Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Muslims demand special priveledges is the US
Muslims demand special rights in the US. Where is the lefty outcry over the seperation of relgion and government??
In an open society, veils
By Kareem W. Shora and Joseph P. Limer
Special to The National Law Journal
In times of peace, freedoms broaden, and in times of crisis these same freedoms are subordinated, reflecting the balancing test between individual rights and collective security, perceived or actual. A recent situation in Florida demonstrates an odd convergence of currents in American life today: alleged deprivation of civil liberties and First Amendment rights and the emergence of a growing trend toward polarization of Americans based on ethnic traditions.
Sultaana Freeman, a former evangelist preacher in Florida who converted to Islam five years ago, was permitted to wear her niqab, a veil that reveals only her eyes, in the photo on the Florida driver's license issued to her in February 2001. However, after the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles discovered Freeman's veiled face following a November 2001 check of its driver's licenses database prompted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the state revoked the license and requested that Freeman take a driver's license photo without the veil. Freeman refused and sued the state. The court denied the state's motion to dismiss.
Florida law does not specify whether the driver's license must include an unobstructed full-face photograph. More importantly, the state had already granted Freeman a license with the niqab in February 2001 and only chose to challenge Freeman's wearing of the niqab in her license photo after Sept. 11. In the end, the state permitted Freeman to keep her driver's license with her face veiled, and the suit was dropped.
As in many religions, Islamic requirements vary according to personal, sectarian and cultural interpretations. Some Muslims consider it a religious requirement to cover a woman's face by wearing a niqab or burqaa, or to cover her hair by wearing a hijab. Yet many other Muslims believe that the practice is optional, known as Sunna, or that Islam does not call for it, but rather it is cultural traditions that do.
When one looks at predominantly Muslim countries, one sees that the "Muslim street" is not homogenous—despite the way it is usually portrayed by Hollywood and the mainstream American media. Rather, Muslim culture is highly heterogenous, differing with a specific country's or a specific region's cultural history and societal traditions. Indeed, Muslim religious scholars throughout history have debated (as they continue to do) many aspects of the religion and whether requirements and traditions are religious or cultural in nature.
In opposing Freeman's suit, the state argued that having a face visible in a driver's license photo is necessary for identification in law enforcement. However, methods of criminal identification through driver's licenses did not change in Florida between the time Freeman was originally issued a license and November 2001, when the state insisted she show her face. This indicates that the state may have scrutinized Freeman's photo simply because she wore the niqab and elected to follow a specific interpretation of Islam—one that she believes is religiously required, even if not all Muslims would agree.
From 1963 to 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court used a balancing test that considered whether a challenged law created a substantial burden on an individual's religious freedom, placing the burden on the state to show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means. In 1990, the court departed from this test in Employment Division v. Smith, holding that as long as the law is facially neutral and of general applicability, then in all likelihood, no balancing test is needed.
This is not the case in Florida; the state had already granted the license and chose to revoke it only after it selected Freeman's records from those of millions of Florida residents based solely on her appearance as a conservative Muslim.
Because of the terrorist attacks undertaken by a few individuals who hijacked Islam and the Arab ethnicity on Sept. 11—as well as airplanes and human beings—Muslim Americans and Arab-Americans have had to face a political litmus test. Many feel that they must prove their dedication and commitment to their country. We have seen this phenomenon in previous wars.
Some have argued and continue to argue that it is a valid assumption that the pool of potential terrorists of the kind that undertook the attacks on Sept. 11 are limited to Muslim men of Arab descent. Similar arguments were made to justify the incarceration of Japanese-Americans in World War II, and to subject Americans of German descent to discrimination during both world wars. Although no one expects such steps to be repeated, making any assumptions under the current circumstances could lead to law enforcement errors and historical mistakes.
The terrorists have proven that they can and will recruit members from any ethnicity and any country. Jose Padilla, John Walker Lindh and Richard Reid are examples. Focusing on Muslims and Arab-Americans not only flies against our constitutional principles, but is not smart law enforcement either.
------
Kareem W. Shora is a legal advisor at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Washington, D.C.
