Take that veil off

[Nirvana13666]

Last night on the news there was this story about a Muslim woman that was going to court to fight her state for making her take off her veil for her driver’s license picture. Her current license has a photo with her veil on and all you can see are her eyes. If she doesn’t renew the picture then her driving privileges will be taken away. Her lawyer is trying to make it a case about religious freedom. He pointed out that she was asked to retake the photo after 9-11. The state is saying that it has nothing to do with religious freedom and that it is a matter of public safety.

I was completely on her side until that state’s lawyer began to interrogate the woman. He pointed out that she was arrested for aggravated assault and when she was arrested she had taken a photo without her veil on. He also stated that her home was raided some time ago and about 5 bogus ID were recovered with her husband’s picture on them.

On the news they always do a nightly poll and last night’s poll was:

99% thought she should have to take her veil off
1% thought she should be able to keep her veil on

What do any of you think about this? Is it persecution of religion or the country just trying to keep us all safe?

[Shih]

In this specific case I don't believe it's a matter of religious persecution, with the womans's record it seems sensible. Someone without a record it could very definitely be discrimination, it all depends on the person involved.

[ZenGaijin]

If she wins this case i dont know whats gonna happen to this contry.Maybe i will start a religion in which i kill a virgin remove the skin from the head and were there naked skull as a helmet and you cant tell me to stop it because that would be endangering my freedom of religion rights.

[Lyddiechu]

the laws of the land are always above the laws of religion. or else.. yeah.. crap like what blue flame said would happen.

she should especially have to take the veil off because of her record of assault. theres no question about it. if she has such a problem with it then she shouldn't be allowed to drive.. however i think it is hypocritical and stupid of the country to not have insisted on her taking off the veil in her first picture.

maybe im just insensitive to her plight since i am not a religious person. however i think everyone's religions should bow before public safety.

[Freakapotimus]

For identification purposes, she should have to remove her veil, regardless of religion, before or after 9/11, whatever. Her record doesn't matter, her faith doesn't matter. If there was a terrible accident, they'd need ID to match the body with the person to inform family.

[nitroxide]

She was winning in court till the lawyer stated that she had been arrested for assualt,she was giving the impression that she is a true believer of her religion and dint want sin against her maker by taking of the veil but assualt is sinning in her makers eyes maybe she isnt as religious as she tried to imply.

I say take the veil of it is about security,how can anyone use an id like that with any credibility...what i dont understand is why they allowed the first picture to be taken in the first place noone thought about the potential problems that this would bring.

She stated that she had never been photographed without her veil she lied,the lawyer found of picture of her when she was arrested,i say we take that picture and post it in her I.D. if she refuses.

[Ted-Easton]

She should take it off. It's simply common sense that they need to see her face, not a piece of fabric.

[bumcheekcity]

She would have to have a picture of the veil off, or people could walk around like that all the time and just clkaim they were muslim, never having identification and never showing who they are.

Also, DBF is right. People would start virgin-blood-drinking religions and that could get messy.

[ichbincow]

Things needed to be remembered=

1)Driving is a PRIVILEGE not a right

2)The purpose of the phot ID is to provide identification via a phot of the FACE--not a veiled or otherwise disguised/hidden face..particularly important to note since most major forms of ID involve use of facial recognition

[House-Of-Leaves]

Part of me wants to believe in such freedoms of religion.

But for identification purposes, yes, she should take her veil off. Perhaps offer two sets of ID, one with, one without. I dunno.

[JudgeDredd]

don't tell me she drives with a veil on? so just imagine how bad that would make peripheral vision!

..be like a race-horse with those blinder *blinkers* on and no jockey! lol

[majiman1]

This whole idea falls into the multiple language thing I've always detested about countries. You live in a country, any country, and there is a predominant language. Learn it! The same thing goes for any laws that you may not like or even social customs! I know our neighbors used to throw toilet paper in the tree out front because it's what they used to do *somewhere*, I don't remember where. We didn't like it and in the end they agreed to use a tree out back. Very reasonable people!

This lady? Not reasonable! If you live in a country that asks you to take off the veil, you take off the veil. If you don't like it you're free to leave the country. She should go live back in the Middle East where she won't even be able to drive a car. After a year or two of that I'm sure she'd be more than happy to take off her veil. People like this just take the U.S. for everything its worth.

[Freakapotimus]

At 5/29/03 02:53 AM, majiman1 wrote: This lady? Not reasonable!
If you don't like it you're free to leave the country. She should go live back in the Middle East...

There were a lot of ignorant assumptions made in that post of yours. I found an article online which states that the woman is an American-born converted Muslim. Why should she return to the Middle East?

