specification portrait of herself is not.
What a moronic rutbag.
I don’t know about the visiting Englishman but I do have a friend who wandered into a women’s restroom here. The woman he inadvertantly surprised grabbed her abayya and covered her face with it, leaving everything else exposed. In later conversations I was told that “we all look the same down there anyway.”
As far as the Mrs. Whosits adopting a religion, I don’t think the Quran requires covering the face. Modesty, yes, but not wearing a mask. Would it be fair to say that what she has adopted is a culture rather than a religion? Moslem women in every other country I’ve visited dress normally or maybe wear a headscarf, not a mask.
Testy
Minty, you ignorant slut.
You may, if you wish, insist that the issue is discrimination. I insist that the game isn’t worth the candle. Big hairy ass deal, says the ever calm E. What is the dreadful consequence of a police officer being unable to instantly assure the identity of the motorist? If she behaves herself behind the wheel, the issue very well may never arise. Why not give her the chance, assuming that these rumors about her unsavory past are just that? In what way will the public order and the commonweal suffer if we permit the crime of Driving While Different?
In the words of Hugo Black “Feh. So let her drive, already”.