Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Quaint Or Deadly?

Suppose you’re waiting at a bus stop along with several other commuters.

A man walks up wearing a mask and hood.

Your stomach cramps up into a knot, you realize that you may be robbed, you may be stabbed, or shot. You may not see a weapon, but you assume he has one.

It’s out of the ordinary; it’s odd, if a man walks up to you wearing a mask. Most folk’s reaction would be one of apprehension and fright.

Now, a similar scenario, you’re waiting for the same bus, along with several other people, but this time it’s a woman wearing a burqa, her face completely hidden, except for her eyes. The burqa is full and flowing. You can’t tell if she has a weapon or not.

But, of course, she doesn’t. She’s harmless. She’s a muslim, her religion is islam, you know, the RELIGION OF PEACE. Almost all of our government leaders and all the “mainstream” news agencies say that muslims are peaceful, religious, they’re just like us.

A Reuters news story out of Islamabad, Pakistan, reported that someone wearing a burqa blew herself or himself up killing at least 15 people, and wounded 19 others.

Javed Iqbal Cheema, a spokesman for the Pakastani Interior Ministry said; "A burqa-clad bomber -- either it was a woman or a man in a burqa -- set off explosives when police approached.”

(click here to read the news story.)

That attack demonstrates the problem with political correctness and it’s tolerance without question, towards ALL religions and religious garb. The authorities in Pakistan don’t even know if this terrorist was a man or a woman. The victims at that bus stand couldn’t tell that the “burqa-clad bomber” was wearing a bomb.

It seems to me that there are more and more muslim women in America who insist on wearing their headscarves anytime, anywhere. And they’re getting more and more elaborate in the layers they wear. How soon will we start to see more and more burqas on American streets? It’s already happening in muslim strongholds like Dearborn, Michigan, and Church Falls, Virginia.

You may recall the case in Florida a few years ago, where Sultaana Freeman, an American-born muslim convert, demanded that she be allowed to wear her hijab for her Florida driver’s license. The hijab covered her entire face, except her eyes, obscuring all other facial features.

The State of Florida denied her request, and Freeman took the State to court. She contended that the State, by ordering her to remove the hijab, infringed upon her right to observe her religion.

Sultaana Freeman was born in Washington, D.C. in 1967 as Sandra Keller, and converted to islam in January 1997. At first, she only wore a headscarf, but started wearing a niqab, or, a full face veil, several months later.

In December of that same year, Freeman obtained a driver’s license from the State of Illinois, wearing the veil. She did so with the pretext of showing off her new found faith.

Freeman began wearing the niqab regularly, concealing her face while at work and everywhere else in public.

In February of 2001 Freeman obtained a Florida driver's license and was allowed to wear the face veil in the license photograph.

But apparently, someone at the State level questioned the wisdom of that decision. In November and December of 2001, the State sent Freeman two letters demanding a new photo without the veil, or her current license would be cancelled prior to its expiration date.

On January 7, 2002, the State of Florida cancelled Freeman's license after she refused to be re-photographed. She filed a lawsuit two weeks later and was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

In late May of 2003, the trial took place in Orlando, Florida, and Circuit Court Judge Janet C. Thorpe ruled against Freeman. The judge said in her ruling that;

"Although the court acknowledges that plaintiff herself most likely poses no threat to national security, there likely are people who would be willing to use a ruling permitting the wearing of full-face cloaks in driver's license photos by pretending to ascribe to religious beliefs in order to carry out activities that would threaten lives."

Judge Thorpe’s ruling makes perfect sense in a post 9/11 world.

Interestingly, the rules and regulations in some muslim nations are in sharp contrast to Freeman’s claims of religious expression. For example; in Saudi Arabia, women aren't even allowed to drive. In Iran women wear a traditional chador, that doesn’t cover the face. In Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures.

But how does this case relate to the suicide bomber wearing the burqa? Absolute freedom of religious expression in public can be a very dangerous thing. Literally. I am a Christian, but I cannot and I do not aggressively subject those with different theological beliefs to my point of view. If you ask, I will tell you that Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life. I will tell you that no one can come to the Father, that is, His Amazing Grace and eternal salvation, except through Jesus. But if you say no thanks, I will leave you alone. The consequences of your choice will be up to God, not me. If you say no to islam, a bomber in a burqa may blow you up.

Pre-9/11, I could not have cared less if a woman was stupid enough to wear a burqa because of her barbaric and uncivilized religion. In a Post 9/11 America, someone wearing a burqa should be viewed as a possible terrorist threat.

An interesting side note here regarding Sultaana Freeman, in 1998 she was arrested in Decatur, Illinois for battery of one of her foster children and her foster children were removed from her custody. Freeman pleaded guilty and received 18 months of probation. Freeman wore her veil for her mug shot, but she was forced to take a second mug shot without the veil.

Religion of peace, eh?


Post a Comment

<< Home