Bravo, to your “spider-sense” and you Sherlock Holmes like, fact finding ability. Rock on!

Dear Whatsyourname,

You, yourself, have missed several facts. First, the lawsuit was filed in January of 2002, and was recently (June 6, 2003) decided by Circuit Judge Janet Thorpe in Florida state court. Judge Thorpe found, among other things, that forcing an individual to succomb to the Florida DMV’s rule is never a substantial burden on the practice of religion. And here’s the problem, with both the decision and your analysis of the situation: The Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1998. You may not realize this, but in the mid-1990s, the Supreme Court handed down several decisions which made it much easier for states and the federal government to restrict your right to practice (or not practice) religion. In response, many states passed RFRAs, attempting to restore the law to its previous state: under RFRA, a state must demonstrate that it has (1) a COMPELLING interest to burden religion, and that (2) the practice burdening the religion is the “least restrictive means” of pursuing its compelling interest. So what does that mean? First off, the law doesn’t require or allow any inquiry into the individual’s background—is it really RIGHT that, had Sultaana Freeman had a spotless past, you would be more willing to allow her to express her religious beliefs? Secondly, and this seems pretty obvious to me, but Islamic countries do not have RFRA, and are therefore not compelled to justify their actions. Sultaana Freeman does not live in Saudi Arabia—she should not have to live by its laws. Perhaps RFRA is the reason she doesn’t live in Saudi Arabia. The only laws to which Sultaana is subject, and the only ones which protect her, are the laws of the U.S. Goverment and the State of Florida. Further, driving is more than a privilege. To someone with two children, living in Orange Country, Florida, with seriously inadequate public transportation, driving becomes a near necessity. And for the last 20 years, states all over the country had found that (1) when a privilege such as driving is nearly necessary to carrying out one’s daily functions, it must be treated as a right, and (2) for the RFRA inquiry, it doesn’t matter if the you’re dealing with a privilege or a right—the only inquiry is whether there is a substantial burden to the individual’s religion. Lastly, RFRA forbids interference with the “exercise of religion,” which the state defines as “an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.” Thus, if Sultaana Freeman interprets Islamic law to say that she cannot unveil herself for a drivers license, it’s HER BELIEF, not others’ interpretation of Islam, that matters. If you want some real information on this case, try CourtTv.com for the real lowdown. Oh, and one more thing: when you’re using “its” as a possessive, as in “its rules,” there’s no apostrophe.

Dear Eden-Expatriate,

Unlike you, I can read a by-line, so I’ll refrain from calling you Whatsyourface. You got me on the apostrophe, but the wonderful thing about HTML is that I can go in a change it, so it’ll no longer offend your sensibilities. May I suggest that a spell checker may help you in your quest for perfection?

As for the rest of your charges against me, driving is a privilege, whether you think that is fair or not. The state can compel people to pose naked for their licenses if that is what the state deems necessary. Don’t want it? Don’t drive. Of course, since so much business relies on trucks and cars and people getting from one place to another quickly, if the laws were too restrictive, commerce would suffer, but, in this case, a condition to remove the veil would not be too restrictive.

I point out what other countries, that are Muslim states, do as a guideline for what rules there are regarding Muslim citizens in those states. There is no central body, as there is with a pope for the Catholics, so it is the best I can come up with to show whether or not there is really a moral tenet in the Muslim religion against showing a woman’s face on a governmental license, and there is not.

Just because Sultaana Freeman decides that it is part of her religion does not, in fact, make it part of her religion. Anyone, anywhere, can decide how they want to worship their religion, but where does the state draw the line? Since polygamy is illegal, no religious person in America can practice it legally, wither the religion or no. The RFRA does not establish what is or is not a burden to Muslims. The court decided, correctly, that removing the veil is not a burden to her practice. And now she must comply with the law, just as anyone else in the country must. Her belief actually doesn’t matter. If I believe that my religion compels me to not pay income taxes, because I will only render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, I’m still going to get into trouble with the law.

And my decision is not swayed by Sultaana’s past. What I find interesting about it is how she is using her Muslim identity to play the legal system. I don’t believe that she is amongst the faithful. I could be wrong, and how dare I accuse this pious woman and all that, but hey, it’s a free country, despite the fact that I can’t have my face obscured on my damned driver’s license.

