[FairOpinion]

Note that apparently her religion doesn't keep her from abusing children...

"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."

[zip]

I didn't realize that you could pick and choose which laws you wanted to obey and which ones you don't regard as appropriate. I think I'll drive 100 MPH and tell the court it is my inner religion coming out. Think it will work?

[Zavien Doombringer]

Hmmm, Driving is a priviledge, not a right. Besides, if she is that fundamental in her faith, she isn't allowed to drive anyway!

[TheCrusader]

If she really wants to practice her newfound faith as a Muslim woman, then she should give up driving altogher. No Muslim nations allow women to drive. She also should never be seen with a man in public, unless it's her husband or father or brother. Otherwise, she is violating a major tenet of veiled Muslim women.

[MarkT]

Depending on the outcome of this case, I see shortly there shall be a case in which because of a nervous disorder, a person will be able to completely cover his face (okay, maybe peep holes for the eyes) rather than be photographed for a license, passport, etc. The ACLU will rush to the assistance of this dis-abled victim and pronounce that the State has no compelling interest in humiliating the individual, etc. Maybe we could start a pool on how long it will take for this to occur - there is no doubt it will occur, only the timing is in doubt.

[Sir Gawain]

What is she doing speaking in public? She needs a beating. Where's the husband?

[aardvark1]

Your papers, please...

I heard this ACLU guy say last night on a news program that FL has issued "millions" of non-photo DL's that are still valid. I have to say, that if what he says is true, then she has a right to gripe, legit or not.

[Drango]

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.

OK I can accept some religious beliefs, but this says dingbat and I don't think it's in the Koran.

[alloysteel]

No picture, no driver's license. Apparently, this is more an attempt to conceal links with other forms of bad behavior, than it is modesty in any sense. Conformity is the means to obtaining privilege in this society. Non-conformists are denied privilege. Privilege is defined as in excess of basic rights, to be granted a preference over another.

[Lijahsbubbe]

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

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?

[dennisw]

She's looking to make some $$$$ out of a lawsuit on this most compelling issue. (/sarcasm)

[LanPB01]

"the ultimate in self-respect and feminism"

Well, there's a statement I never expected to see from someone defending their Muslim faith. "The ultimate in subservience and being made the property of my male master", maybe.

[lady lawyer]

Thorpe is deciding the case. Even if the prior arrests don't go into the record, Thorpse knows about them.

I hope Thorpe doesn't being the process of Islamicizing our laws.

[Drango]

The state can and does overrule TRUE religious convictions. All the time. 3 examples off the top of my head...

Mormons and polygamy, snakehandling, Indians and peyote

[Mustang]

If the court rules in this nitwits favor...standby for some heavy duty media coverage when some Florida cracker Klan folks show up wearing their hoods as they try to renew their driving license and photo.

Mustang sends from "Malpaso News"...

[killjoy]

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.

Why not just put her arrest photo on her drivers license? :)

[martianagent]

What anybody should say to any woman they ever see in America with a burka or similar full-face mask on, such as the woman in question is wearing:

"Pardon me lady, but if you're interested, I know a place you could buy a pistol to shoot the sorry A##-#### who's making you wear that thing..."

[SunStar]

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.

Where are the ACLU and their "separation of church and state" line? Oh, I forgot, this is not about tearing down crosses and destroying other Judeo-Christian American heritage, but about allowing foreign cultures like Islam to infiltrate our society.

[BrooklynGOP]

Driving is a privelege - not a right.

[DonQ]

There have been other cases in which unlicensed drivers tried to make excuses that they somehow had religious scruples against getting driver's licenses. The courts invariably noted that they had a guaranteed right to their religious convictions ... however, they didn't have a guaranteed right to pilot an automobile on the public highways. Their religious scruples might be compulsory (to them) but driving a vehicle is entirely optional, so it was up to them whether their religious convictions or their driving privileges would get top priority.

[detsaoT]

Whatever the hell happened to equality under the law The law says X. If you don't do X, you get a mandatory punishment of Y. In a just society, there should be absolutely no room in this equation for "punishment, unless you are a member of oppressed group Z" at all, yet this is what the ACTIVIST COURTS, egged on by FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS are bringing on us.

Lawyers are the death of this once-great nation. Scumbags, all of them! It is high time we disband the state bar associations and come up with a way to roll back the largesse they have cursed us with. Laws should be simple, NOT chock full of conditionals and line-item exceptions. It's high time we put a limit on the number of words a law can contain - roll back the tide of oligarchy!

ARGH.

:/ ttt