Joseph P. Limer is a professor of constitutional law and political science at Palomar College.
Dr. Ziad Asali addresses the UN conference on Civil Society Go >
ADC Condemns Israeli Assault on Arafat Compound Go >
Remarks by Dr. Asali at the ADC Chicago Annual Banquet Go >
Oppose the Use of Force Resolution Against Iraq Go >
20th Anniversary of Massacre of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila Go >
"Determine the truth behind false alarm" Go >
"In an open society, veils"
Go >
Read the latest world news coverage of the Middle East Go >
ADC welcomes ruling against secret hearings
Go >
Printer Friendly Format
Legal Updates:
Unsubscribe
DONATE
Your donation will help ADC defend civil rights and combat discrim-ination. Go >>
By Kareem W. Shora and Joseph P. Limer
Special to The National Law Journal
In times of peace, freedoms broaden, and in times of crisis these same freedoms are subordinated, reflecting the balancing test between individual rights and collective security, perceived or actual. A recent situation in Florida demonstrates an odd convergence of currents in American life today: alleged deprivation of civil liberties and First Amendment rights and the emergence of a growing trend toward polarization of Americans based on ethnic traditions.
Sultaana Freeman, a former evangelist preacher in Florida who converted to Islam five years ago, was permitted to wear her niqab, a veil that reveals only her eyes, in the photo on the Florida driver's license issued to her in February 2001. However, after the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles discovered Freeman's veiled face following a November 2001 check of its driver's licenses database prompted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the state revoked the license and requested that Freeman take a driver's license photo without the veil. Freeman refused and sued the state. The court denied the state's motion to dismiss.
Florida law does not specify whether the driver's license must include an unobstructed full-face photograph. More importantly, the state had already granted Freeman a license with the niqab in February 2001 and only chose to challenge Freeman's wearing of the niqab in her license photo after Sept. 11. In the end, the state permitted Freeman to keep her driver's license with her face veiled, and the suit was dropped.
As in many religions, Islamic requirements vary according to personal, sectarian and cultural interpretations. Some Muslims consider it a religious requirement to cover a woman's face by wearing a niqab or burqaa, or to cover her hair by wearing a hijab. Yet many other Muslims believe that the practice is optional, known as Sunna, or that Islam does not call for it, but rather it is cultural traditions that do.
When one looks at predominantly Muslim countries, one sees that the "Muslim street" is not homogenous—despite the way it is usually portrayed by Hollywood and the mainstream American media. Rather, Muslim culture is highly heterogenous, differing with a specific country's or a specific region's cultural history and societal traditions. Indeed, Muslim religious scholars throughout history have debated (as they continue to do) many aspects of the religion and whether requirements and traditions are religious or cultural in nature.
In opposing Freeman's suit, the state argued that having a face visible in a driver's license photo is necessary for identification in law enforcement. However, methods of criminal identification through driver's licenses did not change in Florida between the time Freeman was originally issued a license and November 2001, when the state insisted she show her face. This indicates that the state may have scrutinized Freeman's photo simply because she wore the niqab and elected to follow a specific interpretation of Islam—one that she believes is religiously required, even if not all Muslims would agree.
From 1963 to 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court used a balancing test that considered whether a challenged law created a substantial burden on an individual's religious freedom, placing the burden on the state to show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means. In 1990, the court departed from this test in Employment Division v. Smith, holding that as long as the law is facially neutral and of general applicability, then in all likelihood, no balancing test is needed.
This is not the case in Florida; the state had already granted the license and chose to revoke it only after it selected Freeman's records from those of millions of Florida residents based solely on her appearance as a conservative Muslim.
Because of the terrorist attacks undertaken by a few individuals who hijacked Islam and the Arab ethnicity on Sept. 11—as well as airplanes and human beings—Muslim Americans and Arab-Americans have had to face a political litmus test. Many feel that they must prove their dedication and commitment to their country. We have seen this phenomenon in previous wars.
