State says it was wrong ask Muslim women to remove head scarves

[Angel Heart]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/14/america/NA-GEN-US-Head-Scarf-Dispute.php

State says it was wrong ask Muslim women to remove head scarves

The Associated Press
Saturday, July 14, 2007
CINCINNATI: Two Muslim women had the right to wear their head scarves when sitting for a driver's license photo, and clerks were wrong to insist they remove them, the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles said.

"It was just a misunderstanding on the part of BMV employees as to what the policy was," said Tom Hunter, spokesman for the Department of Public Safety. "We want to be respectful to all people and all cultures."

No one was disciplined, Hunter said, but an e-mail was sent to the state's 216 registrar offices reminding employees that head coverings, such as hijabs or other headwear for religious reasons and medical treatments, are allowed.

However, nothing can cover a person's face.

"I wear it for religious beliefs," said Mariam Bashir, 33, who said she was asked to remove her head scarf when she went to renew her driver's license.

Not wanting to cause trouble, Bashir said she complied.

"People don't understand and I don't blame them," said Bashir, who moved to the U.S. from Pakistan in 1999. "But the people at the BMV should know, the law does allow for it."

Asking a Muslim woman to remove her head scarf is akin to asking her to remove her shirt, said Karen Dabdoub, the executive director of the Cincinnati office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

"I'm sure this has happened many times before," Dabdoub said. The state deserves credit for quickly correcting the problem, she added.

 

[Vintij]

Well rules are rules. If nobody was fired, then nobody should care. I dont see why the opressive symbol of the head sheet is so important to muslims though. Can they read the quran? Is it really necessary to cover up the face if it was not allah who told them to do this, it was males needing to feel dominant over the female.

 

[Annie]

anything that keeps one from being identified is not acceptable, including the above and sunglasses.

 

[Truthmatters]

I agree with you Kathy.

A DL is a priveledge and not a right.

If they dont want to show their hair for ID purposes then they need to forgo a DL.

It must be a what "God" wanted them to scarafice.

 

[Angel Heart]

It's said to be that no man should look upon another mans woman. That's what it comes from. They can take them off when in a room full of just females. Why not make it where only females take their photos? How ever we must have a record of what they actually look at for them to drive.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

anything that keeps one from being identified is not acceptable, including the above and sunglasses.

The distinction was made that the FACE can not be covered or obscured. a scraf is not a problem in my opinion. More importantly the women in question did as asked and then went through proper channels to see about changing the license.

The State took no action against any employees, so no problem.

 

[Annie]

It's said to be that no man should look upon another mans woman. That's what it comes from. They can take them off when in a room full of just females. Why not make it where only females take their photos? How ever we must have a record of what they actually look at for them to drive.

because the chance of a policeman being male is pretty high? Our institutions should not have to change for them or any one group.

 

[Truthmatters]

I really reacted rashly before.

I was thinking of strickly ID purposes , when I did I forgot the fact that hair is not a good indication of identity.

Your hair can be changed dramatically in no time at all.

Covered or not covered hair really makes no differance.

As long as the face is NOT obscured it would make no differance.

In thinking it over more deeply I retract my previous stand.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I agree with you Kathy.

A DL is a priveledge and not a right.

If they dont want to show their hair for ID purposes then they need to forgo a DL.

It must be a what "God" wanted them to scarafice.

The question your position raises however is whether, if enacted, it constitutes an act by the government which, directly or indirectly, prohibits the free exercise of religion. Now, the Constitution is somewhat murky, but on this point it's VERY explicit, and it's a BIG no no.

 

[Truthmatters]

what timing Mr Conley,

I do still stand that it is a privledge and not a right to drive.

If one was to try and say get a DL with a burqua on that would be tough luck for the Burqua wearer.

Now as an American I cant think of anything they would be forced to take it off for as an American and should not be forced to.

This would be part of the problem with a forced ID to vote.

 

[Mr.Conley]

what timing Mr Conley,

I do still stand that it is a privledge and not a right to drive.

If one was to try and say get a DL with a burqua on that would be tough luck for the Burqua wearer.

Now as an American I cant think of anything they would be forced to take it off for as an American and should not be forced to.

This would be part of the problem with a forced ID to vote.

Well, I've never said that driving (at least on public roads) is a privilege. It's only reasonable that anyone who intends to drive a vehicle on anything as dangerous as a highway have an excellent understanding of just what the hell they're doing. And of course, having a photo id on one's drivers license is certainly the most effective means I can imagine of guaranteeing that only the proper person uses it. A burka, of course, causes a significant problem in this regard by making it practically impossible for police officers to ensure that the license belongs to the proper person. Not to mention the DMV's rules regarding obstructions are quite longstanding.