At 5/29/03 02:53 AM, majiman1 wrote: This whole idea falls into the multiple language thing I've always detested about countries. You live in a country, any country, and there is a predominant language. Learn it! The same thing goes for any laws that you may not like or even social customs!

That explains why we're all speaking Native American dialects and living in harmony with mother nature..
.....
YES THAT WAS SARCASM.
Don't be such a hypocrite and say "boo! foreigners are bad for America. They should behave like us or go back from where they came from." Because ALL of America was conquered by foreigners who didn't understand and/or respect the ways of the first inhabitants of its land so they killed most of them and put the rest of them in reserves.

[Shih]

He didn't say foreigners are bad for America, just that if someone intends to live in a country then all the laws and social mores of said country should be followed by them, just like everyone else in that country needs to follow them. Just because you've emigrated to a new country or converted within your birth country, you don't have the right to expect to only have to follow the convienent laws and ignore the ones that you don't enjoy or find advantageous.

[Freakapotimus]

She is an American-born converted Muslim. She did not move to the US.

[Shih]

At 5/29/03 09:43 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: She is an American-born converted Muslim. She did not move to the US.

which is why I said emigrated or converted in your birth country

At 5/29/03 09:35 AM, Shih wrote: He didn't say foreigners are bad for America, just that if someone intends to live in a country then all the laws and social mores of said country should be followed by them, just like everyone else in that country needs to follow them.

Well he didn't say it word for word but it seems that he did imply it by saying that foreigners are bringing strange and exotic languages, food, religions and customs to "his" country which confuses and infuriates him because they should all behave like him since he is American but they're not so they're corrupting everything that is good and holy in America. At least that's the way it sounds.

[Shih]

He didn't say anything about food or customs, his biggest point was in reference to laws and language, and while I support open immigration policies I also agree that if somone emigrates to a new country they should have the courtesy and common sense to at least learn the dominant language and customs of their new country and integrate them into their actions. Remember that case some years ago when an american teenager was arrested for vandalism in I believe it was Singapore. He recieved the typical punishment in the region for his crime which was caning and then a lot of people in the States started claiming that the goverment in Singapore didn't have the right to do that. My response then was bullshit, you go to a foreign country, even to visit much less take up a permanent residence, and you have to live by their laws and customs for your stay. This applies to America as much as anywhere else in the world.

At 5/29/03 10:30 AM, Shih wrote: He didn't say anything about food or customs, his biggest point was in reference to laws and language, and while I support open immigration policies I also agree that if somone emigrates to a new country they should have the courtesy and common sense to at least learn the dominant language and customs of their new country and integrate them into their actions.

Did the founding fathers of America learn the dominant laguages of "their" new country? I'm refering to Native Americans

[Shih]

And is it 1776 anymore? Look yep we natives got screwed royal. Know what though? It's over and done with and trying to hold modern immigrants to different standards because several hundred years ago Europeans fucked the Native Americans over is just pointless. What's done is done, and allowing the past to shackle the present is a good to prevent change from ever occuring.

[nitroxide]

At 5/29/03 10:44 AM, Shih wrote: And is it 1776 anymore? Look yep we natives got screwed royal. Know what though? It's over and done with and trying to hold modern immigrants to different standards because several hundred years ago Europeans fucked the Native Americans over is just pointless. What's done is done, and allowing the past to shackle the present is a good to prevent change from ever occuring.

I agree shih,but are we supposed to just disregard the injustice done.Thats what afghanistan will say in a hundred years "fucking americans let it go so what if we bombed you"-future qoute from the afghan people.
Would you accept this statement.

[Shih]

Yep, if a hundred years from now Americans are still holding Afghanistans responsible for an event that occured long before their birth the should say "Get the fuck over it." The people who live now are not responsible for their ancestors actions and our descendants should not be held responsible for our actions.

[Freakapotimus]

At 5/29/03 09:47 AM, Shih wrote: which is why I said emigrated or converted in your birth country

I know, I wasn't really referring to you, but I thought it needed to be stated again.

[Shih]

At 5/29/03 11:17 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:

At 5/29/03 09:47 AM, Shih wrote: which is why I said emigrated or converted in your birth country

I know, I wasn't really referring to you, but I thought it needed to be stated again.

Sorry, the post placement (and my rampant egomania) made me think it was a response to my post.

[nitroxide]

At 5/29/03 11:08 AM, Shih wrote: Yep, if a hundred years from now Americans are still holding Afghanistans responsible for an event that occured long before their birth the should say "Get the fuck over it." The people who live now are not responsible for their ancestors actions and our descendants should not be held responsible for our actions.

