[Dean's World] Ali Eteraz: Christian Woman Resisting License Picture Versus Veiled Muslim Woman Doing Same

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Ali Eteraz:
Christian Woman Resisting License Picture Versus Veiled Muslim Woman Doing Same
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1161294195.shtml


   This Christian woman said that she did not want her face to appear on
   her Nebraska driver's license, from a law review article, called
   "Rejecting the Case Against Free Exercise Exemption", 75 B.U. L. Rev.
   241:

     For most of us, posing for a driver's license photograph is a
     mundane experience. But for Frances Quaring, the photo was anything
     but unobjectionable. Quaring read the Bible's Second Commandment
     literally. The Commandment proscribes the making of "any graven
     image, or any likeness." According to Quaring, the Second
     Commandment prohibited photographs of "anything in creation." Among
     other things, the Commandment proscribed driver's license photos.

     Quaring's objection to possessing an "image having a likeness of
     anything in creation" followed from her sincerely held religious
     beliefs. Quaring did not possess photos of her wedding or of her
     family. Quaring did not own a television set. When Quaring
     purchased groceries displaying pictures on the labels, she either
     removed the labels or covered the pictures with a black marking
     pen.

     The State of Nebraska required that each driver's license include
     the resident's photograph. The license photos helped police to
     exclude unlicensed drivers from state roadways. Because she refused
     to pose for a photo, Nebraska would not issue a driver's license to
     Quaring.

     The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that
     the burden imposed on Quaring's religious beliefs outweighed the
     state interests served by the driver's license photograph
     requirement. Relying on the Free Exercise Clause of the First
     Amendment, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the state must exempt
     Quaring from the photo requirement.

   This Muslim woman said that she wanted her face covered with a niqab
   in her license photo:

     [Sultana] Freeman states that forcing her to comply with the
     photograph requirement places a substantial burden upon her
     exercise of her religion, contrary to the trial court's finding.
     Freeman argues that she does not waive her belief by allowing
     photographs of herself veiled with her eyes showing. Rather, the
     veil converts her face into a faceless image, Freeman argues. She
     writes: The effect of a veil is so one does not see the face.
     Therefore, although Appellant's religion allows a photograph of a
     human wearing a veil, Appellant is not permitting photographs of
     the face, as the face is covered by the veil. Therefore, it was not
     only an error of law, but an error of logic, for the trial court to
     hold Appellant loses her rights because her religion allows
     photographs of humans wearing a veil but does not allow photographs
     of anything but faceless images. The veil is what keeps the image
     faceless.

     We determine there is no substantial burden on Freeman's exercise
     of religion.

   In other words, the niqab wearer had to show her face if she wanted a
   license.

   I'm not going to sit here and talk about double standards. In my
   opinion, both women are wrong, and both should have been required to
   be pictured.

   It goes to the honesty of Muslim scholarship that the Muslim expert
   testifying in the Sultana case -- Dr. Khaled Abu el Fadl -- basically
   said that Sultana had to show her face. Meanwhile, no Christian expert
   came forward to rebut Quaring's idiotic assertion.

   Still, those that support Quaring's right to not be pictured, have
   pretty much run out of counter-arguments for why Sultana couldn't be
   afforded the same rights. [1]Crossposted at Eteraz

References

   1. http://eteraz.wordpress.com/