Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's correct. I have no reason whatever to believe that Donald Trump, or any other president, can do whatever he wants.In other words, you have nothing besides your own ASSumptions as to "He's not allowed to do that, because . . . I'm just sure he's NOT!"
Have the driver on your short bus slap you for talking where people can hear you. That's never, EVER a good thing.
Your point is especially stupid considering what Trump is going through right this very moment for trying to avoid following the law (if you believe his accusers). How brainless are you? Do the daily events that go on all around you make no impact on you at all?
I do hope your bus driver tries to help you.
The same way in which Roy Moore used his monument for religious purpose. Does the concept throw you? That's a pity.No no, I mean actual, in your words (which you again cut out to run away from), "uses Congress for religious purposes".
Wearing a hijab, or yarmulke or turban or Pope's mitre IS actively doing something!That means something the subject ACTIVELY DOES, not something you choose to plug in and infer because you'd like it to be in play.
Integrating some religion-based apparel into one's wardrobe doesn't mean they're by virtue of that apparel "using" whatever facility they're in.
I don't know what else you could call it, just the same as placing a Jesus in the manger display in the park is actively doing something. I get it that you want your agenda so badly it can fry your own brain trying to justify it, but in this case somebody doing something of a religious nature is someone doing something of a religious nature.
Try again.
Yeah, in my opinion a crucifix on the forehead violates separation of church and state principles. If I'm a Jew or Muslim or Sikh looking at Pelosi I would have to wonder why she is bringing her religion onto the floor of Congress.If a Congresswoman walks into Congress wearing a crucifix and proceeds to opine on commerce legislation, is she "using Congress for religious purposes"?
Whatever a nun at Burger King does or an Amish girl playing softball, neither one represents any sort of religious endorsement on behalf of our government. I'm sure you thought you had a pertinent point here...but you don't.If a nun walks into a Burger King is she "using" that Burger King for "religious purposes"? Or is she there to eat junk food?
Is this gal "using the game of baseball for religious purposes"? or did she just hit a short pop fly to second base?
The same way in which Roy Moore used his monument for religious purpose. Does the concept throw you? That's a pity.No no, I mean actual, in your words (which you again cut out to run away from), "uses Congress for religious purposes".
Wearing a hijab, or yarmulke or turban or Pope's mitre IS actively doing something!That means something the subject ACTIVELY DOES, not something you choose to plug in and infer because you'd like it to be in play.
Integrating some religion-based apparel into one's wardrobe doesn't mean they're by virtue of that apparel "using" whatever facility they're in.
I don't know what else you could call it, just the same as placing a Jesus in the manger display in the park is actively doing something. I get it that you want your agenda so badly it can fry your own brain trying to justify it, but in this case somebody doing something of a religious nature is someone doing something of a religious nature.
Try again.
Yeah, in my opinion a crucifix on the forehead violates separation of church and state principles. If I'm a Jew or Muslim or Sikh looking at Pelosi I would have to wonder why she is bringing her religion onto the floor of Congress.If a Congresswoman walks into Congress wearing a crucifix and proceeds to opine on commerce legislation, is she "using Congress for religious purposes"?
If a nun walks into a Burger King is she "using" that Burger King for "religious purposes"? Or is she there to eat junk food?
Is this gal "using the game of baseball for religious purposes"? or did she just hit a short pop fly to second base?
Whatever a nun at Burger King does or an Amish girl playing softball, neither one represents any sort of religious endorsement on behalf of our government. I'm sure you thought you had a pertinent point here...but you don't.
Jesus. What's the big deal.
She's a member of Congress and they made a change for her.
Its a small thing and certainly not a big deal.
No. That's stupid and by your "reasoning" (and I use that term loosely in connection with your post) a Christmas nativity scene on public grounds would be absolutely legal (though we all know it isn't). City removes decades-old nativity scene after constitutional complaints about Christian displayOh really.
So you're saying Roy Moore wore the Ten Commandments in his courtroom as an article of clothing?
That's what he would have to do by your own logic, since the act of wearing something immediately transmits its essence through the building like unto some kind of virus, independent of what the wearer does or says.
What you wear is irrelevant! You are just a common troll. What a member of Congress does is another matter.Nope, it is not. The action was done when the article was donned. After that --- it's over.
You have no idea what I'm wearing right now, nor is it in any way influential upon the words in this post. I could be wearing a Star of David suspended on a hammer and sickle overlaid with an ankh embroidered on a freaking Cincinnati Reds baseball cap festooned with Allis Chalmers logos. Or I could be stark nekkid. Either way the words on this post are exactly the same and they carry exactly the same meaning.
Don't need to. My points already stand unopposed.
You can place Jesus in a manger anywhere you want. But the government cannot. A red herring here since Rep. Omar is planning no such display in the Congress.
My link already posted shows you are wrong. You have a stunning lack of knowledge when it comes to this issue. Whether the local Elks club or Congressman Foghorn Leghorn places the nativity scene on government ground, it is still illegal and will be removed.Yes. A person. A person who is, for all intents and legal purposes, the government itself.Oh I can tell you that. She isn't. She's bringing her person in.
