The Truth Unveiled!
You may recall a recent story on a Florida woman of Islamic faith who was legally challenging the State’s requirement to have her veil removed in taking her driver’s license picture. Of course, the ACLU was eager to support this outrageous example of religious discrimination. When the State Court decided against her claim, in part for compelling reasons of public safety, the ACLU Director remarked that infringing on the woman’s religious beliefs because of what others with actual terrorist intentions could do by using this form of concealment, “seems to be a funny kind of interpretation on how the law should apply”.
It appears that the actual “funny interpreters” were the ACLU and the Florida woman. And the “law” being misused was Islamic! This blogger notes an Arab News article which denies any such religious requirement to remain veiled for such legally-required documentation. Don’t you think the ACLU would at least check with authorities of Islamic law before breathlessly rushing to support a claim like this? That organization was, and could still be, such a viable voice for those who are victims of intimidation or discrimination. But its blatant political agenda has made it a parody of its former self, to the point of near irrelevancy.
June 14th, 2003 at 12:03 pm
Well, while agreeing with the judge’s ruling in this case, I question the argument that a particular religious law as applied in Saudi Arabia is relevant. “Islamic law” is not a single set of specific statutes; there are lots of Muslims who believe, as this woman does, that for a woman to reveal her face to males who are not part of her family is against their religion.
The press releases at http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=12827&c=142 and http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=12723&c=29 give a more complete version of the ACLU’s concerns in this particular case.
June 14th, 2003 at 7:32 pm
Admittedly, in further readings, it appears that both sides of the issue provided their own Islamic law experts to defend their positions. However, the State of Florida seemed willing to try to accomodate most of her concerns by using a private room and a single female photographer.
I still question the wisdom of the ACLU to choose to take on a case of such limited and highly interpretive scope of “restricted” religious practice. There are so many more blatant, egregious cases of violated civil liberties out there to champion. But so often they choose to align themselves with such relatively marginal, if not downright trivial, legal farces, that people begin to roll their eyes at just the mention of their organization.
Someone there needs to develop the common sense to say either “yes we can help you with this obvious violation of your rights” or “feel free to seek a legal solution to your concerns, but we just don’t see a real or significant limitation to your right to practice your religious faith, to represent you ourselves”.
But maybe their charter doesn’t give them that kind of discretion, or they are just too idealistic to have that sense of reality.
June 14th, 2003 at 10:58 pm
I am a proud American Muslim and I was outraged at the woman who wanted to use this as an excuse to become famous (yes that is what I think.) I was reading through some stuff and read that she is actually from Saudi Arabia, a country where you have to unveil yourself to take the picture for the official ID, and where women are not allowed to drive. Now the point is, driving is a privilege, not a right, and thus you have to give up something in order to receive that privilege. What bothers me the most is the fact that the woman is a felon, convicted due to child neglect ion (and ironically this is also a crime according to the Islamic Law). Also, the Islamic law states that you have to follow the guidance set forth by the government of the respective country and live according to the rules and regulations. I am pretty convinced if our American forefathers, who fought for our freedom, would have given the same decision as the court did! Now this brings us to the point…she moved from Saudi Arabia because she saw opportunity in America; she saw freedom in America…and not to say…she saw AMERICAN DOLLARS! She should be glad that she is where she is, because if she ever planned to sue those Arabs who rule the country she comes from, she would have been found in a sack. Right now, she should be singing “I am proud to be an American, where at least I know I am free.”
June 15th, 2003 at 6:30 pm
I’m not ready to relegate her suit to pure greed yet.
I think its only fair to also point out that she is apparently American-born and raised, not Saudi Arabian. And she was not convicted of child abuse, but instead pled guilty to a lesser aggravated assault charge and had her foster children removed (although its essentially the same thing). Child care investigators felt she and her husband were hiding bruises and injuries to a child through the use of Islamic garment coverings.
In the end, I think the judge made a sound decision based upon considering State law versus any true infringement of religious practice.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Excuse Me! Are we Americans suppose to follow the laws of this land? YES!
Then if anyone comes and wants to have the freedom of the Land of the USA then they SHOULD go by the laws of the LAND. Islamic faith does say :: Follow the RULES of the land. Do you think for one minute that any American could go and get a license with something coving our faces?NO! Oh what about if we were in there land would we not have to abide by there laws? YES!