Some have argued and continue to argue that it is a valid assumption that the pool of potential terrorists of the kind that undertook the attacks on Sept. 11 are limited to Muslim men of Arab descent. Similar arguments were made to justify the incarceration of Japanese-Americans in World War II, and to subject Americans of German descent to discrimination during both world wars. Although no one expects such steps to be repeated, making any assumptions under the current circumstances could lead to law enforcement errors and historical mistakes.
The terrorists have proven that they can and will recruit members from any ethnicity and any country. Jose Padilla, John Walker Lindh and Richard Reid are examples. Focusing on Muslims and Arab-Americans not only flies against our constitutional principles, but is not smart law enforcement either.
------
Kareem W. Shora is a legal advisor at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Washington, D.C.
Joseph P. Limer is a professor of constitutional law and political science at Palomar College.
Dr. Ziad Asali addresses the UN conference on Civil Society Go >
ADC Condemns Israeli Assault on Arafat Compound Go >
Remarks by Dr. Asali at the ADC Chicago Annual Banquet Go >
Oppose the Use of Force Resolution Against Iraq Go >
20th Anniversary of Massacre of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila Go >
"Determine the truth behind false alarm" Go >
"In an open society, veils"
Go >
Read the latest world news coverage of the Middle East Go >
ADC welcomes ruling against secret hearings
Go >
Printer Friendly Format
Legal Updates:
Unsubscribe
DONATE
Your donation will help ADC defend civil rights and combat discrim-ination. Go >>
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
this entire article has nothing to do with the issue of separation between church and state.
the women described has not called for the posting of islamic laws on school grounds, has not called for islamic prayers to be read before a football game, nor has she run for a public office using her religion as a way to prove she is "better" than any other candidate.
this matter is between her personally and the state.
secondly, what special rights has she called for? the freedom to wear her veil is exactly the same freeedom that allows small backwoods christian churches to practice snake handling and drinking poison. if christianity is allowed leeway, so will any other religion under the sun.
i think the point of this article has been entirely missed by the person who angrily posted it.
That's been happening alot lately, I for one find it rather amusing. It's one of the right wingers that writes in, he doesn't seem to be able to really read these things properly. I almost have to conclude, when I match up the poster's desires (expressed in the brief subtext at top) with the last few sentences of the article, that he probably never even read the entire article, but only the first 2-3 sentences. This speaks volumes about the typical membership of that particular viewpoint.
This previous post is typical of the apologists who will rush to the aid of certain groups demanding special priveldges who would protest the same situation if it was a Christian demanding these rights. Don't let your righteous indignation stand in the way of reality, sweetheart.
this has everything to do with the freedom of one woman to practice islam in the way she believes it should be practiced.
it is a question of the freedom of religion on one hand, and "national security" on the other. just as this article says. how many ways does it have to be spelled out?
it amazes me the fear that lies in the heart of the "right". it drives EVERYTHING they do and think and write columns about. it drives domestic, legal and foreign policy.
"if one can do it, they all will do it."
Why can't we? Why should anyone have their photo on a driver's license? Photos on driver's licenses only started on the seventies. Before that, we all got along perfectly fine without them. Now they want thumb prints. What are we, cattle to be branded, or a free people?
on one side, aggression. overt displays of strength and masculinity. large caliber weapons. tough talkin'. an ostrich showing off his feathers.
on the other side, fear. insecurity. xenophobia. homophobia. fear of things getting out of control. fear that law-and-order will break down.
the result, to hide his fear, the average man overcompensates by wrapping himself in signs of strength and power. men are fragile creatures in this way. women know this...
behind aggression and anger in almost every man i know, including myself, is oftentimes alot of fear and insecurity.
the "left" tries to get past this fear, especially of "others." the "left" fears the "right" more than any other enemy. often times the "left" is stupid, and pretends there's nothing to be afraid of. the "left" wants to trust.
the "right", on the other hand, loves this fear. it never wants to get past it. it uses fears of all kinds to justify increasing more and more restrictive law and order measures. in the "right's" ideal world, everything would be tightly controlled. security would be ever present. force would be used. justice would come quickly, often times with the firing of weapons. massive displays of strength and armaments, "bulls on parade", would be used to impress and scare enemies. yes the "right" fears the "left", but it also fears just about everything else i can think of. "the enemy is everywhere. we need to look buff and strong." the "right" is stupid sometimes, and it's always present fear becomes a counterproductive aggresiveness that simply creates more animosity, anger, and hatred than is helpful. the "right" doesn't want to trust.
http://www.digital-web.net/~pyrex/freep.html
The driver's license is just a license to drive. No one has to take it for identification if they don't want to and I for one would not sell cigarettes or booze to someone without a recognizable foto.
