"We in the Church of the Divine Loony
believe in the power of prayer
to turn the head purple! Ha, ha, ha . . . "
Posted on 05/28/2003 7:50:39 AM PDT by FairOpinion
ORLANDO -- Speaking softly from behind a black veil, only her eyes visible as they moved from the face of her questioner to the judge, Sultaana Freeman cited the religious beliefs that have brought her into conflict with the state over her driver's license photo.
Freeman, 35, who became a Muslim in 1997 and started wearing a veil full time shortly after that, told Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe she is opposed to being photographed or being seen without her veil.
It was a mistake that allowed Freeman to be photographed for her driver's license wearing a niqab, a religious veil that covers all of the face except the eyes, said Senior Assistant Attorney General Jay Vail.
The state has revoked Freeman's license until she agrees to a new photograph showing her full face. Freeman is suing the state, charging that the demand violates her religious freedom.
Thorpe, who is presiding over a nonjury trial expected to run through Thursday, must decide if the state's public safety and other interests in requiring the full-face photo outweigh Freeman's religious beliefs.
Freeman, in a written statement, said her veiling is her practice of the Koran's insistence on modesty, ``the ultimate in self-respect and feminism, as this liberating act sent a message that I am not an object of sexual fulfillment, but a person of strong religious conviction.''
On the witness stand, Freeman said she has no photos in her house. When she buys an item like cereal that has a person's photograph on the box, she crosses off the face with a magic marker.
Freeman acknowledged she was photographed without a veil after her arrest in 1998 in Decatur, Ill., on a domestic battery charge involving one of the twin 3-year-old sisters who were in her foster care.
The Associated Press reported that the children were removed from her home. Child-welfare workers told investigators in Decatur that Freeman and her husband had used their claims of religious modesty to hinder them from looking for bruises on the girls, according to Decatur police records.
Thorpe didn't allow many of the facts about Freeman's arrest into evidence.
Florida's insistence on a full-face photo is a case of discrimination spurred by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said Howard Marks, an attorney representing Freeman on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Until then, Marks said, the state ''had no problem accommodating the religious beliefs of Muslim women who required veiling,'' Marks said.
Vail, arguing for the state, said the full-face photo law and policy have been in place for years. He said a state employee mistakenly allowed Freeman to be photographed wearing her niqab in early 2001.
In December 2001, after a call from a Central Florida state attorney's office, the department wrote Freeman saying she would have to be photographed full-face or risk losing her license. She refused and her license was revoked in early 2002.
Sandy Lambert, state driver's license director, said that only Freeman and one other woman, whom she did not identify, have had their licenses revoked in the past few years for refusing to be photographed.
Lambert and Vail denied any post-Sept. 11 discrimination.
''We have had this law in place for many, many years, so there has been no change since 9/11,'' Lambert said.
The picture is crucial for police officers who want to know who is driving a car, whether that person has been reported missing or is a criminal, officials say.
A driver's license, ''is no longer just a driving permit,'' Lambert said. ``It has become the No. 1 identification document.''
Marks said 13 states allow exceptions for religious concerns.
As a mother of children ages 6 months and 2, being unable to drive has caused a ''great deal of stress,'' Freeman testified.
''It has changed my life really,'' she said. ``I feel like a prisoner in my own home.''
"Freeman acknowledged she was photographed without a veil after her arrest in 1998 in Decatur, Ill., on a domestic battery charge involving one of the twin 3-year-old sisters who were in her foster care.
The Associated Press reported that the children were removed from her home. Child-welfare workers told investigators in Decatur that Freeman and her husband had used their claims of religious modesty to hinder them from looking for bruises on the girls, according to Decatur police records.
Thorpe didn't allow many of the facts about Freeman's arrest into evidence."
OK I can accept some religious beliefs, but this says dingbat and I don't think it's in the Koran.
"We in the Church of the Divine Loony
believe in the power of prayer
to turn the head purple! Ha, ha, ha . . . "
And they let this kook have foster children? Boy, we really screen these foster parents well, don't we? So she was photographed w/o a veil when she was charged with domestic battery? Guess the "I'm so religious" angle doesn't go over well with that deal.
I'm curious to find out what she did to the little girl. How is that considered domestic battery, and not child abuse?
What most Muslim women wear:
A face covering like the one below would make operating a vehicle difficult by blocking perpheral vision. Definitely a road hazard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.