I do agree with you,but someone has paid for the event that we speak of,who paid for the genocide of the native american race and the christianization of their faith.Some people can be guilty by association.Hey look at how middle easterns are viewed because of the actions of one man.(or a handful)

[Shih]

At 5/29/03 11:22 AM, nitroxide wrote:

At 5/29/03 11:08 AM, Shih wrote: Yep, if a hundred years from now Americans are still holding Afghanistans responsible for an event that occured long before their birth the should say "Get the fuck over it." The people who live now are not responsible for their ancestors actions and our descendants should not be held responsible for our actions.

I do agree with you,but someone has paid for the event that we speak of,who paid for the genocide of the native american race and the christianization of their faith.Some people can be guilty by association.Hey look at how middle easterns are viewed because of the actions of one man.(or a handful)

That's why the statute of limitations exists in courts. Look I'm a qurter Cherokee and lived on a res for a period when I was younger, and it taught me this.
Living in the past is a form of slow suicide.
That goes eually for a culture as it does for an individual, who makes the payments for the past, the people who live now. Why is it right to penalize the people today to pay the debts of their ancestors? Do we track down the descendants of everyone who was in the country at the time of the tribes decimations, or do we effect a broad reparation policy? If we effect a broad reparation policy how is this fair to the people who weren't here at the time? It is a tragic situation, that should be remembered but to try and make people pay for it now is the sort of action that only draws out the bad feelings and hatreds longer. It's that sort of mentality that leads to situations like in the Balkans.

[GnarlyCar]

The law in this country states that anyone who wants a driver's license has to have thier picture on it. There's a reason for that. If you're pulled over and have a picture on your license that's wearing a mask, that picture could be of anyone, and anyone could use that license. Someone earlier said that driving in America is a privelege and not a right. That's true, and there are certain things one has to do to gain that privelege, which are designed to keep everyone else safe. One of those things is to have your picture on your driver's license, so we can actually see if the person using the license is actually the person who qualified to get the license.

We are not a Muslim country, we are not a Christian country, we are not any kind of religious country. We are a country that believes in the law as something that should govern all, regardless of anyone's religious beliefs.

Let's ask ourselves this: Say someone came in your house as an invited guest and had a pleasant dinner with you, and immediately afterward, shit in your dishwasher saying it was a religious practice. Would you invite them over again? No, because I think I can safely assume that there's no one in this country or the world that's got house rules that include allowing visitors to shit in thier dishwasher. Would any of us change that rule? No, we'd just not ask those people over again, because this practice is unacceptable in our household.

Should we allow people to wear masks in thier driver's license photos? No, because this practice is unacceptable in our society.

Muslim women aren't allowed to drive in the countries that are governed by that religion, because that religion doesn't allow it. Why then, is it OK for them to disregard the part of thier religious doctrine that says they can't drive, but stand firm on the part that asks them to wear a veil at all times.

We are the only country in the world that tries to please everyone, and it's because someone twisted the words of our founding fathers. The constitution guarantees everyone "the pursuit of happiness". Nowhere does it say that it's the responsibility of our society to guarantee that happiness. Besides, this quest to guarantee happiness for everyone with some special little circumstance is doing nothing but pissing off the rest of us who have to suffer through the consequences.

I got no problem at all with people coming to live here from different countries, but don't try to make this country into yours. We like it the way it is, and if you don't, you're welcome to leave.

[nitroxide]

At 5/29/03 11:38 AM, Shih wrote:

At 5/29/03 11:22 AM, nitroxide wrote:

At 5/29/03 11:08 AM, Shih wrote:

That's why the statute of limitations exists in courts. Look I'm a qurter Cherokee and lived on a res for a period when I was younger, and it taught me this.

Which makes it all the more sadder,you should be a walking mass of fury.

Living in the past is a form of slow suicide.

Living in the future,accelerates ones inevatable death.

That goes eually for a culture as it does for an individual, who makes the payments for the past, the people who live now. Why is it right to penalize the people today to pay the debts of their ancestors? Do we track down the descendants of everyone who was in the country at the time of the tribes decimations, or do we effect a broad reparation policy? If we effect a broad reparation policy how is this fair to the people who weren't here at the time? It is a tragic situation, that should be remembered but to try and make people pay for it now is the sort of action that only draws out the bad feelings and hatreds longer. It's that sort of mentality that leads to situations like in the Balkans.

I use this theory on political figures all the time i analyze the bush family line critically i note everything on him,id be a hypocrite if i dint do it for everything else.

Are you speaking of the conflicts due to the atrocities of Nazi germany?

[GnarlyCar]

I just thought of a better idea...

Anyone who wants to wear a veil in thier driver's license photo can do so, as long as they agree to having a number tattooed to thier forehead that's registered with the DMV.

Problem solved..