The ashes are a symbol that's worn on the forehead, of a Catholic. Not the forehead of a Representative --- the forehead of the person. Again, as in the Roy Moore parable, the person, not the office. The ashes (or the crucifix or the Star of David or the hijab or the turban) have a function only for the person --- not for the office. Ergo it's not the "government" or any part of it expressing anything religious --- it's the person.
What you can't do is prove me wrong about that. Which is why this point stands unopposed.
The function of Congressional Reps --- and all other office holders --- are served by persons. Those persons may have all kinds of unrelated personal stuff going on that in no way relates to their job. Perhaps they need to pay the electric bill. Perhaps they need to arrange a flight soon. Maybe they're fighting off a cold. None of these are relevant to the Congress but they're still THERE.
Nice fucking pointless non sequitur. Are you trying to salvage your original point? Too late now.Correct, nor does it have any religious endorsement of influence on Burger King or Baseball on behalf of Catholicism or Amishness. Because they're frickin' UNRELATED. A person (the nun) needs to eat; a religion does not -- ergo a personal act. A baseball batter needs to make contact with the ball; Amishness does not. Ergo a personal act. And in both cases unrelated to any "religion".
That girl needs to level her swing out too. Just sayin'. Although it would in no way be "unAmish" to fail to do so.
Sheeeeeeeesh
It's ignoring the Constitution to placate a Muslim member of Congress. Is that nothing to you?Don't be silly. It's OBVIOUSLY the end of the Republic as we know it.
You're trolling and being ignorant. But obviously you don't care.Roy Moore! But . . . but . . . Roy Mooooooore! = You lose
It's ignoring the Constitution to placate a Muslim member of Congress. Is that nothing to you?Don't be silly. It's OBVIOUSLY the end of the Republic as we know it.
Fortunately the Constitution will have the last say...not some dim troll.
The Constitution indeed mentions the need to stay clear of state sponsored religions. Islam is a religion, albeit aUmmmmmmmmm... what Constitution are you reading? Is there a toilet involved?
Perhaps you need to borrow my copy. Where it says absolutely zero about "Muslim" anything.
You're trolling and being ignorant. But obviously you don't care.Roy Moore! But . . . but . . . Roy Mooooooore! = You lose
I doubt the ACLU will have the balls to sue, as they do with Christians with great regularity. But they certainly have grounds to sue. I think a right wing NGO will bring suit.This scarf thing is a minor detail, and of course it will be ceded to. We are right, however, to call attention to this and not simply allow it to pass unquestioned. We need to remain alert to further infringements.
We need to be alert to how our sisters are treated in this world, and by whom.
LOL...."debunked". Sure thing.....(wink). Mock away. It isn't as though your opinion is a serious one. Go ahead and be an ass! See if I care.Nope. I'm pointing out that "Roy Moore!" has been debunked and disqualified multiple times, which means every time you wave it around as though it's meaningful and relevant, you mark your post as an automatic fail which doesn't merit reading and deserves to be mocked relentlessly.
So by all means, feel free to continue defeating yourself by shouting "Roy Mooorrreee!!!" Saves me the work of talking to you as though you were a person.
LOL...."debunked". Sure thing.....(wink). Mock away. It isn't as though your opinion is a serious one. Go ahead and be an ass! See if I care.Nope. I'm pointing out that "Roy Moore!" has been debunked and disqualified multiple times, which means every time you wave it around as though it's meaningful and relevant, you mark your post as an automatic fail which doesn't merit reading and deserves to be mocked relentlessly.
So by all means, feel free to continue defeating yourself by shouting "Roy Mooorrreee!!!" Saves me the work of talking to you as though you were a person.
I myself have stated that a head covering is not a slab of stone. But of course a Christmas nativity display is not a stone slab either but they are both illegal to display on public property. And so is an article of clothing that is explicitly religious.LOL . . . Debunked. Just because multiple people demonstrated multiple times that personal clothing is different from monuments attached to public buildings, that's no reason to think my argument was torn to shreds. LOL"
The Constitution indeed mentions the need to stay clear of state sponsored religions. Islam is a religion, albeit aUmmmmmmmmm... what Constitution are you reading? Is there a toilet involved?
Perhaps you need to borrow my copy. Where it says absolutely zero about "Muslim" anything.
savage eighth century religion.
Of course not since a nativity scene is not one exercising their religion.No. That's stupid and by your "reasoning" (and I use that term loosely in connection with your post) a Christmas nativity scene on public grounds would be absolutely legal (though we all know it isn't). City removes decades-old nativity scene after constitutional complaints about Christian displayOh really.
So you're saying Roy Moore wore the Ten Commandments in his courtroom as an article of clothing?
That's what he would have to do by your own logic, since the act of wearing something immediately transmits its essence through the building like unto some kind of virus, independent of what the wearer does or says.
LOLI myself have stated that a head covering is not a slab of stone. But of course a Christmas nativity display is not a stone slab either but they are both illegal to display on public property. And so is an article of clothing that is explicitly religious.LOL . . . Debunked. Just because multiple people demonstrated multiple times that personal clothing is different from monuments attached to public buildings, that's no reason to think my argument was torn to shreds. LOL"
Is this an admission you don't even know what is in the Constitution?Why can't you quote it then? Constipated?