Okay, the “Whatsyourname” I’ll apologize for. I had intended to scroll back up and check the byline, but must have forgotten. So, Jonathan, I not once used the word “fair.” What we’re debating here is the law, not fairness. Those two ideas only occasionally coincide, so I’ve found that fairness is moot subject in legal discourse. Your response leads me to believe that you are neither a lawyer or a student of the law. Believe me, that’s probably a compliment. However, coming from one who is, and who happens to be researching an article on the subject (and whose Google search led her to your blog), I can tell you that your argument, though neither illogical nor irrational, does not fit the current state of the law. And neither does Judge Thorpe’s. You are correct in noting that RFRA does not define what is or is not a substantial burden to a Muslim. That determination is inevitably left to a judge. In this case, Judge Thorpe did find that Freeman’s belief that she never show her face to strangers or unrelated men was a “sincerely held religious belief.” That is the test, and Freeman passed it. Thorpe, unlike you and me, heard three days worth of testimony on the issue. She heard the state attempt to belittle, undermine and discount Freeman’s belief. However, she came to the conclusion that Freeman was telling the truth in this regard. [Thorpe, however, found that Freeman’s assertion that she eschewed all forms of photographs/drawings/representations of things from nature was not a sincerely held religious belief. Freeman testified that she owned no artwork, photographs or a televisions, and that she had her children scribble out the cartoon faces that come on their cereal boxes. Having read the original complaint that Freeman filed with the court, which didn’t focus on this issue at all, I think Thorpe’s finding here was well-supported by the evidence. I find it likely that Freeman testified on this issue in order to make her case appear more in-line with an earlier DMV case, known as Quaring (below).] With regard to the various interpretations of Islamic law: you mention the Catholics and their Pope. The more accurate analogy would be to Christians—Islam is a religion, as is Christianity. Catholocism is a denomination, or sect of Christianity, just as Islam has denominations, such as Shiite and Ahmadi. Christian beliefs are wide and varied—and a Methodist is in no way compelled to act as the Pope dictates. In the same way, the beliefs of Muslims manifest themselves in varied degrees and practices. According to the law—to the U.S. Supreme Court—the test for whether a belief constitutes a religious belief is (1) whether it has its basis in some religious (or anti-religious, in the case of atheists) practice, tradition, writing or standard, (2) if it is as central to the individual’s life as others’ religious beliefs are to them, and (3) if it has any support whatsoever in the religious community the individual claims. This is the law. This is what it has to be. Otherwise, no one with a belief that is not loudly averred by her minister, rabbi or spiritual guide would have a prayer of claiming her First Amendment protections. Further, atheists would have no protections whatsoever under your standard, as not one of their beliefs could be considered to be “part of their religion.” However, the Supreme Court has said that atheists do deserve protection from intrusive state and federal laws. To decide otherwise would place those who eagerly accept only dogma at an advantage over those persons who choose to read and interpret for themselves. For example, in a previous federal case (which took place prior to the state RFRAs, and thus was filed alleging First Amendment violations), Quaring v. Peterson (1984), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the state’s reason for requiring driver’s license photos could not overcome Quaring’s right to free exercise of her religion. Quaring, who belonged to no established church (meaning that she didn’t attend services with regularity), considered herself Christian. Her beliefs were the result of her personal reading and study of both the Old and New Testaments. Quaring took the Second Commandment literally, and determined that it forbid images from life entirely. Thus, Quaring owned no photographs, had no wedding or graduation pictures in her home, did not own a television or go to the movies, purchased food without drawings or illustrations of animals or plants, and scribbled out the pictures on those food boxes that did have pictures. The Court determined that Quaring fit the test because (1) her belief had its roots in a religious writing, (2) it was obviously central to her life, and (3) there was some support for her belief in religious scholarly circles and the practices of some sects of Christianity. Regarding right v. privilege: I have a right to buy a car (provided I have the money), take driving lessons, climb into the driver’s seat, buckle my seat belt and start the engine. At some point in the beginning of the 20th century, states decided to regulate this right, the right to travel freely in the manner of one’s choosing. As the state regulates this right, the state must grant equal access to the right to all who petition for it. But, as I said, courts have repeatedly held that it just doesn’t matter whether you’re dealing with a privilege or a right when faced with a religious challenge. For example, some states extend loans to small businesses. Certainly such loans are privileges rather than rights; however, the state must still allow equal access and opportunity to all those who petition it, regardless of their religion or religious practices. Even federal law requires this. Thorpe’s decision can be viewed as somewhat dangerous to free exercise rights. She implicitly indicated that 9/11 will justify more and more state restrictions to the exercise of religion. Is it really just a coincidence that Freeman happens to be a Muslim, rather than a Christian like Quaring, who challenged the law? Thorpe’s opinion in this case stated that “there are new threats to public safety, including both foreign and domestic terrorism, and increased potential for ‘widespread abuse.’” What if, in the interest of preventing terrorism, the Florida DMV decides that a “fullface photo” requires a clean-shaven face? Any Muslim or Jew for whom beards are mandated would be forced to violate a tenet of their religions. Terrorism has always existed in this country. But since 9/11, honest, God-fearing Americans can finally slap a hijab and an Arabic-accent on their enemy. Why does Thorpe assume that Muslims are likely to take advantage of an exception to the Florida law to perpetrate terrorist acts? Why do we assume that Freeman has any interest in giving her veiled-photo-driver’s-license to someone who’d use it to sneak into or out of the country? Does Florida believe all Muslims have terrorist ties or aspirations? Don’t you see how this is so tied in to the ridiculous stereotypes we have of both Muslims and persons of Middle-Eastern descent or nationality? You pointed out one such stereotype when you corrected the errors in the email missive you received. Women like Freeman, who would claim an exception to Florida’s driver’s license law, are few. Fewer, certainly, than the people whose driver’s license photos don’t resemble them a lick. I got my first license at 16, and by the time I was nearly 21, people squinted, hemmed and hawed before accepting that the photo was indeed me. People color their hair, wear glasses or colored contacts, grow taller, gain/lose weight, get suprisingly dark tans, have plastic surgery, and grow facial hair. Statistically speaking, it’s far more likely an unveiled person would be harder to identify than someone with a veiled photo. Oh, and regarding your “render unto Caesar’s” point? Remember that churches, mosques, synagogues and spiritual centers (if non-profit organizations, which nearly without exception they are) don’t have to pay taxes.