So if someone says God tells them what to wear and one thing his women hafta wear is a face mask, then great. Let them get their license that way and prove their idenity elseways. Just as long, of course, as the state allows me to wear a mask or a wig with my photo because my pocket mouse told me I should.
There should be one standard for everyone in this country. (let's skip ADA, etc). If people of one religion is allowed one thing, then people of any or no religion should be allowed it also.
"if one can do it, they all will do it."
but "if one can do it, all should be allowed to do it."
That's the fundimental issue.
Yeah, and therefore banning prayer in school interfers with the right of Christians to practice Christianity in the way they believe it should be practiced. Lose sleep over that.
By the way, its amazing that some oh-so-progressive indiviaduals of this board continue to berate anonymous posteres and refer to the individual as "he" and "rightwing". Making these assumptions about people whose gender and political affiliation is ambiguous is just stupid.
let's say before a football game, a huge group of students decide to form a circle and pray. there is absolutley nothing wrong with this. it shouldn't be banned. here's why. because the students TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES to start praying. it was THEIR OWN idea. no official from the school, a school with christian, muslim, and jewish students, got on the p.a. system and said, YOU MUST PRAY THIS PRAYER.
the distinction here is clear as the light of day to me.
if a group of students wants to hold hands and pray before class, THERE IS NO LAW PREVENTING THEM. because it is entirely their own decision. it was not instigated by anyone other than themselves.
however, if the teacher says the students MUST PRAY THIS PRAYER AT THIS TIME, that should be banned in a second.
my final point is that religion and religious belief is up to no one other THAN THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THESE BELIEFS. if a student feels (and not his or her parents...) strongly about the 10 commandments, why not get them and post them inside a locker? why not get a huge poster and put it on the wall in the bedroom? it makes utterly no sense why the 10 commandments must be carved into stone and placed outside of a school, just begging for a fight, just waiting for jewish and muslim students to feel like they don't belong at the school.
religion should begin inside a person. it should be personal. and it should end there as well. it should not begin in a higher public authority telling what to beleive and what not to beleive. this is the essence of the separation between church and state as far as i'm concerned. ITIS UP TO THE RELIGIOUS STUDENTS TO PRAY, NOT THE SCHOOL TO SAY THEY MUST PRAY. if a kid wants to pray, it's up to the kid, not the school.
and lastly, about the woman wearing the veil. i think this fear that it conceals her identity and therefore, in these paranoid times, she "might" be a terrorist is fucking bullshit straight from hell. cockamayme xenophobia of the highest order. why not have concerns like, "isn't it hard to see out from behind the veil while driving?"
name me a religion in which the conservative and orthodox elements wear ski masks. anyone? do you honestly believe that a person's demands to wear a ski mask would hold up in court? gimme a fucking break. the person would have nothing, no religious belief to back up his case. the court would jump all over this persons case, and he would be ordered to remove the ski mask before the camera. and rightly so, because the guy would be a total jackass idiot.
You know, I got no problem with that. I think the hammer has come down on situations where other students or other students families don't even want the students who wish to pray "instigated by... themselves" from even being able to do that because their little Suzie and/or little Johnny feels left out. So they strip the freedom away from the others just so their little rug rat doesn't feel like an outsider. That's wrong.
http://www.adl.org/presrele/DiRaB_41/4137_41.asp
yes, like EVERYTHING else, it is a anti-Muslim/anti-
immigrantion plot.
And as far as quoting the Anti-Definmation League...
I keep being told by IMC posters that they are unethical, so why should I take them seriously only when they say what you want to hear??