The question as far as I can see it then, is less a practical matter and more a constitutional matter. If we examine the first amendment, it clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Now, if this matter didn't deal with religion then obviously the burka would have to go. But, since the headdress is a significant part of the Muslim religion for many of its practitioners, we have to ask ourselves whether or not the DMV's rules regarding obstructions, if extended to burkas, would constitute a prohibition on the free exercise of religion.

Now ultimately, this issue is definitely one for the courts to use their power of interpretation to examine and settle. However, my very tentative belief is that this would constitute a prohibition on free exercise and is therefore unconstitutional. Now, can the DMV ask these women if they would remove their headdress for the photo? Of course. But should the DMV have the power to deny a significant proportion of Muslim females who are otherwise fully qualified to be on the road their drivers license because they are exercising there religious beliefs? No.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

The state should have its head examined, as well as their pants dropped to see if they have any balls, or if they were neutered by the p.c. police/c.a.i.r.

my god, how did i wake in a world that was more worried about offending people then telling the truth?

anything that keeps one from being identified is not acceptable, including the above and sunglasses.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Well, I've never said that driving (at least on public roads) is a privilege. It's only reasonable that anyone who intends to drive a vehicle on anything as dangerous as a highway have an excellent understanding of just what the hell they're doing. And of course, having a photo id on one's drivers license is certainly the most effective means I can imagine of guaranteeing that only the proper person uses it. A burka, of course, causes a significant problem in this regard by making it practically impossible for police officers to ensure that the license belongs to the proper person. Not to mention the DMV's rules regarding obstructions are quite longstanding.

The question as far as I can see it then, is less a practical matter and more a constitutional matter. If we examine the first amendment, it clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Now, if this matter didn't deal with religion then obviously the burka would have to go. But, since the headdress is a significant part of the Muslim religion for many of its practitioners, we have to ask ourselves whether or not the DMV's rules regarding obstructions, if extended to burkas, would constitute a prohibition on the free exercise of religion.

Now ultimately, this issue is definitely one for the courts to use their power of interpretation to examine and settle. However, my very tentative belief is that this would constitute a prohibition on free exercise and is therefore unconstitutional. Now, can the DMV ask these women if they would remove their headdress for the photo? Of course. But should the DMV have the power to deny a significant proportion of Muslim females who are otherwise fully qualified to be on the road their drivers license because they are exercising there religious beliefs? No.

Otherwise, the state is essentially telling these women that either they can choose their religion, or they can choose to drive. Now, this choice certainly isn't easy, especially in a car-centric society such as our own. Ultimately, this requirement, though not explicitly designed to prohibit these women from freely exercising their religion, will ultimately have that effect. Therein lies the problem at the heart of this entire issue.

Now frankly, I'm not particularly fond of this position, but, at least as far as I can determine, it's the only approach that stays in line with the principles set forth by the Founding Fathers two hundred years ago. Yes, in all probability if and when these DMVs begin issuing drivers licenses to veiled women, then we could very well create a potential alleyway for miscommunication, problems, corruption and abuse. Yet the only other option is to disregard one of the core principles set forth by the Constitution, and by disregarding ANY one part of the Constitution for any reason, no matter how great or banal, we effectively disregard and throw out the rest of the document, and expose ourselves once more to tyranny and dictatorship.

 

[mattskramer]

I almost yawned when I read this article. Even though the Bill of Rights says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, the government does set limits. If I think that the Bible does not want you to support the creation of weapons (He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword, turn the other cheek, etc.) then to practice my religion fully, should I not be required to pay taxes? If I read the Old Testament law to mean that I should not have anyone else’s blood within me or my child, shouldn’t I be allowed to refuse blood transfusions? What if my religion calls on the continuation of human sacrifices? It all comes down to where we draw the line.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I almost yawned when I read this article. Even though the Bill of Rights says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, the government does set limits. If I think that the Bible does not want you to support the creation of weapons (He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword, turn the other cheek, etc.) then to practice my religion fully, should I not be required to pay taxes? If I read the Old Testament law to mean that I should not have anyone else’s blood within me or my child, shouldn’t I be allowed to refuse blood transfusions? What if my religion calls on the continuation of human sacrifices? It all comes down to where we draw the line.

One small note, One can refuse blood transfusions, several religions do so, the medical field has substitute material they use instead of blood, it is not as efficient but it works. The only exception would be someone ( like a child) that was not legally able to make that decision for themselves. Some States defer to the parents some do not.

But to this particular point of the thread. The scarf does not obscure nor hide the identity of the licensee there for there is really no reason to enforce a rule to not wear it when it is clearly a religious issue. And the state in question DOES NOT enforce such restrictions.

 

[Waterrescuedude]

If they dont like how things are done in our Country then they need to get the hell out of our country.