Eden-Expatriate, I have left this for so long, I have forgotten my original point. But I think it was this: Driver’s Licenses should require a photo of a real face. A man can have a beard, as you point out, and shave it as soon as the photo is taken, rendering it almost useless, but so what? A beard is a part of the face. A veil is not. I would not have supported Quaring, either. I do not think it is a fundamental right to obscure an official governmental document.

You mention the slippery-slope of the government determining that Freeman’s religious practices should not come before security of the state. That does bother me, but you ignore the slippery-slope of the state allowing a veil. Statistically speaking, you say, we’re far more likely to come across an unveiled person, but that is just ridiculous. If we allow a veiled photo, we allow thousands of veiled photos.

If I wanted discuss Christian hierarchies, I would have. My point on the Pope was in response to your argument against my point on the understood authorities on the tenets of the Muslim religion. (Around and around we go.) I am well aware of the various denominations, in Christianity and Islam. I thank you for the refresher course, but it is merely another ring around my original point.

I am not a lawyer. I am a person with a blog. I have a point of view. My point of view is still that Sultaana Freeman is playing us for chumps. I believe so strongly in the separation of church and state, that I think that the state can pretty much ignore whatever the hell anyone’s religious beliefs are in its official documents. That is what makes it not discriminatory. EVERYONE HAS TO SHOW THEIR FACE IF THEY WANT THEIR LICENSE. There. Can’t drive on Friday night? Okay, don’t. Can’t buy liquor on Sunday. Okay, don’t. Gotta bow down towards the east five times a day. Okay, sure. Want a driver’s license. Yep, gotta see your face.

I am not arguing law. Seriously. If I tried, I’d lose, because so much of our law is screwed up, especially the laws that are tied into Christian moral beliefs. But I’m tired of it. No religion in government, please. I don’t believe so much that the government has to bend over backwards to accommodate anyone’s beliefs as it just has to ignore them. The government does its business in this way, and if your beliefs clash, here is the door.

I don’t understand why you pointed out that churches are sheltered from taxation. My render unto Caesar bit was about someone claiming that he, himself, did not have to pay taxes because the Bible told him not to. He’d get thrown in jail. (Unless your point is that if he started his own church, he could avoid paying taxes. I understand that is why L Ron Hubbard started his little game.)

Listen, thank you for pointing out previous case law. Even though I am disagreeing with you, you are educating me (and the couple others who read this). I really don’t want the government to dictate anything about morals or what we can and cannot believe, but, seriously, while this did get press because it involves a Muslim, it is not an issue about Islam. The judge is using 9/11 as an excuse, and that is disgusting, but it really has nothing to do with terrorism. A photo license needs a photo. A strip with just the eyes showing is patently absurd. Florida never should have allowed it in the first place.