|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sultaana Freeman - Unveiled | ||||||||||||
| According to former U.S. Senator George McGovern, "A fourth of all lawsuits filed in the United States are either frivolous or fraudulent." This statement, which was made in April of 1994, would be totally appropriate today when considering the obscene number of ridiculous lawsuits this country's courts face each year.� In America, it seems people do not have to take responsibility for their own actions.� Take, for example, the 81-year-old woman who sued McDonald's in 1994 because the coffee that she spilled on herself burned her.� Imagine that - coffee, a hot drink, can burn you!� Or how about the cigarette connoisseurs who sue their favorite cigarette companies after they develop cancer because of their habit?� Apparently no one ever informed them that tar, a mixture of numerous harmful chemicals and a prime ingredient of cigarettes, is a known carcinogen.� It seems that people will never accept responsibility, as the case I am about to examine demonstrates. | ||||||||||||
| Sultaana Freeman, an American-born Muslim convert, moved from Illinois to Florida in 2001, where she acquired a driver's license displaying her previous photo in which all but her eyes are covered by her traditional veil, called a hijab.� Soon after the move to Florida, the state contacted her with a demand to have a new picture taken, one sans hijab.� She became infuriated and sued the state on grounds that her freedom of religion was violated. | ||||||||||||
| This case is not only ridiculous, but also downright idiotic for a number of reasons.� First of all, religion is a chosen lifestyle, in the sense that one can select what religion one wants to be, and on that same token, change that religion to one more preferred.� In this particular case, Sultaana Freeman, previously known as Sandra Keller, had exercised this freedom five years ago when she decided to change her original religion of Evangelical Christianity to that of Islam.� Because one can simply change their religion at will, why should the state have to make an exception?� In other words, each person who desires a license should have a picture taken for that license, and that picture should not be blocked in any way or for any reason, religion included.� If these kinds of exceptions were suddenly allowed, can you imagine the rise in Islamic converts simply because one is not photogenic? | ||||||||||||
| Another reason this case is absurd is because Sultaana Freeman had no objection to her picture being taken in 1997 after her arrest for battery of two foster children.� I'm sorry; did I say she had her "picture" taken?� "Mug shot" would be the more appropriate term.� This arrest took place after her religious conversion, might I add.� Where was the fuss over a snapshot then?� I guess she forgot to complain about that picture being taken, what with the child abuse charges and all.� Because inquiring minds want to know, this mug shot picture can be seen at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html, right alongside a picture of her currently testifying in Florida. | ||||||||||||
| In closing, her current case is not the first time Sultaana Freeman has used her religion to her advantage, however, as was demonstrated in 1999 when her husband, Mark Freeman (commonly known as Abdul-Malik Freeman) was convicted of "reckless discharge of a handgun," during a July 4 incident in which he stood on the roof of his home in Muslim attire, firing a handgun into the air.� The police officers sent to the scene were informed that because they were not Muslim they could not enter the Freeman home.� A search warrant was obtained and the house was searched, revealing Mark Freeman's faux ID collection, which contained cards with his portrait but not his name. | ||||||||||||
| Copyright Gerry Wachovsky, 2003, and Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. | ||||||||||||
| Back | ||||||||||||