Case
reveals lack of responsibility
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 his or her religion at
will, why should the state have to make
an exception? 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
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 www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html,
right alongside a picture of Freeman currently
testifying in Florida.
Gerry Wachovsky is a journalism major at
Cal State Long Beach.
|
