What is everyone's opinion on the case in Fla concerning the muslim woman who considers it her constitutional right to leave her veil on for her dirver's liscence photo. She subsequently lost her liscence and is now sueing the Fla DMV.
Click below to read:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-asecveil30053003may30,0,131194.story?coll=orl%2Dhome%2Dheadlines
To veil or not to veil
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Ps104_33, May 30, 2003.
Page 1 of 2
-
States have the right to set the requirements for holding a drivers license.
If she is unwilling to meet those requirements, she is choosing not to have a drivers license. -
I agree. Driving is not a right. She needs to unveil, or not drive. It is her choice.
God Bless -
Make that 3 for "she should unveil".
Driving is a privilege, not a "right".
If there's not a picture that can identify a person on the liscense then why even take one in the first place?
LaRae -
Ditto.
Neal -
I agree totally, It will be interesting to see how the judge rules. This has been playing out on Court TV if anyone is interested.Some of the defenses' arguements have been the fact that not all states have photo liscences and they can drive through Fla without them. ( Kinda silly, but ACLU lawyer ya know....)
Another question Popped ito my mind and I'd like to get some feedback on it as well. There was a school teacher in the news recently who was fired for not removing a cross that she wore around her neck. ( we are talking about a small inconspicuous one)
What if a Muslim or a HIndu wanted to teach in a public school with a turban on. Would that not be considered a religious symbol as well? -
If an AMERICAN can get arrested for wearing a mask to a costume party while driving....
Lose the Veil or Lose the right to drive!
Diane -
Another question:
Would a muslim woman in Saudi Arabia for example who adhered to a faith as rigid as one who would make her wear a veil in public even be allowed to drive a car?! -
-
Actually there was a case of a Christian woman who was told to remover HER VEIL for her drivers license and she ended up not removing it, for a few reasons.
The first reason is that she always wears the veil so that is what she looks like. And a picture of her without the veil would be a mis-representation of what she looks like. I look very different with my veil on and off.
The second reason is that it is religious persecution. As a Christian woman who veils I feel I am not properly covered without my headcovering and I do not go out in town in front of men without a veil on.
A Christian legal ministry fought for this particular woman and she ended up wearing the veiling for the picture. -
-
The same one that I adhere to: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
-
HCL,
Did the veil cover her face? If so, I can understand them wanting her to remove it. But if it was her head only, I think she should be allowed to wear it. What about Jewish men who where the small little caps? Do they make them remove them too?
Thank you!
hsmom3 -
HSmom,
Oh, I see. I actually did not read the article the first time I posted. I agree with you that the face needs to be seen.
The case I am speaking of was a Christian woman who had only a headcovering on and was asked to remove it. -
Did you also not read 1 Cor 11:16?
You see, Paul in verses 2-15 Paul is discussing an existing custom prevailant throughout the regions. He says that in accordance with the custom it is proper to be veiled and have heads covered. But in verse 16, he states that the churches of God do not have that custom.
That is, it's OK if you want to practice that custom, but the churches of God do not require veils and head coverings. -
I think he is saying that if a man is contentious about the fact that a woman is covered or veiled, *that* is what Paul is opposed to, not that what he just wrote can be tossed aside.
MEE -
Paul was not teaching against the custom, but instead, explained the custom. He concluded by saying that if you want to be contentious, I tell you neither I nor the churches of God have that custom. That is, we don't require that women wear veils or head coverings, but if you believe it right, go ahead. -
As for the mulim woman, drivieng is not a constutional right, so if she can not follow the rules for having a license then she doesn't need a license. The purpose for having the picture on the license is for identifying the person. If she wear a veil over her face and gets stopped by the police then how can she prove thats her in the picture, or that it's even her license? Anyone could wear a veil and use it as an ID. -
Mee,
I completely agree with you that Paul would not have spent fifteen verses explaining the neccessity of the practice and then take one sentence to say, "Don't bother, we have no such custom." The no such custom is that of being contentious about it.
This is supported by the fact that headship and creation order is an eternal principle, not a custom only to be followed in one generation. -
Headship is relative to "position" In the Christian Church the order of headship is Jesus Christ Himself over the Bride of Christ, then in the familiy, the husband over the wife. That is the principle Paul teaches through out his writings about headship. Why would it be different in this passage?
Finally, all one needs is a trip to a Muslim dominant country to see that this custom exceeds one generation. It existed during the time of Christ and the Apostles. It exists today! There is much reason to believe that the custom has been continuous over the intervening period, and will continue.
It remains a custom, and not a tenet of the Christian faith.
Page 1 of 2